Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 17

June 17

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Phallogist

Only placing this here to be fair, to the user that tried to speedy it. Word appears in a few of our articles, so if it is wrong, Wikipedia en masse needs a good clean-up. I vote keep, obviously :- ) Antares33712 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism —Wahoofive (talk) 00:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• P.S. Why did you add this to the top of the VFD page, instead of the bottom?—Wahoofive (talk) 00:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all nonsense neologisms without asking all the adults to vote on them. --Wetman 00:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. This article should be circumcised from Wikipedia. JamesBurns 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a phallogist hmmm. Now I know what to call myself the next time I need sex. LOL 205.188.116.137 20:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a riot. If we can't keep it, can we move it to the bad joke category? 63.164.145.198 20:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad joke. No BJAODN. humblefool® 20:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Fire Star 20:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Doesn't even make sense, since I think phallogist should be one who studies the penis not one who likes it (phallophile?). Quale 02:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. typo of "phallologist". Either way, doesn't belong here, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Wiccan Quagga 10:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 19:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --If was spelled correctly, it should be moved to wiki-dictionary but otherwise it should be deleted. Billhpike 19:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete and redirect. —Xezbeth 16:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Finklestein

Delete - neologism, probably coined by the user of the IP. I suppose this could be unloaded onto to the Wiktionary. -Splash 00:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Finklestein combined with either FPS or strafe gets no useful Google result, and the fact that "this term was coined by" or whatnot is in there makes it even more obvious. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the disambig I just created at Finkelstein. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:55, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Pburka 01:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (no merge) per BD2412. — Gwalla | Talk 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Article is neologism, but the article name can easily be a typo for Finkelstein. —Kjammer 08:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as misspelling. The word isn't notable or, if it is, it's a unexpandable dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Finkelstein -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Taogebra

Original research nonsense, non notable. No google hits, created by someone I know, unfortunately. CryptoDerk 00:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Heh. Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as joke or nonsense. No Google hits. Excerpt from article: ...polarity, a property shared by all things, continues to differentiate into four elements around a central "earth" element... etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. I would say BJAODN but... it's not funny. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• I wrote the stub, not knowing about the prohibition of original research, sorry. I had thought it might be worthwhile once suitably expanded by interested parties, so I would have said give it a chance and keep it. But if it's against policy, it's against policy. 130.217.76.77 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanding it? So there'd be more crackpot rambling than there is now? Can't see how that would be a good thing. Delete psychotic gibberish. Ben-w 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Re-add it once it's become established on its own merit. Pburka 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete its patent nonsense.-Splash 01:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This stub was adapted from some text that I wrote, by someone not familiar with the material, so it comes off as crackpot. My original text is based on understandings gained from a year and half of reading Thomas Cleary. This is a condensation of study in this school begun around 25 years ago. The wikipedia stub Taogebra may appear offensive on first reading, but I am hoping that it may be given a chance to be edited into credible form. Keep the disclaimer up. I agree with the policy of having a reputable encyclopedia, and I also see room for the valid translation of important ideas. Taogebra is based on concepts I remained sceptical of for a very long time. But to cast it out is to skip a stage in comprehension; to let an over zealous rationalization of an uninformed translation define how we understand. In my studies I learned to accept the valid part of a statement and not be bothered by the rest. 05:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Unsigned votes from various anon IP's:

Keep it. Interesting read.

Highly interesting. Definitely has some sort of twisted scientific value.

Keep it - very entertaining.

• Whoa. Idiosyncratic original research. Neologism, with zero Google hits for the word. Delete. Actually, on further reading of the article, Speedy Delete as patent nonsense if possible. -- The Anome 11:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. original research. Please gyus take a look sometimes into WP:CSD about what can be speedeleted. mikka (t) 21:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not totally original research since Thomas Cleary writes in "The Secret of the Golden Flower",1991, about the potential for the techniques of the Complete Reality school of Tao [Ch'an, Zen]to be used for general problem solving. I tried to edit some of the bunk out of that entry; it said the edit needs to be merged, which I haven't figured out yet. -fractile *****

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spencer Dunham

Vanity bio of a "professional pogger". No Google hits I can find. Calton | Talk 00:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, obviously =) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ya. Delete Howabout1 Talk to me! 00:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete joke, hoax, or attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Andrew Lenahan. DS1953 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Pburka 01:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Damn you paranoid hicks, go back to eating burgers and using AOL. You're the real hoaxes and attack pages.--65.92.123.75 17:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ooooooo. Somebody needs a nap. Delete. Utter crap. -R. fiend 23:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Either hoax or non-encyclopedic. Paranoid Hick
• Delete unless proven of notability is presented.--Poli 03:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rokfd

Vanity. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 00:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity. I thought about speedying that a little while ago but I restrained myself.Splash 00:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 2-person injoke, the second worst kind of vanity. Or third worst, if you include people writing up articles with themselves being married or having affairs with celebrities, but that's sort of in a league of its own. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:05, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity. Pburka 01:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per User:BD2412. DS1953 02:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 03:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raj Sarkar

Vanity. Denni☯ 01:52, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Very short article with little or no contexet, thus grounds for speedying. That stuff like this should go through a 5 day vote is crazy. Splash 01:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:03, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per Splash. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:04, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per Splash. DS1953 02:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Go Splash! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy indeed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Forever Alexa

Forever Alexa has no purpose on Wikipedia, is self-promoting, and Alexa Vega (of whom I'd never heard) is simply too minor, IMHO. Hope I did this all in decorum. I'm still new. Recnilgiarc 01:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. I fixed the links above (you had Alexa Vega instead of Forever Alexa). --SPUI (talk) 02:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, non-encyc and largely an ad. Google turns up only their website and an Alexa search (to my amusement) returns only that it is not in the top 100,000. PS. Which version is the second picture down?-Splash 02:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Alexa Vega, whoever she is. - Jersyko talk 02:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete She's the Spy Kids girl. Anyway, this fansite has No Alexa Rank to speak of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds that it is an ad, has poor Google results, and has no Alexa rank. The wikipedia isn't a web directory, so sites should only go on here if there's a dern good reason (ie. a high rating). The article is horribly doomed from: "what makes this site so special? Well, the site features Alexa Vega as one of its members!" anyways :| -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't understand what it's about. Muijzo 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable website but include as a link in Alexa Vega who is a notable actress, having starred in the Spy Kids movies and the recent release Sleepover. 23skidoo 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fansites don't get articles unless they're world-famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 04:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Szyslak, but a link in Alexa Vega might be warranted if it's particularly informative. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep Ben Standeven 23:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tiamat (Planet)

For discussion. Had been marked as speedy by user:Denni for nonsense. See also Talk:Tiamat (Planet) Satori 02:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, probably speedily as nonsense, or failing those ground as non-notable and non-encyc. Google returns Tiamat 657000 times in a whole gamut of senses none of the first 20ish of which are the 'planet', apart from this Wikipedia article. It's also been added to the Tiamat (disambiguation) page.-Splash 02:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Google search for "Zecharia Sitchin Tiamat" returns 1320 hits. So that's why I'm not sure if it qualifies for patent nonsense. Satori 02:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I owe an apology for not looking around enough. I've retracted my vote and will quietly exit by the side door.-Splash 02:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article does not contain any non-sense at all. Reference is very clear. Discussion has been going on at Talk:Tiamat and because of POV disputes, information relating to this theory has been supressed by POV contributors. Are administrators going to delete this page but allow Tinfoil hat?--AI 02:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Indeed notable. While it may seem nonsense at first glance, research proves otherwise. Wikiacc 21:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zecharia Sitchin's theories belong in Zecharia Sitchin. Every planet he dreams up doesn't rate an article of its own. (I mean, who is he, Gene Roddenbery?) ----Isaac R 02:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If Zecharia Sitchin is the only major proponent of this then merge and redirect to Zecharia Sitchin. RJFJR 01:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The only excuse for this article would be if it contains too much info to merge into Zecharia Sitchin. Apparently, it does not contain too much info. Merge would be a sensible option. Decius 16:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Excecutor-class Star Dreadnought

Besides the fact that we already have an article about the Executor class, the name is misspelled. Kross 02:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Umm, yes, delete. We already have an article using the common name of "Star Destroyer". There's no need to make a new article anyways, and I think the article reeks of copyvio. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article already covered under Executor (Star Wars), and the Star Destroyer article.-LtNOWIS 03:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Super delete. This article is quite funny; it looks like the author got drunk and decided to write a WP article.--M412k 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nitpick: "The Excecutor is the ship that destroys the death star in Episode VI." No it isn't. The Millennium Falcon destroyed the second Death Star. An Executor did collide with the space station, damaging a relatively small portion of it. Delete this rambling, inaccurate, unnecessary, misspelled article. -- Plutor 17:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have seen a quite complete reference about the Executors in some other article. And this ones is filled with incorrections.--Poli 03:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pleasurehorse

The author has repeatedly reverted any attempt to (reasonably or otherwise) remove the article, or even clean it up. They just got rid of the {{cleanup}} without a single change. No official policy on monikers I suppose. At best, non-encyclopedic, but I'll leave this one to the rest of you.-Splash 02:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote yet - Pleasurehorse gets 6,980 Google hits (about half of which seem to refer to [www.pleasurehorse.com], which is, in fact, about owning horses for pleasure. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:23, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Some other random observations:

734 hits for Pleasurehorse AND god.

1,460 hits for Pleasurehorse AND bomb.

4 hits for Pleasurehorse AND chewbacca.

• Delete I put in a cleanup tag because it's badly edited. Someone reverted this and so I vote delete because I don't like articles where everyone reverts my changes. Muijzo 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A google search for Pleasurehorse +"Shawn Greenlee" turns up just 25 Google hits. Bad behaviour described above doesn't do much to help its case, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly add link to pleasurehorse.com as external from Horse only valid use on Wikipedia for it - certainly not worthy of its own entry. --KillerChihuahua 14:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There is a policy on monikers. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) tell us that a biography of the composer Shawn Greenlee should be at Shawn Greenlee, since (as research reveals) that's what people actually refer to him as. There is evidence scattered here and there that this person might meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, although I don't know enough about the labels to determine whether they meet the album-release criterion. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Delete: He's merely a musician, not necessarily a signed, recorded, or distributed one. The website is out because of Not a Web Guide. The links in the article also look highly suspect to me. Geogre 15:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if deleted, does the past edit history merit protection for the article name? Vegaswikian 07:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Allmusic.com shows that Pleasurehorse have released one record Bareskinrug on an independent label Load. [1]. It hasn't charted. The evidence produced by Uncle G shows that he has released other records. I would vote Keep given that he appears to be active. Capitalistroadster 23:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shows no evidence of being considered for wikipedia as in WP:MUSIC. And I am not even sure that this is really a music related article... Could change my vote if a good expansion shows me wrong.--Poli 03:30, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

PaulHainsworth

Delete, notability not established.-gadfium 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete → JarlaxleArtemis 03:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Respek da T-Dot.--65.92.123.75 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete still not notable enough for encyclopedia material, but seems promising...--Poli 03:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Vinnie Richards

Same case as Hans Nusslein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 May 2005

• I've just written an article about Vinnie Richards. So there's no reason to delete it. If I have the strength of character, maybe I'll also do a brief one about Hans Nusslien. Hayford Peirce 18:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, keep, definitely encyclopaedic. Noel (talk) 05:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This whole Wikipedia bit about redirects etc. can be very confusing. What I *want* to say is this: keep the link between Vinnie and the Pro Championship listings. Do *not* delete the link or the Hans article. Hayford Peirce 06:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Step three of the notification process was not completed. I am fixing the fomatting and completing the nomination. No vote implied. RJFJR 03:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Should be self-explanatory why.The Literate Engineer 03:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like a relic of the crusade against the tennis redirects... -- Jonel | Speak 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I do believe that this nomination is partially my fault - I bugged the guy about leaving some {{rfd}} tags lying around. humblefool® 20:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--Poli 03:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. There are six votes to delete, two of which were cast before the article was significantly modified, but which give no alternate instructions (e.g. they do not say delete unless...); there are three votes to keep, plus Uncle G's fairly lengthy discussion noting the modification, which, in combination with his labor in expansion of the article, projects a desire that the article be kept. Counting that as a vote to keep makes it 6-4, ergo, no consensus for deletion. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Bang (Korean)

I think the decision to Transwiki this to Wiktionary was a good one. Bang, by itself, is no more encyclopedia-worthy than any other syllable in the Korean language. Therefore, delete. Visviva 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dictdef. `It's all about the wiktionary, baby. -- Jonel | Speak 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable type of space used for recreation with no real equivalent in English. Kappa 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. How can someone want to keep it after transwiki? I don't see a discussion here or a cross-cultural pollination that needs explanation. Geogre 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Once one realizes that, and sees that Wiktionary already has 房, one can get away from fixating upon translating a Korean word (including losing that ghastly {{koreanname noimage}} template, whose task Wiktionary does a far superior job of performing here) and can uncover a potential encyclopaedia article that was hidden beneath the Lost Lexicography. Modified article. See what you think now. Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • I still think it's mostly a dictdef/usage guide, but I'm going to change my vote to Abstain because it's borderline. -- Jonel | Speak 18:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry you don't like the Koreanname templates, Uncle G. If you would like to propose an alternative, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). -- Visviva 07:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is just an essay about the evolution of a word. That makes it a dicdef padded out with linguistic speculation. I'd change my vote if somebody added material indicating this was an interesting Korean cultural phenomenon. ----Isaac R 02:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Although UncleG has done an admirable job of filling this article out, I still don't think it merits inclusion (and I say this as an avowed inclusionist). "Bang" really does just mean "room" or "rooms"... the only thing that is distinctive about it are its collocational properties. The different kinds of bang -- sarangbang, noraebang, PC-bang, DVD-bang &c. -- are distinctive cultural phenomena that do merit their own encyclopedia articles. Each such article might reasonably mention the composition of the word from bang. But bang itself is no more distinctive than any other random Korean affix. -- Visviva 05:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Concur with above. --Scimitar 19:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Blazing Sea Nuggets

Non-notable college newspaper comic strip. — Gwalla | Talk 03:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted Sea Nuggets, an infamous entree coming to a Wikipedia near you. Goodbye, Farewell, and all the rest. -- Jonel | Speak 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 04:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable comic strip. JamesBurns 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 03:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED — Gwalla | Talk 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flex auto sales

Looks to be an advert for a used car dealership. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy advert. And if I'm voting speedy, you know its ok! SchmuckyTheCat 04:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied for spam. — Gwalla | Talk 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy KEEP (nomination retracted) — Gwalla | Talk 23:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SoundJam

Non-notable audio software. — Gwalla | Talk 04:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - quite notable, basis for iTunes, even. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. I retract my nomination. — Gwalla | Talk 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and useful software. Non-notable is being used as too heavy a club to destroy articles in here, contact me if you want to form a group whose goal it is to make it so not notible cannot be used as a sole criterion for deleting an article. --ShaunMacPherson 18:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. notable audio software by the once-notable Casady and Greene. Probably the leading MP3 player/encoder in the Mac world before iTunes. Interesting history, too. Quasi-abandonware? Why did the developers ask Casady and Greene to stop distributing it? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unknown, but presumably has something to do with their contract with Apple. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:50 (UTC)

Alan Devine

Non-notable actor. — Gwalla | Talk 04:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fine movies, but the article tells us nothing. He "may be seen" in them, but where? Where should we look? Is he an actor or an extra? Geogre 15:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was a little suspicious of this at first, but IMDB reveals it's true. Needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If it's in IMDB then it is notible, 'non-notible' is being used too often as a heavey club to destroy articles. --ShaunMacPherson 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO to me. IMDB doesn't show him as anything but a bit player (British scout, Man in black, boy on beach #1). DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote changed. See below. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per DoubelBlue. Wait til he gets a speaking role, or at least a character with a name. And IMDb = notability is nonsense. IMDb will post anything. Some other folks Shaun thinks are notable: [2] [3] [4]. Can't wait to see their articles. -R. fiend 23:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DoubleBlue and R. fiend. IMDB entry does not indicate notability. Quale 08:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Having an IMDb entry doesn't indicate anything. —Xezbeth 08:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Small roles in small movies. Should everyone who has ever been in a movie, regardless of how small their role, automatically get a Wikipedia entry? The IMDB is a movie database, but I don't think Wikipedia should become one too. Gamaliel 08:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - many small roles in many small moview does it for me. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:48, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• keep please his imdb entry looks notable to me Yuckfoo 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like the entry has been expanded. For DoubleBlue and R.fiend, I checked IMDb myself and he has been named characters. I don't know how many of his movies have made it to the States, but I saw Veronica Guerin. He played a mobster named "Gerry Hutch" and he had lines. Notable enough for me. - --Fishcakefillet 03:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll admit I've never seen the film but he is listed 19^th on the cast beneath unnamed characters on IMDB's listing for Veronica Guerin and the Filmbug (now linked from the article) site's listing of Veronica Guerin does not even mention him. However, on your say so that he's had a series of minor roles in big films, I'll change to a weak keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I noticed that too. But in the movie site for filmfactory that was used in his bio, he is the fourth of seven actors that they do biographies of. [http://www.thefilmfactory.co.uk/vguerin/cast.html Alan Devine on Veronica

Guerin cast] --Fishcakefillet 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • There article may have been expanded, but I'm not sure it's been improved. Now it reads like one of these VfD votes (according to IMDb he's been in all these movies:... I also found out he's done this too...Who says this guy's not a real actor? (OK, I exaggerate)). Wikipedia articles generally only list major roles (or else we'd have a list of a couple thousand films for actors like James Woods, and any guys who have been doing it forever). If this article is to be kept which of his roles are the "major" ones should decided upon. Cleanup needed. -R. fiend 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, IMDb is inclusive but this actor does appear to have played several notable and named characters in film. Hall Monitor 16:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Derek Powazek

Delete Vanity, it looks like. Bloghate 04:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agreed. Vanity. -- Cabhan 04:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Text is nearly identical to the short bio on his site: either copyvio or autobio. Neither belongs here. — Gwalla | Talk 04:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Technorati is notable, this guy is not. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. --Michael Snow 00:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 03:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Powazek's pretty high profile. Whoever created the article seems just lazy. — Anarchivist | Talk 15:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Alister MacKenzie

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Seems to be a notable golf course designer, actually, but this article doesn't tell us much of anything and is POV. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 04:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at cleaning this up. I hope this is any better. (User Aecis not logged in and working from another computer than his own). 195.169.89.233 10:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And in case there are any doubts: I hereby want to verify that the cleanup was indeed done by me, so noone is posing as me besides myself. Aecis 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep per nominator reasoning. But I'd really like to see some expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with drastic un-POV-ing, cleanup and expansion. Aecis 09:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or completely re-write. "Perhaps the greatest golf course designer of all time." While those are notable courses, there is no further information. While the subject probably merits an article, this is not it. --M412k 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looking at the first page of google hit summaries, even without opening any links, makes this a very clear keep. Needs cleanup and expand, not VfD. --Unfocused 20:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with M412k. JamesBurns 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If you want cleanup or expansion VfD is the place to go, the cleanup and expansion tags are basically decorations these days. Anyway, rather than voting "keep but clean and expand" I'll vote Delete unless cleaned and expanded. I hate to see stuff like this kept because there were enough keep votes, but not fixed because "clean and expand" votes don't actually perform the functions of cleaning or expanding. People have to do that, and if they don't then I'd rather have nothing than this. -R. fiend 00:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh. It's been made into a minimally adequate stub, so I'll change to keep now. Certainly could use work though. -R. fiend 17:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If VfD had less of this kind of marginal traffic, and more editors willing to just clean such articles into acceptable stubs instead of nominating them VfD, there would be more time to devote to the real cleanup projects. Unfocused 04:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' to discourage Vfd being used as a substitute for cleanup. Kappa 05:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If you were to say to a golf aficionado, "Alister McKenzie is the greatest golf course designer of all time," you may get an argument, but you won't get laughed at. That being said, this needs major expansion, and the POV has to go. Dale Arnett 09:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to discourage people from posting crappy substubs. Gamaliel 09:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stubs serve a valid purpose. In fact, it is better to have a stub than nothing. The alternative is akin to mowing the saplings because they aren't trees yet. Prune, water and fertilize. Dystopos 05:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Most stubs are better than nothing. Poorly written, POV substubs in general are not. Now, rather than talking about these needed changes, anyone feel like making them? The article's been sitting around for a while in the exact same pisspoor form. I actually fully expected the article would have been made into an adequate stub by now so I could change my vote, but I see it hasn't. -R. fiend 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Ben Standeven 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matt Yglesias

Delete If every blogger gets a page, we're in trouble. There should be some other type of accomplishment! Bloghate 04:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This guy seems notable. Has written for the New York Times and appeared as a commentator on radio and TV. Borderline, but enough for me. Article needs work though. — Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable blogger and journalist. Capitalistroadster 05:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable on both sides of the American blogosphere, as well as in his capacity as a journalist. NatusRoma 06:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Over 640,000 Google hits. Given the plethora of Star Wars and Star Trek trivia available here, at least Yglesias is a real-life media personality with political blogs, newspaper columns and media appearances to his name. Same as Kevin Drum actually. --Peripatetic
• Delete: Again, freelancing is not notability. Neither is a Harvard education. I may read his blog, but that doesn't mean that we should cover him. If Wikipedia is not a web guide, then that means that we're not a web guide to other things on the web, either. Very, very few blogs are the very, very top of the profession (Atrois, Wonkette, Fatt Sludge). It follows that we not cover even the "big" blogs unless there is some other form of notability. Geogre 15:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--I would argue that Yglesias has "some other form of notability" through his media appearances and widespread writing. Meelar (talk) 19:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--I was about to joke "Of course we should keep him, he's an A-list blogebrity!" Then I realized that nobody would probably understand what I was talking about. So I went ahead and created the article for Blogebrity. --Arcadian 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a web guide, non notable outside of his blog. JamesBurns 23:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is no more a web guide than it is a pop culture trivia guide. unsigned vote by Peripatetic (talk · contribs)
  • User has already voted above. — Gwalla | Talk 21:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Yglesias is somewhere in the top 10 of notable blogs. Kaibabsquirrel 22:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almost 100,000 hits on name in Google. --TNLNYC 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Although I disagree with him politically, I do think he is a relevant person to have listed here. --Wahooker 17:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Danny O'Brien

Delete Seems very vanity like Bloghate 04:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain for now. Not certain of "Need To Know"'s notability or of the prominence of the EFF's Activist Coordinator position. — Gwalla | Talk 04:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable blogger and journalist. Davelong 10:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Best hope is in the EEF activist coordinator, IMO, but the other things listed do not give notability. The fact that he's English, a journalist, and a writer for Wired don't do it. Geogre 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. "EFF activist coordinator" doesn't do it. CDC (talk) 16:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep weakly only because if he is a journalist of SOME notably, then I think he is encyclopedic. Antares33712 21:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 23:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable British tech journalist. Qwghlm 23:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr. O'Brien is a significant employee of a notable organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The parts of the article listing his work as a blogger and writer are additional information that add to his significance. The entire article is consistent with a NPOV, and 'seems very vanity like' is a poor pretense for deletion of someone who happens to blog. --ElfWord 14:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 22:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm rather neutral on the article, but oppose User:Bloghate's POV attempt to purge all blog related articles. -- Infrogmation 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Need to Know is one of the top electronic newsletters in Europe and was an important chronicler of the dotcom bubble in Europe. --TNLNYC 22:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep his credentials show encyclopedic material to me.--Poli 03:39, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 17:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

John Dimitri Iakovides.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate; reason given was "no information to establish any notability is provided and gets no hits on google". Article does not establish notability: apparently just some guy who emigrated (possibly genealogical vanity?). Broken title too. — Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Genealogy. Geogre 14:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I think the explain-significance tag could have been placed first, this article tells me zero about him. IF this where Jerry Springer's dad (no iconic status placed on Jerry himself), and it detailed his crossing, then maybe for the sake of historic purpose relating to the Holocaust, his article would be notable. But just because he made it over here? Painter Rene Rodriguez made it over here, crossing the Mexican line (although he did it illegally). Is he notable? This article is a strong argument for a speedy after X days tag. Antares33712 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not enough content to prove notability.--Poli 03:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Albrecht

Delete Reads like an ad Bloghate 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Now also very involved with other Kevin Rose, digg.com and TwiT crew projects. Is also working on TV pilots.
• Keep. Relatively notable. Nobody advertising would focus on the fact that they got fired. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep... Reads like an ad? Give me a break... He is a notable person in technology Salvag 08:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC
• Keep. Uh, doesn't read like an ad, and anyway, the Albrecht may not be very notable, but as a former co-host of a show that could be seen in 50 million households, I'd say he's notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 12:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Relatively significant TV personality with multiple appearances. And the article in no way resembles an ad. --ElfWord 14:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I object to User:Bloghate's POV attempt to purge all blog related articles. -- Infrogmation 02:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable to me.--Poli 03:41, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep He was once host of The Screen Savers, which was a very popular and widely available program. I don't understand how his entry could possibly be considered an ad. — Peter McGinley 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already listed. — Anarchivist | Talk 15:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 16:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

David Allen (author)

Delete Reads like an ad Bloghate 04:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The book (Getting Things Done) appears to be notable, so the author should be too. Abstain, while I check for sales. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. POV is listed in the table of problems that don't require deletion. David Allen deserves an article but this one badly needs some POV removed and real content added. --Beirne 12:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)  ; (23skidoo: After my first post I removed the POV as well as unrelated links. Chunitaku: David Allen has actually written two books. I agree that the article needs content, though. --Beirne 22:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)). Another update. I was close to changing my vote to Delete since the article had just one line, but decided it is useful to know something of David Allen's background. I follow the GTD program but have always wondered what David Allen's background was. The material from his business says next to nothing but I used some of the information from the Atlantic article to build up the Wikipedia entry. --Beirne 14:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it appears to have been reduced to a stub, so need expansion. But certainly notable enough. POV is not grounds for NPOV. Be bold and edit if you feel something violates NPOV. 23skidoo 16:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notably is subjective, and his book is notable, so not him? I don't think so. Antares33712 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Only one book. Not very valuable. It duplicates everything in the article about his book. Until new information comes, I say delete. Chunitaku 21:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Chunitaku. JamesBurns 00:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I did some more editing and added references for his two books. His bio, as scant as it is, does lend a certain context to his gospel, so I vote to keep the page. I'm not sold on the name, though. Maybe David Allen (productivity consultant) would be more accurate since he's apparently not much of a writer. (See reviews on Amazon) Dystopos 05:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --ElfWord 14:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Book is notable, author is of interest to those who follow its methods. The "David Allen" disambiguation page [5] lists him as the author of Getting Things Done, and that's probably how most wiki-users know him; few of us are huge corporations picking out productivity consultants to hire--even though David Allen's own website emphasizes that role. betsythedevine 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Meets the writer criteria for notable inclusion (1 book, over 50,000 copies) --TNLNYC 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand... notable to me.--Poli 03:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 17:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Again (warez)

This was tagged as VfD by someone else, but they never wrote the VfD entry. I am doing it for them. Delete as blatant advertising. — JIP | Talk 05:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Was deleted before I could add the entry to the VfD list. — JIP | Talk 05:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a copy of User:Again which has already gone through VfD and has been deleted. If a User page can be deleted, then the article which is a copy of it certainly should be deleted. RickK 05:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Ben Standeven 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Bloggers

Delete There is no category for pencil users, why should there be one for bloggers? Bloghate 05:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Because bloggers can be both widely read and influential. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. True to your name then, Bloghate?
• Strong keep. Bloggers seems to redirect to Weblog, which of course is notable. What do you mean by pencil users? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I mean by pencil users is that blogging is a tool and bloggers are just using that tool. If using a tool is a factor for getting into Wikipedia, then there should be a category under car for drivers (where everyone with a license could be listed) or a category under food for all people who eat. Blogging in itself is NOT of note. --Bloghate 11:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep what's a pencil? Dunc|☺ 09:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please stop feeding the troll. And, please, somebody block user Bloghate unless he/she turns away from time-wasting trollery and tries to make a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Bloghate's contributions Maybe you have to be a blog-lover to see the pattern, but Bloghate has concentrated on VfD-ing popular and notable people who also happen to have blogs, for example best-selling business author David Allen. It would also make sense to take all his previous VfD nominations off the list, as they continue to attract anguished comments from people who don't know what's going on. betsythedevine 12:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. C'mon, this is really getting ridiculous -- what, now we're supposed to discount a tremendously popular phenomenon simply because a lot of blogs are full of crap? Hell, so's all of reality TV, but that doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. And since Bloggers is just an obviously useful redirect to Weblog, what's the problem here anyway? -- Captain Disdain 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bloghate might be referring to Category:Bloggers Kappa 12:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's notable enough to be kept Cyclone49 13:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Let's see, I get 12,900,000 Google hits for bloggers, 18,300,000 Google hits for blogger, 38,600,000 Google hits for weblog, and 103,000,000 Google hits for blog. Gee, you'd almost think it was starting to catch on or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Already redirected and weblog needs to stand.Barneygumble 14:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. 23skidoo 16:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:Point K1Bond007 22:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• The link up top was supposed to point to Category:Bloggers; I've fixed it. Of course that means it should go on WP:CFD. --SPUI (talk) 22:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Super ultra extreme keep. Wow. That counts for like, two votes. Sincerely,  Short Verses  ^(talk) 01:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Am I the only one here who's heard of Categories for deletion???!!! ----Isaac R 04:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominee, and Comment, I think someone's sockpuppeteering. --Adun 05:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until this list becomes too large. --TheAznSensation 05:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the obvious reasons mentioned above. User:Bloghate is causing a ton of needless effort for all of us who don't want to see a significantly important portion of online culture and information deleted from Wikipedia. If someone could let me know what my options are for dealing with this user by posting the info on my talk page, it would be appreciated. --ElfWord 14:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic, possibly POV or trolling nomination for deletion. -- Infrogmation 02:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if for no other reason that putting this whole section and its dependents in VfD seems to be the quest of the nominator (the user has made no other significant contributions...) --TNLNYC 22:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or hate it, blogging is a significant cultural phenomenon lately. *Dan* 03:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's an important part of today's culture.--Poli 03:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 17:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sage Molnar

Doomed to be non-notable forever. Denni☯ 01:25, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

(This wasn't added to the day page; no vote, just completing the nomination.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 16:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. The guy is a jerk.
• Delete vanity, and he has repeatedly removed the VfD tag. -Splash 12:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ar u nuts??? dis guy be a fine pimp somma daye.--65.92.123.75 17:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, Nichole Arsenault is more notable than him and she got canned. That was a speedy candidate. Antares33712 21:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but I do think that he could become wikipedia material in some time, no one is doomed to non-notability.--Poli 03:45, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 17:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Matt mutino

Matt Mutino is the head of the Icelandic Phallological Museum. Even if the museum is notable, I tend to doubt its "head phallologist" is. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -ÅfÇ++ 11:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails Geogre's Law, and looks like a stab at someone by calling them a penis inspector. Even if it's not, we're looking at a semi-jocular "Guess what crazy things there are" entry spinning off some dude working there. Geogre 14:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment He could be of noticle, but the article doesn't have enough material to judge. Abstain.--Poli 03:48, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

There are several interlinked decisions in this thread. It is made more complicated by a very chaotic pagemove history. After carefully reviewing all the comments and the evidence presented (and ignoring the "vote count" because it's not helpful in this case):

1. The article currently at Don Black (non-notable person) describes a physics student, webmaster and IEEE chapter chairman. The article does not present evidence that this person meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Nor did the discussion below raise strong evidence of this person's inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia. I am going to call this as a "delete" decision.
2. The article currently at Don Black (nationalist) describes a white supremacist and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Reviewing that article and doing some research of my own, I find only marginal evidence that this person meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies either. There are lots of racists and even lots of people holding offices in the KKK. I find it relevant that he is not mentioned in the KKK article itself nor is there any attempt to chronical every leader. His primary claim to fame seems to be his role as webmaster of Stormfront. If that is the case, he would be better discussed in context. (You could also make an argument that Operation Red Dog is notable but again, that argues for discussion within the article, not a separate biography.) However, this article was never nominated for deletion. I am going to call this a no-decision.
3. Don Black is currently a disambiguation page with four entries. Two of the four have no article today. There was some evidence presented that the pilot might deserve an article but scanning for similar articles, I find few EVPs with biographies. With all due respect to his WWII career and his charity work, these are not unique contributions to society.
4. The musician is more problematic. There was no evidence presented in this discussion that the musician meets any of the recommended criteria. My own research turns up a lyricist who once worked with Andrew Lloyd Weber. I can't personally find enough to meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. However, there is a redlink at Don Black (musician) with quite a few inbound links. Deferring to the collective judgment of those other editors, I am going to consider that a requested article.
5. That leaves us with a disambiguation page with only one article linking to it and one link that might someday get an article. Of the two (or four) Don Blacks, the white supremacist seems to be the one with the most press though the musician has the most inbound links. Short disambiguation pages are strongly discouraged. Disambiguation pages should be created only when needed to disambiguate between actual articles. I am going to exercise my discretion and create a stub about the musician, cross-link the two articles and pare this page down to just those two lines. I am also going to make this an orphan (as good disambig pages should be). If/when verifiable non-stub articles are created about the other Don Blacks, they can be added later.
6. I consider the term "nationalist" to be ambiguous to anyone not deeply familiar with the current US white supremacy movement. I recommend a further name change to the article (and an update of all the inbound links). "Activist" is equally ambiguous. Personally, I recommend "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" but that is not a decision for VfD. Further discussions about the final article title should be held on the appropriate Talk pages.

Rossami (talk) 4 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Don Black and Don Black (non-notable person)

Article fails to establish notability. The User has moved Don Black (nationalist) to [[Don Black (racist}]] and then added this non-notable person and tried to create a disambiguation page. RickK 06:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Don Black, a self-described racialist and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan." - Stormfront — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softcafe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He has now moved the article under Vfd to Don Black (non-notable person) and the other article to Don Black (racialist). RickK 07:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Don Black, a self-described racialist and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan." - Stormfront. The individual uses the term to describe himself. The term "nationalist" is an obfuscation of "white nationalist". The proper term is "racist", and is the appropriate disambiguation discriminator for the topic heading. Without proper disambiguation, the entire "Don Black" entry and sub-entries should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.75.108 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that this person is non-notable is his most notable aspect, and representative of a segment of society unrepresented on Wikipedia. I vote keep it online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.240.250 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks to user:RickK and user:CesarB for trying to fix this mess. The editor, Softcafe, did all the wrong things for perhaps a somewhat right reason. I think that "Don Black" is a sufficiently common name, and the one Black has sufficiently high notoriety, that having a disambiguation page, even with only a few instances, may help inform our readers and prevent confusion. Lastly, I notice that there may be a (barely) notable profesor (Don V. Black) with verifiable information.[6] Maybe the article "Don Black (non-notable person)" could be moved to Don Black (physicist) and I'll see if I can dig together enough of Dr. Black's discoveries and facts to make a decent stub. I am familiar with the milieu of the more famous Don Black, though I've barely edited that article. "Racist" would be a POV description, but I believe the "Racialist" may be appropriate. It is on a par with "Nationalist", though slightly different, and is sometimes used by [racists] to describe themselves. However "activist" seems to be an NPOV term for similar subjects (e.g. Bill White (activist)) so I suggest moving Don Black (racialist) to Don Black (activist). -Willmcw 07:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Don Black (activist)" will require another level of disambiguation, since the "Don Black (non-notable person)" may consider himself an activist, and lead to more activity. The "Don Black (racialist)" is most appropriate, as noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.240.250 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, or "Don Black (non-notable person)" may also come to consider himself a racialist. We can worry about those when they happen. (I'm not worried about Don Black (racialist) ever wanting to be known as "Don Black (non-notable person)") PS - please sign and date your posts. -Willmcw 08:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen -

While I am affiliated with UCI, I am not a professor.

However, there is another Don Black who is notable. He is the classic "Right Stuff" individual. He is a former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the McDonnell-Douglas Corporation. He was a pilot in indonesia during WW-II (flew the hump). He is still saving lives by donating his time to managing an organization that finds shelter for the homeless in Southern California. He also contributes his time to other charitable works such as ensuring open-space will exist in Southern California for our children.

The original generic "Don Black (non-notable)" should be allowed to stand on its own merits as representative of the other Don Blacks.

          - Don V Black, Chairman, 
            IEEE Computer Society of Orange County
             6/17/05 11:00AM PDT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.241.74 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I truly sympathize with your plight, but I'm trying to see how we can help you. Can you write an article for the encyclopedia about that "Don Black" using verifiable resources? That's what we need. Our efforts have to uphold our principles of "neutral point of view", "no original research", and "consensus editing". Please allow the consensus to decide what name to use for the articles. "Don Black (activist)" appears to be a clear distinction from "Don Black (pilot)" and "Don Black (physicist)". At one time, we had a note at the top of "Don Black" which made clear mention of "Don Black (musician)", even though there is no article about him. We can perhaps do the same for these other Don Blacks. That would save us the disambiguation page. -Willmcw 05:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I really have a problem with an article about Don Black (non-notable person) since it screams non-encylopedic. Or, am I missing something? If I have this right, then I see this page as a Delete but keeping the DAB page. Vegaswikian 07:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Of course there's no way we can keep have an article called "Don Black (non-notable person)" for long. Getting back to the general question, there are probably lots of Charles Mansons, et al. - people who share their name with a notorious person. But really, unless the other persons of the same name are notable there's not much that we can do. I don't see any brilliant solutions, but here's my suggestion of the night. I propose that we delete Don Black (non-notable person), keep the Don Black as a disambiguation page with a sentence about each of the other "Don Black"s who deserve minor acknowledgement, and move Don Black (racialist) to Don Black (activist). I've edited the Don Black dab page to cover other Don Blacks. Is this acceptable to Softcafe and others? Cheers, -Willmcw 06:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds good to me, provided that the disambiguation page retains all the significant information from the article on the physicist. If that turns out to be beyond the scope of a disambiguation page, then he warrants a separate article. Factitious 10:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I am sure that we are all bright enough to realize that the real question before us is not "Don Black (non-notable person)", it is whether Wikimedia will allow "Don Black (racist)" and his supporters to use Wikipedia to promote the Ku Klux Klan, and their particular brand of hate and racism. As for POV, by linking to these websites, we are promoting them.
  • Hatred and racism are notable and encyclopedic, even though they're bad things. Linking to a website is not the same thing as promoting it. Factitious 10:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• There is really nothing notable about any of the Don Black's listed, except that their names appear on the internet. My recommendation is that this "VFD" be promoted to include all the "Don Black" entries, especially the one promoting racism, since none of these people are notable. In which case I would vote that they all be DELETED, or all remain with the DAB. In the latter case, I fear that Wikipedia will become irrelevant and eventually join the ranks of National Enquirer. -Softcafe 03:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Don Black (non-notable person) definitely has to be renamed, since the article mentions notable things about him. Don Black (nationalist) seems to be even more notable, and I think we would all welcome an article on Don Black (pilot). Since the main issue here is the rather confusing naming situation, I'm not sure why this is being discussed on VfD. Factitious 10:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedied. —Xezbeth 16:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Breast pinning

• Delete Article was already speedy deleted. User Paradox460 recreated the article. I don't find it very encyclopedic. Perhaps we should at least have a cock blocking article before breast pinning? ;) R Lee E 05:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not good enough for BJAODN. Once the article is deleted, can the image be removed without a separate IfD listing? JamesMLane 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it- it happens 'Freezer 09:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. A quick Googling shows that this term is not in wide use, if used at at all. -- The Anome 10:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought about speedying this yesterday. Seeing as it's already been speedied once, can't the same just be done again?-Splash 12:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. DS1953 14:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Whaddya know? It can! Joke. Recreated deletion. Geogre 14:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. You know you're addicted to Wikipedia when the contents of your sexual fantasies start appearing as speediable articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Brio Software

Advertising -- Ferkelparade π 06:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Go to Wiki-Hell. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the spam. -- Captain Disdain 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spamvertising. Probably copyvio too, but couldn't find it in a minute of google searching. Wikibofh 15:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Brio was one of more known software companies in area of data mining (sometimes called business intelligence). The article looks unsalvageable, unfortunately. Pavel Vozenilek 00:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Lolligadope

Not a single Google hit, sounds made up to me -- Ferkelparade π 06:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and give me back my lost 15 seconds: Some dude made a joke. Geogre 14:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Loligadope makes my stomach go bobagogup! ----Isaac R 04:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails to prove notability.--Poli 03:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus (kept) (3 keeps, 2 deletes, 1 transwiki.) Scimitar 19:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baby Rasta y Gringo

I may be wrong, but I am not certain that this meets the criteria for notability, and context. Had it linked to 'El Carnaval' ... but I do not know the significance of this either. Simon Cursitor 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because if this does have any meaning the author hasn't bothered to attempt to explain it and so, intentionally or otherwise, is wasting our time. (I'm watching this VfD; if anyone rewrites the article I'll look at it again and reconsider my vote.) -- Hoary 07:28, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of this before. One of my hispanic friends had a CD that said Baby Rasta y Gringo. 205.217.105.2 19:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe then we should Move Transwiki the article to the Spanish-language Wikipedia? It can be translated into English once a decent article has been written there. (And it looks like some Spanish-language editing has already taken place.) SwissCelt 01:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I'm studing reggaeton and I want all the resources I can get.

• Keep, notable figures in reggaeton and pass WP:MUSIC comfortably. Kappa 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The present version of the article establishes notability. Factitious 10:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Icy Hot

Commercial trademark of non-notable product Alex.tan 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup - Major commercial product advertised nationally, but article needs improvement. --FCYTravis 08:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Cleanup – per FCYTravis. —Kjammer 10:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Cleanup – per FCYTravis. -ÅfÇ++ 11:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and let it get expanded. A well known product that I think might qualify as a part of Americana simply because of the humor of the name. Wikibofh 14:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I hate our efforts at becoming Brandapedia, but we've already started it. No reason to delete this at this point, alas. Geogre 14:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that's mostly a good thing, though. Even brands that are literally household words are surprisingly tough to find good information on that isn't written by someone who's either employed by the company or otherwise trying to sell/promote it. We could fill a truly valuable niche by presenting information not easily available elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Complete agreement with Mr. Lenahan. Just because we list products doesn't mean we have to say only nice things about them - and every notable product comes with notable criticisms. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:18, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• keep and fix it. Articles on famous products are interesting. Brighterorange 15:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable product. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue efforts to build an NPOV brandipedia. Kappa 21:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Notable enough. K1Bond007 22:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with George. Also, he created a good neologism toward an encyclopedia for brand names. --SuperDude 15:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable product.Gateman1997 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Merge and delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Impure salt

I really can't see what to do with this except bring it here. I can see no encyclopedic potential for this article. Physchim62 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Salt with the exception of the Bible bit. I don't think that's important enough for mention in the chemistry-related article. -Tadanisakari 08:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, salt is defined as an ionic compound with a crystalline structure. It's impossible for salt to lose it's saltiness as the article states. Impure salt should refer to salts which contain foreign ions that shouldn't be there, but I think impurities is more of a thing to discuss in contamination. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree that "salt" is a basic structure. It cannot be impure by itself and be a salt. There are salts (compound nouns) that can be impure by having impurities in the mineral that is to be salted, but they're still salts. Geogre 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge factual first paragraph to salt and delete. Gazpacho 04:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with salt.--Poli 03:55, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:55 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Antares33712 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 19:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italiotes

The term is not used in the english language. Even in Greek it is rarely used as described Sysin 08:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Geogre 14:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yes it is, and this is not a Wiktionary candidate any more. Modified article. Uncle G 17:43, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Keep as an interesting concept in Roman citizenship law. -- Jonel | Speak 18:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have added this article to Italic peoples Larineso 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, seems valid. Keep.DS 02:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep that's definatly encyclopedic.--Poli 03:55, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep. Please don't list articles on VfD carelessly. Factitious 10:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:56 (UTC)