Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 19

June 19

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. Golbez 00:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

WorldEscape

Advertising Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Decent number of Google hits suggests notability, but current article absolutely REEKS of advertisement. A good article on this subject might be possible, but I suggest we delete this and let someone start over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear that anything in the current form is worth saving. --Jareth 03:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. Craigy (talk) 12:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. — mark ✎ 15:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 17:54, 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 DELETE. Golbez 00:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Badukuk

The only Google hits lead to Wikipedia. If this demon is even real it still doesn't seem to deserve its own article. --Canderson7 00:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No Google hits. Suspect this might be part of some fiction, maybe Anne Rice or Sandman (or any of the various knock-offs thereof). Any way you look at it, the Google score shows it's neither notable or verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even a notable fictional demon would have some Google presence. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Should als be removed from List of demons when it's deleted. Pburka 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — mark ✎ 15:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/possible fiction. --Etacar11 00:00, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

List of coincidences

Not encylopedic. Not managable. A friend called while I was thinking about her. Should I add that to the page? --Xcali 00:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if it was the List of well-known coincidences, it's still not encyclopedic. Nestea 00:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful list of notable (supposed) coincidences. I recommand Xcali not adding anything to the list which isn't widely known. Kappa 00:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• What I had in mind (in creating this article) was that it should only list coincidences which are significant, e.g. surrounding historical events. (Rubric at the start of the article could set out what would count.) There are many notable historical examples of remarkable coincidences, some of which had important consequences (and are worthy of collection in one place). I know the article doesn't have much of this yet, but I only created it a few minutes ago! Re the encyclopedic point, if Mathematical coincidence is legitimate (effectively a list of mathematical coincidences) then surely a more general list of coincidences (including reference to the mathematical ones) also should be. Ben Finn 00:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as there are coincidences happening all the time. Something mentioned in the main article should be enough. -Feydey 01:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ne and unmaintanable. The 'coincidences' in mathematics and physics are matters of absolute, immutable fact. They are not really coincidences; they're just dressed up that way in the lay press. The maths ones in particular are actually useful approximations for the most part. I had soup for lunch today, and today is/was Saturday. They begin with the same letter! Had better add it to this list.-Splash 01:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • The list now states: "Only coincidences which are well-known, or which involve well-known people or events, should be included." Kappa 13:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well the maths coincidences aren't in the List of coincidences article (just linked to from it). So are you requesting that Mathematical coincidence be deleted?? Ben Finn 01:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not what I said at all. I was making the point that you were defending this page of genuine coincidences on the basis that there was another page of coincidence, which the maths page is not all. The maths 'coincidences' are not coincidences at all, but hard facts, and approximations of encyc value because they are widely used within the numerate-sciences. See the talk page for some others' feelings on this point. The page under this VfD lists mere happenstance, see the tongue-in-cheek examples already suggested.-Splash 01:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. *makes some immature comment relating Xcali to cooties* – ugen64 01:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Amazon lists over 350 BOOKS on the subject and Google yields over five million hits; obviously there is a strong interest in this topic that nothing else in Wiki satisfies. I think the problem is that the article at this point is nothing but a stub. Once people begin improving it, it should be a fine addition to the Wikipedia. Anyway, the poor thing has only been alive for a few hours, IMHO you’re being a little quick on the trigger in trying to quash it, and pretty viscous on the attacks. The jibes about soup on Saturday and girlfriends calling are the same as deleting List of famous dogs because none of my dachshunds are listed, or deleting List of famous American houses because Jimmy Wales’ house didn’t make the cut. Wiki is chock full of trivial lists with arbitrary “lower limits” on what is or is not included (570 just that start with ‘a’), and NONE of them mention your girlfriend or your soup. Kevin Wells 01:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I might consider keeping a page about books about coincidences because that would be maintainable for a start. This page is simply not — there can be no justification for excluding any coincidence - just try applying a notability criterion to coincidences - some people would deny they even happened, or that they were coincidental.-Splash 02:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • When I do it, an Amazon "Books" search for "list of coincidences" returns just 16 books, not 350, including books which are quite obviously not about this topic at all such as Murder List : A Novel, Arco Reading Lists for College-Bound Students (Reading Lists for College-Bound Students), Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists, and The A List: The National Society of Film Critics' 100 Essential Films. There are plenty of books on Amazon about the subject of coincidence, but then we already have an article on that, and that isn't the article at hand. Uncle G 10:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete Woah, dude, the other day, I found a quarter on the sidewalk. And then I realised I was on 25th street... and a quarter is worth 25 cents. Dude. Woah. Ok, seriously, this is one of those extremely open-ended lists that almost anything could be added to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • The list now states: "Only coincidences which are well-known, or which involve well-known people or events, should be included." Kappa 13:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to the existing list at Coincidence. --Tabor 02:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - many of these coincidences may be worthy of mention within the topic article, but they have no connection to each other. You might as well as List of historical figures with nine-letter names. - DavidWBrooks 02:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Coincidence. Many of the items in the list are already on that page. Pburka 02:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Each of these coincidences can be mentioned in the main article about the associated topic. --Canderson7 03:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • So you won't allow me any way to find actual examples of coincidences? Kappa 03:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Xe hasn't suggested stopping you from going to coincidence and reading the examples given there. Uncle G 10:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
      • True, but will Xe accept all coincidences with articles being listed in coincidence? Kappa 12:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - Keeping a list of coincidences is a ridiculous proposition. --Barfooz (talk) 04:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) - vote withdrawn --Barfooz (talk) 19:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 05:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly list, the number of potential coincidences (even among notable things) is too high to warrant a reasonable article. This is not an encyclopedic topic. --Fastfission 06:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - coincidences aren't encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 08:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• As per Starblind, this list's selection criteria (Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)) are practically non-existent. Talk:coincidence makes for informative reading, furthermore. Delete. Uncle G 10:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• OK folks, for what it's worth I've beefed the hours-old article up slightly with headings and a few more entries which illustrate (I hope) that this article would be manageable and not just a random jumbled collection. Does this sway anyone? Ben Finn 12:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - lest I be tempted to add coincidences that I experience everyday. Craigy (talk) 12:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • The list now states: "Only coincidences which are well-known, or which involve well-known people or events, should be included." Kappa 13:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that'll mean we have to have a VfD (or a VfErasure) on each entry in the list which is still unmaintanable. Given how hard it can be to establish (non-)notability for actual people, it would be mousebutton-destroying trying to do it for every happenstance that comes along.-Splash 14:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – as the devil's advocate, or maybe Badukuk's, I propose there are no coincidences. Seriously - this is far more about the concept of Synchronicity. I'd say a list of well-known synchronistic events (such as some of the ones on this not well-named list), would most definitely be encyclopedic. See references at Synchronicity. I don't agree that this is a silly, unmaintainable list or ridiculous proposition at all. But it does need some work to be kept. --Mothperson 13:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that some people believe there is no such thing as a coincidence, and that apparent coincidences are a result of some underlying cause, makes it all the more important for an NPOV encyclopedia to cover them. Kappa 13:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment My final word on all this (having done a little more beefing up on the article) is that while I don't claim a list of coincidences would be of great academic worth (which is I think what is meant by the 'not encyclopedic' criticism), it would be of considerable curiosity value, which is a legitimate (though admittedly lesser) purpose of quite a few existing Wikipedia articles. I cite as examples of this the List of strange units of measurement and List of deaths by accidental drug overdose, which have little academic value but considerable curiosity value. And I argue that a list of coincidences would be of greater interest to many readers than some of the existing lists. I am happy to spend time myself adding to and maintaining it (as I have already done on the curiosity-value List of premature obituaries which I started recently). The existing Coincidence article cites a couple of examples of coincidences (which could be moved to this new page), and links to some See Also topics, but is not itself a list of coincidences. Finally, I think the few examples I've put in so far demonstrate that the page would be more than a mere list of trivia, as aside from its intrinsic interest it would (when fleshed out with more instances) link to and encourage browsing of a wide range of people, events and topics. Ben Finn 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Mothperson 14:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing vote as pointless (my vote, not the subject – - I'm still more impressed by Jung and Koestler than by the reasoning behind the delete votes here) --Mothperson 21:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic, trivial, unmaintainable. — mark ✎ 15:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with most others above. (What a coincidence!) Jonathunder 15:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 20:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic CDC (talk) 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but change name to List of famous coincidences.Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Because of the majority of delete votes, I have created a copy of this page in my user space. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV. The article's title and content are biased and subjective by definition. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a coincidence is a "sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged." "To seem" means "To give the impression of being". Coincidences are not factual by nature. Coincidences are actually opinions about facts, and shouldn't be presented as facts. In contrast, "a mathematical coincidence can be said to occur when two expressions show a near-equality that lacks direct theoretical explanation". They are not opinions but factual assertions. --Edcolins 20:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mathematical coincidence should probably also be deleted, or moved to Mathematical curiosities or Numerical curiosities. --Edcolins 21:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's something of a discussion on that article's talk page about that, which seems unresolved.-Splash 17:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if only limited to notable/non-trivial events, maintaining such a list is an unmanageably large task and the content does not strike me as encyclopedic. Fernando Rizo 21:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting list. I don't see why it should be unmanageable if it is limited to notable events, or why it should be unencyclopedic. Martg76 21:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Because we'd have to debate each entry on the list for notability which is hard enough to establish with actual, real people (and bands, schools etc etc).-Splash 17:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Not maintainable, composed primarily of factoids. Haikupoet 04:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not maintainable, nonencyclopedic. carmeld1 16:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable nonencyclopedic list. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:06, 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. Golbez 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Elch

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article on the screenname of somebody who was involved in an argument on Internet Relay Chat. Probably vanity, definitely non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 01:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete IRCruft. -- Grev -- Talk 01:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IRCcruft combined with forumcruft, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is "useless" a legitimate reason? Nothing here for Wiki. Kevin Wells 02:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Funny, yet pointless. --Jareth 03:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, we REALLY don't need this kind of thing. --Etacar11 00:04, 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 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 DELETED. JeremyA 16:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Batman Vengeance

IMDB has no references to a movie named Batman Vengeance, just a 2002 video game. This appears to be a hoax or a mistake Pburka 02:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the corresponding changes to Kara Monichetti, Noel Boudine, Batman (disambiguation), Paul Levesque and Christian Bale should be reverted. Pburka 01:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as hoax/deliberate misinformation. Anon user seems to be creating his own little micro-universe of hoax articles that tie in to each other (see Noel Boudine and Kara Monichetti for examples). Why they'd want to do something like that is anyone's guess, as they're all pretty obvious any unlikely to stay around for long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy and revert other changes. Sounds like it was written by someone who watched The Incredibles one too many times. 23skidoo 03:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 05:04, 19 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 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 DELETED. JeremyA 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makteeno

Non-notable amateur hip-hop "artist". --Xcali 02:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Not notable, and libelous. Pburka 02:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and POV Jareth 03:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. The only record of this "Makteeno" on the internet is here. [1]. It's a bunch of rambling teenage hatred and mudslinging. --Barfooz (talk) 04:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Craigy (talk) 12:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a libel page. Geogre 12:47, 19 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. Golbez 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Causeway Street

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason was "not notable:no new info". Just a street in Boston. — Gwalla | Talk 02:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable street --Jareth 03:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Barfooz (talk) 04:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, its kind of a famous street, but really not notable, save for having a hockey rink and train station. --Spotteddogsdotorg 08:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Craigy (talk) 12:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. — mark ✎ 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and I was just there... :) --Etacar11 00:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice towards future articles. This can be expanded to something like Atlantic Avenue (Boston) but I'm not in the mood to do so. --SPUI (talk) 09:26, 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 keep. Sikon 07:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brian Fox

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "vanity series entered by Denny or Mel". Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 02:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. bash is a very widely used piece of software. I think that makes its author sufficiently notable. Pburka 03:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep correct info, widely used software --Jareth 03:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. JamesBurns 05:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - notable. Craigy (talk) 12:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 21:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep open source software is a historically significant movement in computing, and bash is an important example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.140.148 (talk • contribs) JeremyA 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Name change. Who's gonna search for the guy's name? Put his software title in there if it is so significant. The article is not about the man's life, it's about the software he wrote.--0001 14:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I oppose aname change. The article IS about the guy. See Larry Wall, Andy Hertzfeld, and Chet Ramey. Bash isn't all he did. Readline is pretty dang significant too.

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. Golbez 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Guiri

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Foreign language dictdef with a side of field-guide-to-people. — Gwalla | Talk 03:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to Wiktionary. Pburka 03:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 05:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Dictdef. Geogre 12:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Del dic def. — mark ✎ 15:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:08, 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. Golbez 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Der dragon warrior

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable Dragon Warrior fanfic flash-animation series that started last month and has a grand total of 19 episodes. — Gwalla | Talk 03:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 05:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide nor a TV Guide for web animations. Geogre 12:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Geogre. — mark ✎ 15:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete ~~~~ 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Already said. Just a fan made Flash movie. --Krystyn Dominik 21:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:08, 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. Golbez 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Loft and Beisser

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable film by a "studio" also on VfD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cyclops Arts. — Gwalla | Talk 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete film with utterly no track record. Denni☯ 04:09, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as the VfDs on the other pages the user has created. The JPS 09:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gwalla. — mark ✎ 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:09, 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 (10 delete, 4 keep) CDC (talk) 00:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Tyson Jr

Entire article reads: John Tyson Jr., brother of actor Richard Tyson, is currently district attorney for the city of Mobile. 380 Google hits [2], notability not established, Delete. JamesBurns 03:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable relative of notable person. Policy says delete. Ambush Commander 05:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a famous enough brother for a redirect, and the DA has not yet distinguished himself from others. Geogre 12:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, District Attorney. Kappa 21:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. District Attorney is notable enough to me. --Unfocused 15:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable DA, article does not establish any achievements of note. Megan1967 05:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Week Keep DA of a major american city is prob. notable enough to keep.
• Keep DA's and other city or county level officials are notable. Klonimus 04:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing with this DA which establishes he is notable. Leanne 05:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Most DAs are well below the bar of notability. Quale 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:10, 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. Golbez 00:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Californian Party

About 100 Google hits for "Californian Party", but a substantial portion of those are for a party in California rather than a political party. It doesn't look to me like this party has gain notability yet. --Xcali 03:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. This moderately politically aware Californian has never heard of this party; its website is a Geocities page (a blank one to boot); its listed "foundation" date is in the future which I guess gives this crystal-ball issues also. -EDM 03:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot ever be noteworthy when it has a "foundation" date in October and a Geocities web site. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Ambush Commander 05:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Dreadful hoax. It speculates and puffs. Geogre 12:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 17:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no such party exists. RickK 20:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Party's over, dudes. Hermione1980 00:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of a number of American succession groups. Almafeta 23:43, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Holy Church of Floyd

Not sure whether this is notable. Your call, no vote. — Phil Welch 03:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Google says not. The article says not: "It was founded in 2005 and currently has 3 members." Delete --Xcali 03:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - 0 google hits. Although Pink Floyd rules hard and should have a religion dedicated to it. --Barfooz (talk) 04:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable. Delete. Ambush Commander 05:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Worship Floyd, but not in this way. - Longhair | Talk 07:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and an affront to dog. - Spotteddogsdotorg 08:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Is this a cross between vanity and RPG-cruft, or a cross between a website promo and a probable hoax? Either way, delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe add to Pink Floyd as a "Trivia" section? Craigy (talk) 12:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not even a trivia addition, as this is a prank. Seamus, that's the dog, is outside, and he says that 3 members on an online community isn't up to trivia yet. Geogre 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 17:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Is there any point in discussing this further? 0 google hits. Delete, Duh! Celestianpower 18:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "Sometimes Syd Barrett is considered a pope but not always."?! ANNIHILATE!!! the wub "?/!" 22:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete prank, or at least, not notable. --Etacar11 00:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• SAVE definatly... someones finally made a great page on wiki. IAMTHEEGGMAN 12:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Voting by Anon users masquerading as other Users is definitely not allowed. Ambush Commander 03:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:13, 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. It is noted that there is an ongoing arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vicarius Filii Dei

Speedy Keep This material is trivial and is covered in Papal Tiara, but I seem to have misjudged the keen interest in busting crackpot myths. To my mind the whole stupid myth could be exploded by simply pointing out that the papal tiaras don't have any inscriptions. Two lines instead of an article. But hey, let democracy rule in this peoples' encyclopaedia! I'll just bend over and let the people kick me a bit more. Pete 21:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Some background: The user above is a troll who is the subject of Request for Arbitration hearing for the POV interpretation he tried to force onto Government of Australia (including doctoring articles to state that Australia is a republic!). On that page he ignored the unanimous opinion of everyone over months. (The RforA is on the brink of voting to ban him for a year from writing on Australian government topics.) Because of that he has been waging a campaign of harassment against me for the last week (because I was one of the many people who stood up to him on Government of Australia).Of 102 edits carried out in one period, 100 were to pages I had edited a short time earlier, many of them trivial, with abusive edit summaries attached. He also added in abusive comments about on other users' talk pages. Tonight I added in images to this page and made some minor textual corrections. True to form, 42 minutes, the troll in question visited the page.

• (cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
• (cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

Having failed to get a reaction in the last few days to his vandalism on anything I touched, he is now trying a new tactic and nominating pages I touch for deletion. For information on the troll's past behaviour see [3]

Regarding the article in question, his view that the stuff in the article is "trivial" is symbolic of the comic ignorance he has shown all over Wikipedia. It is not covered in Papal Tiara. A summary is contained on that page. Users wished the detail to be moved to a separate page to allow it to be covered in detail there, and a short summary to be kept at PT. That was done. It is a perfectly valid, well researched and well written page to which 34 users have contributed over two years. It nomination here is nothing more than the latest game being played by a troll trying to harrass people who refuse to allow him to POV insertions elsewhere.Keep FearÉIREANN^(talk) 04:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: User:Skyring has now been reported, on the basis of this nomination here and his conduct over recent weeks, for harassment to the Requests for arbitration committee. Another user has also revealed tonight that he tried similar stalking on them. His nomination of this article here is clearly not a serious nomination but part of an ungoing bullying campaign against Wikipedians who prevented his claiming, among other things, that Australia is a republic on the Government of Australia article. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 07:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I keep an eye on your edits because you can't spell for beans, you produce the most horrendously convoluted sentences and you get stuff wrong. You thought an Irish President's term was negative seven years, to name one example out of many, and I had to correct you three times before you accepted that you were wrong.[4]

Nothing personal here, you are to be congratulated for your research, and you are spot on about debunking the myth, but really, who cares about this stuff? Snopes.com, the repository of information about every possible legend, doesn't even mention this "papal tiara" thing. A search on Google yields nothing but references to this Wikipedia article. It's pure crackpottery. Pete 04:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Pete, please cite your Google search: [5] gives multiple relevant results outside of Wikipedia. Furthermore, your assertion that you are keeping an eye on his edits holds little weight when you are the one that is under RFA and he appears to have no problem producing properly spelled and grammatical sentences. --Barfooz (talk) 05:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment 2: Umm, sorry Pete, but this isn't crackpottery. This is an actual anti-Catholic myth. See my Google search. Also: A Seventh-Day Adventist Site, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, St. Michael Center for Apologetics, and Envoy Magazine I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class. -- Essjay · Talk 05:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Snopes doesn't list it. It may well be a longstanding myth but it's pure crap. Who really cares? Crackpots. As for jtdirl's edits - check out my contributions and you'll see what I was correcting. [6] [7] [8] etc. Pete 06:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Extremely Speedy Keep. This is a long standing anti-Catholic myth, and a dogged one. This article develops more deeply on what is said in the Papal Tiara artice, a very common practice on this site. As demonstrated above, it is most definately worthy of keeping. Refer the nominator to ArbCom per Jtdirl. -- Essjay · Talk 04:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Myth nearly as old as Protestantism, strong suggestion of bad-faith nomination. Xoloz 04:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Nunh-huh 04:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this long detailed article were to be deleted, in view of people's da-da's, it'd just crop back up — in small and bad. Bill 09:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course, and sanction Pete Skyring for harrasment of Jtdirl, of course. El_C 09:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A very interesting article. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad-faith nomination; interesting topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was quite fascinated at the 666 thing :-S Craigy (talk) 12:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The article does need copy-editing, sure. The writing could be stronger, you bet. That's not a matter for VfD. The myth reported here is one that I've stumbled across in my time among the eschatologically obsessed. It's hardly the only "The Pope is the anti-Christ" legend; it's just one more in the quiver used by the radical Protestants of the new churches. Anyway, the article should be kept, as it's quite good. Geogre 13:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: That one source fails to mention this myth does not discredit this article, especially since many others do. However, the article does require a clean-up and a reduction in dot-points (not an overly effective way to convey that amount of information). Seemingly, snopes lacks scope.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 17:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be notable topic and good article. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Discussion of long standing and prevalent crackpottery very much has a place on wikipedia. Its knowledge you might wish to look up, so it should be here. Francis Davey 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ignore, except for sanctioning bad-faith/harrassing nominator. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough people believe this tomfoolery that you can't really cover the topic of the Papal tiara to any depth without dealing with it. Csernica 03:02, 25 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon Titus

Userfied vanity. Denni☯ 04:24, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete --Barfooz (talk) 05:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This belongs on a userpage. Delete. Ambush Commander 05:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• It's on a userpage at User:Bjtitus; delete. Nateji77 09:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - belongs at userpage. Craigy (talk) 12:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already userfied. --Etacar11 00:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:15, 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 11:43 (UTC)

Security Forums Dot Com

The owners of the website would like the article deleted as they don't want to seem as if they are spamming Wikipedia. Just following their wishes. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough and does not appear at all spam-like. Alphax ^τεχ 04:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Since I'm currently surfing anon on a friend's computer and can't be bothered to log in, I'll make an observation: if they're notable, it's not spam, and they deserve an article. It looks pretty well written anyway. What's the Alexa rating... hmm...
  • 273,567, from [9]. Alphax ^τεχ 04:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is not vanity, because it is a very notable forum of its category (IT). The article cannot be advertising, as SFDC is not a paid or an ad-laden site. -- Znode 04:38, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • If this is notable, then http://www.devnetwork.net/ definitely is (#1 google hit for PHP forum). Advertising doesn't have to be driven by monetary purposes. Ambush Commander 05:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable, NPOV. (What's all this about devnetwork.net?) func(talk) 06:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up and keep: It is a wee bit rah-rah and advertising copy, but the site qualifies as notable. The prose should be NPOV'd. Geogre 13:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement drini ☎ 21:15, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Tarosky

vanity, probable hoax carmeld1 04:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity hoax. JamesBurns 05:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unverifiable via google (five Wikipedia hits), probably non-notable. Delete. Ambush Commander 05:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete.' - vanity and non-notable. Craigy (talk) 12:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 17:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. VfD should not be bothered by such. Pavel Vozenilek 21:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense and vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 23:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 00:34, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Les Godfrey

Vanity. Denni☯ 04:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Possible advertisement too. 287 Google hits. Probably non-notable. Delete. Ambush Commander 05:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or create an article for the band Illuminati if that is appropriate. Spaully 09:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Craigy (talk) 12:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete candidate under criterion #1: Anyway, there was a band called Illuminati that recorded (heavy metal/art rock, as I recall) that was in the minor leagues for a while. I have a suspicion, though, that this fellow is referring to a new band that isn't aware that it's using an old band's name. Geogre 13:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Seemingly non-notable. Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:37, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer Aviation

Advertising for a webcomic created this month Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity and non-notable. delete Ambush Commander 05:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 05:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 07:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and non-notable. All Google hits seem to refer to things that have to do with aviation, i.e. flying aircraft, Wright Brothers, etc. --08:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above.--Jyril 08:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what's there, then redirect title to Aviation history. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sprite comic self-promotion. — Gwalla | Talk 22:07, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Maternal versus fetal rights

A C+ term paper. Denni☯ 04:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Obviously non-encyclopedic. Delete (perhaps even speedy) Ambush Commander 05:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Barfooz (talk) 05:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic. Craigy (talk) 12:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Classroom assignment dump. The material is not organized well to be discursive, is all in a blob, and doesn't take note of its own national limitations (these rights change in common law and non-common law nations as well as between common law nations). Geogre 13:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Geogre. — mark ✎ 15:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Cleduc 00:50, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Woodworth

Article fails to establish notability. <1000 Google hits, most for other people with the same/similar names. --Xcali 05:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 657 google hits to be exact and article doesn't convince me either. Non-notable, delete. Ambush Commander 05:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not established here. DS1953 06:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Most, if not all of those Google hits refer to other Paul Woodworths. --Jyril 08:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Note the mention of his "passions". --Etacar11 00:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:17, 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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mel Beckman

Vanity. Denni☯ 05:02, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:16, 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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Olympia Flooring and Tile

advertisement. Not notable DJ Clayworth 05:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's an ad, for sure, but Olympia is hardly not notable. Abstain for now, just because I hate seeing commercial interests get space in Wikipedia. Denni☯ 05:13, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 05:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement. Craigy (talk) 12:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. — mark ✎ 15:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I wouldn't call this advertising:

1. It reports factually what the company does. It does not offer glowing reviews of its products and services.
2. There is no link to a website where an interested potential customer might go shopping for flooring and tile, which is the first thing I would add if I were going to try to use Wikipedia to promote a business.

Having said this, I don't really know how this adds to Wikipedia, or what a reader would gain from reading this. While Olympia is a pretty big tile seller in Toronto (I went last weekend), there are a lot of tile sellers. Ground Zero 13:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Post closing comment - Olympia Flooring and Tile is certainly deserving of an article, it is the first of the Reichmann family's firms and was the start of their business empire. The deleted article was not very good, I have thus written a new stub.

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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Order of mephistopheles

Vanity if not nn. Denni☯ 05:16, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete - 0 google results [10]. Cannot be verified. --Barfooz (talk) 05:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possibly a hoax, otherwise not noteable enough. —Kjammer 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. On google hit is here. --Etacar11 00:55, 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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Daw Park Uniting Church, Adelaide

Delete. Non-notable. WAvegetarian 05:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If highschools are automatically notable, so too should be churches. But delete anyway. Denni☯ 05:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Comment: Almost everyone at some time in their life attends a school or undergoes some form of education. The same can't be said for churches. -- Longhair | Talk 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment School articles that say "Mumble High School is a large school on Thingie Street, Somewhere." aren't automatically good articles, either. --ScottDavis 08:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Enochlau 05:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 07:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'll vote to keep any article that explains why it's significant or interesting to people who live further than walking distance from it. Pedare Christian College passed that mark. These three suburban Adelaide church articles still don't. Delete (or expand to show significance) --ScottDavis 08:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded to show significance as per comment by Scott Davis.--Takver 08:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The anonymous editor who created this, and the other two articles nominated, is becoming quite prolific in creating sub-standard articles on non-notable evangelical churches.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we leave him/her a message? Enochlau 12:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could, but it would be pointless. 203.26.206.130 is a multi-user proxy, assigned to South Australian schools. Any message posted won't necessarily be read by the creator of these articles.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:05, 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 due to no consensus. (3 delete, 2 keep). Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 10:01 (UTC)

Pagan rock

Another imaginary music genre, again with no bands whose articles describe themselves in this genre.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- slightly more substantive than other articles of its ilk, but still nothing provable. Haikupoet 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep -- all of Inkubus Sukkubus' albums. Inkubus Sukkubus' official biography states:

'In 1992 the band recorded the album Belladonna & Aconite which was released in October. By this time Incubus Succubus were being hailed as `Britain's Premier Pagan Rock band'.

Note capitalisation of Pagan rock. The term has a good deal of currency within the community and refers to a very distinctive genre of music. This is not another Pop metal --KharBevNor 13:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The music of one band plus "a few others (sic) similar (and sometimes related) groups" does not a genre make. An unsourced quote (who hailed them as "Britain's Premier Pagan Rock band" ? ) from the band's website is not proof of the existence of a Music genre, captialized or not. 908 Google hits for "Pagan rock", and the only thing any of these artists seem to have in common is that they consider themselves pagans - there are very little or no musical similarities between the acts, so calling it a "music genre" is stretching the term to the breaking point. List of Pagan musicians might be appropriate, however. Soundguy99 16:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well, someone's done up the page far more thoroughly, wonder why they didn't vote for keep on here? --KharBevNor 10:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Christian_rock has an article. It's a somewhat similar idea Lyo 00:09, 22 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 merge with Eminem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

Hailie Jade

This child of a famous singer is not independently notable (although she is mentioned in a few of his songs, to be fair.) Given precedents for the children of celebrities, like Lourdes Ciccone, her article can wait until she does something. Any useful content can exist at Eminem for now. At the very least, the article's title is incomplete, as I think the child uses her last name. Xoloz 05:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Eminem and redirect there (from this name, her complete name and whatever other names she may be known by to Eminem fans). The article will likely be recreated if deleted. Uppland 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- and merge anything useful into Eminem. Oh, and the surname I think would be Mathers? - Longhair | Talk 07:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. — mark ✎ 15:50, 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 No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Out West/Rubber Nipple Salesmen

Unsourced POV. --W(t) 06:44, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete POV, Badly written, unsourced, episode of notable series that is not notable by itself. —Kjammer 07:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, lack of context. However, very funny. -- Spotteddogsdotorg 08:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep if we're doing episode guides (eg South Park) then that's not grounds for deletion. likewise, being poorly written or POV is also not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for sticking a cleanup request or npov disclaimer on the article. Nateji77 09:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep as above. Precedent, plus Ren and Stimpy is one of those series with notable individual episodes (Kilted Yaksmen, Powdered Toast Man, etc.). 23skidoo 13:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kjammer. — mark ✎ 15:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up and keep as per Nateji77. Celestianpower 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 21:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as long as there is not more content. Martg76 21:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV non notable one episode joke. JamesBurns 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV and joke ought to be mutually exclusive. Nateji77 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite I've already written a review for Stimpy's Big Day/The Big Shot myself. It's a formula for episode reviews that I also continued in my review for Robin Hoek/Nurse Stimpy. I plan on possibly re-writing this eventually with that format, as I feel this is currently an unimformative and extremly basic review. I'd appreciate it if the entries tried to adheare to that format i've written in the other entries as well, too.

Well, I can't make anyone, but I plan on probably writing more myself, so if people could use that same format, and re-write this one completly, i think the result would be much better. Also, there's also a review for Black Hole/Stimpy's Invention that similarly bad, and i'm hoping that either someone else or myself can re-write it with a similar format to the other ones i've done as well. I've tried to be as extensive as possible with info on every episode i've done reviews for, and may probably write more, this way. Also, I've written these myself, and my info comes from several things, such as magazine articles (like WIld Cartoon Kingdom) and whenever possible from DVD commentary and from John K quotes himself. ALso, when there is something that is speculation or something notable that is popular speculation, I list it as such. I don't have an account with Wikipedia such as of yet, but I come from the Members Of The Loyal Order Of Stuppids, Message Board and my name there is The New X. (2 time member of the month and member of the year nominee, currently.)

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 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:27 (UTC)

List of BSA local councils and districts in Puerto Rico

A list of one? The entire article says "There is one BSA local council serving all of Puerto Rico. It is called the Puerto Rico Council. Districts include Boriken District and Tuocs District." and that's it! -- Longhair | Talk 06:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hardly a list, I'm sure it could be merged with something, but I don't know how Wikipedia's Boy Scout related articles are organized. —Kjammer 07:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unless you want just one red link in List of BSA local councils and districts. Kappa 09:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a list of one. JamesBurns 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as a footnote on List of BSA local councils and districts. — RJH 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Lists of one are not lists! Delete it! --Scimitar 15:31, 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 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 deleted as recreation of deleted article. --W(t) 07:29, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Palestinian refugee: The biggest bluff of the 20th century 01

POV. --W(t) 07:01, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete -- POV rant. - Longhair | Talk 07:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wasn't this article deleted before? Speedy Delete —Kjammer 07:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Has been deleted multiple times at Palestinian refugee: The biggest bluff of the 20th century resulting in the page being protected. This was just a very poor attempt at getting around it. —Xezbeth 07:27, Jun 19, 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. Golbez 00:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ageless wisdom

Unencyclopedic discussion of ageless wisdom philosophy, delete--nixie 07:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nixie. — mark ✎ 15:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original reasearch. Pavel Vozenilek 21:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Cleduc 00:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:34, 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 Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)

Senior Cambridge

Dictdef. --W(t) 07:22, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. There is no such thing as Twelfth Grade in public schools let alone calling it Senior Cambridge. -- RHaworth 08:01, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete It may not be nonsense, since we don't know the full context. Of course, unless it is dramatically expanded, it is still worthy of deletion. Sonic Mew 09:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• A pathetic stub that mainly contains incidental information and not much about the topic itself. Weak Keep. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep. Senior Cambridge exams appear to be genuine[11]. Page needs more work, though. Pburka 14:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks Uncle G. Kappa 21:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable examinations. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Still very confusing, needs a lot of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete better to rewrite this from scratch. JamesBurns 06:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This sort of cavalier approach to embryonic articles is really not helpful. The vast majority of people are surely more likely to work on an existing article than to start a new one. Keep. CalJW 19:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A dicdef, three bits of trivia, and a whole mess of cited sources. If that many sources can't produce an article, then the subject probably doesn't need an article. --Carnildo 06:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It simply isn't a "dicdef". If all the articles that aren't satisfactory yet or easy to write in one go aren't needed, why do any of us bother? CalJW 19:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article appears to be progressing very well, thanks UncleG. Perhaps there should be a Merge of all the Cambridge exams to one article, leaving this, Junior Cambridge, and Preliminary Cambridge as redirects. I don't yet see the differentiation that would be expected for them to have separate articles, however, I clearly see the use of at least one article for all. Unfocused 04:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on current revision. Seems to just be an Indian/etc. equivalent to the SAT, and it's used in some major countries, so I'll call it notable. --Idont Havaname 23:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup Ugly, but keepworthy. The Literate Engineer 07:34, 25 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 No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Trolltalk

---

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.3.214 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING SOCKPUPPETS

Many sockpuppet comments and votes appear to be from trolls arguing for deletion.

66.177.*.* (Comcast subscriber in Florida)

• diff=15364544 - nom. to delete
• diff=15490141 - vote to delete

12.46.236.158 (Sheraton in Reading, PA)

• diff=17869119 - shows familiarity with Trolltalk
• diff=17863964 - vote to delete, posing as non-Trolltalker

4.[89,226,253].*.* (Level3 subscriber in Dallas)

• diff=15518776 - shows familiarity with Trolltalk
• diff=15448666 - shows familiarity with GNAA
• diff=15811428 - vote to delete, posing as non-Trolltalker

4.155.72.176 (Level3 subscriber in Baltimore; likely sockpuppet of Level3 subscriber in Dallas)

• diff=17888123 - vote to delete

There are more sockpuppets (including most, if not all, the anonymous "delete" votes), but these should be enough to demonstrate that if you voted to delete this article because "sockpuppets want to keep it," you have been trolled. (IHBT too, for spending the past hour digging through this page's history. Good work.)

Comment: Doesn't this pretty much nullify this vfd? I mean, if afcassidy was sockpuppeting his own self-righteous anti-trolltalk crusade, why should the vfd be allowed to stand? This kind of shit is exactly what makes Trolltalk notable, by the way.

---

What is the status of this vote?

This is the second VfD for this article, first was 27 April 2004 - 3 May 2004; no consensus was reached. See Talk:Trolltalk

"since the community is rather small and users rarely get mod points. Also, Slashdot's editors don't pay much attention to what goes on in 20721." -- Then why should an encylopedia? Delete Afcassidy 12:48, 17 June 2005

Votes to delete

• Delete, nn. --W(t) 07:26, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 07:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --pile0nades^{Talk | Contrib} 08:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why "obviously?" It's not obvious at all why you seem to want it deleted.
• Delete. If sock puppets want to keep it, then it should go. — P Ingerson (talk) 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—I've seen articles ten times more notable than this silliness that have been deleted. We need to stop having one standard for internet trivia and another standard for everything else. Everyking 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. — mark ✎ 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. silsor 19:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trollcruft, sockpuppet limit has been exceeded. RickK 20:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, what is it with you people?? The slashdot trolling phenomenon and associated articles make for some of the best, most entertaining/informative reading on Wikipedia. The trolltalk entry is part of that. Why all this deletionist mania?? What's to be gained by eliminating good articles just because some people you dislike have contributed to them? Babajobu 21:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is an encyclopedia, a forum for truth and accuracy. These "troll groups" support the very opposite of truth and accuracy. I am not aware of any encyclopedia of any merit that suspends integrity and allows the publication of lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff, just because those things can be "funny". The fact that something is "all in good fun" (a matter of opinion) does not excuse any indiscretion and make it automatically acceptable for every venue. There are many appropriate places for anarchistic comedy but a serious and fact-based encyclopedia is not one of them.
      • So the pages about frauds and impostors and terrorism should be removed too? Mind you, they don't contain any frauds or lies at all, nor does this article. Can you prove otherwise?
      • Comment: If you want an encyclopedia to be a "forum for truth and accuracy," you really should prevent people from anonymously making edits to it. Also, as I am sure you're aware, because of this open nature (not preventing anonymous edits to articles), Wikipedia is considered a bit of a joke when it comes to content that encyclopedias are traditionally consulted for. This is simply an attempt by whoever started this VfD to stifle and suppress a certain demographic. If we only have articles about Slashdot, CmdrTaco and the editors et al., we're showing a certain amount of bias toward that side of site. Like it or not, Trolling is definitely a huge part of the Slashdot culture.
    • With all due respect, you are absolutely missing the point and also, I think, compromising Wikipedia's mission. Of course we do not want Wikipedia to include "lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff". If the trolltalk entry contained LNVF I would support its deletion. But it most certainly does not. The article is NOT itself a troll. Rather, it describes the activities of trolls. This is a crucial difference, and, honestly, it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. It's the same difference between an article on al Qaeda, and a piece of al Qaeda propoganda. Wikipedia would obviously include the former, but exclude the latter. Would you argue for deleting the al Qaeda entry because "Wikipedia is not here to wage jihad"?? Babajobu 21:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While I think this article should go, I believe judging the merit of an article by whether or not sockpuppets vote to keep it is absurd, and such votes should not count. Everyking 21:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If an article's support comes almost entirely from sockpuppets, that's strong evidence that it's nothing by a vanity article created & maintained by the very people the article is about. Vanity articles can sometimes be hard to identify but the character & identities of the persons editing/supporting them can help to determine if an article's only purpose is self-promotion.
    • Yes. It might sound absurd in theory, but in practice any article that deserves to be kept on merit, won't attract sockpuppets because it doesn't need them. Only articles that "should go" will atrract socks supporting them, because they're the only ones that need them. It's a useful rule of thumb. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's a crap rule of thumb. With that as our standard, we would delete every article related to Islam, the Holocaust, Ukraine, Sino-Japanese relations, and god knows what else. Babajobu 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, but how often do serious articles about Islam, Sino-Japanese relations, etc. get nominated for VfD in the first place? And when they do, it's usually socks wanting them deleted for not supporting their POV. And then the corollary applies: If the sockpuppets want to delete an article, it deserves to be kept. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't realize the rule of thumb only applied when an article was already up for deletion. I thought it was a general way of determining which articles (in VfD stage or not) were worthy of deletion. Okay, so even in this more tightly circumscribed form, and even when we invoke the corollary you describe (in which sockpuppets are voting for deletion, thereby guiding us to "keep") we must still recognize the mutliple exceptions to both the corollary and the proper rule. For example, some articles go to VfD (new anti-semitism, for example) and have POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides. In these cases we must invoke an exception to the corollary of the circumscribed form of the rule. It is at this point that I think we should realize that we're better off trashing the rule altogether, and voting not based on a dubious rule-of-thumb regarding how other votes have been placed, but rather according to the merits of the article. Babajobu 23:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But this isn't a hypothetical situation with "POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides". Is it? — P Ingerson (talk) 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable forum. Martg76 21:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more notable articles have faced deletion than this thing. let it go. 12:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You say that like it's a good thing. Stop deleting notable articles. You do not own wikipedia, and are yourselves neither notable, nor especially good judges of notability.
    • You know that for sure? If sounds a lot like a Personal Attack on a lot of these voters to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • These are the same people who call non-sockpuppets sockpuppets. I voted to keep and was instantly mis-identified as a sock puppet by one of these crack investigators. Many voters seem to not have even read the trolltalk entry. They make false accusations about GNAA association, and persue vendettas against trolls in general which clouds this vote. Their judgement deeserves to be questioned.
      • (Unsigned Post by Bit trollent)
        • Comment Until this vendetta against trolls ends and Wikipedia regains their impartial nature, this site will continue to be considered a joke in the vast sea of reference material available on the Internet. For Wikipedia to gain notoriety, these vendettas have to end.
        • To quote WP:NPA "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." So frankly, that doesn't matter. There is never an excuse. Besides, if you are not a sockpuppet, your contributions prove you are a Meatpuppet. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Meatpuppet?! You have just made a personal attack! Rather than respond to what you said, I will just express my outrage at your personal attack. Do not do it! Do not read it! Delete it! --bit trollent
            • "Meatpuppet" is an accepted term in a Wikipedia policy. (WP:SOCK) If you object to it, I suggest you either try to change Wikipedia's Sock Puppet policy or else make some serious contributions. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot encyclopedia. May deserve a brief mention at Slashdot. Delete or redirect (and possibly merge). - Mike Rosoft 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, and being such it should contain articles on a wide variety of topics. Again, by deleting this, Wikipedia shows a bias toward the editors and "group think" mentality of Slashdot. While a large amount of Trolls have a destructive nature, many posters on Slashdot are classified as Trolls simply because they do not agree with the standard line of thinking agreed with by many of its regulars. Trolling is and shall most likely always be a large portion of the Slashdot culture, and deleting this article harms the impartiality of Wikipedia and punishes many because of the actions of a few.
• Merge and redirect with the main Slashdot article. Cleduc 00:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sockpuppet magnet. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, or merge in Slashdot. Tuf-Kat 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable forum. JamesBurns 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please do not feed the trolls. —Stormie 09:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain why the existence of this article is feeding the trolls. Is the article about Terrorism feeding the terrorists?
• Delete, sockpuppetry Proto 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IMO, NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sockpuppets burn in wikihell. --Scimitar 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is unprofessional and juvenile. Try to keep your comments at least somewhat mature. Is there a maturity policy here that would prevent users like this guy from expressing their somewhat tactless opinions?
    • Wikipedia is not my profession. Wikihell, furthermore does not exist, except as an abstract, ie. wikihell- the place where voters are whose votes are disregarded because they are examples of sockpuppetry. Additionally, I might point out that if you were offended by my comment, you admit to being a sockpuppet, as I said only sockpuppets burn in this fictional place. If you aren't one, it doesn't apply to you, does it? --Scimitar 22:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • By that logic, if I am offended by someone using a racial slur against a member of a minority group that I am automatically a member of that minority group. This is, of course, completely wrong. I appreciate you trying, though - it's interesting to see how many people are gullable and ignorant enough to fall into fallacy.
• Delete Unencyclopedic Barneygumble 21:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How does one troll for trolls? This article should be somewhere else, maybe in Slashdot Trolling Phenomena. --Mtrisk 08:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Splat. Ambi 14:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete': Disregard my earlier vote for keep. I have change my mind.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete': This article is stupid.216.145.253.226 03:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Above comment posted by anonymous user, probably a deletionist sockpuppet. Babajobu 03:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- Use of the word "deletionist" is quickly becoming the hallmark of a troll/meatpuppet. I've not seen any rational person ever use this word, just vandals and admitted troublemakers.
      • Comment -- Dear deletionist sockpuppet: welcome to Wikipedia! To get acquainted with the widely used wikiterm "deletionist," I suggest the following link: Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. There you will find people much like yourself who proudly announce their preference for mindlessly deleting good Wikipedia content. Enjoy! Babajobu 03:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to piss off the trolls, vandals, vote forgers, and sock puppets. And because this is a vanity article constructed entirely by and for [and based entirely on the unreliable word of] the aforementioned trolls, vandals, vote forgers, and sock puppets. 207.69.79.31 03:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That is quite a godly level of clairvoyance you have there. I might have a need of your super-power. Please contact me at, well, if you're as good as you claim to be then you already know how to contact me.
• Delete: Can anything in this article actually be verified? Do we really trust trolls to write an accurate article about themselves and their activities, especially when there's not any supporting evidence that any of this is true? And what about the "no original research" rule? I think Wikipedia's being trolled. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is a wankish autobiography of very questionable authenticity.12:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.36.194 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 Jun 2005
  • Can you prove any of your statements? This article doesn't seem to me like written by trolls, it even says " the discussion has degraded into dating tips, re-hashes of racist jokes and fanboy arguments.". Read the article again, please, it seems you haven't done it!
• Delete. Unverifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is "sockpuppet supported" a valid reason for deleting an article? I don't think so! BTW, what are the unverifiable parts in your opinion?
• Delete with Extreme Prejudice I went to the "discussion forum" in question. There was hardly anything there but mountains of incoherent robot-generated child porn stories apparantly pieced together (badly) by some Markov-chain script. Even worse, they were the most intelligent posts on the forum. The rest was mostly a bunch of mindless one-liners of kids hurling grade-school insults at each other, exercising their limited vocabularies of racial, ethnic, and sexual-orientation-based slurs; and bragging about "muh dick" while making grand pronouncements about the comparative inferiority of the genitals of their rivals. Lame, boring, stupid, and completely un-noteworthy. 4.89.254.192 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Learn how to spell OKAY? THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.201.102 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 Jun 2005
  • Comment - I don't really care about this article, its not noteworthy, etc. But why in the F*** does it matter if the group in question is childish, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc? Does this all of the sudden become the criteria whether an article should be placed on Wikipedia or not? In summary: I disagree with your opinion. Instead of saying "delete" on valid grounds such as non-noteworthyness, everytime an article like this or the GNAA one comes up, we have Wikihypocrites like you who apply a DIFFERENT set of standards to these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.204.182 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 Jun 2005
    • Comment What's even slightly noteworthy about an autobiography written by a bunch of overgrown schoolchildren about their "adventures" sitting in their parents' basements posting anonymous messages to an anonymous web forum (that hardly anybody knows even exists, or cares) trying to "pwn" the other 3-5 anonymous participants via anonymous exchanges of racial slurs and toilet humor?4.226.60.177 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article tries to make something non-notable notable. --Kiand 15:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Slashdot. —Theo (Talk) 16:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Deserves a minor section in slashdot article. illWill 21:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Radiant_>|< 20:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to cancel out the forged vote -- that was the most disgusting and cowardly act I have ever seen and I hope they (the Trolltalk crowd) lose the VfD because of it. 12.46.236.158 30 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• DeleteGeni 30 June 2005 02:09 (UTC)
• Delete, does not adequately describe the subject matter. 4.155.72.176 30 June 2005 11:34 (UTC)
  • According to official Wikipedia policy[12], "does not adequately describe the subject matter" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Bk0 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
    • Nothing in Wikipedia policy states that an individual vote for deletion has to state a valid reason in order to be counted. Many votes state no reason at all, nor or are they required to. Therefore YOU FAIL IT (you know damn well what it is).
• Delete because I have a vendetta against trolls -- in the sense that I think that should find someplace to troll other than Wikipedia. 66.155.212.26
• Delete Just another sock-puppet vote. Pay me no heed. Thanks. 193.77.153.149 1 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Votes to keep

• Keep. Trolltalk is rather known throughout the Slashdot community. Slashdot editors don't pay attention to anything, as any regular will tell you, by the number of duplicate stories and the occasional brokenness of the website, like the search feature. -- claviola (talk to me) 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other more influential and important online forums have had their articles deleted. TrollTalk is not noteworthy enough based on those standards. Afcassidy 2:55, 18 June 2005

Afcassidy, it's obvious that you have a vendetta against this topic for some reason and your motives should be questioned before this inquisition continues.

Proof or STFU, n00b.

• Keep, the trolltalk sid: a) is the oldest continuously used thread on Slashdot, b) has the highest post count of any thread on slashdot, despite regular purges, c) if it wasn't purged its post count would be astronomical, six figures or more, d) is the only "hidden", user-created thread left on slashdot, and as such is a historical curiousity if nothing else. Notable. --Bk0 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You have got to be kidding me. Someone goes to the trouble of creating an free encyclopedia and some clowns just see it as an opportunity to go around telling peope that their interests are not not notable. All this information on things I don't care about is driving me crazy! I must delete it! I'm not trying to troll here, but good lord. What is wrong with you people? Addendum 17:46, Jun19, 2005: I am not a sock puppit. I am a slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~bit%20trollent) with a normal if occasionally trollish posting history. I am not, nor is trolltalk affiliated with the GNAA. Get over yourselves. --bit trollent 17:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this vote was cast shortly after a "call to arms" was posted in the Trolltalk forum (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20721&cid=12856190) asking for help to derail the VfD - you can expect many sock-puppet accounts to be created over the new few days for purposes of voting "keep" on this article. Trolltalk is affiliated with the GNAA, which has used sock-puppets, spamming, and intimidation to survive four votes for deletion, bragging about "defeating Wikipedia" (http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia) after each one.
    • Comment -- There is no established connection between the GNAA and Trolltalk. I urge whoever posted this to keep arguments for deciding the fate of this article based in fact and reality and not about some mindless vendetta against the GNAA. Attempting to invoke the name of this troll group in an attempt at using the emotions of other Wikipedia readers against this article is not only unprofessional, it is out of line and clearly juvenile.
      • Comment -- The close affiliation between Trolltalk and the GNAA is obvious to anyone who is familiar with either of them and can be easily proven by searching the Trolltalk Archive for GNAA and taking a look at some of the results. Although the archives don't go back this far, many will recall that the GNAA was born on Trolltalk, and even though they now have off-site forums most Trolltalk people are still GNAA.
        • Comment -- Can you provide proof that most "Trolltalk people" are GNAA? If not, I suggest you attempt to keep your comments to facts next time, please. This is a serious matter and it's not right for you to lie in an attempt to keep your POV the dominate one.
• Comment: I post sometimes on Trolltalk and I resent these libelous accusations that we're all affiliated with the GNAA. Gimme a break. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Abortion 19 June 2005 Trolltalk is an informative article and not a troll. Why then, should it be deleted?
  • Comment -- New user, probable sock puppet.
• Keep I don't see any reason for it to not be there. MrVacBob 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. (See comments below) Babajobu 17:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Disregard this vote. I have changed my vote to delete (see above).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known and verifiable trolling phenomenon. Rhobite 21:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable part of internet/slashdot culture. Useful article, informative. --Timecop 11:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it has already survived a VfD, then I don't see why we're here in the first place. The maxim, "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" was not written to cover attempts to delete another's work. Almafeta 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment We are here because Afcassidy has some sort of vendetta against Trolltalk. More than likely, he will continue to attempt to delete this article until he succeeds. I think someone needs to possibly scrutinize his motives in this deletion attempt.
    • Comment This is a lie -- you've failed to produce any evidence that Afcassidy was even AWARE of the previous VfD, or that Afcassidy has any personal interest in the article or that any form of bias or vendetta exists. It seems to me to be a case of someone who sees an article that he/she feels shouldn't be there and takes the logical step. Please stop with the unsubstantiated allegations; you're just making the entire pro-Trolltalk crowd look foolish.
      • Comment I'm not a member of the "pro-Trolltalk" crowd; I am a member of the "pro-Impartiality" crowd. I was mistaken about the Afcassidy link. However, there is much more logical grounding in keeping the article than in deleting it. I could see deleting this article if it were somehow consuming a large portion of the Wiki's resources or if it were obscene in some way, but this article does neither. By deleting this article, you're showing that you're biased toward the entire "Slashbotism" thing that most trolls are against. In regard to failing to provide any evidence that bias exists, look throughout this page. Many accusations are made linking Trolltalk to GNAA. This is obviously not the case, yet I do not see you policing these edits as you have mine. That alone shows some bias (perhaps not much) on your part.
  • Comment The last VfD was over a year ago; many things can change in a year. Furthermore, last time around there weren't a lot of people who wanted to keep the article -- more supported deleting it and some others wanted to merge the information into other articles. But with the vote split like that, there was no clear consensus and thus, for the time being, nothing at all was done.
    • Comment Correct, and now there is a significant number of users who want to keep the article, and a lot of spirited debate around the VfD. That alone speaks in favor of keeping the article, since the only legitimate reason for deletion now would be a vendetta against the subject matter. If Trolltalk wasn't notable there wouldn't be half the number of votes and comments here. --Bk0 02:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree with that completely. There is clearly plenty of strong feeling on the part of genuine Wikipedians that we should keep the article. If the article is now deleted on the outrageous grounds that some Wikipedians dislike the people who the article describes, I am immediately going to nominate the articles on al Qaeda, George Bush, and Abba for VfD. I hate those guys. Babajobu 04:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sure that wasn't serious, but just in case, WP:POINT. I should point out that most delete votes have stated "Not Notable", not "I don't like it" as a reason. I would vote keep for Abba even though I hate 'em. I vote delete for troll-talk because they are not-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rgoer 14:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Rgoer has only 3 contributions possible sock/meatpuppet? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment just not a particularly active contributor to the wikipedia... my one article, a manual on the Q3Map2 bsp tool, was deleted and moved to wikibooks. I do, however, keep up with things and I think that deleting the trolltalk article is a silly notion. Guess that would be strong/speedy keep, but who cares what I think, right? Rgoer 14:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia is uniquely well-placed to cover. I'm a non-trollish though not very active Slashdottian with Excellent karma ( [13] ), and I found this article interesting and informative. betsythedevine 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why censor something with such rich history?

The preceding comment was posted by the anonymous IP 67.167.203.93.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 11:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Note This anonymous vote from 67.167.203.93 is one of three anonymous "Keep" votes from the 67.* network.

Wasn't logged in... sorry HackJandy

Note: HackJandy has only six contributions

Get over yourself already you moron. Go outside and have some social interaction instead of being a whiny internet nazi. Nobody's going to be impressed by your wikipedia penis length.

No personal attacks --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note: you can increase the number of your own contributions by diligently pointing out how many contributions others in the discussion have made. Seriously, all this self-righteous paranoia about sockpuppetry is a little silly... it's obvious when votes are cast by sockpuppets (at least, it seems obvious to me), and more than a few of said sockpuppet votes seem to have been cast in favor of deletion. So let's just quit with all the witch-hunting and make with the actual discussion about the validity of the Trolltalk article--which I say is not as non-notable as some would have you believe. Rgoer 06:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • The 67.* and 68.* networks are HUGE. They include a good portion of the residential cable subscribers in America (Comcast, Time Warner/RoadRunner...) And by tracerouting the "anonymous" Keep votes (what's anonymous about them, anyway?) you'll discover we're not anywhere near each other geographically. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
• Keep Is informative. --Mateusc 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable forum with rich history, most of which is preserved only in this article. The arguments on this VFD about trolltalk and alleged connections and history would not even be possible anywhere without this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.105.30 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 Jun 2005
• Keep I showed my friend the trolltalk article and he was fascinated with the forum's history how utterly bizzare it. He, like I can't understand why someone would want to pull this information from wikipedia. Isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to aid research? How does deleting factual, non-POV articles (however much you dislike the subject) aid research?67.187.107.207 20:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note This anonymous vote from 67.187.107.207 is one of three anonymous "Keep" votes from the 67.* network.
    • lol The 67.* network?! start->accessories->command prompt. "tracert 67.187.107.207". Then try it with the other ip adresses to confirm two use comcast, though in different cities with different routes and one doesn't even use comcast. 67.* network. amazing. 67.187.107.207 28 June 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  • Comment What about this article is factual? What about this article is non-POV? Nothing on either count that I can see. It's a completely unverifiable autobiography by one of the most biased and least trustworthy sources imaginable. Anyone who'd use this article in any sort of "research" is quite mad.4.89.240.113 04:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's clear that you have some vendetta against people you perceive as 'trolls', as you are responsible for the lion's share of Trolltalk demonizing on this VfD (under various similar dynamic IPs). That's your right, but it's disingenuous to try and spin it as some sort of objective interpretation of Wikipedia policy, as it concerns your POV and nothing else. --Bk0 04:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, really? It's informative about a topic! Better delete the KKK page too because that group is 'worthless' in your eyes too, right?
  • Note This anonymous vote from 67.149.69.233 is one of three anonymous "Keep" votes from the 67.* network.
  • The 67.* network is gigantic. As I and another contributor have pointed out above, a simple traceroute of the IPs in question demonstrates they're not related except that they're all cable subscribers in North America. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
  • The KKK is way more notable than these guys. I don't know how many times I've said this: It's not about because a dislike of TrollTalk. It's because TrollTalk isn't notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • The KKK article: 1. Was not written entirely by KKK members. 2. Contains information that can be verified by non-KKK-members. 3. Isn't being championed & defended by KKK sockpuppets. If, on the other hand, the KKK article WERE written entirely by the KKK, presenting their own highly distored version of their official "history" (i.e. how they valiantly and unselfishly saved the innocent women & children of the south from being raped and murdered by rampaging gangs of violent negroes after the civil war), and no REAL information on their history was available because nobody but themselves gave a shit about them, then I'm sure their vanity Wikipedia article would wind up deleted.4.89.246.65 13:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, mister deletionist sockpuppet cum anonymous voter, Have you even read the article? It's by no means an autobiographical fanboy hagiography of trolltalk. It is, rather, an excellent description of the forum, and includes unflattering info about how the moderation system has successfully limited the trolls' effectiveness. You're either a very poor reader, or you are intentionally misrepresenting the article because you have a personal distaste for the subject matter. And JiFish, as I think I've already demonstrated above, there are loads of far less notable articles than trolltalk on Wikipedia. The difference is that people dislike the subject matter of this article, and this is what is driving this VfD. Sorry, but that's just reality. On these grounds, the KKK or al Qaeda articles are just as fair game for deletion as trolltalk.Babajobu 15:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative article about a place with a rich history and unique place in internet culture. Yet another case of reactionary delete attempts by people with vendettas against so-called trolls. People and places with negative social agendas are just as deserving of coverage as anyone else. --Rankler 14:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:37 (UTC) (not a sockpuppet—look at my contributions, I've been on this IP for at least the past month—and incidentally, isn't it strange that IP contributors are branded "anonymous" when it's actuallyi easier to keep track of us than to keep track of people hiding their IPs behind "non-anonymous" usernames, which can be changed at whim?)
  • That's wierd, because your contributions page says you have only used that IP on three days. --JiFish

(Talk/Contrib) June 30, 2005 00:28 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I've edited on three separate occasions over the past month, starting on the 28th of May. It's a dynamic IP that hasn't changed for at least that long. Is that weird? I'm not sure what you're suggesting--I really hope you don't think I'm pathetic enough to engage in sockpuppetry by visiting other people's apartments or workplaces and using their IPs or proxies or something like that. You think I care enough to do that? Honestly. If you guys think deleting a verifiably factual article is going to save Wikipedia from collapsing under the weight of its countless errors, omissions, biases, password leaks, libelous statements, pointless flamefests, and boneheadedly idealistic administrative decisions... well, that's your prerogative. I'm just a guy with a vote. 68.173.44.202 30 June 2005 01:35 (UTC)
      • Nice trolling, very convincing ... not. Can you verify any of the facts in the Trolltalk article? It's a big Adequacy-style meta-wank that nobody should believe. I thought autobiographies weren't acceptable as encyclopedia entries?
        • Every statement on that page is verifable by spending ten seconds with Google. Can you point out anything that isn't, either directly or by extrapolation from elsewhere on the internet? And bringing up Adequacy?! I think you must be the guy who's crapflooding the forum right now, am I right? 68.173.44.202 30 June 2005 01:53 (UTC)
          • Proof or STFU, n00b. 12.46.236.158 30 June 2005 02:28 (UTC)
• Keep: Informative article about another aspect of the slashdot trolling phenomenon/subculture. As I see it, if this is deleted, then Slashdot trolling phenomena should be deleted too. How are the two articles so different? I didn't know about trolltalk on Slashdot and found it amusing and informative. --Costyn June 30, 2005 09:27 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this article interesting and informative. -- Beland 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
• Keep. ""since the community is rather small and users rarely get mod points. Also, Slashdot's editors don't pay much attention to what goes on in 20721." -- Then why should an encylopedia?" - OK, so imagine a small terrorist organization to which their country doesn't give a fart about. Is that enough reason to say that it isn't an important part of that country? Many users there know. This is an interesting and amusing article, and MANY of the votes to delete seem to be heavily biased against trolls (so go and delete the Bin Laden or Nazi Party articles too!!!), and the others seem just to ignore what Trolltalk and Slashdot really is. 195.23.71.154 23:26, 3 Jul 2005 (GMT)

Comments not connected to votes

• Comment Oops, sorry. My penis isn't small enough to contribute to this discussion. I should like to point out however that you are all being trolled by the nominator, who also posted the comment on trolltalk about this vfd, keeps vandalising this page through anon proxies and vehemently replies to all keep votes with his typical "blah blah wikipedia is what I think it should be" bullshit. GJ.

Unsigned comment from 206.51.237.44 (talk · contribs), the fourth edit from that IP address.

• Del... I mean, keep, or er, comment, I guess, since I'm inevitably going to be accused to be a GNAA sock-puppet. I think you're all a bunch of retards. All of you who take this internet crap seriously. Honestly, what the hell? Go out to a club, get some woman drunk and have sex already. Trust me, you'll feel much better after you dip your shlong into a female creature for the first time, and suddenly, you won't care anymore if there's an article about trolltalk on your crappy internet encyclopaedia (which I've subtly vandalized in several ways btw, just for fun). Uh oh, but what have I just done? This comment is against wikipedia guidelines! Quick, someone nominate it on Comments for Deletion! Hahaha. Jesus. -- Who The Fuck Cares 00:01, 1 Jan 1970
  • Comment -- votes from anonymous users are not counted, also, everyone should be made aware that the term "female creature" is taken directly from the movie with a very offensive title (which I won't repeat here) which the GNAA is based around. The heroes of that movie have never encountered women before, and when one of them does encounter one, they all make a big show out of shouting "female creatures!" in shock and alarm.
  • Comment -- Why should we be aware of that? I can't see why anyone should care. MrVacBob 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- It is evidence that Trolltalk is part of (or at least strongly aligned with) the GNAA, a group that has abused Wikipedia quite extensively and gone to great measures to keep its vanity articles up and that has publically announced itself as an enemy of Wikipedia.
      • Comment -- There is no evidence that trolltalk has anything to do with GNAA, other than the fact that they both troll slashdot. By all accounts GNAA hardly uses trolltalk at all, other than crapflooding it when a GNAA member is insulted. Stop with the paranoid generalizations. --Bk0 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment -- Trolltalk/GNAA connection. Please review these two-thousand three-hundred sixty-eight comments and let me know what conclusions you draw from them.
          • Comment A counterexample to invalidate your point: the KKK talks chiefly about blacks, but they aren't affiliated with them. Thanks for playing though.
          • Comment -- Congratulations on demonstrating that GNAA members post on trolltalk. It is a PUBLIC forum, genius. Anybody can post there. By your logic, the dozens of forums that have been vandalized by the GNAA are also affiliated with the GNAA. Search slashdot for GNAA and you will find similar results. But that's not what this is really about is it? You people have a vendetta against trolls. Stop deleting perfectly accurate, valid and valuble information just because you hate trolls.
• Comment This is the second attempt by Afcassidy to delete this article. I suggest that he has a bias in this regard and his integrity and motives should be questioned and taken into account before you vote.
  • Comment This is incorrect; the previous VfD was not by Afcassidy. For some reason the info about previous VfD (2004) on the Trolltalk talk page included the text of this VfD (2005) by mistake.
• Keep In retrospect, I believe that the trolltalk article should be kept. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Afcassidy 12:48, 17 June 2005
  • WARNING -- This is a fake vote not cast by Afcassidy but by the anonymous vandal 66.82.9.80 who has vandalized this page several times. Please check all votes carefully to make sure they were actually added by the person "signing" them and not forged by the anonymous vandal, who will probably continue this foolishness. Proof of vandalism.
• Comment Keep it real now y'all
  • Vote by anon user 66.82.9.80 Celestianpower 17:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Congratz to whoever just deleted a string of legitimate comments, both Keep and Delete. Here was mine: Obviously no one who believes in Wikipedia believes, as Paul M claims to, that Wikipedia should include articles on anything and everything. But it really is starting to feel like Wikipedia is being taken over by people who think the project should only include articles on topics like Frederick the Great and China and Atomic theory, because these are the types of articles contained in dinosaur, Gutenberg, pre-internet encyclopedias like Brittanica. Like the hidebound architects in Ayn Rand stories who use fabulous new materials in the same tired way they used older, weaker materials. Grow an imagination, you deletionist fanatics!! Babajobu 21:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, My ISP, Comcast has a dynamic IP system. Just because we share the same IP doesn't mean we are the same person. Wikipedia is pretty popular you know. You've grown so paranoid with vandalism you've lost your ways Wikipedia. Anyway my comment was not to keep everything. But to keep things that are useful. And indeed trolltalk is a useful article that contains information on a well-known subculture. Also I'd like to add I'm a long time slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~Stalyn) - Paul M.
  • The deltionist tendencies of Wikipedia as a whole can be clearly seen from the consensus decisions to: a) keep every single school, regardless of notability, because some people like them, and b) keep pokemon, digimon, and whatever other irrelevant fancruft may be out there. So, although I am a deletionist, Wikipedia as a whole is, perhaps, not so hide-bound as is claimed.--Scimitar 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah let's delete trolltalk but keep your entry on Sean Brown.. who sucks and doesn't even play in the NHL anymore. Are you related to him or something? - Paul M.
• Comment How can you have a category Internet Trolls (which Wikipedia has) and exclude Trolltalk from it? Trolltalk is a place where trolls converse, thus being a part of this category. I don't see anyone trying to delete Meow_Wars, which is most definitely not as notable as Trolltalk.
  • Comment Trolltalk has next to nothing to do with trolling, it's just one of millions of no-topic social discussion boards out there, with the major difference that it's even smaller, more obscure, harder to find, and of even less consequence than the majority of the aforementioned millions. And if you think the "Meow Wars" entry should be deleted you're free to register an account & nominate it for VfD (I think anonymous VfD nominations don't count).
    • Comment. And when Meow Wars was nominated for VfD we didn't have various Meowers and their socks trying to disrupt the vote. I think that's one reason why it survived. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment You're part of the reason why Wikipedia has problems. This deletionist frame of mind isn't helping anyone. Again, the article survived a VfD before, so why are we even here? I predict that if the VfD fails this time, someone will just attempt one again and will keep trying to delete this article until they succeed.

• New Sockpuppet Alert -- Trolltalk is rallying its supporters again to come to Wikipedia to derail the VfD.
• (This comment was added by 4.253.45.144, then deleted by 66.82.9.11) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • How do we know you didn't post that or the first one to make it look like the keep votes are sockpuppets? also 1) I don't think many trolltalk posters care enough to come here and subvert the voting process 2) trolltalk posters are not a group with common interests beyond trolling, it's likely that they would come here and post anti-trolltalk comments in order to "troll" the poster of the rallying call.
• Comment ATTN deletionist vandals:

from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion)

Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. Again, the votes are not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.

Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.105.30 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 Jun 2005

• Question: as I look around Wikipedia and see a vast number of articles that are infinitely less notable than trolltalk, it strikes me as patently absurd that many of the delete votes claim "non-notable" as their justification. It leads me to wonder: does Wikipedia have any suggested criteria/guidelines for determining whether an article is notable or not? Otherwise people are free to vote "delete" for selfish, prejudicial reasons (e.g., "I hate trolls!" or "I hate Abba" or whatever) and then claim "non-notable". Babajobu 19:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you can find a page less notable than trolltalk, please put a VFD on it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? A person could work a 40-hour week for a year and not ferret out all the Wikipedia articles less notable than trolltalk. For the first five, how about fnord, or Daniel A. Grout, or Penis panic, or Zzyzx Road, or pompatus? Since Wikipedia by its very nature has the ability to be wonderfully capacious in its subject matter, I think all those articles should be kept. But if we'd prefer a boringly traditional encyclopedia that only covers topics likely to be found in Brittanica or whatever, and if we are going to delete anything as or less notable then trolltalk, then we have A LOT of deleting to do. Babajobu 01:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I am not kidding. Firstly, I don't consider Penis panic, a condition documented by the World Health Organisation, less notable than a thread on Slashdot. I'd vote delete on Pompatus. I'd need to take a closer look at the others. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, Penis Panic is not recognized by the WHO. Koro is recognized by the WHO. Penis panic is a slang term apparently describing a number of phenomena, one of which is koro. Face it: trolltalk is more notable than a good few thousand other Wikiarticles. You just don't like the subject matter. Babajobu 21:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Fine, put a VFD on Penis Panic and i'll vote to delete it and re-direct to Koro. I'm not voting delete because I don't like trolls, I am voting delete because a thread on a forum isn't notable.--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't a referendum on "Do trolls behave appropriately in Wikipedia?" The issue here should be purely whether or not the article "Trolltalk" should be deleted--and whether Wikipedia would be diminished by removing it. I think Wikipedia is uniquely well-placed to cover topics of great interest to small groups, because those topics will also interest people who want to learn more about such groups, Pokemonians, Plushies ... or even trolls. The non-notability criterion makes sense for deleting pieces about someone's high school band--it is destructive when it gets used to try to remove articles of real interest to many people (even trolls). betsythedevine 04:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Betsy, you are of course absolutely right. This VfD is the most disturbing thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia: a strong push to delete high-quality Wikipedia content because some Wikipedians personally dislike those who are described in the article. Even more disturbing, the "delete" crowd includes an administrator (Jayjg), who should really know better. I'm so disappointed in Wikipedia. I didn't think it was so easily compromised by prejudice and whim. Babajobu 20:55, 25 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 08:31 (UTC)

Scott Community College

No evidence of notability, or any content at all apart from it's location. --W(t) 07:41, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded and notability proven.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia has dozens of articles on high schools that are of less importance. Higher education institutions as a rule should be retained. Article is also appropriately marked as an education stub to facilitate future development into a full article. Rangerdude 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand', there are lots of articles on colleges, this is just one more. RickK 20:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, valid stub. Kappa 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - community colleges, like all colleges, are inherently notable. -- Jonel | Speak 22:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Expand I agree community colleges are quite valid. --Etacar11 01:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The general concensus is tertiary institutions are notable. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded. I'm sorry, I simply don't think that the fact that it's an institution of higher learning makes it notable -- at least give me some famous alumni or a historical happening related to the place. Haikupoet 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably not really notable, but notable enough – there is a long-standing consensus that institutions of tertiary education are inherently notable, and starting now to make distinctions between those that are and those that aren't will open a rather disgusting can of worms. Uppland 05:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 12:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 14:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable CC. Klonimus 04:52, 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 since there is no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)

H-World

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 07:59, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Well it does have a bit of a presence on rec.games.roguelike.development, but if no one thinks it is notable enough then go ahead and delete it. By the way it was also linked by the Lua programming language article, if it is relevant. -- EmperorBMA|話す 08:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep, linked from 2 articles --MarSch 16:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep one of the few roguelike engines.  Grue  14:27, 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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:39 (UTC)

Undisclosed location

Tagged for a speedy but not a candidate. Unsure of whether this term is notable enough for inclusion, or if the content of the article is true. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. I'd agree that this is not a speedy, though. Radiant_>|< 10:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. What was the undisclosed location anyway? Kappa 12:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If we knew that it wouldn't be "undisclosed". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dic def. --nixie 12:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This article as written is rubbish. "undisclosed location" is a widespread and common expression for, unsurprisingly, a location that is undisclosed. It has been around for years, and was not (as this article implies) coined to describe the situation of Dick Cheney. (A conference was held at an undisclosed location in 1996, for example, 5 years before Dick Cheney ever was. In Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F. 2d 1114 (CADC 1986) a prisoner was held at an undisclosed location. Li Wenming was held at an undisclosed location in 1994.) The fact that Dick Cheney was held in an undisclosed location is, of course, already mentioned in his own article. I cannot see anything beyond the tautology "an undisclosed location is a location that is undisclosed" for this article, given that that is the only thing that can be known about such locations. Delete. Uncle G 13:14, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • I think the article is about "undisclosed location" as a catch phrase, and not as an expression. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uncle G. — P Ingerson (talk) 13:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. I've heard the undisclosed location was Mandalay Bay. Pburka 14:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the term "undisclosed location" has been widely parodied and has, in this country, recently become synonymous with Cheney. The Onion even did an article centered on it. While I agree with some of Uncle G's comments, I think much of this can be salvaged and turned into a decent article. No vote yet, but leanign towards keep. Also, I thought I reclled hearing on some news report that his undisclosed location was revealed and was an air force base somewhere (I forget which one). -R. fiend 15:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense, not encyclopedic. RickK 20:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've added to the article a bit, including mentioning what the undisclosed location was reported to have been (though I haven't confirmed this 100%). It could use more of an opening (certainly other exmaples could be used, the Witness Protection Program perhaps?), but I'm going to go ahead and give an official keep and expand vote now. -R. fiend 20:46, 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 as neologism.

Scientician

An intelligently written article about politically corrupted/convenient scientists; I don't take issue with what it says. The main trouble is that this is a neologism -- as the author admits. For a neologism, it seems at first to do fairly well at Google, with over five hundred hits. However, it's clear that many of these hits are for a nonce-word welding "scientist" and "mathematician" or other whimsical applications. A search for "scientician" plus "ethical" gets a mere 41 hits.

The term does seem to be useful, for, say, that rare kind of biologist whose opinions are conveniently compatible with those of the Bush administration and its plutocrat paymasters. But the term barely exists. So hang on until "scientician" with this meaning gets at least five thousand hits; if/when that happens, reconsider.

(Incidentally, scientists who are convenient for or corrupted by governments seem to me to be no different to those who are convenient for or corrupted by tobacco interests, etc., even when those interests lack government support. But I digress.) -- Hoary 08:12, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) [Wording slightly tweaked 08:28, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)]

• I'd googled too, but hadn't looked further than the fact that the word was reasonably common. Good job on the further checking, delete. --W(t) 08:15, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • I've first heard this word in a Simpsons episode. Can it be verified to have originated there? If so then merge to List of made-up words in The Simpsons. Radiant_>|< 10:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Like Radiant, I remember this from on old episode of the Simpsons (the one where Lisa becomes a vegetarian, if memory serves) and I certainly got the idea they made it up. If that is true, then redirect, as per Radiant. -R. fiend 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Interesting read, though. — mark ✎ 15:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the aforementioned Simpons article. Celestianpower 16:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• rewrite by Hoary --MarSch 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, you rang? What, why, how? -- Hoary 01:49, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • I think your nomination text clearly explains the different meanings this neologism can have and I think that it would make a good stub. Since you have already researched this I thought that it would be easy for you to do the rewrite. You can almost copy the nomination. :) --MarSch 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah. But precisely because I find this to be a neologism (or a set of homophonous neologisms), I don't think it is (they are) worthy of an article.-- Hoary 14:16, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep if further verified - use in academia, media etc? Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't place to invent new words. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because the article presents a logical neck-snapper - scienticians are bending their views in favor of the government, and this is illegal in most countries? Quickie civics lesson: the government makes the laws. -- BD2412 ^talk 10:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • but it isn't above the law --MarSch 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wha? No neck-snapper here...governments break their own laws (or more often, laws made by earlier administrations) ALL THE TIME. Lance
• Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Slocombe

Vanity page Delete IHateSquirrels 08:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 15:55, 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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Leslie Whittington

She died in 9/11, but otherwise she's only known for being an associate professor opposed to marriage tax. Radiant_>|< 08:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete this and other 4 similar pages listed bellow. Wikipedia isn't memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 21:10, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Zelmanowitz

An orthodox programmer. He died in 9/11, allegedly because he stayed behind to comfort a friend rather than escape, which is speculated to be heroic. His motivations, however, are not verifiable, and the fact that he died does not make him de facto notable. Radiant_>|< 08:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly famous, and his motivations are, in fact, known. He called his sister-in-law and told her he was staying behind with his wheelchair bound friend because his friend couldn't get out. Here's just one of many stories on him: [14] Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He was notable enough to be commended publicly by a world leader. We keep articles on every mundane athlete, surely we can keep a well-publicized and known hero of a world famous tragedy. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Tomer ^TALK 22:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Satanicbowlerhat 22:28, 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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Speisman

Died in 9/11, but otherwise only known for being an exec and board member in diamond manufacturing. Radiant_>|< 08:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn Proto 10:12, 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. Golbez 00:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Thomas Suhr

Died in 9/11, but otherwise only known for being a firefighter. Radiant_>|< 08:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 06:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto 10:12, 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. Golbez 00:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rescue workers in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks

Not a bad idea, but it's a fork of Rescue_and_recovery_effort_after_the_September_11,_2001_attacks. Radiant_>|< 08:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fork. — mark ✎ 15:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate fork. JamesBurns 06:39, 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. Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Timeline for missing persons following the September 11, 2001 Attacks

This is a bunch of statictics, listing how many people were missing, dead or recovered for each day. When the attacks were current affairs, I'm sure that would have been useful somewhere. Now it's just outdated statistics. Also, whomever was missing at the time is quite likely dead by now. Radiant_>|< 08:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Some relevent information from this article can be culled and incorporated into the existing 9/11 article. It's unecessary and confusing as a stand-alone article. Fernando Rizo 21:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant fork. JamesBurns 06:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the September 11 Wikipedia Project at sep11:Main Page. It's not that we want to forget those that we have lost, but it's that there needs to be a proper place for it. Almafeta 23:48, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences

Raises the term 'speculation' to a new level of triviality... "Lincoln married Mary Todd ... She was 23 years 326 days old." "Both VPs have 6 letters in their first names and 7 in their last." etc. This reminds me of the Conspiracy Theory (movie). Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. EXTREMELY non-encyclopaedic. And probably original research. Sarg 13:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: How is it original research when the source is given in the article? Sonic Mew 13:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • The source is snopes.com, which isn't an entirely reliable source. Why couldn't original research come from an outside source? I don't know, I'm a bit skeptical about anything taking Snopes as a source. Sarg 15:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a very notable topic that has been a matter of discussion for many years. There have been documentaries devoted to it. It's not original research. 23skidoo 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and trivial. Merge whatever info might be redeemable into John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln. — mark ✎ 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo Sonic Mew 19:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 20:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this kind of thing is one of wikipedia's strengths. Kappa 22:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable "garbage" theory, should be maintained here for the purposes of debunking. Xoloz 04:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hold my nose and vote Keep. It's refried trivia, but it's been refried so many times that it's notable in and of itself, whether or not it's all true. The article at least casts a critical eye on it, which is more than you can say about someone who's just forwarded it to you four times in the last three months. Haikupoet 04:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Amen to the last sentence. As for me, keep because it does say it is a myth and (some) criticism - Skysmith 09:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with the points mentioned above. --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... some folks make whole careers on this... -- BD2412 ^talk 10:02, 2005 Jun 24 (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 merge with other articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Five out of the nine votes call for some kind of merge, with the vote count breaking down as follows:

• 3 votes for straight deletion - the nominator, Radiant, as well as JamesBurns and zen master, (2 additional delete votes discounted; 1 is an anon IP's only edit; the other is a new user's 2d edit)
• 2 merge and delete variants - Goferwiki and Project2501a
• 1 straight keep vote - Ted-m (discounting keep vote from anon IP)
• 2 keep or merge votes - Khym Chanur and csloat
• 1 straight merge vote - cesarb

-- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks

We already have three articles about conspiracy theories relating to 9/11, and this additional one about mere rumors is extremely unencyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 08:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Condense this and all other conspiracy articles on 9-11 into one large meta-article, then delete this one. I like the organization of this article though. Goferwiki 14:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Where are the other articles on this topic? List them and let's get to work on condensing. I agree it should all be one article but we don't want to delete information that is not duplicated elsewhere. --csloat 21:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be here: Category:9/11 rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories. Radiant_>|< 21:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, merge all rumor and conspiracy articles together. --cesarb 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a rumour mill, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic and POV. Merge potential may be limited... zen master T 09:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything salvageworthy. 140.247.60.234 00:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

140.247.60.234 (talk · contribs)'s Only edit. func(talk) 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

• Delete. The coverage of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda are not factual.

HaroldHutchison (talk · contribs)'s 2nd edit. func(talk) 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. while allegations are not factual, This is a list of RUMORS which play an important role in culture. Most of the rumors are debunked after their listing. Some should be edited to NPOV though. Nostradamus rumor recieved wide media coverage and rebuttal and is therefore encyclopedic. --Ted-m 30 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. I agree with Ted-m: even though the rumors are false, the existence of the rumors are encyclopedic because lots of people believe them.

Unsigned by Khym Chanur (talk · contribs) func(talk) 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

• Keep. Also agree with Ted-m.

81.83.249.226 (talk · contribs)'s 3rd edit. func(talk) 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

• Keep or merge; see my comments above --csloat 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
• Merge, delete. Structure of article is INDEED very good :) Project2501a 8 July 2005 00:32 (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. Golbez 00:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Timothy Malseed

Vanity Page Cavrdg 09:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete He is "an all round cheeky chap...loved by both factions of the community, who know him as the local loveable rogue...His friends Katie and Andrew, he says, are the coolest people he's ever met." That's all very nice, but not enough to warrent an article. 2 Google hits, both irrelevant to the article. Sonic Mew 09:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity. Also, keep an eye on the photos... Sarg 13:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: How unfortunate life must be for those depicted...-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, oh my. Cleduc 00:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete teenage vanity. Pic of self on non-user page automatically = delete. --Etacar11 01:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete the page; It was made for me, Timothy Malseed, for my birthday around the 25th of May 2005. The page does not offend anyone and was just a present for me. I would be most disappointed if the page was taken offline due to the opinion of others.

• Wikipedia is not the place for birthday presents. It isn't "the opinion of others" what counts here, but WP:VANITY. I'm sorry that you are dissapointed, but there really seems to be no reason why you should have an article. Sarg 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

• This is factual information with regards to Timothy Malseed based on *"the opinion of others."I see no reason why this page differs from any other on this fine database of information, after all, more people probably know of and relate to Timothy Malseed than to some of the entries listed.
• Delete vanity. --mtz206 03:32, Jun 21, 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.

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 speedy delete. Gamaliel 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mark Cope

Obvious Vanity, an eighteen year-old nerd who lives with his parents, and drinks beer can hardly count as claim to fame —Kjammer 09:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Despite the VFD notice, the annon keeps adding useless tidbits to the article. —Kjammer 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• *Delete: This individual seems somewhat... Familiar o_o . Practical Joke, definatly. Markusdragon 10:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) The article is about me, and most certainly not vanity; I'd never write anything like that. It's a friend of mine trying to annoy me into writing a page about him (I'd never do such a thing; I'm too rules-concious.) That friend has since been moaned at, and had his sig changed on the message boards I run. So, yeah Speedy Delete. Don't judge him by his immature actions here... Wait, DO judge him by his immature actions here, he needs some sense slapping into him -_-. Markusdragon 22:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Vanity doesn't neccessarily imply that the article was written by the person mentioned in the article. You should moan at him a bit more ;) Sarg 22:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and non-notable. Sarg 13:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• can we _please_ speedy this nonsense --MarSch 17:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. -Splash 17:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete not notable, vanity. Cleduc 00:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 01:46, 20 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.

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 keep (by a vote of 8 to 5, counting the nomination as a vote to delete). -- BD2412 ^talk July 4, 2005 00:54 (UTC)

Pokémon Regions

I am a fan of Pokémon, so this is not a spiteful nomination. This article is about the four regions in the Pokémon world, but all four of them have their own page. They are even linked to in this article. I was originally going to tidy this article up (present it in a more encyclopaedic way), but I do not think this article can give any more information than the separate articles on each region.

However, I hope that any votes to delete are because of the reasons above, and not just because it is a Pokémon article. --Daniel Lawrence 10:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "That was my first WikiPedia page. Was it good? ^^;" It was good, thoughDaniel Lawrence makes some good points. It basically lists the Gym Leader, gives examples of Pokémon, and then lists the legendaries and pseudo-legendary, (which is not a term I commonly see used.) While this doesn't seem to be covered in the main region articles, it argueably isn't needed, and if it is it can be inserted into the articles for the seperate regions. Sonic Mew 10:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rewrite per Sarg Sonic Mew 14:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As the number of regions is only likely to increase, it's a good idea to have an article describing them and their differences. Since the bulk of the information belongs on each region's individual page, this should be kept like a small annotated list, much like it is now. My advice, however, is to have it list the games (or whatever) where each region appears. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but ellaborate. For example, it would be nice to have an explanation about why there are regions, how they are connected, etc. I have neer been a fan of Pokémon and I had no idea that there were "regions". Sarg 13:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly important to coverage of pokégeography. Kappa 13:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I've tryed to do a bit of cleaning up. Not included the extra info. Celestianpower 14:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's already looking better. Sonic Mew 14:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • How's that for a better introduction? Celestianpower 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand in my opinion Celestianpower 14:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'd rather merge separate region articles into this one. — mark ✎ 16:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would mean the 3 tables and 3 pictures all coming here. That seems nonsensical to me. Celestianpower 16:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The seperate region articles definately deserve their own articles. Sonic Mew 18:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, subtrivial fancruft. Martg76 21:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Had you read this vfd, you would have seen that we are planning on improving it. Sonic Mew 15:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please avoid personal attacks. I did read the vfd, and this is still not encyclopedia material. Martg76 22:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That wasn't a personal attack. That was an observation, since 'cruft' is not a deletion criteria, and it won't remain subtrivial. The seperate regions get their own articles, anyway, so this is suitable material. Sonic Mew 14:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's extremely specific information about just another computer game, but of no relevance to anyone outside the particular game's community. I.e. it's fancruft and not encyclopedic. Martg76 22:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - at the very least, this should be kept as a page linking to the four different regions (as redirects can only have one target). The additional information looks good, though. -- Jonel | Speak 22:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. JamesBurns 06:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Make it into a briefer list, but there's no reason to delete. Almafeta 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Cruft' is not a deletion criteria Sonic Mew June 30, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

How many times do we have to say? --Celestianpower 30 June 2005 21:54 (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 ambiguous.

I count 8 "delete" votes, 2 "merge"s and 1 "keep". However, I find some of the delete votes to be at odds with our policy and practice of preserving all edit history. Since this content was used to create at least one other article (and I believe contributed to more), I am going to exercise my discretion and keep this as a redirect. Yes, there are other ways to preserve GFDL but with the confused history of this discussion, this is the easiest. Rossami (talk) 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Woman/1911 Britannica

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-04. The result of the discussion was "move to a sub-page of Woman". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Woman in 1911 Brittanica.

Fork of Woman. Radiant_>|< 10:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not appropriate for a {{CURRENTYEAR}} encyclopedia. Wikisource maybe??. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikisource:Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica for another editor's view. Uncle G 14:46, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete, I was the original nominator, and I still don't see why we want to keep Brittanicacruft which nobody can be bothered to make meaningful and update. RickK 20:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki then Delete - I see absolutely no reason why we would want to keep this when we have a much better article ourselves. If anyone sees anything useful in this and wants to put it into our article, that's fine, but they've had long enough to do it and this ugly subpage should be deleted. -- Jonel | Speak 23:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote modified to include transwikification, after seeing that Wikisource does not have this. Jonel | Speak 20:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You might want to modify your vote back. As Edeans noted in the original VFD discussion, this is less than half of the actual "WOMEN" article in 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. (Estimation by scrollbar indicates that it is merely the final 2/5ths.) The presence of the same OCR artifacts (such as "M dkln" in the second paragraph) indicates that this is a straight copy of the OCR scanned versions, with the attendant problems thereof that are noted at Wikisource:Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica. Uncle G 16:56, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Redundant. Delete, possibly merge some of the contents into the main Woman article (without a redirect). - Mike Rosoft 23:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant, dated, parochial. Note that the previous VfD discussion ended up "merge/delete", not "move to subpage", although that was what was done. Do one last check for any useful material, and then Delete. -- Karada 23:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Yes it is very outdated. But the material, after proper filtering, is appropriate for an article on the historical view of women at that time period. So I think the content can be raked through for a history article. — RJH 14:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any suitable material to an appropriate history article, as per RJH. — P Ingerson (talk) 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's already a subpage, and wikis don't need any arbitrary timetable governing how and when volunteer editors use valuable public domain data in articles. Show where this data has been merged into historical articles, and I'll change my vote. --Unfocused 15:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Woman/Archive 2#subpage_Woman.2F1911_Britannica. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • I see you've pointed me to where this data could go, but I don't see much from the article that is nominated VfD. Is there a full 1911 Brittanica online that this could be retrieved from later, assuming it is deleted from here? I checked Wikisource and couldn't find this as an entry there. Keep, or Transwiki to Wikisource if not kept. --Unfocused 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • User:Sam Spade says at Talk:Woman/Archive 2#subpage_Woman.2F1911_Britannica that he has already tried merging the info from Woman/1911 Britannica. You can see his attempts starting here. After completion the Legal rights of women historically section was moved to a new article, by User:213.51.209.230 which seems unsubstantially changed today. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • A few editors' efforts, while fully appreciated, don't show the full the ability of the wiki. This article is probably in the current state because it was shuffled off to a subpage, instead of placed in plain view and edited on directly. With the copy & pastes of only the edits done on it, I can't say for sure where I would find this in its original form in the page histories, other than this article. There is a lot of remaining content of value. Again, I ask, is the 1911 Brittanica on Wikisource or somewhere else online where this could be as easily accessable to someone editing and/or reading Wikipedia? --Unfocused 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes. Uncle G 16:56, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete - Not appropriate for a current-year encyclopedia. Do we begin 1911 articles for every subject there is? --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:58 (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. Golbez 00:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Furry paws

Delete. Promotional website spam. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious promotion. Nestea 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Advertising if I ever did see. Celestianpower 16:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep How is that in *any* way advertising? The last sentance is the only thing I see which can be construed as being bised,

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pokemon Ruby Version

Already covered in Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. Delete. --Daniel Lawrence 11:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. Sonic Mew 12:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the issue was pretty obvious, I have been bold and made the redirect. Sarg 12:46, 19 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 an undeletion request). 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 redirect to Pokémon - Jirachi: Wishmaker --Phroziac (talk) 16:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jirachi WishMaker

Already covered in Pokémon - Jirachi: Wishmaker. Delete. --Daniel Lawrence 11:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pokémon - Jirachi: Wishmaker, where it is much better covered, anyway. Sonic Mew 12:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. The part about "some magician dude" made me smile though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the issue was pretty obvious, I have been bold and made the redirect. Sarg 12:46, 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 DELETE. Golbez 00:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jessica Chobot

Delete. Though I am a big-time inclusionist, the mere fact that a woman wore a bikini, licked a PSP and did a fair bit of other self-promotion, including one interview on a website does not mean she deserves an article here. Simply not notable. -- Zantastik talk 07:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, delete. --Feydey 11:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article: "Famous for licking a PSP" Google: 70 Google hits Me: Not that famous, apparently. I guess there's a limit to how much fame one can gain by licking a portable gaming device. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Licking portable consoles rates this woman WAY below the bar of notability... or common sense, anyway. Sarg 12:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless they're covered in chocolate :P JamesBurns 06:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The cosole or the...? Ok, ok, I stop before being slapped :D Sarg 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Licking console ... Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, pointless. --Etacar11 01:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Ridiculous. Takes us more time to remove it than some clown did to post it.--GrandCru 23:44, 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. Golbez 00:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Grant Pardee

Not a copyvio as authors claims to own the copyright, but the article is not encyclopedic and the subject is of questionable notability. Delete --nixie 12:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Excerpt: "one of the greatest men to ever live" ...could this be any more vanity? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to pass WP:BIO guidelines. Sarg 12:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: unencyclopedic, POV, and non-notable. JeremyA 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rampant vanity. Ick. --Etacar11 01:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity. JamesBurns 06:47, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:47 (UTC)

Stephen Gascoigne

Vanity/non-notable. --TheParanoidOne 12:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - A notable part of SCG and cricketing folklore. Google search for "yabba cricket" returned 6060 matches. Article could certainly be improved but needs to be kept to alow this to happen. - Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to be sufficiently notable. Needs more info, though. Pburka 15:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Possibly merge with an appropriate article.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am the creater of this article, and whilst it lacks content, for the subject to have a "stand" named after him at a major sporting ground, I think that is enough to keep it. Whilst doing research on the person, I found a lot of entries attributed to him. I would hope the article is kept and given a chance to be added to and enhanced. --Anubis1975 01:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Google hits. Xoloz 04:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable barracker with Yabba's Hill at the SCG named after him. BTW, I doubt if its vanity as he's been dead for 50 years at least. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly of historical interest. CalJW 19:03, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Mirror box

This article isn´t of much use, as it doesn´t supply any information, how a double mirror might help to prevent or cure this syndrome. Mami 10:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This article was nominated by Mami but incorrectly placed in this page. I'm just fixing the links. My vote is abstain for the moment until I clear my mind. Sarg 13:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this device is important in the treatment of phantom limb syndrome [15] and its inventor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran is very notable in his field. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 13:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not doubt at all Mr R.´s notability (although the article about him does not tell us much about his scienitfic work besides his appearences in several TV-programs). Nor do I doubt his contribution to the research and treatment of phantom limb syndrome. The more do I regret that the article discussed does not give us any information about Mr. R.´s device or rather method. Mami 17:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that absence is regrettable, but deleting the article won't cure it. Kappa 20:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: a notable therapy for phantom limb pain. This article does, however, need a lot more detail—possibly, until expanded, the content could be merged into phantom limb and this page redirected there. JeremyA 16:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It just needs more detail. --Hooperbloob 17:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded. -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded. JamesBurns 06:48, 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. Golbez 00:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

FreQremixes.net

I've added this to VFD on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a directory". Also, I don't think it's notable enough, but wasn't sure? Craigy (talk) 13:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete With an Alexa score of 1,641,940 and no inbound links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—basically just an advert. -- JeremyA 16:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:48, 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. Golbez 00:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Kyak Islands

This is what I believe you might call 'forum-cruft'. Non-notable. Vanity. Delete. --Daniel Lawrence 13:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with all the above. Forum-based RPG, fanfiction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 16:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nominator's arguments. JeremyA 16:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Almost worthy of a speedy.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 06:49, 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. Golbez 00:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Dear

CEO of EVDB. In the VfD discussion on EVDB (which resulted in a consensus to delete) it was suggested that this page be deleted also. Abstain. -- JeremyA 14:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. CDC (talk) 20:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wait until he gets rich and famous. Pavel Vozenilek 21:15, 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 redirect to Do the Handicapped Go To Hell?/Probably.  Grue  5 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Hell in Mexico

This was tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user, but it is not a candidate. I think that this could be merged with an appropriate episode article, or if not, kept outright. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Just so there is no confusion: my primary wish is to keep this article) Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:49 (UTC)

• Keep, a story arc shouldn't be merged into a particular episode. Kappa 20:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Cleduc 00:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — no less encyclopedic than the other SB articles, unfortunately. :) — RJH 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete IMEDIATELY
  • At the time of editing, this was the first edit by anon user:64.217.135.171. Since then, every edit from this IP has been reverted.
• Delete. The episode guides are enough. Gamaliel 06:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with post above. Oberiko 01:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic...--GrandCru 23:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We could redirect this to Do the Handicapped Go To Hell?/Probably as a precaution to other iterations of this article since so many people want it deleted so far, however I would rather keep this article. --SuperDude 18:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Story arc should be explained in episode information. Does not need its own article. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:01 (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. Golbez 00:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional grouch's

User:Allareequal is at it again with his lists. This one misspelled and with a single item. "Grouch" seems to me to be a slightly subjective word, except in a case where grouch is part of the title. That being said, I think Allarequal has a pretty complete list here, though I'm not sure why he didn't call it List of characters named Oscar the Grouch. -R. fiend 14:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete But one item isn't really a list, you know. Sonic Mew 15:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Very few lists are encyclopedic, and most of those that are would be better served by a category. --Xcali 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless, unencyclopedic list. Jonathunder 16:02, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have a more complete List of Sesame Street Grouch characters. --Metropolitan90 18:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can we have a List of Allareequal's list's (sic)?-Splash 19:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Besides, how can you forget Oscar's beloved Grungetta? Delete. Haikupoet 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:01, 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 wasdeleted as a disambig page that doesn't disambiguate anything.

Sendai (disambiguation)

No longer necessary. 'Sendai' redirects to Sendai, Miyagi, and Sendai, Kagoshima, the other one no longer exists. However, I've changed the disambig text on Sendai to offer a redirect to the Kagoshima page, though even that should not be truly necessary. William McDuff 14:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. Kappa 15:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why redirect? There's nothing that links to this page anymore, and who's going to type 'Sendai (disambiguation) into the find spot or the address bar? --William McDuff 22:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirects are cheap, and reversible, unlike deletions. Also they don't clog up Vfd. Kappa 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. Still think it's more a deletion than a redirect. But I posted it, so I don't get a vote. :) --William McDuff 01:50, 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. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Software engineering legal

Bad title, no context, smells of copyvio, could become pov-fest if someone tried to make an article at that title. Kiand 15:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, if this is a copyvio, the orginal author should be too embarrassed to complain. This is a mish-mash of ideas under a poorly named article and, worse, in not accurate from a legal standpoint. I am not sure any of that really is ground for deletion, but I vote a weak delete. DS1953 16:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvageable into Software patent which is a good article that lacks some of the practicality this one attempts to provide. Then Delete - do not redirect, since there's no such things as 'software engineering legal'.-Splash 19:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Software patent. JamesBurns 07:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly named article with nothing worth saving. Quale 17:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing really worth merging. Note that if any of this content is merged (copied into) another article we cannot delete the redirect afterwards due to the attribution requirements of the GFDL license. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:16 (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 deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) a