Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 24

June 24

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 July 1, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Pluma

slang term You (Talk) 00:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, you barely beat me to it!-Splash 00:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• A definition. Should be speedily deleted, not voted upon. ‡ Jarlaxle 00:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I was hum-haahing over whether to speedy tag it or not. Which is hardly a speedy way for me to proceed!-Splash 00:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this SHOULD fit the speedy criteria, but I don't think it does, unfortunately. You (Talk) 00:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neoglism as stated above. Falphin 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable slang — Bcat (talk | email) 01:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Wetman 02:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Pluma delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:50, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 06:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ливай. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang neologism. JamesBurns 08:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just a reminder that Wikipedia is not a slang guide: WP:WIN drini ☎ 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same reason as Livi.~~~~ 11:43, 26 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 and redirect --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Mountain making

Neologism with no supporting references. Claimed to have been used in regard to Jeff Gannon case, but a search for ["mountain making" + Gannon] doesn't bring up any applicable sources. Questions left on the talk pages of the editor and the article haven't been answered. Willmcw 00:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism not worth own article You (Talk) 00:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Bcat (talk | email) 01:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 06:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this, then make a redirect here to orogeny. Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with the redirect. I was looking for the right "mountain making" article to redirect to and that is obviously it. -Willmcw 19:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm changing my vote to redirect. (I wasn't aware of the Orogeny article.) — Bcat (talk | email) 22:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect barely. This seems like an unlikely thing to search for but is possible, I suppose. -Splash 23:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted page --cesarb 03:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel

Tagged for sppedy but not reaching any of the criteria (though it does appear to be vanity). no vote. Dunc|☺ 00:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Recreation of page twice deleted. The first was userfied to User:Edip Yuksel. I believe the second was speedied by JeremyA (deletion log). --Xcali 00:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete recreation of deleted article, duplicate of User:Edip Yuksel --Henrygb 00:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: already deleted once — Bcat (talk | email) 01:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Extreme vanity, but still not a candidate for speedy delete according to the criteria. Denni☯ 01:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." WP:CSD Section 1.1.4. --Xcali 01:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I was bold and added a speedy notice to the article (keeping the existing VfD notice). If this is in violation of deletion policy, please revert my edit. — Bcat (talk | email) 01:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From my experience, where there is a strong agreement among VfD voters that an article is appropriately speedily deleted, it is appropriate to put the speedy template on the page. I agree, by the way, speedy delete as a repost of previously deleted content. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy for reasons above. This does get the Biggest Awful Picture award, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure what the criterion were for the first two deletions, were they both speedy? I don't think this should be a candidate for speedy deletion... it's not pure vanity... he does have books out, which doesn't mean notability... but it does mean it's not blatant "I'm a 10 year old from Alabama" vanity. I'd think about keeping this, and if it was speedily deleted the first two times then I'm not sure that should be used as a justification for this deletion. gren 02:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What are the criteria for author notability? Anyone know? - Mustafaa 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would like to know that as well -- and I would like the users voting here to base it on that, not because of past (speedy?) deletes. And, just because the user who created his own page isn't the easiest to deal with doesn't mean it gets speedy automatically. gren 03:21, 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.

• Undeletion -- This has been posted for undeletion by User:BrandonYusufToropov and seconded by myself. This is a strange case...I've yet to see the original VfD that led this to be labeled as reposted content. I'm beginning to think that this was originally speedied, and people are just jumping on the "reposted" bandwagon without examining the article. I agree it was originally a vanity page (the version now appearing at User:Edip Yuksel), but the current version (yes, apparently someone reposted it yet again...bad users) seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. I will concede it needs a lot of NPOVing, but Brandon attests to the individual's notability. As I have on VfU, I recommend undeletion.

• Khizar- I too vote for UNDELETION. The article is now perfectly ok according to me as well as neutral. Also this is by no means reposted content. It doesnt resemble old content of yesterday.

• Undelete for me too. People confused by the bizarre back and forth of this case are urged to read the non-vanity version people have been busily editing into shape. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Note: This is an archived version of the old vfd closed on June 24. For the new vfd, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edip Yuksel 2 --Ragib 5 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

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 NSR 1 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

Stikfas

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was advertising. Seems unlikely to me that this was done by the company, more likely it was a fan. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep fairly-famous toy line. I've certainly heard of it. Like LEGO but with an emphasis on characters instead of buildings. 213,000 Google hits places it way beyond the ballpark of most VfD subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even more google hits than some porn stars. I wonder how many are 'relevant' though... Kappa 03:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmmm only 367 of those elusive 'unique hits' [1] Kappa 03:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Stikfas is the brand name of the glue that Singapore's Führer Lee Kuan Yew once sold. Delete the current one, and replace with Stikfas glue. -Hmib 05:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So this article should be deleted because something else has the same name? Kappa 05:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, because the object this article talks about is not notable and the other one is. -Hmib 06:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: looks somewhat notable, doesn't really strike me as an advert. — Ливай | ☺ 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Somewhat notable. JamesBurns 08:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable brand/s. Capitalistroadster 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per JamesBurns and Capitalistroadster - Very notable brand. CAPS LOCK 17:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable brand/s. LoneRifle 11:14, 27 April 2007 (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 July 1, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Subandhu

bogus information, Subandhu is Indian, article claims Arabic, zero was later than 4000BC, more like AD something, other "facts" made up GangofOne 00:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete, patent nonsense. - Mustafaa 00:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an arab born circa 5000BC named Raphael? That doesn't ring true, as that'a a Hebrew name. In any case, probable nonsense based on above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certain nonsense. We do not know the name of anyone alive in 5000 BC; writing hadn't been invented yet. Nor is the name of the inventor of zero known. There were no Arabs in 5000 BC; there may not even have been Semites yet. There were no Arabic numerals until 400 BC. Subandu is not an Arabic name either. Arabic numerals does mention an early Indian mathematician named Subandhu, author of the Vāsavadattā, but this article sure doesn't tell us anything about him. - Mustafaa 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete clearly ridiculous. --Mintie 03:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems highly unlikely that the number zero was invented before writing. — Ливай | ☺ 06:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mustafaa. - 07:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Worthless. I have heard of Subandhu before, but as a mythical figure comparable to the diefied early pharohs.--Tjstrf 08:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. utcursch | talk 09:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Nonsense. Hindus of India and the Mayas of S.America are believed to be the first ones to use the concept of Zero. The very concept of 'Sunya' meaning void or empty orginated in India in 460 BC. --IncMan 12:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- for reasons given above.--Bhadani 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absurdity. -Splash 23:28, Jun 24, 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 July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

15 Seymour Street

"15 Seymour Street is the birthplace of the notorious serial killer James Cole. Pilgrims regularly visit." So sayeth the article. Presumably these pilgrims know what city or town the street is in, and who the mysteriously red-linked Mr. Cole is, too. Unless further facts emerge, delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's either made-up or not notable—Google search of "15 Seymour Street" "James Cole" yields zero hits — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:36, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• 15 Seymour Street gets 4,340 Google hits, but James Cole 15 Seymour Street gets none, so Delete unless the street's notability is genuinely established. CanadianCaesar 03:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Fingers-of-Pyrex's comments. --Mintie 03:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, dubious. — Ливай | ☺ 06:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, let's have an article about Mr. Cole, if he's truly noteworthy, but granular stuff like an adress shouldn't be an article. (at least not in this case) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James Cole is the name of the character Bruce Willis plays in 12 Monkeys. Does this address appear in the film too? If so, it's obviously a hoax. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ... or a contribution from someone who doesn't understand the need to separate fact from fiction or to provide context. Delete with gratuitous use of the F-word. Barno 17:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence such a serial killer exists. And not a reference to 12 Monkeys, that I know of (I love that movie). --Etacar11 23:33, 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 July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Zealand, fantasy, Google, Billie Piper

This could be from some unnamed work of fiction such as a novel or film, or the anabatic perambulations of a deranged psyche. There's no indication either way at the moment, but this gets a perfect googlewhack - one hit, so my money's on it being piffle. If I'm wrong and it's from a real fictional work, then either add to it or merge with whatever it's from, otherwise drizzle this shizzle'. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. I think they are all works of fiction created by Amadeus, a non-notable amateur author whose page is tagged as vanity. --Xcali 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:26, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "fantastical" and "made up" as patent nonsense. And "Hootersville" gets zero Google hits, so it's alsononnotablee, if not unverifiable. Delete all. CanadianCaesar 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as above. Grstain 11:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unverifiable likely extension of vanity. -Splash 23:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteinn fiction with no context. --Etacar11 23:35, 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 age 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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pointenslutten

Neologism. Come back in ten years. Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. Not even BADJOIN worthy. Hamster Sandwich 08:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. If this ever catches on, I shall stop speaking English out of principle. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wiki-Hell. Neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Tempshill 21:39, 29 July 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 delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Creation science's attempt to question the reliability of dendrochronology

Looks, smells and feels like a POV fork. Unwieldy name, etc. Clearly a topic that should be addressed, but in the respective Dendrochronology or Creation science articles. FCYTravis 01:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Dendrochronology Rocky 01:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Addresses this real issue in an objective neutral way. If you merge this with dendrochronology it will be like merging Star Wars with astronomy. If it needs to be merged, do it with creation science. Bensaccount 01:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Objective and neutral? I suspect that a creation scientician wouldn't agree with that analysis. Pburka 02:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Such a person probably wouldn't, but objectivity and neutrality do not impose a duty to present bunkum as reality. Creation science in general, and this bit in particular, are not widely accepted by those with expertise in the field. As a minority "theory," their beliefs are entitled to respect and dispassionate presentation -- but not "equal footing" in the absence of equal evidence. Xoloz 07:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd vote for "merge and delete", but that's an incompatible vote. I'd vote for "merge", which would leave a redirect; but then I'd have to rfd the redirect. P.S. I agree that the merge should be with Creation Science. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Merge with Dendrochronology, which is the subject in question. If something else is done with it, there should least be a mention on the dendrochronology page. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete Silly title, POV, no value. --Mintie 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even the title is POV. Might be able to merge into Dendrochronology. Pburka 04:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content to Dendrochronology. A redirect seems unnecessary, but I take no position on the redirect. Xoloz 05:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to dendrochronology, no redirect. It might be true, but it isn't neutral, so it needs to be NPOV-ified first. — Ливай | ☺ 06:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it starts to address this non-issue. (Or this issue, if you (a) have just arrived from the nineteenth century or earlier, or perhaps (b) live in red-state USA.) Merge within Creation science -- not dendrology; see Bensaccount's comment above -- and redirect. -- Hoary 07:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Although I too appreciate the wit of Bensaccount, I think the Creationist's "theory" will be more readily and obviously debunked at Dendrochronology. Putting it at Creationism or whatever only piles fiction on fiction and obscures the question. Xoloz 07:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If it questions the reliability of Dendrochronology it should be merged there. We need to preserve the history per GFDL, (maybe copy to the talk page and then delete the redirect, seems to be appropriate for transwikies, so why not for merges...) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Creation science Peter Grey 07:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Creation science. JamesBurns 08:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I merged it with dendrochronology. Anthony Appleyard 09:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont necessarily agree with that but I'll abide by the majority decision. JamesBurns 02:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Creation science and Delete this silly article name without a redirect. As there is no consensus on where to merge this content yet, I reverted the merge by Anthony Appleyard into dendrochronology. I believe it belongs in creation science, but a link or "see also" in the dendrochronology article would also be appropriate. - Jersyko talk 14:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• See the guide to Votes for deletion on top of the VFD page. Merge and delete is not a valid option. We need to preserve the edit history when merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a POV on dendrochronology and should be present there, not at the page of the viewpoint to which it is attributed. Placing it on creation science makes very little sense. Right now scientific criticisms of creation science take up about half that article; perhaps we should move all that content to pages like evolution and leave a see also. I'm sure the creationists would be highly amenable to that change. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete Revolución 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe weak merge to Creation Science drini ☎ 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete detail, merge info Young earth creationism. Gazpacho 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete SchmuckyTheCat 15:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Scientific inquiry into multiple tree-ring growths exists. See [2], [3], [4] or [5]. Dan Watts 29 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
• Delete Quackery masquerading as science. POV. Tobycat 30 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)
• Delete This should have been a quick delete if for only the ridiculous title. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Null the bits. Deletion may not be good enough. Project2501a 30 June 2005 13:10 (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 (split between keep and merge), so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

My Bologna

not article worthy: Merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:51, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Agree with Radiant: merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic (album). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:28, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The song is fairly notable and there are plenty of articles about less notable recordings. 23skidoo 02:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Gosh, I'm surprised at the number of Google hits. Keep, notable. CanadianCaesar 02:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to "Weird Al" Yankovic Columbia 03:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable song. Rentastrawberry 04:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic (album) unless expanded. JamesBurns 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic. I happen to be rather fond of his music but still, single songs do not require articles - Skysmith 09:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment - however there are many songs that do already, so there is precedent, and this is a rather notable parody. 23skidoo 11:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic (album) - the album on which the song appears. Radiant_>|< 13:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most songs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Radiant. I know the album, I know the song, and while the artist is notable, this song really isn't, except (barely) as part of the album. Even the song which is being parodied had no significant influence. Barno 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. CAPS LOCK 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "Weird Al" Yankovic (album) - and merge most songs with either the artist or the album... of course, there are plenty of cases for which I would make an exception, but this is not one of them. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:09, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Weak merge perhaps delette drini ☎ 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Merge - Nn; at most a footnote in My Sharona.
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan - Starblind. -- Jonel | Speak 03:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly though it is, notable song that was a milestone in a long-lived, popular artists' career. Jgm 29 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)
• Keep. It was his first widely known song, and set the bar for his long line of food-based parody songs. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 30, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the song predated his first album. (Gosh, I remember that, too!) Old fogey, I guess ---> Yekrats 3 July 2005 02:10 (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 July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Jipsorisen

Delete - apparent neologism. Google returns no hits. I'm also unable to find anything on John Paul the natural philosopher. Rlandmann 02:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a probable hoax or non notable term- Google's complete lack of results fishy. CanadianCaesar 02:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete John Paul (musician) and Terrible Trouble as well. One big hoax. Denni☯ 02:51, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Blackjack Pershing and "Chango Electrico" are part of that hoax CanadianCaesar 02:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all: Hoaxes. Geogre 12:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (including edits to John Paul disambig. -Harmil 21:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:28, Jun 25, 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 5, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Jessica Livingston

Added on behalf of Wetman. He/she marked this article for speedy deletion. IMO, it doesn't match any speedy criteria, so I'm adding it to VfD instead. Abstain for now. (I may come back and vote later.) — Bcat (talk | email) 02:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio: Compare Wikipedia article to text source. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio, also not notable enough for inclusion. A partner in a not-established-as-notable seed money company funding startups. Barno 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable -Harmil 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The legal info for the Y combinator site says that the partners' bios are in the public domain. Sat Jun 25 16:42:04 EDT 2005 [Unsigned comment by 67.95.134.234].
  • Where? It says: "Site (c) 2005 Y Combinator." Nowhere does it state that the content is public domain. — Bcat (talk | email) 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The page reads "Site (c) 2005 Y Combinator, except the partners' bios, which are in the public domain." [Unsigned comment by 67.95.134.234]
      • You're right, it does. I was looking at a cached version of the page. Sorry about that. My vote is now delete as vanity. — Bcat (talk | email) 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's some history for those just coming to this VfD, and also a request for help. 67.180.141.230 created the page using content from [6]. Wetman marked it for speedy deletion as vanity. I removed the speedy notice and added the page to VfD on his behalf. I then commented here that I thought this was a copyright violation. Pburka replaced the page with a copyvio notice and added it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. User:67.180.141.230 then commented here and on the copyvio page that the site's legal policy had been changed to place the content that was in the article into the public domain. At this point, I'm not sure if I should revert the copyvio notice or not. — Bcat (talk | email) 00:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a copyvio, but it should be deleted--nixie 3 July 2005 00:42 (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. I have also copied the text to a subpage of User:Patata3. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars}

Belt Tower

This articler refer to a subject that is of merely local interest. It documents a 'game', which consists of attacking other players, played at one particular school.

(I was reluctant to nominate this since someone made a lot of edits on this, could userfy to USER:Patata3 (has no curent user page).) RJFJR 02:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I have no objection to userfying, but no reluctance in deleting this utterly non-notable vanity article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete patent vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't imagine any school in the days of "zero tolerence" letting its students fight with logs and rocks for hours at a time with blood being drawn. Even on the tiny sliver of a chance that this is true, it's still not-notable. Note: I'm against userfying a vanity article when the user's only substantial contribution is to that vanity article, as is the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps RJFJR's concern is that the complete destruction of this article, which someone has obviously put a lot of (misguided) work into, might discourage that person from becoming a good contributor. I'm largely indifferent, but would not stand against Userfying. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:07, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete: A goof. Geogre 12:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I hate to see this deleted outright. Keep it somewhere, if only on the user's page. Perhaps at least some of its contents could be merged into a comprehensive article on similar children's games like capture the flag or King of the Hill (game). Glad to know that boys can still be boys in Australia. Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, as I seem to be showing a weakness of spirit this evening. Since the user ought to have read some guidlines before embarking on such work, I would also be happy with a delete.-Splash 23:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ℬastique▼^talk 01:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge - Work has gone into it, it would be a shame to see it go to nothing [unsigned vote by Anon 210.50.80.187]

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 July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Ulfcar

not encyclopedic Orioneight 02:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable- dismal number of Google hits for Ulfcar paint CanadianCaesar 03:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising of a minor product. Geogre 12:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Now I have a name for my next D&D character at least. Smerdis of Tlön 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doubt it's advertising (though I guess sneaking in a badly worded article and hoping someone else will clean it up is an interesting way to insinuate an ad) -Harmil 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax or advertisment. Both deserve to be deleted. Rentastrawberry 17:19, Jun 25, 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 July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Marc El Duccio Shanon

userfy — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A user ought to know the rules against autobiography, and an autobiographer will quickly create user page material. Geogre 12:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
• Delete Obvious user page -Harmil 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Belongs on a user page. --Etacar11 23:37, 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 MERGE into The Incredible Machine NSR 1 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Jeff Tunnell, Jeff Tunnell Productions

Non-notable. Denni☯ 03:11, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Keep. Lots of Google hits for Jeff Tunnell game. CanadianCaesar 03:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with each other. Pburka 03:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Incredible Machine, I think that's the only published game series he worked on. Radiant_>|< 15:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the two, and maybe merge the result into The Incredible Machine. --Carnildo 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Agreed. It seems this is just extra material for the background on a game (series). -Harmil 21:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Jeff Tunnell Productions into Jeff Tunnell. — Bcat (talk | email) 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both into The Incredible Machine. JamesBurns 03:44, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Nassar

Article makes no claim to notablility. Civil engineer turned importer. --Xcali 03:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It gets one Google hit that I couldn't even make sense out of; Delete unless notability is established. CanadianCaesar 03:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. Pburka 03:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This to me is total nonsense. Rentastrawberry 04:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nasser, common misspelling. Ben-w 10:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content as vanity, and Redirect title to Nasser,
• Delete vanity -Harmil 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

With Someone Else's Money

Non-notable Denni☯ 03:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete. This article uses the word "Noteworthy", but dismal Google hits suggests they're a little non notable CanadianCaesar 03:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Apparently, not a campus organization (so no merge to University of Georgia##Student life). Therefore, just a group of young folks who sing. Not signed, recorded, or distributed. Geogre 12:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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 speedily redirected. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Blackjack Pershing

Another invention by the deluded mind which created John Paul (musician) Denni☯ 03:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. CanadianCaesar 03:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John J. Pershing. NatusRoma 04:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Redirect for famous nickname, as per NatusRoma. Xoloz 05:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pershing. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pershing per above voters. -- BD2412 ^talk 11:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Redirect. Geogre 12:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to to John J. Pershing as above; if someone searches for Blackjack Pershing, it's a virtual certainty that they're looking for the General, not for an obscure rock band. Firebug 14:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, agreeing with Firebug in the absence of evidence of notability for the band. Barno 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as a precaution against recreation. — Phil Welch 20:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily redirected - per WP:BOLD. --FCYTravis 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 5, 2005 11:26 (UTC)

Mumrah

Was listed as a copyvio but permission was granted, however this group does not meet the music guidelines, no relasease, no significant tours, delete--nixie 03:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thundercats. Hiding 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to pansy Thundercats, per Hiding.
  • ^{D'oh!!! forgot to sign my vote. -- BD2412 talk 17:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)}
• Merge to Thundercats. Mumrah (or Mumm-Ra I am not sure) was an icon for every kid who grew up in the 1980s.-Poli 15:38, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Delete I was completely mistaken.-Poli 18:48, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete or Weak redirect (misspelled) Geez, if I was gonna go to all the trouble of naming a band after a cartoon mummy, I'd at least spell the name right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! I don't see what harm its doing? Leave the poor guys alone.
• Delete non-notable, also a terrible ska-band who should get their chops in order
• Keep I beg to differ with user Nixie, they have extensively toured the UK as well as played some notable London venues. In addition to two releases, they have also received some significant airplay on UK music channels.
• Keep Mumrah rule and are so much fun to dance to.
• Keep Mumrah are a very influential band. I have heard a few bands who have cited them as influences

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 and cleanup. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Creole English

I'm not quite sure what to do with this article. Is it necessary? I'm not an expert on dialects of English but I noticed on List of dialects of the English language that there is a section on Pidgins and Creoles but no link to Creole English. Two articles link to Creole English however: Trinidadian Creole English and Tobagonian Creole English. Both articles say that they are dialects of Creole English. Should we include this article on the List of dialects of the English language article? Please help. Thanks. ---User:Hottentot

• Keep and Cleanup. I'm not sure how language article naming conflicts should be resolved, but the topic is a notable one, so no need to delete. Xoloz 06:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It probably needs a re-name too, since there are plenty of English-based creoles besides Carribean ones. I don't know to what degree these creoles are intercomprehensible with English (and thus to what degree they are either dialects or separate languages), but mentioning them on the List of dialects probably wouldn't cause any problems. — Ливай | ☺ 06:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable linguistic topic. Capitalistroadster 10:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Creole is a name for a group of languages and a mechanism by which a new language forms. This article approaches the subject from the point of view of linguistics, whereas the List of dialects of the English language is more concerned with demographics. Inconsistency need not be a problem if you don't want it to be, but it would be nice to have this article fitted in as a link from the list as a "see also". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup is needed but this is a valid topic.
• Cleanup It is a valid cultural/linguistic article.-Poli 15:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Move to Carribean Creole English CAPS LOCK 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Carribean English Creole --Tabor 20:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Redirect English Creoles has most of this.Unsinkable 01:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, redirect to Creole language, since not all English-based Creoles are Caribbean. Most, however, are called Fooan Creole English. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creole language. JamesBurns 03:46, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

John Paul (musician), Terrible Trouble, "Chango Electrico"

None have been heard of by Google. Sure bet. Denni☯ 02:40, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete all hoaxes. CanadianCaesar 04:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, unverifiable likely hoax. JamesBurns 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, and probable ban for vandalism. That's what multi-page hoaxes are. Geogre 12:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Probable Hoax. Google results for exact phrase are dismal Same user created jipsorisen. CanadianCaesar 02:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment Vote above moved here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"Chango Electrico" (now a redirect to this discussion).--Nabla 21:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Nabla. Not sure what went wrong with my nomination, but I scratched it out to avoid the appearance of voting twice. CanadianCaesar 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooops. Didn't noticed that, sorry.--Nabla 02:01, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 23:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've added a vfd notice on Terrible Trouble now in case people find that page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:26, Jun 25, 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 July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Doug Esler

It is 1.) Just a school teacher 2.) Extremely POV i.e., "great" and "popular school below the equator" 3.) The creator typed: "This article is a useless stub." Krystyn Dominik 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable... but did you think adding "this article is a useless stub" was necessary? CanadianCaesar 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The creator added the "stub tag", obviously has a sense of humor. Kappa 05:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, my mistake, it looked like someone else added that. But it's still not encyclopedic... CanadianCaesar 05:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete - --harrismw 04:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 05:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli 05:22, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:57, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, if schools are notable than so are schoolteachers and individual McDonalds franchises Weak delete. — Phil Welch 20:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who is this guy? Why do people care for him? Also note that the article was created by an anonymous user (one not logged in) and thus this is most likely highly innaccurate (I don't know how to vote for deletions yet, so please tell me (my username is hunterd)). 19:18, 28 Jun 2005 (AEDST)

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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 03:19 (UTC)

FNG

This page points to two no existing pages. It serves little or no purpose existing. harrismw 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Page seems to have been created so contributor would get to use the F-word in an article. Chortle (not). -- BD2412 ^talk 05:02, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete pointless dab page. JamesBurns 08:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No information -Harmil 21:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki? FNG is a VERY prevalent military slang. Pretty much anyone in any English-speaking organisation since the 80s probably used it. It is certainly not a worthwhile disam page, though, and not really worth an article. If not Transwiki, put me in for strong delete. Unsinkable 01:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary:FNG. I suggest not wasting the time. Uncle G 16:43, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Well, I hadn't ever heard of FNG before, for "fucking new guy" and I came here to look it up. So my vote is for it to stay. Why delete pages that still have meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.189.200 (talk • contribs) 04:00, June 28, 2005
  • Because Wikipedia is not the only WikiMedia project that you can look things up in, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there. Uncle G July 1, 2005 10:42 (UTC)
• Delete Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 13:01 (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 July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Phone rule

Too specific cultural aspect, if it exists at all. Not notable. Delete. -Poli 04:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete I can't think of a way that this is verifiable, short of wikipedians violating No Original Research to obtain verification experimentally. The Literate Engineer 05:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this utter nonsense - straight to the new and somewhat improved Wiki-Hell!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 05:28, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified (not by original research, but with text sources). - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Two searches on Google ("phone rule" chat and "phone rule" irc) yielded no applicable results on the first pages. -Harmil 21:30, 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.

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 keep, as no valid reason for deletion was given (the article is not alleged to be unencyclopedic in any way, per WP:NOT), and the nomination was one of the first acts taken by a newly-established account. Wikipedia is NPOV and therefore does not censor articles at the behest of their subject. -- BD2412 ^talk 08:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Delta_Tau_Delta

This article is repeatedly used to disseminate secret ritual information of the Delta Tau Delta Fraternity and this is a clear violation of the national fraternity's policies towards the protections of such information. If this continues the abuse will be reported to the national fraternity

• Keep? I'm not sure what to make of this. The article is fine and certainly belongs here, but the complaint seems to be about an edit war going on between two anons as to whether the organization's "secret word" should be posted. No need to list it here, as anyone can see it in the edit history. Having once pledged a fraternity myself, I appreciate the importance of secret words and such to these organizations. Having since grown up, I appreciate the utter silliness of the whole thing. If the secret word is, in fact, a correct piece of information, it hardly seems to be our place to prevent it from being included in an article on the organization. Come to think of it, the article is kind of a puff piece, and leaves out stuff like this, and this. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:54, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep on ground of invalid nomination. Nomination unsigned, and no valid Wikipedia reason for deletion given. Xoloz 05:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, warn user, and "report to the national fraternity." What are they going to do, hold a kegger on our front lawn? -- Essjay · Talk 07:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Nomination does not establish criteria for deletion. --FCYTravis 07:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In light of the above votes, the lack of any criteria for deletion in the nomination, and the fact that the nominator was from a brand-spanking new account whose second edit ever was to start this vfd, I'm calling this a walk in the park and removing the vfd notice. -- BD2412 ^talk 08:00, 2005 Jun 24 (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 July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Bamboo band

Article is not a copyvio, but it is band vanity, no recordings, no tours of performances of any significance. Delete--nixie 06:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable bandvertising. Googling the band name with the lead singer's gives me just 9 unique Google hits. — Ливай | ☺ 06:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it seems one of those links has exactly the same text as this article, copyrighted. [7] — Ливай | ☺ 06:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in case copyvio clears, this is still vanity. Xoloz 06:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I own the copyright, and the band, but I didn't put the article up and I agree it's probably not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. James Fryer.
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 08:14, 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 July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Wiki crack

Neologism, slang dicdef, self reference to Wikipedia. Thue | talk 06:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete slang neologism. JamesBurns 08:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism... although the fact that I'm doing this at 5:30 AM - when I should be studying for the bar - almost makes me think there's something to it. -- BD2412 ^talk 09:36, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• marginal Keep; acceptable neologism. jamesgibbon 15:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thue. What is an "acceptable neologism" under WP policy? Barno 17:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need to be as narcissistic as our vanity page writers. --Scimitar 19:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism.
• Delete. No such thing as an "acceptable neologism" --Carnildo 21:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article in question does not make any special attempt to define the term and uses it only once, late in the article. -Harmil 21:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. To keep would be self-vanity. -Splash 23:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ha ha ha ha --GrandCru 19:37, 26 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 03:22 (UTC)

Jonathan Ng, Tan Ding Xiang

I quote: Jonahtan [sic] Ng （ 黄 骏 杰〕is a Singaporean student.He is also a blogger and a Wikipedia browser.Tan Ding Xiang introduced Wikipedia to him. Do I really need to elaborate? -- Hoary 07:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I quote: Tan Ding Xiang,(陈鼎 翔 )born 1992,is a Singaporean student.His friends include Jonathan Ng. Do I really have to elaborate? Oh, OK: vanity. -- Hoary 07:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

PS Or speedy delete, to avoid unnecessary prolongation of any embarrassment for these two people, who perhaps just hadn't understood the difference between regular articles and user pages. Note that User:Tdxiang already exists. -- Hoary 13:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Comment. Combined virtually identical vfd's for efficiency, as no votes had yet been cast. Here's one: Delete both, non-notable, vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 07:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete both. Non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 10:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Damn, I found Wikipedia all by myself. Does that mean I can't have an article? Delete both blatant vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before they start introducing other people to Wikipedia and creating more vanity articles for them! — P Ingerson (talk) 11:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Conceit, introducing the new wave of personality cult. Slivester 11:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, anyone who can use a computer is notable. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review wikipedia:no personal attacks. Kappa 14:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any personal attacks in that bit of general sarcasm. I also don't see anything meeting the speedy deletion criteria, regardless of whether any of us agrees with Hoary's pragmatic reasoning. Non-speedy delete or, better, userfy the one without an existing user page and explain policy to these users. Barno 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Hoary above seems best. Kappa 14:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no claim to notability at all in either article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• delete User page -Harmil 21:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy under section 1.2.1. I'd say userfy Tan Dian Xiang, but it looks like the info has already been copied there. --Xcali 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, belongs on a user page. --Etacar11 23:49, 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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

Disaster Labs

Not notable. Best merged with the Arfenhouse article LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, or a web 'zine guide. As with band members, you've got to ask yourself whether or not a designer of something notable needs a biography, which is what an article under the personal name should be. Similarly, if a group makes one significant thing, does that group need a discussion? Geogre 15:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arfenhouse. Nestea 15:26, 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 July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Andrew Stephen Lee

Notable? Marked with a vanity-tag by User:SimonP on May 31. Abstaining. Uppland 08:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Andrew Stephen Lee (September 29, 1988 - ) is a notable American photographer, artist, and major figure in the stencil revolution movement. Funnily enough, I never heard about a stencil revolution movement. If doesn't explicitly need to state he's notable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He must be a true prodigy as he is already famous at age 16. If he is still 'famous' in 5 years he should be included.--Porturology 12:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity revolution movement CDC (talk) 14:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Teen vanity/hallucination. "Soon, you will have forgotten the world, and it will have forgotten you," as Marcus Aurelius said. Geogre 15:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the stencil revolutionary in me just sees nnanity. -Splash 23:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 02:59, 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 moved to BJAODN. :o) - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

The Turnip Wars

Unverifiable - no hits for either site on Google or Google Groups (searching for the url as a string as well). Tedious trolling/fantasy. sjorford →•← 09:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. Unbelievably I just found myself google searching "turnips are evil" and "I love turnips" just to make sure. I think I'm losing it. Leithp 09:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Leithp, you've made my day. Delete! -- BD2412 ^talk 09:34, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. even if both sites existed and spammed each other, I don't see a reason to warrant an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly BJAODN as it's a fairly decent parody of the "forum drama" articles we get sometimes. If we do BJAODN, we should remove the name of the alleged "hacker", as it's likely a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. chocolateboy 12:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this actually rises to the level of patent nonsense. --Briangotts 13:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - potential BJAODN material. --FCYTravis 17:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - just kidding. Merge with BJAODN. Ich 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this happened and both sites exist(ed) this doens't belong here. Don't send it to BJAODN, since that should't exist anyway. -Splash 23:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - I love this one. Come on, Splash, didn't you at least chuckle? Unsinkable 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. I chuckled. Especially at "...were now going to concentrate on a "less crap vegetable"...". But that's no excuse for putting anything in BJAODN (imagine the equivalent being at the back of Britannica!). -Splash 02:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 03:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. I liked the part about joining to meet hot girls. JamesMLane 11:38, 26 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 - If someone wants to write a good, NPOV article on the subject, this start won't help them. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Bai-dal

Non verifiable, dubious content, possibly original research Proto 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, delete Proto 09:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone's fantasy world. Here's the funny part: it gets about 800 google hits, most of which are not in English, but those that are appear to be posts in forums and so forth. Hundreds of them. So, what I think we have here is a nice Korean kid with a bit of a complex over growing up next to big ol' China, who thinks up an ancient Korean civilization that ruled most of China for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. -- BD2412 ^talk 09:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am having second thoughts on this, as further research from some of my fellow Wikipedians suggests that this myth has some legs in Korea - however, it remains highly inappropriate for it to be presented as fact-history. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete As per above, and by reading the article's first sentence. — Kjammer ⌂ 10:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs a {{disputed}} tag or something, not deletion. Kappa 13:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BDA. Radiant_>|< 14:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: you appear to have taken all of two minutes to research that vote. Kappa 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • (Adapted from your comment in a previous VfD:) Please review WP:NPA. Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you know how much time Radiant took to research his vote? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • The timings of his contributions seem to indicate that. Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • And how exactly is that relevant? Radiant_>|< 15:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Would it be true to say your vote is essentially an expression of confidence in BDA's research skills? Kappa 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Hey now, Kappa, I'm not particularly quick on the draw to delete articles - I put fair labor into researching this, and found nothing but similarly-worded collections of impossible claims. To wit: "The first Korean nation, Han-gook (also pronounced whan-gook), was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years". Google shows 239 English language pages for "Bai dal" -Wikipedia, (many of which are still not actually in English) and I tried quite a few of them. There are about 40 actual pages, and a lot of smoke and mirrors. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
              • BD2412 I know you researched this topic, and I thank you for doing so. However I find your hypothesis that "some kid" made the whole thing up to be rather implausible, and certainly not proven, which is why I vote for it to be kept with a "disputed" tag until someone with more specialized knowledge or skills can check into it. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • Then I must revise my analysis to say that some person made the whole thing up. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
      • If you mean that he posted something else 2 minutes before his vote, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done research previously. In any case, there's certainly no minimum research time required before one votes, and calling it out like this veers uncomfortably close to a personal attack. I think an apology to Radiant is in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • OK I apologize to Radiant, it was badly worded and I was irritated when I said it. However I'm pretty sure that BD2412 is the only 'delete' voter who has done any significant amount of research, I'm happy to be corrected on this. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is a mixture of facts to create a synthetic that's unverified and hoax-ish. "There were people in America 30,000 years ago." "Canada was settled 300 years ago." "The ancient American civilization was ruined by Canadians." That kind of thing. Not wicked, but not true, and not encyclopedic. Geogre 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The proper treatment for unverified statements is to attempt to verify them, not to dismiss them as "hoax-ish". Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • • Comment: Kappa, I'm glad you're concerned with the "proper" thing to do. What would be the correct thing for an author to do? Would it be A) Write whatever you want with the expectation that Kappa will vote "keep" for it? B) Present verifiable and verified information, along with references? This article fails its duty as an article. It violates the deletion policy. The "proper treatment" of things that violate the deletion policy is to vote "delete," not castigate other voters for not agreeing with you. Geogre 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Which of those statements can you verify? Which statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China can you verify? Does Geogre's contribution history prove that he didn't try to verify them? Delete, unverifiable. Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I can't verify any statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China. But conveniently, there aren't any such statements in the article. I note that he made the more conservative statement "unverified" rather than the very confident-sounding "unverifiable". Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified claims, no sources given. The article was marked as needing verification on May 30, and it still has no sources three and a half weeks later. I simply don't understand keep voters who insist that a delete voter falsify all the claims in a dubious article. The burden is on the other party. WP articles must be verifiable—this is absolutely non-negotiable. If you want to keep this article, prove that it isn't nonsense. Quale 19:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence given for claims. --Carnildo 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep with clean-up. I believe this is actually a fairly well-known "legend" held by many Koreans and should have an article to discuss it but it would need to be in a factually-based way on the unverifiable legend. It should be noted that this verbatim content appears to have been removed from the Korea and History of Korea pages in the past. See: Talk:Korea#Weird, Talk:Korea#Yello.21, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Korea&diff=next&oldid=7007070 , The Origin of the Korean People: Who are the Koreans?. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I think the source of this legend or hoax or whatever is the apocryphal Hwandan Gogi written in 1911. It's mentioned in Dangun and Chi You. Kappa 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable claims. JamesBurns 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the Baedal (배달) legend has no business being taken as historical fact, it has assumed an important role certain aspects of modern Korean nationalism. In particular, the Christian thinker Ham Seok-heon placed quite a lot of store in it. I'll put some more content in the article when I have time. ... Besides, we need something to point to the next time someone dumps a Baidal section into History of Korea. -- Visviva 05:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an article on the legend. Needs complete rewrite, suggest move to Baidal or Baedal. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:18 (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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 13:30 (UTC)

List of U.S. Highways with freeway portions

Oh no. This is just List of U.S. Highways minus a few. Delete. --SPUI (talk) 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, perhaps put asterixes on the main list notifying any with freeway portions. Proto 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless list, more SamuraiClinton-cruft —Wahoofive (talk) 12:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of U.S. Highways as per Proto, (though asterix already in use on that page for another purpose). DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I normally LIKE lists, and I think this should go. Unsinkable 01:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this information has any value it should be provided by sophisticated software (something like SQL by user), not by hand written lists. Pavel Vozenilek 02:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless list. JamesBurns 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 July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Burkay Cetinkaya

Seems to be pure vanity page. Zero hits on Google. Delete. Michael 10:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What a koinkidink, I was about to do this one. -- BD2412 ^talk 11:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity CDC (talk) 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax, not vanity. When they call themselves "famous" and "world famous" and "revolutionary," they cross the line from being kids to being misinformation. Geogre 15:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, dubious claim. --Etacar11 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 03:03, 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 July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Concerto grosso for the common man

Delete - this is unverified and I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. Naturenet 11:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objection - Please try to read Jo Logan. User: Anonymous 12:20, 24 Jun 2005 (GMT+1) This was really posted by 62.253.219.130 (talk · contribs). This IP has a history of vandalism.

• Delete hoax. Fanfare for the Common Man is by Aaron Copland. Thanks for pointing out Jo Logan, btw; I've VfD'd her, too.—Wahoofive (talk) 12:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fairly clearly a hoax. The piece isn't listed in any of the reference works I checked, and Jo Logan appears to be an invention (no relevant entry in the Library of Congress catalogue). --Camembert 13:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax from the anon who brought us Jo Logan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 03:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur, it's a hoax. Benjamin Britten??? LOL. Antandrus (talk) 28 June 2005 05:03 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely joke by anon user. --RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
• Delete, user is consistently making things up. Joe D (t) 29 June 2005 13:51 (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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 13:33 (UTC)

CADRadio

Non-notable web radio station. the wub "?/!" 11:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Alternative means of broadcast are becoming increasingly common. A casual Google search for "CAD Radio" returns >2000 hits. I don't personally listen to this media type. But, I do think we can verify it and eventually grow it into a NPOV article. I lean keep, but lack information to vote that way. --Durin 19:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - needs cleanup or equiv. appropriate tagging. -Harmil 21:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:47, 26 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 and cleanup. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Dylan Ricci

Doesn't seem significant enough to have an autobiography on Wikipedia (see Talk:Dylan Ricci). --Cryptic (talk) 11:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Borderline notability. But appears to be a copyvio of [8]. Pburka 15:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Subject appears to have given permission to use text on talk page. Unclear if he owns it or not. Pburka 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup so it looks less like a self-advertisement and more on where his works have been displayed, etc. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:37, Jun 24, 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!) 1 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

IonIdea

promotional and non-notable delete Vtslayer 11:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep google shows more than 3,500 hits for IonIdea, and all of them seem to relate to the company.-Poli 15:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Keep. Not advertising, and if an article on a random school is notable, an article on a random company should be too. — Bcat (talk | email) 22:58, 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 NSR 1 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Bournonville School

No context, non-notable, delete Proto 11:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This ballet school is, at present, not verifiable. Delete. Radiant_>|< 11:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would you claim that it isn't verifiable? That is an obviously false statement, and rather shockingly so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't when the article was nominated. Since it is now, I'm changing my vote to keep. Radiant_>|< 13:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • What changed in the meantime? It's still in umpteen sources online, it's still a school of ballet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe I expressed myself poorly, but when VFD'ed the article appeared to be about a school (as i, educationary institute) of undisclosed location. It turns out to be about a style. Radiant_>|< 14:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The context is obvious--it's a school of ballet, most associated with the Royal Danish Ballet (which August Bournonville led for many years, developing a unique style of dancing), and the dancer and choroeographer Erik Bruhn. This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the major schools / training style of ballet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, based on "what links here". Kappa 12:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the Danish ballet tradition started by August Bournonville is famous, and the article (which wasn't that bad to begin with) has improved considerably thanks to the VfD. :-) Uppland 12:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For those who don't already know, "school", in the context of ballet, frequently refers to a specific style of ballet, not a physical institution. Unfocused 14:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable type of ballet. Capitalistroadster 16:08, 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 KEEP NSR 1 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Wharton County Junior College

Substub without no significant content. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. I didn't see how young the article really was. I've send the author a message about placeholders and how he can user subpages to develop a decent stub before submitting it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the VfD tag from the article. Filiocht | Talk 13:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Using a User subpage doesn't expose the article to the Wiki for collaborative expansion. Huge disadvantage, in my opinion. --Unfocused 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, but you need at least a decent stub to avoid deletion. Have at least a little meat to the article before letting it loose for collaboration. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful, but you're asking newbies to jump through a higher hoop to begin participating. Anything that makes it more difficult for legitimate, well-intentioned new users should be carefully considered before advocating. --Unfocused 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Real institute of higher learning. Also, it's hard to take seriously a charge of it being a substub when the article was all of an hour-and-a-half old (with 3 edits) when you slapped the VfD tag on it. --Calton | Talk 11:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand like all of the other articles on specfic colleges and universities. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand verifiable 2-year college. Vtslayer 12:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 12:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In its very brief life, this article was created, speedied, had that tag removed (by me), deleted anyway, recreated, and now listed here. All in one day! If the author was so inclined, they would have every right to feel that they were being picked on. No wonder some people become hardcore inclusionists. Filiocht | Talk 12:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: There is no excuse for ignoring the deletion policies to vote "keep" on every article that has "school" in the title. Some schools, like some donut shops, are notable. Most are just replicate institutions. Geogre 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lest I appear to be making a personal attack, let me explain: is there any other category of article where it is an automatic keep? Towns are evaluated one by one. Scientific theories, computer projects, wars and battles -- all are evaluated case by case -- but "Lincoln School is in Nebraska" is supposed to be an automatic keep? I understand that some people get petulant after an article they wrote goes on VfD, but active disruption like "keep all school-named articles, no matter what's in them" is, to me, breaking the project. Geogre 16:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a stretch to say that wars are evaluated case by case. Also, there seem to be plenty of people who would vote keep on any verifiable town. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

For instance, read comments at this recent vfd. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

That's awful, alright. I can only hope that's an aberration where the "I hate VfD so I vote keep on everything" folks combined with some people who didn't read the article. Case by case is the only thing called for in the guidelines. Case by case for anything, and article by article, not topic by topic. Geogre 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the context. Lots of things are nominated based on notability. If I think all schools, or all places are notable, then a case by case study is only going to produce keep votes for all such articles. It's a false assumption to say that the "keep everything" folks aren't looking case by case. In many cases, all they have to check is that the article is about a school, and they can vote their keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. It is established practice that all countries are kept - and all villages and all railway stations too. CalJW 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, npov/verifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:59, 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.

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 July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Eddie lenton

Vanity page. Delete. Michael 12:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - sorry Eddie - I'm not interested - as you are NN A curate's egg 13:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am sure you will deserve your place in an encyclopedia some day, young Eddie.-Poli 14:19, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete: Since this "article" is just a predicate nominative, I'd consider it a criterion #1 speedy delete candidate, myself. Geogre 16:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:06, 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 July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Jo Logan

Apparent hoax. Google turns up nothing, ISBNs seem to be bogus.—Wahoofive (talk) 12:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's also no Jo Logan (or Josephine Logan, or J.C. Logan) who wrote on music in the Library of Congress catalogue. --Camembert 12:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN nonsense A curate's egg 13:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, apparently. According to Google there's a real author named Jo Logan who wrote some UK astrology books circa 1999-2000, not enough info to fix the article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The author's IP 62.253.219.130 (talk · contribs) shows a lot of vandalism (interspersed with some genuine contribution - the IP traces to what seems to be a school/learning centre public terminal). History shows he is an Arsenal FC fan! Bobbis 14:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax, and not even funny. Naturenet 14:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some kind of proof is presented.-Poli 14:20, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 00:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax, Delete. Antandrus (talk) 28 June 2005 05:05 (UTC)
• Delete, user is consistently making things up. Joe D (t) 29 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax by vandal. --RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 13:51 (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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Thuruthel

Vanity. Delete the pictures too. Enochlau 13:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - heaven help us! Vanity. A curate's egg 13:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy seems interesting as a reference for User:Sillysod, but not as encyclopedia article.-Poli 14:27, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, nor a free web host. Geogre 16:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, genealogy. --Etacar11 00:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete genealogy. JamesBurns 03:07, 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 July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Autumn Le Fluer

Advertisement. --Conti|✉ 13:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Autumn is very relevant to the topics of Bondage. She has been in the bondage community since 1997. Also, she finished 18th place for the Signey Bondage Awards that you have an entry for. Her entry has also been added to, so plz take another look.
• Delete NN A curate's egg 13:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete damn, I was so willing to vote keep, but google shows 0 hits.-Poli 14:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. One google hit on a defunct Yahoo message board. Pburka 16:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very very not notable. David | Talk 21:40, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

KOKS

Non-notable. Enochlau 13:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN A curate's egg 13:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.-Poli 14:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete though I'd love to hear what their cheerleaders say during their competitions: "We love KOKS! We love KOKS! Goooo KOKS!" Ok, I'll stop now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "2-4-6-8/ Who do we appreciate?/ KOKS! KOKS! KOKS!" There are numerous problems, here. The first is that it is an acronym, when there is no article for the expansion. The second is that it's unverifiable. Geogre 16:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not unverifiable since it has a website here. It is basically vanity though, they are non-notable (the expansion gets 5 unique Google hits) and the individuals themselves get none that are relevant. -Splash 23:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• why delete? many other acronyms are present in wikipedia and other encyclopedia. The KOKS are also well known around the uk for their racing abilitys and have had many articles publibished about there members and racing exploits in uk publications - web and press. they also race internationally and i believe it to be a viable interest entry. also regarding unverifiablility, google KOKS racing and find out, alternatively i'd be happy to provide publication infomation to anyone to see. (UTC)
• There's no need to delete this page. Wikipedia contains many acronyms. It is a notable entry, not around the world but certainly within the Karting community. Other larger sports teams are here, currently the KOKS Racing is in its formative years but is growing. (unsigned comment by 62.249.197.159)

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 — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Andrew S. Blake

• Delete - Not notable - possible vanity A curate's egg 13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author available on amazon.de. See [9] Pburka 16:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Furthermore, it's a CV rather than a biography. Geogre 16:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This does start to read more like a CV/bio towards the end but if he's published then...well, ok...I'm open to persuasion of the deleterious case, though, particularly considering the absence of any relevant Google hits. -Splash 23:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 00:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 03:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. Possibly even copyvio, it reads like a dustjacket blurb. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not less notable tha Amici Forever. --Wetman 09:19, 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 July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Si.mobil-Vodafone

Non-enciclopedic and irrelevant. Merge (merge what?) or redirect to Vodafone page. José San Martin 13:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising for a particular Slovenian wireless provider. Geogre 16:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. --Scimitar 17:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but only because they are already mentioned here, an entry that doesn't appear to have been inserted just today. I don't think this is advertising - maybe just a user who thought "oh my network's not listed here and others are".-Splash 23:12, Jun 24, 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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

14th millenium AD and beyond

• What is this?? I suggest it should be deleted if no one can prove it is a useful article. Georgia guy 13:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• it needs some more explanation text, but appears to be a list of regularly occuring astronomical phenomenon that are set to occur 14,000 years from now. User:vroman

• Speedy delete. (Almost) patent nonsense. Disagree with User:vroman. Relevance must be provided explicitly of the use of such data. There must be better scientific tools than this list if one really needs to calculate astronomical events for the next millennia. Iani 13:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The mentioned events are very rarely events. Not all of them happens once a century! DO NOT DELETE!
  • Comment. If you want this vote to count, please sign it. Thanks. 23skidoo 22:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an almanac, or for that matter a crystal ball. What Iani said. FreplySpang (talk) 15:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It does not take a crystal ball to accurately predict astronomical events. In fact, it takes science and mathematics. Also:

Wikipedia:What is an article: "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it"

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "However, predictable astronomical events...are apropriate topics for articles."

• Thus, cautious keep, although it probably needs some reorganising and a rename, but the concept of such a consolidated list in Wikipedia is fine. sjorford →•← 16:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. Nothing guarantees these events will happen; the stars could explode. A list of periodic events and their periods would be appropriate, but this isn't. --Xcali 16:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Firstly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Secondly, the whole article seems just to be indexing a website (every "event" has a link to the same site). Will => talk 16:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Absolutely no guarantee of these things happening. The science could be wrong. There could be intervening events. The Vogons could build a hyperspace ramp. Further, the title is unsearchable and unfindable and unlinkable, practially. To infinity and beyond is what it seems like. Relevant data can be (is) in the various comet, asteroid, star, etc. articles. Geogre 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The science could be wrong ?! Please go to Category:Science and start nominating the whole lot.--Nabla 18:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Geogre, science can't be wrong - that's never happened! ;) Anyway, I think that, this many thousands of years hence, humans are more likely to be moving planets around than Vogons. I see nothing wrong with an article noting future events that are scientifically almost certain to happen ... but this title is unworkable. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:43, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Keep. We have, since mid-2004, 4th millennium, 5th millennium, 6th millennium, 7th millennium, 8th millennium, 9th millennium, and 10th millennium. They already included astronomical predictions, expanded by the creator of this article. Whether Regulus occultations by Venus are important or not should be debated there, not here. A very old astronomical software I use confirms that Venus is in fact close to Regulus at few random picked dates. It isn't accurate enough to comfirm the occultation. As the article spans dates starting from 10 032 It should me moved to 11th millennium and beyond (which would be split if/when it gets too large), or to 11th millennium (with a note that it includes further dates that should be split later), or split by millennia which is my favourite solution. I'd glad to do whatever looks best according to this discussion if the articles survives. The site links must be removed as irrelevant, I'll do so as soon as I can.--Nabla 18:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, most of these events will happen. But what's the point of predicting that on March 27th, 224508, Mercury and Venus will simultaneously transit the Sun? --Carnildo 21:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What? No votes to move it to 14th millenium CE and beyond?? --Tabor 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nabla. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to 11th millennium and beyond as per Nabla. It saves us having a string of individual millennium articles beyond the 10th Millennium article already in place. Plus the astronomical events are scientifically predicted which is a bit different than crystal ball-gazing. Plus there is potential to expand this article to include science fiction references (I can already think of a number of Doctor Who links). 23skidoo 22:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and other millenia articles as well. The content may be moved into single article with better name. Pavel Vozenilek 02:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nabla. JamesBurns 03:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would suggest deleting the other millenium articles and having alist of predictable astronomic events.--Porturology 05:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to 11th millennium and beyond. Future astronomical events are encyclopedic, and some are rare enough that they don't happen anytime in the next 8000 years. Also, if you look at the century articles, pretty much everything from 24th century on is a list of astronomical predictions and science fiction references. This article serves the same purpose as 24th century. It just covers a different period of time. Dave6 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Create Future astronomical events, merge all relevant articles to it and delete - Skysmith 28 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)
• Keep. Wouldn't oppose merging this to an article closer to the present, but there's no valid reason to simply delete. --Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:26 (UTC)
• Keep but rename; "millennium" is misspelled in title, and events start at 11th millennium not 14th. *Dan* June 30, 2005 02:19 (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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories

I created this page in the hopes that it would be useful as a kind of watchlist for pseudoscientific theories, and as a collection of curious crackpottery in the style of http://crank.net/ . I guess I was forgetting that I was creating the page on a wiki, instead it became a magnet for the kinds of people who support these theories. They would claim that the page is inherently POV, and I'm ashamed to admit that they were probably right. The other thing they have done constantly in the two years since this page was created, is add various mainstream theories to the page, in an effort push the POV that these mainstream theories are just as legitimate as whatever minority theory they support. These efforts have been largely successful, since most Wikipedians are not prepared to argue such a subjective point on such a regular basis. I have copied the page to my user space (User:Tim Starling/List of crackpot theories) and modified it to a mainstream POV, for the benefit of Wikipedians who wish to use it for monitoring crackpots. I'm now more than happy for the main namespace copy to be deleted. Tim Starling 14:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Tim, as a matter of fact, I do think an article of this kind is a good adition to an encyclopaedia. I don't know how to vote for it yet. Abstain for now.-Poli 14:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Move to List of fringe theories or a similarly clear title. --brian0918&#153; 15:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It was originally at List of speculative or fringe theories. It was moved in February 2004 by Eclecticology. This was accepted by consensus. He said at the time "I can accept the change in the title from "sciences" to "theories". I pondered that possibility myself and decided that "science" in some usages was a much broader term. It was "fringe" in the old title that I found unacceptable." -- Tim Starling 16:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Alternative, speculative or disputed theories are those that don't (yet) enjoy mainstream support. String theory would be a good example of such a theory, phrenology and astrology also, though the latter two have been falsified to the satisfaction of most observers whilst the theorists are still trying to work out how to falsify string theory. Intelligent design should be on the list because it doesn't have a scientific framework--it's an inference from ignorance. Creationism in its "Young Earth" form is falsified and old-earthers' hypotheses tend to founder on lack of parsimony. Not an article that is without problems, but a very good resource and shouldn't be deleted. Brian's idea of moving could be considered after this VfD, it may have some merit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, it may be a better idea to split the article up into sub-articles, or sub-headings, separating "alternative", "pseudoscientific", "disputed", and "speculative" theories. Otherwise, you're giving as much credit to astrology as you are to string theory, when the latter is an actual scientific theory. The simpler solution seems to be to go with the original intention of the author and stick to "theories" that don't have the potential to become part of mainstream science. --brian0918&#153; 15:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, some of these theories are fluid, and in any case there may be quite a lot of overlap. I don't have a problem treating astrology as "an actual scientific theory" because if it couldn't be formulated in a scientific manner we couldn't put it on the list. Typically astrology is falsified by examining birth data and testing correlations between independently produced lists of character traits and astrological readings produced independently by individual astrologers from the same data. There are interpretations of astrology which cannot be falsified in this way (for instance, astrological consultation as a kind of counselling), but those are not scientific. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Almost every scientific theory is disputed by someone. You can't list them all and still be able to make a serious claim to NPOV. Nor is it useful to mix up respectable mainstream proposals such as string theory with pseudoscience such as Time Cube, that just causes offence. The problem is, there's no NPOV way to draw a line between the two categories. It's just a troll-magnet. -- Tim Starling 16:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree that "almost every scientific theory is disputed by someone", there are good criteria for determining if a hypothesis is fringe science, is falsified, or of indeterminate status (String theory is close to being a legitimate theory, but currently lacks demonstrable predictive power) etc. If you missed out string theory then it would be POV, and we shouldn't be worried about causing offence (to whom?) Troll magnet? That's Wikipedia. Look, are we making an encyclopedia or trying to win a popularity contest? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is too much crackpottery on wiki; it needs rolling back William M. Connolley 15:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• Keep, excellent piece and entirely appropriate here jamesgibbon 15:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Technically, every theory would fall under speculative and disputed, since if there were no question at all, it would be a law rather than a theory. While I can see the merit in an article like this (by keeping crackpottery out of the other articles), I feel that we should respect the author's wishes to delete it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Two notes: "Scientific theory" and "theory" are two different terms, with different meanings (summarized by another user below). Also, "respecting the author's wishes" isn't really valid on Wikipedia. --brian0918&#153; 19:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I'm afraid that "Starblind" does not understand what the term "theory" means. A scientific theory is just as factual as a law. And whether the author likes it or not, I think this page is useful and treats of an important topic - not of what is right, but what people consider right even when it is highly delusional. Deleting this page would be blinding ourselves to the facts just as much as they are blinded to the facts. Franc28 18:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, its a fascinating list. I can see that its a dispute magnet, and would need active patrolling. But then, so are many/most articles on religion and politics, and WP has many articles on religion and politics; dispute does not mean 'not a valid article'. Many religion/politics articles have NPOV stickers slapped on them. Note article has categorization problems: polywater was an academic disaster from a highly regarded and respected researcher. Time-cube by contrast is crank, in which only one person on this planet believes in. Luminiferous aether was once a respected theory ... I'd like to see a distinction between "theories that were once taken seriously by academics" and "theories that were never taken seriously" (i.e. crank topics, creationism). linas 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, I see the problem. Tim's original list had only crackpot theories on the list. But then someone started adding non-crackpot, highly-speculative-but-academically-acceptable theories to the list. And thus it becomes a complete mess. How about we rename the thing to the pejorative list of crackpot theories? That would clarify the issue a whole lot. linas 19:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I was all for keeping it until this batch of changes was made, and left uncontested for two weeks. The inclusion of force carrier and reincarnation was particularly inappropriate. An article becomes unmaintainable when the population of editors wanting to bias the article towards a particular minority view greatly outnumbers the number of editors willing to fight for NPOV. About the name change: don't you think that would offend the many editors who hold those beliefs? -- Tim Starling 20:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Tim, what you're describing here is a good case for cleanup. We don't delete articles just because they've been edited into a non-neutral state. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I have to change my vote; I can now see that Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Protoscience an the various sub-cats, such as Category:Pseudophysics and Category:Pseudoarchaeology provide a much more complete and comprehensive view of the subject than this list does. I just wish that WP software provided a mechanism to allow watching of the addition or removal of an article from a category. (without having to watch the article itself). linas 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
• Abstain. Upon further review, I withdraw my vote. I see that this article looks a lot healthier then I remember it being. It looks to be a good intro to the topic of pseudoscience. linas 1 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry, Tim, but I will never vote to delete articles on the sole ground that they're hard to maintain, either because they run the risk of POV or because people with dubious ideas start attacking it. If anything, it's a sign that you may need to rethink the list criteria and make them even clearer, to prevent as much debate as possible. Maybe even a move. That is material for the talk page, though, not a deletion debate. Once you've done that, and there's still a lot of heat, you're down to digging the trenches and hoping the community will take care of it.
  The article itself is fine. What the others have said: this list itself is not passing judgement on the theories listed (and "theory" needs to be taken in its scientific meaning), it only lists articles in which notable views of the theory as alternative to mainstream, speculative or disputed are discussed. That's verifiable, and not POV. Hate the editors, not the article. JRM · Talk 21:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete Alternative to what? Every theory is speculative; that's why it's a theory and not a law. --Xcali 21:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mmmmm... ignorance. --brian0918&#153; 21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, you bet. Suckers. --Infradig (andrew) 22:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See this person's previous user page to see who we're dealing with:

    "I do not believe in the RST any more than I believe in Relativity, String Theory, Nuclear Theory or any other scientific theory. To me doctrinal belief in a scientific theory is as absurd as belief in a bank (whatever that means). I do however find the RST highly (almost uniquely) unusual and it has maintained my interest (though not always actively) over many years."

  • --brian0918&#153; 22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    So what exactly is your point? I supported a fringe theory that was deleted but perversely believe this page itself should not exist. I see no contradiction. Also, please stop adding useless personal attacks to peoples comments, its against VfD policy. --Infradig (andrew) 05:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • What personal attacks? Saying "ignorance"? I'm ignorant of things too. We all are.... especially YOU! :) --brian0918&#153; 18:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-confessed crackpot-stuff is by definition not-encyclopedic and just draw flies to the ointment. Equally, per comments above: every theory has its disputations and thus every single one of them would need to be collected here. The scientific, the sociological, the economicsical (esp. these ones!), the political ad nauseam. Congrats to the author for deciding to VfD it. -Splash 23:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep These theories exist, and some of them exist famously. I consider this to be an excellent compilation of contemporary and traditional non-mainstream thought. Supporting these ideas does not follow from listing them. I have always felt that the best way to out a kook was to expose his ideas. Denni☯ 00:12, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. If the title was more to the point it wouldn't be such a problem. I don't think "draws flies" is a great reason to delete something (might as well delete a lot of other topics if that is it). If it was renamed so that it was clear that this is a list of things which are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community as legitimate, I think it'd be a lot easier to deflect people. IN ANY EVENT, I don't think it is has drawn more POV pushers than most controversial articles do. --Fastfission 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOV as needed. Interesting list. --cesarb 02:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep excellent well summarised list. JamesBurns 03:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - IMHO the only reasons to delete soenmthing like this would be if it were proved to be seriously POV, was being used as a cruft-generator, or if it was irrevocably edit-warred. As a list it is surely admirable. --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. I would suggest that point 5: Adhered to by a limited group be dropped as a criteria for incusion in the list. This is too vague and will lead to disputes. Only crackpot theories should be iuncluded. To decide whether or not you are dealing with a crackpot theory is simple. just check out peer reviewed scientific journals (with the exception of the Journal of Creation Science, of course).

Count Iblis 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. When I saw it going by on Recent Changes I fully expected it to be deletable junk; but it's not: it's an excellent list, NPOV, and a fascinating read. Title is fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 16:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't usually participate in VfD debates, but since Tim mentioned my comments when this list received its present title, I felt that I should. Thanks for mentioning it, and I still agree with what I said then. The consensus at the time was with the intent of finding a term with a broad acceptibility. It had to satisfy the scepticism of mainstream science without descending into the pejorative. It also had to make a home for a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of acceptability, and recognize the fact that the adversaries for any two given subject will vary. If this list is to be abandoned then we will need a better compromise that does all this and more. Eclecticology June 28, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
• Keep. The list is actually useful to me and I would hate to lose it. It is bound to be somewhat POV, given the nature of disputed theories, but it retains its broad interest. It may benefit from a narrower mission, however. Perhaps separating the theory groups would lower the level of wingnuttery.S.N. Hillbrand 30 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)
• Delete - the range is too huge, criteria too broad, and the scope for abuse too big (on either side of the issues) to be useful. What would be useful is an article on how to evaluate the merit of theories. Pseudoscience is blatantly POV. --Leifern June 30, 2005 23:20 (UTC)
  • Note: Leifern is claiming that the term "pseudoscience" is inherently POV, not that the article is POV. See the article's talk page. While I agree with him, Wikipedia is no place for original research. --brian0918&#153; 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)

• keep. This is very useful as a place to catalog disputed theories. Even if not presented as fact, such theories need to be presented as ideas for the encyclopedia to be complete. The name is as un-POV as it can get, and although the potential for abuse is high the alternative (of trying to ignore such theories) sweeps a body of human knowledge -- the study of alternative theories in their own right -- under the rug.

• keep but revise. This is a useful list. Part of the trouble is that this has come to include all kinds of things. For example, luminiferous aether and the steady state theories were widely accepted for quite some time, but now are discredited. Others are new and under active consideration (such as string theory) or are subject to ongoing debate (such as creationism). Perhaps a notation such as:

* Luminiferous aether (discredited) ...

could be used. Other designations could include

• "disputed" (for previously accepted theories that are now "on the ropes"),
• "alternative" (for newer theories that may be accepted in the future),
• "fringe" (for theories with staying power that have only a limited following), and
• "unaccepted" (for theories like creationism that have a popular following but are not accepted by the scientific community. Hopefully this will give that entry some needed NPOV.)

["Crackpot" should never be used: Not only is it an insult, but if something is really crackpot (in that it lacks a following) it should not even appear in Wikipedia.]

Do realize that in times past, both relativity and continental drift would have been included here. --EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

• Keep. If a better title and criteria can be developed then move. This is a good and useful article. -Willmcw July 1, 2005 21:02 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no solid criteria as to what qualifies as "alternative, speculative and disputed theories". Virtually everything has been disputed at some time or another. I fail to see why creationism is included when it is disputed by evolutionists, yet evolution is not included when it is disputed by creationists. (I'm an evolutionist, by the way). Dsh34 2 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
  • That is just the name of the article. How about you try reading the article. --brian0918&#153; 3 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a shame the alternative theory folks are so determined to prove their idea is right that they risk losing a resource that may actually increase their following (and perhaps attract someone who may eventually prove their ideas correct to the larger scientific community), as well as widens the viewpoint of researchers who don't necessarily believe them, possibly leading to advances on other fronts. This is a great resource for rainy day reading, as well as sparking interest in other areas, such as the history category of Wikipedia. Hopefully, the announcement that there has been trouble will assist with keeping an eye on this page, although I'd suggest mentioning these problems to the larger Wikipedia community, for further help regarding this situation. As far as the "theory acceptance is always changing" argument, we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is always changing as well, and as such, should continue to reflect those changes as they are made. The important part is the theory's status at the present time.-- Scott_R 13:53, Jul 3, 2005 (EST)

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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

Cruchan

Merge with Cruachan, Ireland. Seems just a spelling error. --Lord Voldemort 14:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Cruachan, Ireland. Rmhermen 14:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Cruachan, Ireland, unless proven that they are different places. Google seems to think they that the same.-Poli 15:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• This is "votes for deletion". If you want an article merged, rather than deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles and Wikipedia:Merge are on the next floor. Uncle G 19:57, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete and make available for rewrite. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Microlan

Looks like an advert for a non-notable piece of computer harware. Most of the Google hits [10] seem to be to the manufacturer's websites. Cutler 15:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep this is a new technology by Dallas/Maxim which is one of the most important Digital IC manufacturers in the world. Articles about similar technologies (Serial Peripheral Interface and I²C) exist. It is of interest to Electronic Engineers and hobbists and definately encyclopaedic.-Poli 15:15, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Comment - if User:Poli is right then definitely needs WP:Cleanup. Cutler 15:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - agreed. Cleanup is necessary.-Poli 15:20, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 1-Wire, they are really the same thing.-Poli 17:15, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete - A crude personal web site is not evidence of notability, and the company web site barely mentions the term at all. Tverbeek 16:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Google shows lots of hits, including sensors connected to Personal Computers, Delphi components, weather stations, and 272 hits from maxim-ic.com.-Poli 16:34, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete and start over: This is beyond cleanup, as this is an ad, and it looks like press release material just copied and pasted. Should the topic have an article? Yes. Should this article be deleted? Yes. It's fine to start over, but this copy is awful and not cleanable. Geogre 16:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Completely Rewrite' as per Geogre CAPS LOCK 17:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe the subject is worthy of an article. But this is just a promotional piece. --Carnildo 21:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From author- newbie, as you can see-... I'd be more than happy to remove the link to the "further information", if that's what's got everyone upset. You should be aware, though, that I make no money from my involvement in MicroLan. I just find it a lot of fun. A lot of people DO make money from it, though, and it has been a serious technology since at least 2000. If Wikipedia wants to have no entry, so be it. In the past 48 hours, I've seen MicroLan products controlling the cash register in a major food retail chain and being used as at "watch-the-watchman" device in a shopping mall.... Hope I haven't further offended anyone by any clumsyness in this post!

--- When I searched on "1-Wire" I got no hits.... yes, I did search before presuming to post. I've used computers since 1968, so if Wikipedia's search engine misunderstands my search request, I'll be there are other people who are not seeing things that are no use to them if they don't see them. The 1-Wire page, subsequently found via link above, CERTAINLY has ad links to commercial sites benefiting from sale of the devices... not that I mind... but I wonder why the "delete it" brigade didn't attack those links?

--- If anyone wants to re-write the note to make the style more acceptable, I thought that was what wikis are all about? I hope you'll leave the INFORMNATION in place, as that was the point of putting the article in place.

--- The 1-Wire article is all well and good, and I'd be delighted if someone links my page to that, but if you were new to the technology, would you want to start with the 1-Wire dissertation, or the intro I've written?

--- I thought the article told people about 1-Wire and MicroLan... told them what it is. I presume they would only arrive at the page if they were trying to find out what they are.

Tom- original autor of page25 June 2005 11am, UK

• Comment Tom, there is already an article called 1-Wire that discusses this technology. I am, too, an engineer and a hobbist, and I can understand the relevance of such technology. You can go and insert all the information you want in 1-Wire. Please take a look at the Wikipedia:Tutorial if you are a new user, to get used to the wiki collaboration. This article (1-Wire) also needs a lot of content addition and copy-editing, so, there is lot of room for improvement. You can help that improvement, you know. I thought the VfD for your article inadequate, as deletions only apply to articles that don't belong to an encyclopaedia. Every article that deals with some encyclopaedic theme can be recovered. There is no such delete and restart, you just edit, erase everything and start over. But now, as there is already an article dealing with the technology, a redirect from one another is the best option, as two articles dealing with the same thing aren't good for wikipedia. 1-Wire isn't in VfD, you can insert all the content you want, change it as you want, and get the technology known. Regards.-Poli 19:00, 2005 Jun 25 (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 July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Locudox

Unverifiable. I've been reading about Pedro Nunes, to expand its article, and I didn't find a single reference to this. Also, I get only 6 Google hits, and they are all from WP, or mirrors of it.--Nabla 15:01, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:29, 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 July 1, 2005 02:31 (UTC)

CEO go

Advert for a website Cutler 15:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Articleceogogo. --Scimitar 15:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete advertising CDC (talk) 16:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily. Wake me up, before you go go. dewet|™ 00:14, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

E fluentials

Advertisement, neologism, vanity. Delete. Kelly Martin 15:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in as speedy a manner as possible, which sadly is 5 days. --Scimitar 15:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete!!! Spamvertisers go to Wikiiiii-Helllll!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:46, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:15, 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 July 1, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

CEO reputation

Advert. See CEO go Cutler 15:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I wish we could speedy this garbage. {from User:Scimitar Niteowlneils 15:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete advertising. DS1953 16:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily. dewet|™ 00:10, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Code 42

Just one relative unkwown of millions of software service companies. Site doesn't have enuf traffic for an Alexa ranking, 25 displayed hits for "code 42 software", fewer for sites that contain code42.com. Niteowlneils 15:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising CDC (talk) 23:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Differences between the terms Israelite and Jew

POV, original research, redundant. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Jew and Israelite, if it is not already covered (I think it is).-Poli 15:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Merging requires leaving a redirect. At the moment, it's quite impossible to leave redirect to two different articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; doesn't merit a separate piece jamesgibbon 15:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I could easily write an article about the Differences between apples and oranges but it would be just as useless. Reading the definition in Jew and Israelite should tell exactly the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Wikipedia already has too many "X and Y" articles. Redundant with appropriate dicdefs anyway. - Mustafaa 18:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 03:17, 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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Matthew Kalamidas

Appears to be a vanity/self-promotional page Tverbeek 15:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: It needs to be more NPOV, but the artist is real as is the studio. See link on this page [11] and also this page [12]. --Durin 19:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a real working artist as well[13], but that doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Tverbeek 16:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an artist per se is not notable. The article has also been written by the subject--Porturology 04:14, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 1 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Anchor Bimbo

Neologism. Gets 22 googles. Also, do we want a list in Wikipedia of 'people occasionally called bimbos'? Radiant_>|< 15:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - one wouldn't think so, would one? Especially when the author adds names and photographs of real people as examples! --Mothperson 15:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. --Durin 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ted Baxter Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Neolobimbo Neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is a term used by media observers to reflect a trend in broadcast journalism that is somewhat disturbing. I also have some plans to expand it. -- Spotteddogsdotorg 00:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment OK I have nominated it for a speedy delete. Happy now? If that doesn't work my vote changes to Delete- Spotteddogsdotorg 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 03:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The original article shows the heavy biases from a user whose actions led an admin to quit. And it is neologism. ErikNY 13:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- Jonel | Speak 15:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment with reference to Spotty's plans, what's the speed dial # for the Wiki lawyers? --Mothperson 15:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - just let this get deleted. It's got far more support for deletion than, say, Vince DeMentri. I'm confident any recreations of this will be treated just as harshly as recreations of DeMentri's article. That is, they'll go *poof* immediately. -- Jonel | Speak 00:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism! Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  • Comment - yeah, that's convincing. --Mothperson 28 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Gibberish, nonsense, joke, POV, sexist, not encyclopedic, bad faith article creation in the first place by somebody out to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 02:22 (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 July 1, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Ostimato

Vanity/ non-notable band/ 29 Google hits [14]/ doesn't even tell us anything about them. Cutler 15:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Draw and quarter. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not pass WP:MUSIC near as I can tell. --Durin 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Nothing in allmusic. --Etacar11 01:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 03:20, 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 NSR 1 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Caseworker

Dicdef. Cutler 15:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, delete here. m-w.com counts it as one word, not "case worker" in case anyone is wondering. --Durin 16:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Important concept in social services, having a perpetually overburdened gov't bureaucrat assigned to oversee a certain number of poor/needy/troubled families. Here in the U.S., fingers are often pointed (perhaps unfairly) at the caseworker when something goes wrong in a family to which one has been assigned. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:50, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it a bit just now. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Ok, that's quite a bit better. Considerably more worthy now. Changing my vote to Keep. --Durin 21:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This should have been listed on cleanup, not VfD. Factitious 00:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done BD 2412. Capitalistroadster 09:23, 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 July 1, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

220 Oak Street Tenants Association

No Vote: Was listed for speedy delete with reason stated as WP is not a soapbox or a webhost. This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD. Also see WP:DP where it states problem as "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", should be VfD. Under WP:NOT is Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a host. I'm all for reducing VfD load, but this is not a valid candidate for speedy. --Durin 15:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy under criteria 1.2.4, attempt to contact individuals named in title. --Xcali 16:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: How is it an attempt to contact the tenants association? It does list how to contact them, which if the article passes VfD should probably be removed or at least restructured, but it's not an attempt to contact them. --Durin 18:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It's an attempt to contect the (potential) members of the association. --Xcali 19:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems a bit of a stretch to me. Let's let this go as a VfD. It probably won't pass anyways, and if it does it can still be reworded away from that possible interpretation. --Durin 20:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't have any pizza included. --ben dummett 06:29, 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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

Kolven

Wow! 26,000 Google hits [15] ... but that's probably because (according to Babel Fish) kolven is Dutch for caggages. Golf? - unverified. Advert? - definitely. Give the article a chance just in case is does confound us all by getting expanded. Cutler 16:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The claim seems to be true. --Xcali 16:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:22, 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Religious ministry

Just a rant to advertise a non-notable church Cutler 16:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete church promo. JamesBurns 03:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content leave the article space open - This could at some point be used to clarify between non-religious and religious ministries as part of a disambiguation category of some kind.--eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:53 (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 5, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Chaotic gravitational waves

Appears to be someone's pet quantum gravity theory. The paper cited looks good, but has no bearing on the article's claims, making the article original research. Despite requests, no supporting documentation has been forthcoming for the article's claims about a gravitational "uncertainty principle" and claims that this "reconciles the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics".--Christopher Thomas 16:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as a references have been added and this article is necessary to balance the view that quantum gravity is the only way to resolve the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. If there may be gravitational explanations of quantum phenomena, a balanced presentation is needed. (unsigned comment by 216.15.32.45)
  • Considering that anyone can post an abstract on astro-ph, this isn't very compelling. Hunter Monroe just appears to be spamming this paper everywhere. It hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed journal. I consider it highly suspect until it is. --Etacar11 01:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sock puppet watch: this is 216.15.32.45 (talk · contribs)'s 6th edit.

Additionally, while this does appear to be the paper that the text of the article was based on, it still is of questionable notability. The paper was published on arxiv (lax submission standards compared to the more respected printed journals), and citations to it from elsewhere haven't (yet) been shown. As it seems to pull section 3 (on which the article is based) out of thin air, without providing the math to back up its statements about uncertainty, I doubt many researchers will have taken this seriously enough to respond to it, much less cite it, but anon is welcome to continue trying to dig up supporting papers. It at least took care to note that it was making an _analogy_ to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which the article doesn't adequately distinguish. --Christopher Thomas 01:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Shennanigans alert - The first draft of the arxiv paper dates from 21 June 2005. The article was created on 22 June 2005. There's probably a violation or two of self-promotion guidelines happening here. --Christopher Thomas 01:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research (formal vote).--Christopher Thomas 16:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Christopher Thomas. Quale 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — "relativistic gravitational waves" makes no sense to me. They already travel at the speed of light. To be credible, the article needs a reference to the individual(s) (physicist?) proposing this idea, and I see none. — RJH 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, original research. --Etacar11 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• MoveIf anything this article is misplaced as part of quantum gravity. The subject is more classical Chaos theory than quantum gravity. To people who have studied statistical mechanics and chaos in detail this is not original reserch in fact it seems to me that this article is old news. --Hfarmer 08:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First I am not the author of the page in question I do however have a strong interest in the matter at hand.

What would it take for you to not think this is original research? A physical reviwe D-15 article specifically about the effects of the brownian motion of distant unseen objects on hypothetical measureing equipment? That is all the article refer's to, brownian motion of experimental equipment due to random gravitational waves. The article itself is almost compleatly classical in it's physics. If anything this article should be moved to a page dealing with Classical Chaos theoryinstead of quantum gravity.

--Hfarmer 08:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would take a paper talking about the specific points in the article, which you grossly understate by labelling them "Brownian motion". The author specifically claims that they derive an "uncertainty principle", and that the idea of chaotic gravitational waves "reconciles the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics". Brownian motion does neither (you can still measure where the object is, measuring its position or momentum doesn't perturb its position or momentum substantially, and Brownian motion has no relation to unifying gravitation and quantum mechanics). For that matter, the Brownian motion arxiv paper doesn't mention or rely on _chaos_, either, so I'm having trouble seeing why you want to file it there.--Christopher Thomas 15:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change my vote to Delete. Here is why... Well it would be nice if the author of the actual paper would visit his article and support it. I cannot provide that. let us assume for a second that this is all above board and this person is a physicist of some standing. Say a university professor. I took a course in Statistical physics and chaos from such a person last semsester. If the author is much like the professor I took this that course from ( which is why I provided textbooks as backup for the article) then all of this seems so obvious to him that he could not imagine anyone having serious questions on the matter. That must be why the person who wrote this will not defend their work. They may not realize that it would be in question. As for any jerk accusing me of using the "sockpuppet" technique compare my editing style say in the Loop quantum gravity article. A week or so I rewrote it to get rid of the flamewar that the article itself had turned into. People seem to like it. Does this new article which usees NO Wiki code or Latex look likesomething I would do?

--Hfarmer 28 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

• Nothing I've seen shows that this Hunter Monroe person has any standing in the physics community, it appears that he works at the International Monetary Fund. Of course, lots of physicists work in finance, but I've seen nothing explaining the credentials of this guy. (Feel free to present something, of course) And as for his reason for not coming back and defending it...lots of people spam stuff to wiki and then never come back to say a word when it's up for deletion. That always speaks volumes about the item in question's importance. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 04:56 (UTC)

• Delete original research. Arxiv entry does not count as an encyclopedia-worthy subject. (I would think that publication and some citations should be necessary before subject can be considered as ready for an encyclopedia.) This is not the place for a scietific peer review, in fact, if one is needed, then that clearly says that the article is original research. Bambaiah June 28, 2005 10:22 (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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected in the Encyclopædia Britannica

Joke page. BJAODN. --cesarb 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nah just delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Why even list them? Just fix the pages. — RJH 17:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Internal pages do not need policing. Keep these instances of humor sprinkled in the project pages. lots of issues | leave me a message 17:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - just a bit of humor. Thue | talk 18:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A fair counterpart to Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Seriously though, maybe somebody will find one one day. You (Talk) 18:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Moot point. If someone finds one, they'll correct it. Therefore, there will never be anything on the page unless it lists old errors which have since been fixed (in which case, it will contain a few hundred-thousand items,and be unmanageable). -- BD2412 ^talk 19:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• An eternally blank list, as BD2412 points out. Delete. --Scimitar 19:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Scimitar.--Nabla 19:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Teh funnay. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL
• Keep, just to show that we bear no malice. Denni☯ 00:31, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep mildly amusing fun. JamesBurns 03:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if only to make sure it stays empty! -- Jonel | Speak 04:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep — Matt Crypto 21:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No actual content. EB will never admit it "corrected Wikipedia", hence this page serves no actual purpose. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it serves a minor purpose of A) weak humour and B) to make the point (through some weak humour) that maintaining a public list of current mistakes within Wikipedia is futile, whereas it makes perfect sense for Britannica. I think that's an interesting distinction between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias — but others may well wish to BJAODN it ;-) — Matt Crypto 28 June 2005 11:50 (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 July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Jelle Kool

nn StarCraft player. Patent vanity. I would have speedied it, but some admin probably would have complained. --Xcali 16:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete textbook example of vanity, no notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless garbage. --Scimitar 17:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Joyous 17:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. People playing games are inherently non-notable. (Note: I play mafia and if gameplayers were notable, I'd have started about a dozen articles about them myself). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you, Xcali. You are walking the path of truth and righteousness. (Oh, and delete.) Denni☯ 00:33, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:26, 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 July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Fairfax Youth Police Club Father's Day All Star Tournament

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fairfax Youth Police Club Father's Day All Star Tournament

delete - obscure community info - police kids soccer - w'pedia is not a notice board or webhub! max rspct 16:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) or redirect to Nambla he he

• Very nice, not notable, though. Delete. Fire Star 16:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good, but fails the "is it more notable than the All Priest Over 75's Five-A-Side Football Challenge Match between Craggy Island and Rugged Island?" test. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 03:27, 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 July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Blogophobia

Neologism coined by non-notable blogger Pburka 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--Scimitar 17:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism You (Talk) 17:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:GeneralTY39
• Speedy Delete User:MLSfan0012 Vote struck through because it was added by GeneralTY39 (talk · contribs) -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 03:27, 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 invalid nomination: previous VfD ended less than a day ago. --cesarb 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chung Tat-chi

Perhaps I was not explaining enough last time. I was in HK IMO team and I saw Macau IMO team (can't remember if it was 2001 or 2002) leaving before prizing ceremony because they had to get back and prepare for the coming IOI. And I also knew that some IMO trainees in HK were in IOI training as well because of the similarity between maths and programming. This is not anything surprising for one to take part in both IMO and IOI for a city with small population like Macau and Hong Kong. And I think I should repeat myself again: the level of maths olympiad is far away from maths research, and it can't truly assess one's maths ability because maths olympiad is to solve explicitly stated problems while research is to probe into undiscovered theorems and theories. The latter often needs years of hard work, while the former only takes some hours of thinking. Therefore don't compare it with sports and don't think one will be a maths stars because of performing well in maths olympiad. I speak from my experience in maths olympiad training and in maths undergrad studies. So I ask for a delete of this article. Small potato 17:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete an article on a math contest participant is no more notable or encyclopedic than an article on, say, a spelling-bee contestant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, Jun 24, 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 July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Rabbi eliyahu feinstein

As far as I can tell, this rabbi isn't notable for any reason besides being a rabbi (which is definitely not enough). A google search produces a mere 9 results. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not specifically notable. Appears to be the grandfather of Joseph Dov Soloveitchik. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:29, 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 July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Shrunken School

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this is all that is known, then it would be better to wait until actual info is released before making the article, and that probably won't be until next year. Sonic Mew 17:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — could not confirm. — RJH 17:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete under speedy criterion 1. Short with no useful content. Let's retry when there's actually info on the subject available. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted for the reasons stated above. Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 Jun 25 (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 ignoring sock puppets, delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Michigan Coalition for Mandatory English

Connected with Bill Kelly, also up for deletion. This lobbying group only gets two unique Google hits [16]. --Etacar11 17:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And by this, I mean, of course, that it is not notable, and possible self-promotion. --Etacar11 17:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And of course, my vote is delete. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

Keep I'm sick of these elitist wikipedians trying to decide what is worthy to be educated of. It doesn't matter how notable something is. There's an entry to the X-Factor comic book, for goodness' sake. This movement will mean ten times as much as that piddly little long-canceled publication series and will have an important effect on the state of Michigan and thus it is something and has something of value to it and should be available to educate others with. "Notability" is an excuse. This is worthy to be learned of. With entries of all this obscure stuff, don't hate this movement just because you disagree with its values. --The Blue Spider

• Comment This user's only edits involve this page and Bill Kelly's. Although he claims to have edited before as an anon. And Blue Spider, my comment is nothing personal, we just have to watch out for sockpuppets. See WP:SOCK. And, no, I'm not accusing you of being one. But anyone who signs up for an account to vote in a VFD is always suspect. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

• Keep. Funny. No, seriously, I mustn't laugh at these crackpots, even though as an (arrogant - added by 218.1.140.9) Englishman the sight of foreigners trying to force one another to speak my language is bound to be richly amusing. Delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Tony, it's not the same language; it's the same words, but we don't say them like we are faggots (that's 'turd burglars' I believe in Queen's english) (comment added by 218.1.140.9, user's only edits are to this page)
  • Keep** Seriously, this isnt a joke. MCME is a group pushing to make English the official language in the state. No bilingual forms in the hospital for muslims. Learn our damn language. If everyone else could handle it, so could you. Now, this idea might not be new, but the coalition was indeed formed by Dr Kelly. (unsigned vote by 69.241.248.95)
• keep* -- Also check this out, http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=24459 (unsigned vote, also by 69.241.248.95)
  • User's only edits are here and on the Bill Kelly vfd. And, I'll add, just because a group exists does not make them inherently notable. One opinion article doesn't do it either. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
• Keep I work for the Michigan House and Representative Jack Hoogendyk has introduced a bill to make Michigan the official language of Michigan, he has mentioned this on his campaign website ( http://www.jackformichigan.com/newsstory061505.html ). The fully media push is coming later this month. Jack Hoogendyk was inspired to introduce the bill after meeting with Bill Kelly and his Michigan Coalition for Mandatory English. It seems that Ms. Ectar wishes to have everything related to this person deleted, and I assume she must have some personal reason for hating Bill Kelly, so I won't try to stop her. But if her concern is factual accuracy, you have no choice but to keep. Also, Bill is quoted www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1406088/posts and http://www.cumuli.com/ezines/1432_article.html (unsigned vote by 24.11.80.136, only edits here and on the Bill Kelly vfd)
  • No, I have nothing personal against Bill Kelly or this Coalition. I just don't think they are notable enough at this time for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Nothing personal? A knife does not make a wife MR Etacar...you know what I'm talking about don't you? (unsigned comment by 218.1.140.9)

• I haven't a clue. Are you threatening me? --Etacar11 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
• I'm sorry if it sounded like that because you couldn't know the clue. Of course I would not threaten you or want to give you that impression.
• Delete -- nothing worth noting yet -- at this point in time, this appears to be an attempt at raising visibility for the group, although honestly, it verges on self-defeating parody--that is, this and the related articles could just as easily have been contributed by people aiming to ridicule as promote. older≠wiser July 2, 2005 13:20 (UTC)
• Delete. Student nonsense/trolling. -- RHaworth 2005 July 4 12:39 (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 speedily redirected. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

News trade

This expression is uncommon at best. (Many Google hits are just incidental combinations of the two words.) The article itself appears to be an attempt to combine elements that don't belong together. Please see Talk:News trade. A template and category for "News trade" have been previously deleted. Maurreen 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As long as news is substantively distinguished and contrasted with news media - perhaps the more common term - then it seems fine to merge NT to NM. -SV|t 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article News trade seems more of an essay outline expressing the author's point of view on the news industry pulling together disperate elements into an implied but unclearly articulated thesis. The term news industry (a developing stub) is the common term used to discuss the business and economic aspects of the news business seperate and apart from the reporting function but with inclusion of the social questions related to the news business. Media economics (a developing article) is the common term for larger questions of economics related to media, including news, public affairs programs, documentary films, entertainment (of all kinds), program length commercials, sporting events, religious programs, shopping networks, media ownership, regulation, advertising rates and revenues, and marketing of media outlets. Wikipedia is not a place to invent terms for an original thesis or essay, I'd respectfully suggest the author of the article develop his thesis in a blog or other more appropriate web site or publication. Calicocat 14:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 03:53, 26 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/no consensus. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Miami Project to Cure Paralysis

A very noble effort, to cure paralysis, but the notability of this research programme (it doesn't even appear to be a faculty or institute) is doubtful. JFW | T@lk 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if expanded. JamesBurns 03:54, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Meretricious

Delete dicdef, already Transwiki'ed to Wiktionary, there's nothing here to write an encyclopedia article about. Russ Blau (talk) 17:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio of the WordNet entry and then adjective → noun Redirect to prostitution. Uncle G 20:11, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 03:30, 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 but does it need to be moved to Edwin Bryant? FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant/Temp

This only concerns the bottom portion. The top part of the entry about another person is up for copyvio.

The book covered has an Amazon sales rank of ~500k. No other claims of notability made.

lots of issues | leave me a message 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable, copyvio. JamesBurns 03:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously. How can somebody seriously base a vfd on an Amazon sales rank? By the same logic, almost every writer before 1900 or in a specialised field (like for example Indology) would be non-notable. This is an author and editor of several important books in the specific field. See also for example: [17], [18], [[19], [20], [21] etc. The article should be expanded however. And maybe Edwin Bryant should be a disambiguation page. The copyvio only concerns the person from the first part of the article. --Avecit 08:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• What a mess! This article comprises two entirely separate Edwin Bryants. The first is, indeed, a copyright violation (The museum's web site is not GFDL licenced.), and there is no prior non-infringing version of the article. By strict application of our copyright problems procedure, the entire article must go (there being no non-infringing version to roll back to), and the author of the second part of the article, on the second Edwin Bryant, should have been required to rewrite it from scratch in the rewrite article, which User:Lotsofissues should then have nominated for deletion (since xe wants it deleted). I've blanked the copyright violation article, started a rewrite article about the second Edwin Bryant using material from an Amazon search (rather than the original article), and shifted the VFD there. Uncle G 12:20, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• This published author of three books and editor of a fourth appears to meet the WP:BIO criteria. Keep. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Jun 26 (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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Rabbit Fire

Tagged on Apr 30 but never listed on VfD. No vote.--Nabla 18:00, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

---

As the Thry guy noted on the discussion page this page should simply be listed on the Elmer Fudd page. It is not significant enough to stand on its own. freestylefrappe 03:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am the "Thry guy" in question, and my 9th Jan comment still stands - merge with Elmer Fudd. Thryduulf 22:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC) is now out-of-date. Keep. Thryduulf 4 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

• Merge with Elmer Fudd (although I was mildly tempted to say dewete). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:07, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • WOW!!! Keep - what a rewrite! -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:45 (UTC)
• Mewge with Elmaw Fudd. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Mewge and Wediwect with Elmew Fudd Wats. "Keep" doesn't wowk too wew in Elmaw Fudd-speak. --Carnildo 22:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The film is a notable Bugs Bunny cartoon, guest-starring Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd (which is, first of all, why a merge to Elmer Fudd would not be correct). This is the first of the "Duck Season! Rabbit Season!" films, and is generally considered one of the best Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts ever made. I have expanded the article as such, and added a link to the film's imdb page. This cartoon short is very much notable enough for its own article; especially if "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" has its own as well.--FuriousFreddy 19:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and dont merge while i realize it might seem weird that i created the vfd page yet im advocating keeping it, im changing my vote because of the expansion by FuriousFreddy. freestylefrappe 23:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Elmer Fudd. JamesBurns 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment--Everyone saying "merge with Elmer Fudd"--it's not an Elmer Fudd cartoon, he's a supporting character. If anything, you would merge with Bugs Bunny. But is this short not notable enough for its own article? I know the original stub didn't establish notability, I expanded the article so that it now does.
  • Maybe if the "reaction" section were expanded more. --Carnildo 05:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's expanded more. I'd be hard-pressed for someone to tell me why this short isn't notable. --FuriousFreddy 06:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and dont merge There are more than a dozen other Warner Brothers cartoon shorts that also have their own Wikipedia articles, most of which aren't even as historically significant as this one, and on top of that this article is the best researched and written one about a WB short that I've seen. I wish someone would give the Duck Amuck article this kind of rewrite. One idea I could support is expanding this further into an article about all three short films in the "Hunting Trilogy," as opposed to just this one, but that isn't absolutely necessary. I am actually hoping to see articles (or additional information) about the other two at some point though, if not here then on their own pages, especially Duck, Rabbit, Duck! since it's my favorite of three.--Zequist 4 July 2005 02:48 (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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 15:55 (UTC)

Radical Muslim

Tagged on Jun 18 but not listed on VfD. No vote.--Nabla 18:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

---

Extreme POV topic which is extensively covered in other articles. Midster 23:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopelessly POV. Not salvagable, part of an ongoing POV warrior thingy. func(talk) 23:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and duplicates other articles. GhePeU 08:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. submitter has made several other dubious submissions. Physchim62 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Huh? Delete. - Mustafaa 18:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irreparably POV fork. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:27, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete — suicide bomber is not necessarily a radical, and vice versa. — RJH 20:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (I changed my vote to:) Redirect to Islam as a political movement. — RJH 20:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteRevolución 22:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Islam as a political movement, as per RJH. JamesBurns 03:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV title, POV article. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Dudtz-Delete offensive twords Arabs and Muslims.

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 July 1, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Tom Chiu (statistician)

I am renominating this for deletion after it survived last month. This appears to be a vanity entry. "Tom Chiu" paired with SPSS scores 22 Google hits, some of which are mirrors of Wikipedia content. This page mentions his title and describes a fairly typical employee role. Vanity suspected here. In the previous VFD, it appeared this entry would be voted out as a standard vanity delete, but towards the end, two editors without explanation voted keep. It would be helpful this time if all voters provided a reason for their decision. lots of issues | leave me a message 18:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Normally I'd be concerned about a month-long gap between nominations, but with five votes total and two unexplained keep votes (one of them being very weak) I think this is an appropriate re-nomination. Delete, does not assert notability, though I am curious why Markaci and JuntungWu voted to keep. Chiu appears to have presented research at an ACM data mining conference and other conferences, but "tom chiu" "data mining" yields only 11 unique hits, and there's nothing that I've found that indicates that research is Chiu's main activity or that he's been active enough to warrant an article. Looks like he's got a technical job and has had some work published in professional journals or presented at conferences. Under that criterion, most of my co-workers (and me) qualify for articles, too. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Android. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 01:30, 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 July 1, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Marc Parrish

Article is nothing more than a vanity piece, I think it should be dropped. 24.43.203.159 18:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bio/resume. No indicia of wikipedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Comment. Fernando J. Canales links to Marc Parrish, but as the author of a book. Any indication that this is the same individual? Pburka 20:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be established. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no claim to notability. --Etacar11 01:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:32, 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 speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (Clone of perversion) --cesarb 21:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perversian

This is just a poor copy of the Perversion entry. Chris Capoccia 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied this as is my practice with newly made clones of existing articles (older clonings have to be merged, which is nasty). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 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 July 1, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Zexasax

This “article” is fancruft. Chris Capoccia 15:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Really, really bad band vanity (or a hoax). Zero relevant Google hits. Tempted to point them in the direction of Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete blatant band vanity. --Etacar11 01:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable garage band vanity. JamesBurns 03:33, 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 redirect. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)

Glitterboy

This “article” looks very much like a product advertisement or vanity page Chris Capoccia

• Delete NN A curate's egg 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Davey Havok. Rocker's fashion lines generally don't deserve their own article (except for Puff Daddy, of course). -- BD2412 ^talk 19:36, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• I am vaguely remembering something called a "Glitterboy" from Rifts... ah, yes, there it is. Redirect to Glitter Boy. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Turn into disambig between Glitter Boy and Davey Havok. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 03:34, 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 DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

Erick Ahlstedt

Just another vanity page. DS 19:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, subject's claim to fame is that he "has written many unpublished works." Maybe userfy, if the author can be reached. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:38, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:34, 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 delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Rain (short story)

Tagged on Jun 8 but not listed on VfD. No vote--Nabla 19:23, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

---

• Delete, or move to Wikibooks if a fiction spot exist or whatever. Simply unencyclopedic! Antares33712 19:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move? Wally 05:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's a W. Somerset Maugham story, which may or may not be in the public domain by now. Transwiki if we know it isn't a copyvio, Speedy if it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikisource. --Sn0wflake 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, possible copyvio. JamesBurns 03:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Stories belong in wikisource if they're not a copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, Jun 25, 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 redirected. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

Downtown Minneapolis

Possibly merge with Minneapolis, Minnesota, but I'm inclined to delete as unencylopedic. --Alan Au 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not opposed to redirect to Minneapolis, Minnesota. An interesting article could be written on Downtown Minneapolis, but this isn't it; it's a directory listing. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Android79 (talk · contribs). Pburka 20:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a directory. JamesBurns 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I would be compelled to switch my vote if this article got expanded so that it was on the order of say, Uptown or any of the other fleshed out Minneapolis neighborhoods. --Schulte 06:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the area has a long history that could be included here. If someone rewrites this to be encylopedic then you can cancel my vote. Vegaswikian 06:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap and fun! -- Jonel | Speak 04:09, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

All the knights

nn vanity You (Talk) 19:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity/unverified. --Etacar11 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:39, 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 speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (Boothy's vandalism) --cesarb 21:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roger Moss (photographer), Roger Moss (park ranger), Roger Moss (lecturer) and Roger Moss (sculptor)

Apparently someone was dissatisfied that the earlier VFD on a Roger Moss resulted in a 'keep', so he is now making a WP:POINT by creating articles on each other Roger Moss that could remotely be found by google. One of them was a published author, so that sounds encyclopedic, but there's not much notability to these four, so delete. Radiant_>|< 19:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Previous VfD

• DELETE, put a pair of concrete overshoes on this thing, and drop it into the Atlantic off the New Jersey/Philadelphia coast. Now this sanity-challenged person has gone back to attacking the Roger W. Moss article. "Allegedly well-known" - cripes. This is the same guy who thinks he's in a position to label who's a bimbo. It would be funnier if it weren't so creepy. --Mothperson 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm speedying all this silliness. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 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.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Candi Kubeck

ValuJet Flight 592 has a good article covering this incident and Kubeck's notability is only based on that event. This should be deleted and some portion of it perhaps merged with the VJ592 article. Delete Dbchip 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per previous debate as notable pilot. Capitalistroadster 22:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please keep in mind that during the previous vote, there wasn't a substantial ValuJet Flight 592 article, which changes the situation. The subject is only notable for the one event that is documented in that article, so any content about her is most appropriate there. This article is never going to grow or become substantial or have more outbound or inbound links from other articles. I respectfully request that you reconsider as well as others who have previously voted. Dbchip 22:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The entire flight of VJ5982 was about seven minutes long, and very little is known about what the crew did, especially as they lost radio communications and power to the black boxes relatively early in the flight. I have read in an aviation publication an acknowledgement of her that she did immediately declare an emergency and initiate an attempt to return to Miami when she felt the kick of the loose tire exploding in the cargo hold. I do not feel this is sufficient for her inclusion in WP. Tandem 23:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Dbchip. —preceding unsigned comment by Reyk (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: 'first female captain to die while on duty' is notable in my book. - squibix 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge slightly and redirect to ValuJet Flight 592; subject is not independently notable (first female captain to die is trivia). The balance of the article is substantially unverifiable, I'd say. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep did she suddenly became less notable since the previous VfD?  Grue  17:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Different context this time. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Xcali in previous vote. Stifle 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Previous AFD

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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 4 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

Nautilus Middle School

Doesn't seem like a notable school and has no good content. Seems like school articles have been debated a lot in the past, but I feel as if there needs to be more than one line to keep it. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, that one line is even POV. I urge school inclusionists to leave a link in a school project, let it be deleted and write a worthwhile stub/article in it's place later (or before the VFD ends if possible. You don't need this one line to write that great article. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to keep, it's no longer a POV substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • But most people are far more likely to expand an existing article than to start a new one. Starting an article is a much higher hurdle, and most of the 307,000 registered users haven't jumped it, never mind the millions of unregistered readers. CalJW 21:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it's POV, edit it until it isn't POV. This is a Wiki. Using VfD to try to alter the content of POV articles is like using dynamite to deal with a toothache. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The history reveals that this article seems to have been the target of repeated vandalism. It's alternated between POV and NPOV several times. Pburka 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge onto Miami-Dade County, Florida#Independent judiciary and school district — RJH 20:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep User:GRider/Schoolwatch (preceding unsigned comment by Klonimus 19:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 20:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. That would not keep me happy. Merging an article is a form of deletion. It can no longer be categorised in the appropriate place. CalJW 21:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In due course it will improve. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Schools are not inherently notable. --Xcali 21:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added more information to the article. Pburka 23:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Nice work Pburka. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on the condition that I can add an article about my local Starbucks. — Phil Welch 03:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV, verifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep in the current form. It had 34 edits today. This proves the point that schools will be improved if they are nominated here. Vegaswikian 06:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Cleanup is not an appropriate reason to list a page for deletion. Either the subject is encyclopedic or it isn't. Pburka 12:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Please use {{cleanup-school}} or {{school-stub}}. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:46 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)
• Keep Inherent notability. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:28 (UTC)
• Keep. Inherent non-non-notability.--Centauri 29 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• keep please it is notable Yuckfoo 29 June 2005 19:25 (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 NSR 1 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Floating-rate bond

This is a definition, not encyclical 24.154.28.80 20:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Errmphl. Merge with bond (which already contains most of this information anyway). Merges make articles fat and happy. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:20, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Keep and don't merge. This topic is definitely expandable. It should go further into methodology for varying the coupon, including the various "benchmark rates" (of which LIBOR is only one) and the reset frequency. It should also discuss the valuation of floating rate bonds. Finally, it should mention the use of floating rate bonds in hedging. Just for starters. DS1953 21:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to change my vote if the article were to develop in that direction. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:38, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Keep I can see a lot of financial articles linking to this. Its need to be expanded is obvious.--GrandCru 21:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per DS1953. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DS1953. -- Jonel | Speak 04:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia needs its financial and accounting sections expanded in many ways. This is one of them. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:29 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Alien from the Darkness

Non-notable hentai video. Nothing about it particularly stands out, just the usual poorly-animated tentacle porn. — Gwalla | Talk 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be real, a quick Google turned up reviews, screenshots, and the cover art. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment as further proof, it even has an IMDB entry Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Everything commercially available on video has an IMDB entry. — Gwalla | Talk 04:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the this animation seems notable enough. ALSO, it should be properly titled Alien From the Darkness --Sn0wflake 21:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do a page move, in that case. New users are ineligible for such privileges. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 21:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep can't think of a reason not to.Alf 21:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a real film. Films belong in Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar 22:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd better get started writing Just Over Eighteen 7 then. — Gwalla | Talk 04:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be challenging WP:POINT, but in a general way, out of this context, you could do it and it probably would not meet much opposition, in the same way there aren't many reasonable reasons to oppose to this animation being kept. --Sn0wflake 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Somewhat notable Hentai. JamesBurns 03:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is it notable for? — Gwalla | Talk 04:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Some minor fixes, but it should be kept --C64 29 June 2005 12:59 (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. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Rhinomon

Some sort of fancruft without context and with no encyclopdic value whatsoever. Martg76 20:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• What links here --> Patamon. Merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete digicruft. JamesBurns 03:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and wait for the DigiPokeTransformer Wars to hit WP... -- Jonel | Speak 23:06, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

Pinar yapici

vanity You (Talk) 20:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as vanity. --Sn0wflake 21:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity&tc Denni☯ 00:48, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Has been blanked twice, presumably by the creator. --Etacar11 01:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:43, 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 July 1, 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Salty Earth Pictures

Blatant link spam. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Its number of Google hits is awfully small for a business that claims to be involved in Entertainment. Delete non notable. CanadianCaesar 00:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:44, 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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Torania

Claimed to be a place in Lord of the Rings, but the article is an orphan (and we have many articles on Tolkein and Middle Earth), and googling for Torania Tolkein -wikipedia, Torania Rings -wikipedia, and Torania Middle Earth -wikipedia don't get any relevant hits: only references to someone who maintained a LOTR fan website or the website itself (torania.com or torania.de, now apparently defunct). Submitter has many dubious edits. Strongly suspect hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. Nothing in my Tolkien Encyclopedia. --Etacar11 01:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:44, 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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Kelechava

Despite being only 16, he is "one of histories [sic] greatest people, thinkers,lovers, and thinkers". Delete. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Google's never heard of him, and the article fails to establish notability. It's been speedied several times in the past; could've been speedied again, IMO. --David Iberri | Talk 21:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't think to check the deletion logs. And this article looked too long to qualify as an obvious speedy. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, it doesn't fit any speedy criteria I know of. It isn't non-sensical, so it's just an example of the sort of vanity we wish we could speedy. --Scimitar 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 22:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delele nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is one of Wikipedia's best silliness, vanity, strangeness, and vanity. Created sometime between June 23 and June 25, this article has defined how to be deleted. Eric119 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete its obviously random, but funny, clever, and just the sort of thing wikipedia needs unsigned vote from Matthewg123 (talk · contribs) whose only other contribution to Wikipeia was an attempt to vandalise this VfD.
• Delete. nn vanity. JeremyA 03:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete you guys are conservitive ass wipes. when i found this page i was in awe of its hilarity. Another unsigned vote from Matthewg123 (talk · contribs), whose only edits have been to this VfD
• Delete - vanity, nonsense, minus points for VFD profanity (not to mention tautology in the article) - Skysmith 28 June 2005 10:24 (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.

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 The result of the debate was keep. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 1, 2005 12:55 (UTC)

Nick Colgan

• Delete Clearly vanity. Caster Troy 23:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; adding to today's log. --cesarb 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable. If it is vanity, it would be notable vanity. I'll check to see if its claims are true. -- Natalinasmpf 00:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator appears to be just trolling Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not vanity, clearly notable, [22] [23]. Qwghlm 15:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Major vanity. Non-notable achievements. Have tried to verify them with an address provided, and cannot.
  • Unsigned comment by 163.1.227.76 (talk · contribs), Caster Troy's IP. It's a reference to this vfd debate. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. User appears to be nominating in bad faith. --Deathphoenix 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. As a Hibs fan I know of Nick Colgan and he is a well enough known player to warrant his own page. 23:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 Jun 2005
• Keep lots of Google hits. CanadianCaesar 22:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a notable enough soccer player. Capitalistroadster 10:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable International footballer. Forbsey 16:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep International player. CalJW 00:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Delete. Only played a few games for Stockport county on loan - refused to sign up - not loyal to the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.106.67 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 June 2005

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/keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

A Wizard, a True Star

Doesn't qualify as a stand-alone article. All these individual album entries should be deleted and merged into Todd Rundgren if anything useful can be carried over other than what's already in the article. These are simply a bunch of stubs with the occassional track list tossed in. For the most part, I don't see how they add anything which isn't on the Rundgren page already. -- Dpark 21:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The following are all similar Todd Rundgren album pages. They were all (?) created a while back, and I left them alone to see if they would somehow flesh out. They have not. I feel they should all be merged/deleted. I simply picked a single one for the VFD since it seemed ridiculous to list them all. -- Dpark 21:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Runt (album)
  • Runt: The Ballad of Todd Rundgren
  • A Wizard, a True Star - This is the one I've listed for deletion
  • Todd (album)
  • Initiation (album)
  • Faithful (album)
  • Hermit of Mink Hollow
  • Healing (album)
  • The Ever Popular Tortured Artist Effect
  • A Cappella (album)
  • The Individualist
  • One Long Year
  • Liars (album)
• Additionally, this one is also a Todd Rundgren album page, but has some content. I'm just listing it here. I feel it could still be merged, but perhaps a redirect, rather than a delete, would be appropriate.
  • Something/Anything? - This one actually has some content, and perhaps should remain separate.
• Finally, there's also one redirect.
  • A Wizard, A True Star
• Delete the lot. I'm a big Todd Rundgren fan, but these articles are really pointless. With a track list, I'd say keep, but as is, I cannot see their value. Denni☯ 00:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete all, unencyclopedic unformatted pages devoid of content. JamesBurns 03:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all. -Sean Curtin 04:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all with album infoboxes. What it looks like is that someone has filled in the album frame template for each Rundgren album, and not done more with them. They are substubs, but the info already there will be useful for a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone's taken the initiative to fill in some info on a few of them. Excellent. If they continue to flesh out, then great, otherwise, I stand by my delete-and-merge stance, at least for the ones which still don't contain anything but the infobox. -- Dpark 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, pointless articles. Megan1967 04:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia's music coverage is growing vibrantly and will continue to do so, if articles like this are kept. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:31 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on individual albums and even on individual songs for artists far less notable than Todd Rundgren. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 03:14 (UTC)
• Strong keep for all. Album boxes are, by design, useful stubs and page-per-album for notable artists is a well established convention. Jgm 29 June 2005 05:14 (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. (Minus multiple votes) - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Vivephilia

well LOL but exist such a thing? Melaen 21:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment: the user inserted reference to this article in Vampire and in -philia

• Wait a minute, you haven't checked out everything I got (and I might've forgot to mention, I wrote that page)-- I also put pages for vivephile, necrophile, and a couple others. I made sure it all connects well; no loose ends. Keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 14:43, 2005 Jun 25 according to edit history. Not re-signed by WAS. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• Speedy nonsense. --Xcali 21:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "...but as for the dead they are conscious of nothing at all." Whoops, that's my religious extremism showing. Delete as unverifiable. (Unless this guy can confirm). --Scimitar 21:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • switch vote to abstain, per comment below and additions to the article. --Scimitar 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• well, just think about it in terms of this-- you have "vampire", although you don't believe in them; this is basically the medical term for vampirism, so why not believe in it? Most people won't admit easily to believing in life after death, but we still have articles on reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, and the whole rest of the lot. Besides, there are stories about vivephiliacs which are considered to be classic literature by the Library of Congress (I cite Bram Stoker's Dracula as a prime example). I still say we should keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 21:53, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 2nd vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• Speedy - I confess it made me laugh to start with. I already tried to speedy this but author deleted the tag. Absolutely no truth in it, no google hits etc. Can some admin remove it please? Will => talk 21:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Google returned no hits, of course. But this desperately needs to be immortalized in the bad jokes and other deleted nonsense section. I was lol! CanadianCaesar 21:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• why be so quick to judge? hey, just think this way-- if you say that Judas wasn't a Shylock just because the man came before the description, you're just losing a term which could be used to sum up a frame of mind in its entirety. Dracula came before vivephile, but it doesn't make him any less of one. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 22:06, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 3rd vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• Delete an amusing hoax, but don't send it to BJAODN since that ought'nt to exist anyway...-Splash 22:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• this one is for Splash personally: who're you to damp out other people's fun? If it's not yet accepted, it ain't... but if people want to call it a joke and still enjoy it, why'd you haf'ta ruin it for us all? cynical, unrelenting, pompous shmuck! I hope you rot in your turn, while the worlds of imagination pass thirty feet over your head... sorry, did I say "hope"? I meant, if you're that narrow-minded, how could you not? keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 22:24, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 4th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
  • Wikipedia:No personal attacks. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite. I prefer narrowband channels to narrow minded people. -Splash 22:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• well, Mr. Splash (into the harbor, while inside a potato sack, I should hope), I ought to apologize for that attack on you... but I won't. If it takes you fifty minutes to realize that you were actually insulted, I can't take it seriously that you watch your back closely. Maybe you should start trying harder. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 00:19, 2005 Jun 25 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 5th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• Delete - Nonsense -- Dpark 22:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• not at all nonsense-- if you remove this page, it's only going to resurface in some time... Besides, in the -phobias section, they have a fear of ducks watching you, taken from a Far Side cartoon; why not allow, in the -philias section, that there be an entry based on Dracula, a classic horror novel? I think it should be taken as an actual thing, not just a joke-- considering the number of people who believe that there are such things as undeads, that it is theoretically quite possible. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 22:18, 2005 Jun 24 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 6th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• Delete. Like you said, the word for the duck phobia is taken from a Far Side cartoon. Where is this word taken from? Can you cite any realistic evidence for the word being used by anyone? Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• actually, friend P Ingerson, your comment is completely null and void. You are complaining to me about a completely different entry, one which is basically irrelevant to this entire discussion... I never said anything on the Far Side phobia as being part of my work... it is another story completely! But you digress and miss the point; I think what you meant was 'is there any etymological proof for 'vivephilia'?'. To be quite honest, I thought people could catch on a bit quicker! It's merely the latin opposite of "necrophilia". 'Necro-' is 'dead', '-philia' is to have a lust for. 'Vive-' is 'alive', '-philia' is [see above]. keep it. WAS (actually 24.91.249.184 00:00, 2005 Jun 25 according to edit history, although later re-signed by WAS. This user's 7th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• delete ➥the Epopt 23:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cute, but delete. Buffy wouldn't have it any other way. Oops - forgot about Spike. My bad. Denni☯ 00:59, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. --Etacar11 01:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. mikka (t) 17:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I still say we should keep it; more so because it is a one-word description of a personality which has become a synonym for several 'real' terms and ideas in our language and culture (Varney the Vampire, Elizabeth Bathory, and Dracula are, just for starters, are as much a part of vivephilia as Napoleon, Œdipus, and Narcissus are a part of mental complexes-- though they came before there were definitions for what they had wrong with them, they still came to represent the thing in its entirity). WAS 23:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) (This user's 8th vote. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC))
• unverifiable. original research. Delete. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:32 (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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Viviphiles

non existence as above Melaen 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy nonsense --Xcali 21:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense. CanadianCaesar 22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy - a textbook example. Created by the author of the VfD just above, too. -Splash 22:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Not speediable by any current mechanism. Belongs here. Delete. Denni☯ 01:01, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete as with the other one. --Etacar11 01:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vivephile: unverifiable. original research. Delete. Uncle G 04:44, 2005 Jun 26 (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 22:10 (UTC)

Kensington Square & "kensington square"

Tagged on Jun 16 but not listed on VfD. No vote.--Nabla 21:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

---

On Google, searching "Kensington Square" + "Montreal" gives 279 hits, most not pertinent. "Kensington Square" + "Montreal" + "jazz" gives 94 hits, several of which are local messageboards ("look up Kensington Square it's a Montreal jazz-rock band that's amazing they'll make it big soon") and music festivals. I am not sure what WP:MUSIC would say on this; they seem to be locally well-known, but barely under the bar of notability. I say weak delete, but could easily be persuaded otherwise. jglc | t | c 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comments See "kensington square" for a duplicate entry of this article. Possibly an attempted bypass of a vfd. I added a vfd on that article to link here. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 19:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure that's in London. Delete & redirect there if that is so. Radiant_>|< 22:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Radiant's right. It is in London, but doesn't need this to be a whole article since it's just a part of the city. -Splash 23:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where to? We don't have an article on Kensington Square. We do have one on Trafalgar square, though. So some of them can be noteworthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant Kensington Square→London. Trafalgar Square is of standalone relevance - Kensington Sq. is more just an area than a place. -Splash 14:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're going to redirect, try Kensington. But I don't the Square itself is notable enough for that. Would you want to create the precedent that every non-notable street deserves its own redirect? — P Ingerson (talk) 10:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I would deeply not want that kind of precedent. But Kensington Square is pretty well known (where I'm from, anyway, which isn't even London). However, by way of reference to Mgm's comment, Trafalgar Square is much more famous in its own right that Kensignton Sq. is. -Splash 14:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. JamesBurns 03:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one Both articles "Kensington Square" and "kensington square" contain similar information. Surprisingly, the famous London sector is not mentionned. The fact it is a band is secondary. Some knowledgeable user should write about the place Kensington Square in the article. -Nitrov 21:58, Jul 4, 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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

User:Jaberwocky6669/Checkers!

Page is no longer needed as it was just a way for me to experiment. I have also read that experimenting should only be done in the Sandbox. Complete and total destruction of this page! Jaberwocky6669 21:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, per user request. --Scimitar 21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nah, you can test in your userspace too. Just don't forget to ask for a speedy when you're done. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion please --Wetman 08:36, 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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Morf borenson

Unverifiable. Google gives zero hits for either version of his name. Scimitar 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable, if not vanity, if not unverifiable, if not a hoax.CanadianCaesar 22:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.-Splash 22:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Seems to be patent nonsense. --Canderson7 01:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, unverified. --Etacar11 02:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:49, 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 because of lack of consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism

• Delete meaningless term, neologism. Anybody who knows the true definition of fascism will know that it's a right-wing ideology. Revolución 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Fascism and Communism and links therefrom. It's been done over! Cutler 22:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but nobody seems to know a true definition of fascism. Gazpacho 03:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I find it hard to believe that this nomination was in good faith. — Phil Welch 03:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 03:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism and original research. 172 05:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above + nonsense. — Davenbelle 09:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; if the concept has been around since the 1960s it's not a neologism, and the article makes it clear that the term is more of a name-calling taunt than an actual political position. I think it's entirely possible someone will hear the term out there and come to Wikipedia wondering what it could mean (especially since it sounds like an oxymoron) and will discover that it is, in fact, just an insult used by right-wingers who are tired of wearing the shoe that fits so well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above + POV GabrielF 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- needs a little bit of reordering and restructuring, but at least semi-notable crapslinging. Haikupoet 00:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "neologism" that was first coined in 1960s, "original research" by Habermas. Last time I checked concepts by notable philosophers were encyclopedic. jni 28 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. — Chameleon 28 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)
• Delete. POV oxymoron. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 03:16 (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 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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

ACT Consultant

shameless advertising Cutler 22:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I tried to speedy this one but author deleted my tag. Needless to say delete. Will => talk 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry but blatant advertising in the absence of content is not a speedy criterion or I would have obliged. In defence of the current system, had it been so I would have speedied Microlan which looks as though it would have been presumptious. Cutler 22:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• delete ➥the Epopt 23:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Paul August ☎ 15:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. C64

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 July 1, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Dr. Patricia Whitely

Delete not notable. I get only 45 unique Google hits. She is a Vice-president of student affairs so is a sub-top-level admininstrator (no offence!) and not an academic. Most academics get VfD'd, so I think this should too.-Splash 22:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep it...She does a lot of good..Thanks

• Delete I found 110 Google hits, but even if I assume these are all relevant, it's non notable. Lots of good people don't get articles in Wikipedia. As the nominator noted, some academics get left out too. CanadianCaesar 23:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but the unique ones run out after you click through the first 44.-Splash 23:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:03, 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 — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

Age-oriented pornography

delete one line dic def (already transwikied), orphan article -- pcr^talk 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain for now. It's a major business, and this can be expanded beyond a simple definition to include history, examples, legal disputes, etc. CanadianCaesar 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as stands - dic-defish one-liner. Denni☯ 01:04, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete as per pcr. Nothing stopping someone creating an article in the future. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Denni. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable porn. Klonimus 20:21, 26 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Christopher Culver

Article does not present any evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 23:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 02:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsuccesful campaign for a position as an officer in a relatively obscure organization does not establish notability. Pburka 03:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 03:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not vote for delete or retain, I merely wish to say that this is *not* self-promotion, as I have nothing to do with the article. The original was written at the Esperanto Wikipedia by some Esperantists upset at my essay hosted at my website about leaving the Esperanto movement. Someone at the Esperanto Wikipedia must have figure that if something exists in the E-o Wikipedia, it should be translated everywhere else, even if it will be of no interest to anyone not a speaker of that made-up language. Crculver 04:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I created the English version of the article, in the form of a direct translation, as stated in the edit summary. I do not vote for delete or retain either. I would just like to say that I did not translate the article because I support it, but rather:

1. to draw to the attention of English wikipedians the petty way in which Esperantists attack anyone who criticises their beloved movement, even on wikipedia which is meant to be neutral
2. to draw to the attention of Esperanto wikipedians what rightfully happens to crappy, irrelevant, POV articles like the ones they have about the Esperanto movement, when put in a well-run wikipedia like the English one.

WP:POINT and all that, yes I know, but this VfD gives some very useful ammo to anyone wanting to knock some sense into the POV-pushers over at eo:

80.229.160.150 28 June 2005 10:30 (UTC)

• Delete Had he been successful in gaining office, it would merit retaining. --billlund 04:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm afraid you're not notable in any language, Chris... --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 23:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is noteworthy because as he left the Esperanto movement, he left a scathing essay which has caused a bit of a stir among Esperantists: Why Esperanto Suppresses Language Diversity: Thoughts on Leaving the Esperanto Movement. Primarily, he was critical of Esperantists not following their mission statement, the [Prague Manifesto]. His arguments have been countered by the UEA in an article "Why Esperanto Supports Language Diversity" (Microsoft Word document, English translation from the original Esperanto). That being said, the article needs to be fleshed out to reflect this. --Yekrats 28 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  • Culver's essay seems to be something of a mountain made out of a molehill. His arguments were not countered by the UEA, but by a TEJO-volunteer writing in a non-official capacity; although a separate overly-hostile response did appear in the official TEJO bulletin. -Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 30 June 2005 03:19 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that (about the UEA misattribution, that is). Yes, indeed, you're right.
      • Even if they didn't write it, the hosting URL -- http://co.uea.org/~tejo/diversity.doc -- does seem to imply some kind of official blessing. (I assume that "co" is "centra oficejo" / central office.) 130.246.132.26 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
• Delete while I found this interesting, the interaction of a college student with an obscure academic group not reported by anyone outside of that group is not particularly notable. --Habap 30 June 2005 14:22 (UTC)

If we had an article on Kazimerz Bein or on the anti-Esperanto movement (assuming there is one), perhaps mention of these folks there would be appropriate. --Habap 30 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Oops, I spelled his name wrong. It is Kazimierz Bein. I'll change it in the article. -- Yekrats 30 June 2005 14:48 (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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 5, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Maria Angelova

I can't find any evidence that either of the Maria Angelovas described in this article are even remotely encyclopedic; the article certainly doesn't make any such claim. The fact that this is apparently encyclopedic enough for inclusion on the Esperanto wikipedia doesn't make it so here. CDC (talk) 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. --Etacar11 02:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if content can be verified. Opera singer and poet is sufficient for me. Also, some notability should be implied by the inclusion in another wikipedia. Pburka 03:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and expand, as per Pburka. JamesBurns 04:00, 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. NSR 1 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)

Londonistan

POV essay Denni☯ 23:34, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Keep. My first instinct was to delete, but this seems to be a reasonably salvagable article about a real phenomenon. The article is somewhat POV at the moment, accepting the Londonistan soubriquet as fact, but it is quite common on Wikipedia for such articles to start out accepting US opinions as fact and become more accurate as time goes on. Freedom fries is one good example of an article that has grown from a very odd POV initiation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very, very Weak keep. Got lots of Google hits, so it is a term. The controversy is real. The POV is fixable. CanadianCaesar 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Worthy topic, only needs POV editing as noted. 23skidoo 02:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge carefully into Islam in the United Kingdom. Gazpacho 03:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Seems to be a relatively well known term. Pburka 03:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Islam in the United Kingdom. JamesBurns 04:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a new title, which I'll think about. Should stay separate from the Islam in the United Kingdom article because London's role as an international intellectual/activist/political centre differentiates it from the rest of the UK. CalJW 00:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, much of British Islamic activism and thought takes place in Bradford, Birmingham, whatever. The role of the capital is primary but not overwhelming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I expect that the Caliph Ken Livingstone will begin collecting Jizyah to pay for social services in the near future. Klonimus 20:24, 26 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 July 1, 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Martin Minich

Another not-notable Esperanto-speaker. CDC (talk) 23:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 02:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 02:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Pburka 03:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:01, 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 July 1, 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Hanshar

Vanity page for a graduate student at Guelph University. --Allen3 ^talk 23:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Zero Google hits. Delete non notable vanity.CanadianCaesar 06:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn grad student vanity. --Etacar11 02:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Pburka 03:27, 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, keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Finnish innovation system

How's this relevant? Looks like advertising or something. - Cymydog Naakka 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meaning, of course, that it looks like Finns advertising their country. - Cymydog Naakka 23:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Economy of Finland. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, salvage useful info into Economy of Finland. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Economy of Finland. JamesBurns 04:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google search shows it is the topic of a fair number of articles and a notable economic policy. --Misterwindupbird 06:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the subject is relevant because the Finnish system has unique features like large scale public support. I agee that the article is not good at the moment but as a subject I think it is as relevant as the article about Education_in_Finland Pe3 28 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)
• Delete, salvage useful info into Economy of Finland. The topic seem too vague, I cannot discern any particular formal "system" that could carry the article. It only seems relevent to the joke play in the front of Spamalot's Playbill. --Eoghanacht 2005 June 28 20:44 (UTC)
• Delete. A strange article which does not really fit into Wikipedia. Lots of hype words but not much substance to it. While it may be true that "during last century Finland transformed from a poor and agrarian nation to a prosperous industrialized country", etc, this kind of information should be included in articles like Economy of Finland and History of Finland. (I'm Finnish, by the way.) --Jonik 3 July 2005 17:40 (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, but I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and cleaned up the obvious cruft, bringing some sanity to the article. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Daryl_F._Mallett

Someone has added back all of the non-notable content which was deleted in the previous VFD round. This is more evidence that this page is the work of one author and is of little or no use to the Wikicommunity. Perhaps this non-notable entry belongs on a Wikipedia user page instead of an article.Tanstaafl 23:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. He's not in IMDB. Books around 2 million in Amazon sales rank. --Etacar11 02:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self promotion. JamesBurns 04:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• How can you say this in non-notable given the list of professional credits ? or is the argument that some/all of those are fake ? In which case, how, without the fakes being edited out, do we know what we're voting on ? Would this be a userfy situation ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how he's more notable than a thirtysomething lawyer or doctor. If he's really achieved anything significant, I can't make out what it is amidst all the detail. Delete CalJW 00:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I'm not sure if the whole page is accurate, but a number of the books checked out and are for sale on Amazon. Being the work of one author hardly seems proper criteria for deleting a page. — RJH 18:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme vanity—nothing more than vigorous self-promotion. A lot more is claimed in this article than is proven by the meager references provided. Some of it probably can't be verified at all, the verifiable parts would take hours of work to document appropriately and even if that was done, the result would still not be worth it because the subject isn't notable. To answer a question: It's easy to say that the subject is non-notable precisely because of the list of professional credits. Nothing in the article indicates that this individual is more interesting than the average professional writer. The excruciating, mind-numbing detail drives that home with force. If no single accomplishment is notable, having a hundred non-notable accomplishments doesn't add up to encyclopedic notability. The sea of redlinks in the article is alarming. Remove this article before he starts to create articles for all that other non-notable junk. Quale 21:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• So, your agument is along the lines of "when everybody's nobody then no-one's anybody" ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 18:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No, it's simply "Daryl F. Mallett has no encyclopedically notable accomplishments". No crime there, since I along with most of the rest of the world are in the same boat. The difference is that most of us aren't as vain. Quale 22:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He's real, a very minor professional in the SF/fantasy field. For what little it's worth, I actually recognized the name. However, somebody ought to take a blowtorch to that list of credits and related self-promotion; I've never seen anybody take public credit as the "editor" of so much stuff they copyedited/proofread before. Borgo Press was a real and substantial publishing operation, even though most of its output was mindnumbingly bibliographical and sold mostly to libraries, and his status there is apparently legitimate. I wouldn't take the time to write him up myself, and only Daryl would shed any tears if this article was reduced to less than a dozen lines. Monicasdude 01:43, 26 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.