< August 16 August 18 >

[refresh]

August 17[edit]

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

MSPROJECT 2003[edit]

This article is currently listed for translation-cleanup at WP:PNT, but comments there and on the talk page suggest that VfD is a better place for it. I vote delete as unencyclopedic advertising. Physchim62 00:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Portuguese. Appears to be junk, although I can't be sure. Sarge Baldy 16:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not junk as such, at least not nonsense in the WP sense, but worryingly commercial. Appears to promote this book: relevant material should be merged with project management. Physchim62 18:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is promoting his webiste. And I call it junk: there's little relevant material that can be properly merged with project management, since this article mostly describes a specific, Brazil-centric methodology of project management, not suitable for merging with a broad encyclopedic entry such as project management. Finally, he's intentionally trying to mislead users by using a trademark. zanderredux 13:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 speedy deleted. -Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berticus[edit]

Vandalism. Not relavant HF 21:53, 16 August 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 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 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Di$h and ShiQuana[edit]

T/C 01:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchess of URL (domain names) in Geneva, New York[edit]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myth mission[edit]

Vanity page. Andrew pmk 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. (The second one will be recreated as a redirect to Traveler's diarrhea.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea and Travelers Diarrhea[edit]

Advertisment for diarrhea medicine Nelgallan 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SudokuMeister[edit]

Was tagged as speedy as advertising, but there's no CSD. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 07:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, chaps! Relisting for another five days. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Keep (does not include irrelevant sockpuppet support). Fernando Rizo T/C 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YTCracker[edit]

Seems to be a vanity page of a mostly non-notable person. Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please pay close attention the footer directly above, which explicitly reads "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it."

Comments from August 1, 2006 have been relocated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (2nd nomination). Yamaguchi先生 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Speedied by Curps as an article with no content. android79 02:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of IMAX cinemas where there are trees near the back door[edit]

I would have to work very hard to come up with a less useful list than this, I suspect. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 01:22, August 17, 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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max_Hades[edit]

Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic -- it is clearly vanity. The writer of the article has a first-hand knowledge of the comic creator's inner thoughts: "Max Hades is intended..." "the creator enjoys ..." etc. Alexa has no data on this comic. Dragonfiend 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Nada[edit]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gurney Plaza[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. —Simon 01:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. Woohookitty 10:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Storrs[edit]

Seems to be nice enough of a lady, but is sadly non-notable. humblefool®Deletion Reform 02:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She is honoured in the museums there, has several books written about her, her diaries published, two documentaries made about her life in Canada and one by the BBC. Pretty notable I would say!<preceeding is an unsigned comment by User:80.229.218.245> Fernando Rizo T/C 02:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The one time I vote 'keep' it turns out to be a copyvio. Sheesh. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 04:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. I will not be sending this off to BJAODN. Probably I am tough to humor, but I don't know what's so funny about "The Blinding is a not well known Christian rock band.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blinding[edit]

Doesn't fulfill any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --fvw* 02:18, August 17, 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 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farther Common[edit]

Individual fields and forests are not notable. humblefool®Deletion Reform 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Muse[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. --fvw* 02:36, August 17, 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 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Bits[edit]

Delete — just a nn website that sells DVDs. The name is no good for a Google, but the site's Alexa rank is about 13,000th. -Splash 02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. Not sure if its a consensus to keep or not, but that doesn't matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picofirewall[edit]

This program seems relatively obscure. Googling "picofirewall -wikipedia" generates about 80 hits. Compare to iptables (over 1 million hits) or shorewall (200,000). Joel7687 02:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 speedy delete under CSD criterion A7 (admitted non-notability). - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Feron[edit]

Delete: Vanity about a non-notable student. x42bn6 02:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Hockenberry[edit]

Delete maybe. I bring this here for assistance, fully aware that VFD:NOT cleanup. This guy is evidently the author of a blog which is a good indicator of non-notableness. But the blog gets lots of Googles; again not too special. But is there something special about The Blogs of War? -Splash 02:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually do this, but I'll say this VfD is redundant; I didn't do my research properly and got distracted by the word "blog". This is a keep, obviously. -Splash 03:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete an article about a major media figure, who happened to have won numerous press awards?

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 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petter Olsen[edit]

Vandalism; is this article even necessary? Amyrlin 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if the article itself is necessary. I assume that being listed here will resolve that question as anyone with something to contribute may happen by and fix it up. But editors should remove the vandalism found on a page on sight rather than simply slapping a VfD tag on them. I have removed the offending words and will await the opinions of others as to the article. --Mddake 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep, but add a ((cleanup))-tag. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check NY[edit]

A lot of claims, but no sources. Googling suggests they're not all that notable. --fvw* 03:24, August 17, 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 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 speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic as patent nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Offill[edit]

Hoax, joke...nonsense really Rx StrangeLove 03:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 speedy deleted by Shanes as nn/vanity. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Anderson[edit]

Non notable, possibly vanity it seems. Brings up no relevant hits on google. Jobe6 03:31, August 17, 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 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 Keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Android Lust[edit]

It appears that someone put a good deal of effort into this article, but the band (or, the one individual) apparently has only been in existence for a few years and has appeared only on indie labels. It seems like a vanity article and the notability doesn't seem to be on a level with the WP:MUSIC guidelines. DavidConrad 03:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

Too Far North[edit]

No evidence of notability. No allmusic.com entry, no relevant google hits, no albums for sale on any online stores I could find. Gamaliel 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

Session deville[edit]

Not notable. --fvw* 04:13, August 17, 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 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

BakersfieldDDR[edit]

Non-notable, probably vanity. Coffee 04:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DFDI[edit]

Vanity. --fvw* 04:43, August 17, 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 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Pfeifer[edit]

Does this constitute a claim-to-faim and therefor exempt it from WP:CSD? I don't know, you lot decide. --fvw* 04:49, August 17, 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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Alberta[edit]

Not notable. Alexa ranking of 3,778,243. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Coffee 04:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of African Americans[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Brownman40 04:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 02:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency[edit]

Due to the massive size of this VFD, I have decided to link it instead of transclude it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Place your vote here[reply]

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 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

Lcwb[edit]

Non notable students' joke CanadianCaesar 05:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

BOT2K3[edit]

Bot vanity. --fvw* 05:20, August 17, 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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Wilkinson[edit]

Independent election candidate in Cambridge, UK who got 60 votes. Delete. Punkmorten 05:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a real person. Doesn't make me notable in WP terms, though Tonywalton |Talk
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 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

Ted Lacey[edit]

Likely hoax. "Stephen Whelan Prize" gets zero Google hits. -- Curps 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have googled "Stephen Whelan" + "prize" instead of one big phrase. Well, he's a student at Harvard Law School who's won an academic prize... well done and a very promising future... but is he truly a notable legal scholar? The title of his prize-winning work doesn't seem to get any Google hits. -- Curps 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

luddy 17:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC) -- Duplicate vote by 67.82.186.242 (talk · contribs), who is the original author of Ted Lacey

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 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

Tuxedo(Band)[edit]

Classic example of semi-literate band vanity that garners an impressive zero Google hits. - Lucky 6.9 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

Sydvetlish[edit]

Delete - This appears to be a constructed language created by a 13 years old. Only two ghits, both to the language's homepage. All internal links there are dead, so that there is no proof whatsoever that the language actually exists. Whichever criteria we choose to decide whether a conlang warrants an entry or not, this one is certainly not going to make it. IJzeren Jan 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Time Café[edit]

Fan-made crossover webcomic. Doesn't meet any inclusion criteria in particular. Nifboy 07:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 already redirected which is what the nominator wanted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Alpha[edit]

Wikipedia doesn't need a separate article for this particular Dartmouth fraternity, especially since we have Dartmouth College Greek organizations. I merged the text of this one into that article, so this should no longer be necessary. Seanadams 07:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nymphet[edit]

There is no salvagable content on this page that is not already elsewhere. The intro paragraph is "A nymphet is an adolescent young girl", and list of actors in this category is POV. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should stop arguing about whether or not to keep this, and start working together to make the article better. Its one of the key words of one of the most important works of literature from the 20th Century.(Sarah) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.249.56 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 August 2005

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 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 something between a redirect and merge to All Grown Up!. I don't know which sentences we want merged, but I will make a redirect, leave the history in tact, and if anyone wants to merge parts of this article with the main All Grown Up! article, go ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Grown Up fandom[edit]

Non-notable fandom, vanity. I could see make two or three sentences of this being merged into the All Grown Up article, but not much more. Zoe 08:54, August 17, 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 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

Lord Sorgo[edit]

Apparently some sort of Star Wars character, but both Google and Yahoo! only come up with three hits. Zoe 09:11, August 17, 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 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles hickman[edit]

Self-admitted vanity. Written by an anon IP so can't be userfied. (Speedy) Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

AlexMorganis[edit]

Found this whilst cleaning out 'dead-ends'. It is certainly vanity (created by User:AlexMorganis), I don't think he is notable enough - so sending here --Doc (?) 09:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Woohookitty 10:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fused[edit]

Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. It is indeed band vanity, and has in no way fulfilled any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, so delete, but such things are not speedy deletion candidates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. Still no clear consensus on this. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMeta[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "not notable", but not a candidate. The article has in fact been on VFD before. It was ages ago, so long ago that the debate is on the article's talkpage, when it was kept due to no consensus. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

Stanislav[edit]

Tagged for a speedy, and I was quite tempted to grant that wish. However, there are some fantastic claims in the article which clearly assert notability, but, to put it mildly, all of them are very dubious. Eight google hits for "Stanislav Spasov", claims are most likely a hoax, delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the eight Google hits on the name are relevant. Searching on KBZ-33 and Bulgaria or Mafia turns up nothing. Looks like a hoax. --GraemeL 11:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparent hoax. Kappa 11:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link on the page is to a 17 year old Californian teenager, who doesn't seem to have received that MBA from Stanford, but who can report a remarkable $100,000-$150,000 income. Delete. Sliggy 11:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. James Bond beware... Alf 14:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stanislav is very common Slavic first name and could have line or two but this ...? Pavel Vozenilek 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 speedily deleted and recreated as a redirect. FCYTravis 19:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Rocky Mountain News[edit]

Personal essay --Ryan Delaney talk 11:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And borderline nonsense. Delete Tonywalton 11:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. Sliggy 11:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete personal essay (although I see what the guy's saying), has no place here. Alf 15:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? Keep Redirect as per Sliggy. DRMN is a real newspaper. If you don't like the content, change it! VfD is not the place to complain about article quality. Sdedeo 15:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are, of course, right. I started to see if I could rustle up an article, but found that Rocky Mountain News already exists so redirected to that. (keep) Sliggy 16:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just noticed my actions above are a breach of etiquette; this article reverted to previous content. 3rd time lucky: redirect to Rocky Mountain News. Sliggy 17:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, newspaper, article needs work. BillyCreamCorn 16:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocky Mountain News. Nothing to merge. --Icelight 18:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete attempt to correspond with the newspaper, and create redirect. Gazpacho 19:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect per Icelight. Speedy Delete. After thinking about my vote I realized that the article is gibberish. I think it meets criteria G1, A1 and A4 in CSD. Leaving a redirect does make sense. Vegaswikian 06:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Meets CSD criterion. Usrnme h8er 14:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

DMXControl[edit]

Not notable. Yields 726 Google hits, only has two groups, never mentioned in news media and home page has Alexa at 2.8 million. Delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

Snack time[edit]

Unencyclopedic. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I actually felt my IQ drop from reading it. Allegrorondo 12:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ryan Tonywalton 12:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. well-written nonsense, hence not speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 13:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It just be made feel snackish. Move to the funny pages. Alf 15:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Alba 17:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN time! As per above. --Several Times 17:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Penis, Uruguay[edit]

Joke, I can't find a single return for this city, except the page itself. No references at all that I can find. Rx StrangeLove 12:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per above. I could not find a hit to such a city. Manik Raina 13:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I suspect a prank. / Peter Isotalo 13:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I do agree. --Bhadani 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a weak hoax based on a place in Austria among others . Tonywalton 13:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserved I'd like to believe it, but if there's no proof, I go 'delete'. Alf 15:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. Jaxl | talk 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep Two deletes and a forest of keeps. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PornDigger![edit]

Just don't see how this is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. It is the first peer-to-peer file sharing application with thumbnailing. This reads at file sharing timeline. Directories were also rare, if existed at all in peer-to-peer file sharing when PornDigger! was published. --Easyas12c 19:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from any criterion of notability (and I agree with Ta bu shi da yu), the article points to a French-language review dated 2002, which itself links to the "official site" for this thing. The site is dead. I'd guess the product is too. Delete. Tonywalton 13:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm changing that to Weak Keep since this appears to have been added as a stub from a redlink on Adware. Tonywalton 13:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Defunct. Andrew pmk 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. OK, we can delete this, IF we also delete all mentions on all other now defunct stuff. Great Library of Alexandria is also "defunct." --Easyrider1283 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Easyas12c 21:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Robertson[edit]

Is being married to a celebrity an indication of importance or significance? Speedy delete. --DrTorstenHenning 12:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Apparently he is/was also a presenter on (UK) Channel 4's Pet Rescue. I've added this to his page. Sliggy 13:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • That should be enough by the present standards. Keep. --DrTorstenHenning 14:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Davina McCall - he doesn't have an imdb entry and we don't need an entry on everyone who's ever been a telly presenter. Dunc|☺ 14:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note, imdb is a poor resource, much more comprehensive for the US than the rest of the world. I'd suggest you don't rely on it for borderline cases. --zippedmartin 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia should certainly aim to have entries on all major channel television presenters. Kappa 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not thrilled with this article and the subject is only borderline notable. I tried to expand but all the google hits were about his wife and just mentioned him as her husband. Still, it's plausible that fans of Pet Rescue or Davina McCall would want to know who he is. At worst, it's harmless.--Scimitar parley 16:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hello! cruft. --zippedmartin 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a TV presenter is enough for notability, I think. Nandesuka 23:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 was delete. Coredesat 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sen'jin[edit]

Sen'jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

Archive 1

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No need to delete this article

DarthSidious 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

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 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 keep. Eugene van der Pijll 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babydramon[edit]

A rumored character? Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Al 13:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like fancruft to me, but you might want to ask the WikiProject Pokémon Adoption Center what they think. No vote. --IByte 13:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except Digimon != Pokémon. --Al 14:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if it's not a hoax, then it's definitely not notable. 39 google results. No official pictures or cards. Jaxl | talk 15:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or add to mondegreen. Tonywalton 17:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. Andrew pmk 19:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know it's not a hoax article, but this character is not notable yet (lacks data etc). Do not add to mondegreen. Punkmorten 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made this page to get rid of a red link on the List_of_Digimon page. If you want I can make just one page for all the rumored Digimon. CanadaGirl 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real Digimon, made official through the FAX Digimon contest in Japan. Several notable Digimon (like Cyber Dramon) have been such Digimon. There's no information on Babydramon other than his name, but if we're going to have Digimon entries, why not have all Digimon entries, even if they have to all be merged into List_of_Digimon? It feels incomplete and inconsistent to have only Digimon that are (somewhat arbitrarily) deemed notable. Every Pokémon has its own individual entry, however non-notable, and every, or nearly every Naruto character has at least a short biography on the Characters_of_Naruto page. If every ninja and Pokémon can have an entry or a section on a page, why can't every Digimon? Shining Celebi 00:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Shining Celebi. -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib 01:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1. Babydramon is an official Digimon as cited by Shining_Celebi. 2. Whether or not this is fancruft is highly dependant on whether one is a fan of the series and as such by putting this entry on vote, you place all individual character entries of not just television series but movies as well on trial. Whatever should happen to this entry should be applied to other individual character pages as well. 3. Whether or not this entry is fancruft is irrevelant as the purpose of Wikipedia is to be and I quote: The Free Encyclopedia and as such should be an Encyclopedia as defined by http://www.dictionary.com , "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.". The keyword is comprehensive and this entry indeed fulfills the job of an encyclopedia entry by contributing comprehensive information on the subject (Babydramon) and its parent (Digimon). 4. This article does not merit deletion according to the Wikipedia Vote For Deletion policy page. This is not a hoax, and if deemed to be so minor as to not merit its own entry, then should be merged with an appropriate entry. Takato 01:47:34, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Merge or Expand. If it's real, adding the history Shining Celebi mentioned to the article would be useful (rather than just "he's rumored to exist since he was mentioned in passing in one episode"). - Matthew0028 04:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Needs Improvement. I've done a lot of work creating articles for "rumored" characters, and to make such an article work, it needs to be longer than a few sentences and backed by reasons why this character was rumored to appear while never actually appearing. For example, my articles on rumored Mortal Kombat characters Nimbus Terrafaux and Belokk contain real facts and reasons, rather than speculation. I'm not a fan of Digimon, yet I'm not going to say anything about fancruft. I just don't think the article itself is encyclopedically noteworthy unless it is expanded, merged, and/or improved. (Notorious4life 06:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep real Digimon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangjun[edit]

This article was just VfD:ed under the title chiangchun and voted to be moved to this page, though without voters actually paying any attention what the VfD was actually about, which is why I'm resubmitting this again in the hope that people will try to focus on the relevant this time. The previous state of the article made a bogus claim of the word having a meaning separate from the Western concept of general and that there existed a specific knight-like warrior caste in ancient China akin to the Western knights or perhaps samurai, all of it utterly unverifiable. In the previous VfD, there were some very questionable claims that since this word can be used to designate one of the pieces in Xiangqi, Chinese chess, and since it can be used in Chinese similar to a verb meaning "checkmate", it would be enough to grant it a separate article. Verb usage or not, this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted. Peter Isotalo 13:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki. While the Xiangqi reference moves this beyond pure dicdef, that reference is sufficiently covered by the Xiangqi article itself; no more than a redirect is needed for this part. Scrap that part of the stub and you've got the dicdef. Lomn | Talk 14:50:02, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. As for its usage in Chinese chess, Xiangqi covers more than enough. BorgQueen 00:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonymous Society[edit]

Delete. original research, website spam --IByte 13:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete o.r./personal essay. Google leads to two websites, the one linked here and another one and I assume the text there was written by the same guy. --Etacar11 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. And that website does indeed appear to be the same guy. He also appears to have created moral economy, Homo stupidus economicus and Socio-Economic Environment which probably also merit further attention. Morwen - Talk 15:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. It admits to not even being a proper Greek derivation. --Habap 17:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep! Technically you are right, of course, but sometimes it is appropriate to bend or even break the rules for a higher cause: if we screw the planet (which we are well on the way to doing) we screw Wikipedia and EVERYTHING else as well. This article and 3 others I created (which are also being considered for deletion) are a very serious attempt on my part to stop that happening. One doesn’t shout or disturb people in a library without good reason – a fire, for example. I have a more sensitive nose for the smell of burning than most people, which is why I’m shouting “fire!” You don’t see the danger (yet) and think that I am just a nutcase making a nuisance of myself. I hope that you will quickly come to realise that I’m not –-Roger Hicks 19 August
It's not a term that anyone but you has ever used. Search the internet. No one is using the term. Heck, not even people who would agree with you use this term. You're entitled to your ideas, whether we agree with them or not, but there is no use in having article that no one will ever search for on Wikipedia. If the term starts to be used by anyone other than yourself, re-post the article at that time. --Habap 14:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neologism and POV essay -PlainSight 02:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atmark Techno, Inc[edit]

Minor company, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. Google shows no impact beyond catalogs and support forums. This isn't an Intel or even a Xylinx. Possibly subtle ad placement, as only infobox info is name and URL. I think the VfD should include SUZAKU FPGA Boards, as it's cross-linked with this page (and no others) and appears similarly non-noteable. Not sure how to actually link that in, however -- do I just start a new VfD and reference it back to here? Anyway, delete. --Lomn | Talk 14:39:22, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

  • Keep. Andrew pmk 19:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page after checking this... "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable." I do have to actually make a decent article though don't I. Also, did you try googling in Japanese?
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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art finance[edit]

This doesn't appear to be widely used as a distinct type of finance, rather than simply art + finance. Kappa 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been rewritten since my nomination. Kappa 01:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed. Maybe a set-up to promote the Andrew Rose link which itself doesn't belong. Marskell 16:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with private bank
  • Since the above anonymous person has rewritten the article to provide what looks like an accurate description of a real phenomenon, I will now vote merge as above or keep. Kappa 01:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten article. - ulayiti (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Madhav Desai[edit]

Non-notable IT professional PubLife 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 3 Hits on Google UK, only one of which is probably him. Also I assume vanity. PubLife 15:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — looks like a somewhat mangled-English résumé for a manager/consultant. Nothing that really stands out. — RJH 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Reads like a resume. Hall Monitor 15:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable vanity. Jaxl | talk 15:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Vanity. -- BD2412 talk 21:32, August 17, 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 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

Radio Disney Jams 8[edit]

Delete: Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball and there's no content anyway. Karmafist 15:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per G1 (no content) Lomn | Talk 15:33:50, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Speedy by G1 (not that it matters any more). - ulayiti (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True metal[edit]

Since I added the stub notice in February, this page wasn't significantly expanded. In a Google search for "True metal" all the pages were either about music or clones of this page. I can therefore reasonably assume that someone made up the term true metal without a serious reason. If we can't make head nor tail of this page, it'd better be deleted (and True metal (music) could then be moved here). Army1987 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you couldn't just blank the page, copy the contents of True metal (music) to it, and turn the (music) page into a redirect. Nothing needs to be deleted, although it would make for a messy edit history. Which I suppose you might want to avoid. --Icelight 18:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't think that up. However, should anybody know what the hell "true metals" are and provide more information (however, that's highly unlikely IMO), this page could survive.--Army1987 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think you'll find that "true metals" gives more pertinent results (1850 hits, of which only a handful seem to be Wikipedia-related). However, it seems that "true metals" are simply true metals, i.e. not metalloids. If that's correct, then a) the list on this page is ridiculous, and b) this article is redundant with Metal. -- Visviva 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the above, I vote to keep but turn into a disambiguation page, with one link to True metal (music) and one to Metal. -- Visviva 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is just that, IMO the page is useless. Why not make tons of pages about "true foo" and "true bar" which redirect to "foo" and "bar" because the phrase "true foo" is often used to contrast with pseudo-foo? That's nothing more than the dictionary meaning of the word true. Delete and bring True metal (music) here, adding a dablink template notice about metals (I'm going to add one myself).--Army1987 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Marbles. – NSR (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marble collecting[edit]

I merged this into Marbles so this page is now superfluous. --Howcheng 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey artichokey. Redirect is in place. This VFD may be closed. --Howcheng 16:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marbles. If others agree, I don't think there's any need to wait five days before doing this. Furthermore, since Howcheng made the nomination, I think it would be perfectly acceptable for him to make the article into a redirect now, even though that removes the VfD notice from the page. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homo stupidus economicus[edit]

Delete. original research, POV. Also take note of the See also section --IByte 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete silly neologism. -- DS1953 16:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A neologism it may be, but it is not "silly". As I (the author) explain in the article, it makes a very serious and important point. Admittedly, the idea is very new, but would ask you to let the article remain for a time to give those concerned with environmental and sustainability issues a chance to read and appreciate it. Once they have, I am sure, it will get their full support. It should also be read and understood in the context of the other articles I have recently contributed --Roger Hicks.
    • I'll strike the adjective, but my vote is still the same. DS1953 19:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Articles are not position papers with the intent to persuade. Your entry (and entries) go beyond informing and definitely break the POV rule.--Daul21 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If your neologism has merit it must stand or fall outside Wikipedia. Alba 17:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote original research, obviously. --Etacar11 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. If anyone else on Spaceship Earth starts using this, the article can be re-created from Roger's website. --Habap 17:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forthwith. Dottore So 18:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. --Craigkbryant 21:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to my wiki if you please, thanks. It's funny. Wikinerd 07:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; anything actually noteworthy here should be added instead to Homo economicus, if there is anything noteworthy here. Should be Homo stultus economicus in any case: in Latin, stultus is "stupid" or "foolish", while stupidus means "stunned", "drunk", "in a stupor". Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just an opinion piece! pstudier 23:47, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems to be prank article.--Vonaurum 18:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. Woohookitty 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Benbow[edit]

This is a disputed speedy. The article asserts notability, is verifiable, and is encyclopedic. The only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote Keep, but I think a merge with another article, say James Ulmer, with a redirect, would also be fine. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Andrew pmk 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. -- DS1953 19:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone seems to have speedied it again. Naughty boy. Restoring in order that this deletion discussion can continue. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - New article is worth keeping. Old article was a valid deletion. Mr. Sidaway's war with other admins is inappropriate and against policy and the community. - Tεxτurε 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I hereby utterly and completely refute any and all suggestions that I am at war with other administrators. I restored this in good faith as a bad speedy and the fact that I have successfully expanded it using as my original source the contents of the original article confirms that this speedy was at best disputable. Bad speedies can and should be corrected. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you serious? How can you refute being at war with other administrators when your comment above is "Someone seems to have speedied it again. Naughty boy." - Tεxτurε 21:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because someone has performed an invalid speedy, does not mean that someone who observes that fact is at war with him. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A revert war is when two users start reverting more than once each. An admin war is when two admins begin deleting/undeleting more than once each. How many times have you undeleted it? - Tεxτurε 21:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          1. 16:14, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" (6 revisions restored)
          2. 16:13, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Warren Benbow" (To placate geogre I will delete and then selectively undelete only the parts I worked on.)
          3. 16:03, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
          4. 15:47, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
          5. 15:46, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
          6. 11:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
        • You claim that it's war but you've only listed my actions. 11:48 I recovered a bad speedy (the article you currently see sailing through VfD). 15:46-16:03 I repeated the operation because again a rogue administrator had speedied an obvious non-speedy candidate. 16:13 and 16:14 I took action to take away the rogue's excuse for speedying. I'm not at war with geogre. At most I'm in dispute with him. His actions in the dispute are to delete, concealing a blatantly non-speediable article from editors who are not also sysops; my actions in the dispute are to restore, making the article visible, and give the editors a chance to decide. This isn't war, it isn't even a police action, it's just a man with an ego being silly enough to think he can push it so far as to repeatedly delete content from Wikipedia without any scrutiny and get away with it. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would respond that "it's just a man with an ego being silly enough to think he can push it so far as to repeatedly " UNDELETE "content from Wikipedia without any scrutiny and get away with it". Can you explain why you violated WP:3RR by undeleting six times? That's an edit war. Or do you think that such concepts only apply to non-admins? The way you think VfU is only for non-admins? - Tεxτurε 22:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you believe I have broken WP:3RR, please take steps to have me blocked for doing so. Obviously it cannot be claimed that I'm attempting to undelete without scrutiny--it was I who listed this article on VfD--where geogre should have taken it in the first place if he thought it should be deleted. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want you punished. I just want you to edit like a normal user. You "undeleted without scrutiny" when all you had to do was create a better article. You resorted to VfD after you realized the revert/delete war wasn't working. Why list an article that now only has what you created on VfD? To make a point. Of course a new article with real content would be kept. You nominated your own content that you wanted kept for deletion. Why? WP:POINT? - Tεxτurε 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you are pushing it a bit. I undeleted only as a result of a bad speedy. I have no problem referring such restorations to VfD and indeed see no reason to do so unless there is a serious dispute--administrators on Wikipedia perform hundreds of speedies every day, performing a great job with no immediate supervision, and make one or two mistakes, and I don't see any problem with other sysops like me exercising the same scrutiny on their speedies and fixing the very few mistakes they make. If you ever have a problem with any of my resurrections, it's a doddle to spot it in my deletion log and list it on VfD. There is absolutely no reason to introduce onerous procedural obligations. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Please note that at the time of this vote the article appears to be deleted and hopefully will be restored? Hall Monitor 21:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So as to remove any further excuse for deletion, I have deleted and then restored *only* those versions which are indisputably unspeediable. The original versions are gone. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link appears to be restored, thank you Tony. Hall Monitor 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My pleasure. I hope that we will now be left to continue building the encyclopedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad speedy. Kappa 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first speedy by Geogre was perfectly valid, there was no claim to notability: Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY . Born December 22, 1954. However, Tony Sidaway created a new entirely different version which was encyclopedic [11] and Geogre's second, third and fourth speedies of this new version were entirely unjustified.

    A clueless newbie or vandal cannot "poison" a topic by creating an unworthy article that meets the speedy criteria. A speedy delete merely says the current version fails the very low threshold for retention and wipes the slate clean. It's simply a botched article; no judgement is made on whether the topic itself is unencyclopedic or non-notable (only a VfD does that). No vote for undeletion is needed to create a new article — the slate was wiped clean and it's as if the speedied article never existed. Nevertheless, a bad faith attempt to WP:POINT by recreating the speedied article with only cosmetic changes (such as merely adding the adjective "notable") would be very dimly viewed. However, that's certainly not the case here.

    Tony Sidaway should have recognized that the first speedy deletion was perfectly valid, and probably should have just created his new article without restoring the old speediable stub. By restoring it, he (wrongly) implicitly criticized Geogre's action in speedying it, and Geogre perhaps reacted with indignation. However, Geogre should have realized that the new article rewritten from scratch was in no way a speedy candidate. -- Curps 03:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone is described as a "drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator" this appears to me to be quite a strong assertion of notability. I accept that geogre may not see it that way (this could be seen in my original note telling him I'd undeleted). This ambiguity in CSD7 is systemic so each administrator must use his own judgement. There is no absolute here; to me it's obviously an assertion of considerable notability, to you it isn't. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not at all an assertion of notability. There are many, many people who could fit that description (such as, a high school teacher who plays in a band on weekends). Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles suggests: For instance, if the person's profession is cited, a reasonable guideline would be how many people have the same profession: there are tens of thousands of porn models, but very few senators. Even if you dislike the relatively recent "no assertion of notability" criterion for speedy deletion, it's not a solution to simply declare nearly anything to be "asserted notable". -- Curps 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's pushing it a bit to say that this description could be applied to a high school teacher. Most people would expect "music producer" to mean "a person who produces recorded music" and in fact this is precisely the case here. VfD is *good* at discerning when an assertion of notability is bogus (as with your hypothetical high school teacher). Individuals on RC patrol, historically, are not so good. It is therefore inappropriate to speedy. I objected to CSD 7 for one main reason: it relies on a vague phrase, "assertion of notability" that means different things to different people. And here we have a classic case. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is categorically false to state that the article was rewritten from scratch. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well here's the confusion: the anon author first created a non-speediable version (but badly formatted and indented, so that an entire paragraph was contained on one line, with most of the content invisible unless you scrolled horizontally way beyond the right edge of the browser window ("first version"). A few minutes later, the anon himself then truncated that first paragraph to one short sentence ("second version"). That second version was correctly tagged for speedy deletion and correctly speedied. I suppose it was that "first version" that you found and rescued. That "first version" was not speediable (though TenOfAllTrades reports it was a copyvio), but personally I never would never even have looked at it... when there are multiple editors, you check the history, but when there's just one editor you just look at their final revision. -- Curps 08:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for pointing that out, but actually because of the bad formatting I would not have seen the extra text in the original even if I had looked at it (it scrolls off the right hand side of the screen). To me that looks like a copyvio of an entry I've seen elsewhere, probably allaboutjazz.com. So to reduce the confusion I want to make it absolutely plain: I considered the second, truncated version to be a good stub. It correctly identified the subject and told me absolutely everything I needed to know in order to expand the article. The problem of these bogus speedies would not exist if those doing RC patrol would use google before speedying. We are, after all, here to edit an encyclopedia, not just play with the delete button. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable musician. As for the undeletion, it is completely within process to write an all new article, and the make a history only undeletion of the old deleted versions beneath it, without a VFU debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and would everybody please stop bickering? Deletion was valid. Writing a better article was valid. Undeleting the edit history was in my opinion pointless but it doesn't do any harm. Radiant_>|< 10:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If "[t]he only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article", then it's been answered. This vfd isn't really the place to discuss the speedy deletion. The current article is unanimously valid so far. --Sketchee 17:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, working with Whitney Houston, LL Cool J and Olu Dara is notable enough for me.Jobe6 18:54, August 21, 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 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceship Earth[edit]

Delete. original research, POV, website spam. Also take note of the Links section --IByte 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rewrite is currently good enough to keep. --IByte 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalisim, request for speedy deletion Theon 18:57, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep My original request for speedy delete was carried out last year, page has since become appropriate. the term "spaceship earth" was championed by Buckminster Fuller.Theon 16:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original content and redirect to an appropriate page, perhaps Gaea hypothesis or Buckminster Fuller. The term has merit but the page has been too crufted to keep in its present form. However, it passes the Google test.Alba 17:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vote to delete this article in its present form as well as the other three entries made by this user on the basis of POV and website spam--Daul21 17:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands now it is OR/POV. I agree the term has merit, though. Start over? --Etacar11 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as long as it's a NPOV version. No matter how important Roger thinks his views are, they don't have a place in the article, unless recognized by relevant authorities. --Etacar11 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original content and create disambig page for Gaia theory (science) and Spaceship Earth (Disney). - Thatdog 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 18:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as suggested by Alba. --Habap 18:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand now that it is not so crufty. --Habap 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup/disambiguate. It does have citations, even if it is POV. Gazpacho 19:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, it's not exactly new 'original research', an eager editor should be able to turn this into a good little article. --zippedmartin 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with author page or create a page for the book and merge it there. --Vaergoth 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now it has been revised, though it needs further wikifying and expanding. 23skidoo 03:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo. -- DS1953 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. I'll add the tags, someone needs to give it a good category or two. Vegaswikian 06:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phrase. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep!.Technically you are all right, of course: my contribution about the concept of Spaceship Earth is not widely recognised. Thus, your rejection of it as being just the author’s opinion. However, it happens to be true and extremely important. Sometimes it is appropriate to bend or even break the rules for a higher cause: if we screw the planet (which we are well on the way to doing) we screw Wikipedia and everything else as well. I hope that you will allow me to continue contributing to the article. If my passion to save the world is not scientific, objective or academic enough others can perhaps help it to become so –-Roger Hicks 18 Aug.
Roger, as long as none of the POV of the original article re-appears, you are as welcome as everyone else to contribute. Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, any arguments to convince people to do something do not belong in Wikipedia. You are entirely free to post those arguments on your own website and anywhere else that will get people's attention. --Habap 13:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not. Notable phrase. Sam Vimes 13:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep: the metaphor and phrase are indeed notable, and this article is a beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bucky Fuller is astounding, had I known this article was there I might have worked on it myself, keep it and I will. Alf 15:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable phrase that cannot be simply placed in any other singel article. Caerwine 22:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added some references and a new example of usage of the phrase by Kenneth E. Boulding. JimR 07:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sigismund of Prussia[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Died as baby. Did nothing prominent, represented nothing prominent. All details can be put into his mother's article. 217.140.193.123 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. Or possibly, if the history may have altered significantly, had the baby lived. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep inherently interesting, if there is nothing to say, then redirect to parents. No need to delete. Trollderella 19:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the child may not have lived long but the fact he lived at all is of historial relevance.
  • Redirect to parent's page. Not good to disperse infopieces to this sort of small articles. Arrigo 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobility does not imply notability. Martg76 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not good to squash info into articles where it doesn't naturally belong. Osomec 00:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable child. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated under the Grand Duke baby nomination, below. 23skidoo 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real royalty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - otherwise I would agree, but stating that particular person of royal blood is definitely dead will deter false pretenders - Skysmith 12:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May only be a minor child but is still of interest to those interested in British and German royalty. Chrispo 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A grandchild of Queen Victoria, this article merits keeping in relation to his parents.
  • Week Keep - With both parents notable there is no other natural place for the article's information. Caerwine 22:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. john k 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Mortal kombat spinn and Spinn (mortal kombat character)[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a real Mortal Kombat character and I can no mention of him on Google. According to the edit history on Black Dragon (Mortal Kombat), the organization to which the character supposedly belongs, the same user who created these two pages added him onto this page (IP address 67.136.142.x), and it sounds as if this character comes from the comic book but does not appear in any actual games. Not having played Mortal Kombat myself, I wouldn't know, but I can't find him in any Mortal Kombat official sites, either. I say delete for not being a real character, unless someone wants to start add a section of "characters not appearing in games" to the list of Mortal Kombat characters. --Howcheng 16:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both and if we put it to the vote, the rest of the real characters would join them. Cruft to the max. Mind you, I played MK on arcade when it came out, enjoyed MK2 immensely for the SNES and MK:D is pretty much the only video game I play today. / Peter Isotalo 17:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My son used to kick my tuckus on a regular basis on every variation of MK, so I got to know the characters pretty well. Ain't no such animal as this here Spinn. Delete with a flawless victory. - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a Fatality. I don't know what kind of garbage this is, but there's probably no bigger Mortal Kombat fan out there than I am, and I've never heard of such a character. (Notorious4life 07:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, would have voted keep had it been a real character, but this one isn't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. There is a duplicate copy of this article at Socio-economic environment which will also go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socio-Economic Environment[edit]

Delete. POV original research part of a POV series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. --IByte 17:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote delete. Definite POV. --Daul21 17:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Daul21[reply]
  • Please keep! The above arguments for deletion have some validity, I cannot deny, but the point that I (the author) am making in the article is very important and deserves to remain for a while to give those concerned with environmental and sustainability issues a chance to read and appreciate it. It needs to be read and understood in the context of my other recent contributions --Roger Hicks 17 Aug.
  • Delete OR, WP is not a soapbox. --Etacar11 17:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, OR. Roger, just let people come to your website if they want to read what you've got say. --Habap 17:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Sdedeo 18:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forthwith. Roger: you are either unaware of what wikipedia is, or else you are deliberately trying to flount the rules. Either way, it is incredibly rude, since it requires people waste their time voting stuff out that should never have found its way in in the first place. In the face of such a blatant rule violation, I highly suggest that instead of preaching by way of defending your submission, you find a more appropriate venue for your work. Dottore So 18:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparently original research. Gazpacho 20:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR. -- DS1953 05:09, August 18, 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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian or Slovene[edit]

A page created solely due to an internal dispute concerning the usage of either Slovenian or Slovene (the former is more common) with Eleassar and BT2 being the main protagonists. Non-encyclopedic wiki-internal conflict page. This info can either be covered in about two sentences in just about any article about Slovenians or the Slovenian language. Delete or redirect to Slovenian. Peter Isotalo 17:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk 18:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Karmosin is simply wrong. First, although I contributed heavily to the discussion, the main protagonists of the conflict that participated in edit wars were User:XJamRastafire and User:BT2. Second, while this has been a wiki-internal dispute, the topic has frequently been brought up in non-wiki discussions both online and offline. This can be easily demonstrated by the sheer number of texts written on this question by experts (e.g. Edward Gobetz, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Kent State University and founding director of Slovenian Research Center of America and others) and at the same time this also demonstrates that the topic can be covered in two sentences no more easily than any other. I suggest you seeing these links before voting: [12], [13], [14] etc. Also have a look at Talk:Slovenians. --Eleassar my talk 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no relevant encyclopedic POV involved in any of the links. This information belongs in a Manual of Style or just general Slovene info webpages. The rest is just a lot of meta-debate about clever semantics. It doesn't even count as valid dictionary info because almost no one cares. Like one of the links points out: "Both are acceptable. Neither one is wrong. Consistency is always nice." End of story. / Peter Isotalo 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless. Maybe this stuff should belong in Wiktionary.  Grue  20:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Slovenian. - ulayiti (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral economy[edit]

Delete. POV original research (+website spam) part of a POV series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. Author has reverted others' attempts to dePOV. --IByte 17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep this improved version if the Utopian moral economies section is axed or severely rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV. --IByte 16:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR/POV/WP is not a soapbox. --Etacar11 17:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep cleaned up version, as long as it stays NPOV. --Etacar11 05:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep! The concept of a "moral market" is very important and deserves an article. The points that I (the author) am making are important and deserve to remain for a while to give those concerned with environmental and sustainability issues a chance to read and appreciate them. It needs to be read and understood in the context of my other recent contributions --Roger Hicks 17 Aug.
    Sorry, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you can cite published works that discuss this concept under this name, please do so. Gazpacho
  • Delete, original research, spam, vanity. Sdedeo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if they need to read your original research, find somewhere else to post it. --Habap 18:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that it is focused on stuff that is not OR. I love it when the result of a VfD is a re-shaped article that is useful. --Habap 14:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and POV. Jaxl | talk 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for every imaginable reason. Paul 00:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- DS1953 05:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after thorough cleanup. The concept of a "moral economy" is indeed noteworthy; it gets an extended discussion in Joseph Heath's The Efficient Society. It's a standard term used in economics and anthropology for the social interplay between moral ideas and economic activity. Google yields more than 54,000 hits. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming it got saved, have briefly expanded the article with some stubbish discussion of these points. Agree that it still needs serious cleanup. Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for these reasons. It is a noteworthy concept, but does need cleanup. I like Smerdis' efforts so far. Jeff Worthington 15:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's cited (although it might need more work). Gazpacho 02:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Smerdis's work -- allow it to develop further. JimR 05:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cut the last section on 'Utopian Moral Economy.' The rest could be useful if cleaned up and expanded - User:Brodie
  • Keep new version. - ulayiti (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think we should keep the external link to spaceship-earth.org on this one (mostly per WP:NOT). --IByte 14:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This still reads like a collection of viewpoints; it does not come together and become encyclopedic. Regarding the 54,000 Google hits, there are plenty of two word combinations-"moral economy" being one of them-that would have lots of search results but aren't worthy of inclusion. Paul 16:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Chetan Prabhudesai[edit]

Delete Vanity PhilipO 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as no evidence of notability is visible, aside from his reaching 682nd best Kerry Volunteer during the US election. Sliggy 18:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrew pmk 18:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Died as baby. Did nothing prominent, represented nothing prominent. All details can be put into his mother's article. 217.140.193.123 08:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect to parents page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep brozen 20:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to parent's page. Not good to disperse infopieces to this sort of small articles. Arrigo 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Russian Grand Dukes are notable. Osomec 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough information in the article to establish suitable notability to remain here. DreamGuy 01:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Grand Duke = notable. Grand Duke who died young = interesting = notable. 23skidoo 03:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability does not necessarily have anything to do with achievements. Notability is attached to you by other people, often when you have no achievements at all, as in this case. Everyking 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep royalty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikinerd 07:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - otherwise I would agree, but stating that particular person of royal blood is definitely dead will deter false pretenders - Skysmith 12:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As the child of two prominent parents, this keeps Wikipedia from duplicating the information. Caerwine 22:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep john k 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Gorecroft[edit]

Non-notable. Al 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Six unique google hits. Someone's house (even if it is old) is not notable. Also, semi-detached? What's next, a 13th century split-level? --Icelight 18:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrew pmk 18:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Icelight. Jaxl | talk 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not interesting. Secretlondon 04:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable cottage. There must be countless number of named cottages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Meelar 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Legrand[edit]

Suspect vanity. User made two contributions on 3 August and hasn't been back. Article claims person has won several international titles. I can not find evidence of any international titles. I have found evidence of at least one age-under-16 Australian state title, and possibly a similar national title (hard to decipher). Does this make this person of interest sufficient for an encyclopedia entry? Frankly, I'm uncertain. Normally, this would be placed for speedy under the new vanity rule, but I'm putting it up for VfD because of the titles this person has received, rather than speedy. Your thoughts? --Durin 17:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. PS: what is the "new vanity rule"? Sdedeo 18:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 2 relevant google hits on "julien legrand" +Judo. Nn vanity page. Dottore So
  • Delete; non-notable vanity. Jaxl | talk 19:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would need clear evidence of being a junior world champion to be worth keeping. Osomec 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete countless pan-pacific, state and national titles - a sixteen-year-old should be able to count a maximum of one trophy a year of each type since he was nine - especially as an "accomplished academic". --Scott Davis Talk 14:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Aisling devenney[edit]

I'm sure she's gorgeous, but when you can't find a well-conected supermodel on Google, you begin to think 'somethings's wrong' --Doc (?) 18:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Andrew pmk 18:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must be using a special version of Google here. I can't find a significant mention of any of these well-known people, products or campaigns. Delete or get me a link to a different Google Tonywalton Talk 18:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent hoax. --Etacar11 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jaxl | talk 19:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo pope[edit]

Non notable website advertising. Doesn't even have a dedicated URL - the site is hosted on geocities and redirected with a .tk service. Delete --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socio-economic order[edit]

Delete. dicdef part of a POV original research series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. Roger, please note our policy which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --IByte 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conception (band)[edit]

Does not appear notable. Al 18:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Al 18:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of Google hits for "conception band", 4 CDs listed, international performances. Andrew pmk 18:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AMG has an entry on them [15], and I just added their discography. Meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Jaxl | talk 18:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Conception was one of the more influential prog metal bands of their era. --Mberning 04:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

US Government Simulator[edit]

Non-notable game. Reads like advertising. Al 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Votes from registered users[edit]

  • Delete Advertising. Johntex 19:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 19:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The sock puppetry here is ridiculous. None of them want to give any proof of notability and instead draw attention off the non-notability of this site by attacking other users here. Randomosityii has actually worked against this site by saying that there are only 247 members, a big sign of non-notability. Feel free to attack me, but my vote is now delete. Jaxl | talk 20:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, they're not sock puppets. I know all these people. At least, I think I do... :-o - Calmypal (T) 03:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but I'm not taking any chances. Jaxl | talk 12:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Sdedeo 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising foolishness which deserves to go straight to Wiki-Hell. Digital Thief 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn game. Unable to verify claims of notability. ManoaChild 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (Comment deleted by post below --Icelight 21:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete and watch to make sure that the page (or a clone) is not recreated, as its promoter has stated. WP:NOT a web directory. --Icelight 21:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wiki is not paper. - Calmypal (T) 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep looks factual and worthwhile. Trollderella 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unnotable even by low wikipedia standards. Dottore So 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP USG is unique, notable, and original. It deserves its own article. --Alxt 01:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Provides relevant information and detailed history and background. Lullabye Muse 03:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely delete. This is not notable at all. And please discount all voters with fewer than 100 edits. The sock puppetry here is absolutely absurd. JDoorjam 13:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Government simulation or delete ouright - 10:06, 18 August 2005 (forgot to sign --Calton | Talk 22:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete: The current article is unencyclopedic, uninformative and thin, and the underlying subject (one specific sim) is similarly non-noteable. Merge into a generalized article about Govsims/Nationsims or delete. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a web guide. Looks like a minor web forum with an unusual theme. Less than 250 members, far short of my threshold of 50,000. --Carnildo 18:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not a notable enough subject, and a rambling and dull article. Right at this point of time it has four guests and zero members online, and presumably one of the guests is myself. As alternative history it might one day be notable, if it stirs up enough interest (see also Soc.history.what-if or [16] amongst many others). -Ashley Pomeroy 23:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete normally I would say keep but all these sockpuppets drive me insane. Kill it with fire and acid. Redwolf24 00:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "excessive spamming, rampant complaining, and extreme partisan bickering" noted in the article seems to have followed it here. -- Norvy (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete post haste. Protect if necessary. Radiant_>|< 10:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and Merge into Government simulation. Caerwine 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Alex rank of over 2.6 million. Google lists 0 links to their site. Wikibofh 03:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (previously reserved pending further info) A reference below by John Joffey states that 'AGS and the other Govsims/Internationalsims already have their own pages', I can only find Adventure Game Studio as I do not know any other Govism/Internatiolisms names. AGS in that article refers to software which enables game writing and cites games that have been made using this software. The article up for VfD is an online game. Can anyone cite other pages that John might be referring to before I make a decision? Alf 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's talking about American Government Simulation, if that's what you were asking. That article was put up for VFD by members of this government simulation because of the "double standards" John Joffey is citing from this article being deleted and AGS having an article. Jaxl | talk 23:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jaxl, that article reads like an encylopedic, intelligible explanation of an online political forum which simulates various aspects of government. The article up for VfD reads like an advertisment for an online computer game simulating various aspects of government. Vote changed to delete. Alf 23:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from IP addresses, very new users, and unsigned votes[edit]

  • KEEP! It's Factual! www.usgovsim.com 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!- So apparently other sites get to have their own pages, but USG doesn't? Hypocrites Spotle
  • User's only votes. Wikibofh 01:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete USG is being quickly outpaced by a variety of other Government Simulators and remains one of the least active out of them. American Government, National Government, USPolitics, etc. all have much more active users. Should be merged with other Government simulator topics. Wikipedia is not a billboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.38.81 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 August 2005

~ Clie

  • KEEP. It is an incredibly active simulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.235.188 (talk • contribs) 17:58,17 August 2005
  • DELETE I echo "While being the first government simulation is worth being mentioned in an article, it does not necessarily merit its own article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.38.81 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 August 2005
  • DELETE I'm with Jax on this one. Merge it into the other government simulator article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharris0512 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 August 2005
  • KEEP If you're gonna delete this, then I demand that you delete all the other Government Simulators with their own pages. USG just moved from another site "www.usgovsim.com". It was moved because the server was crappy as hell. How do I know? Because I dropped $125 to help buy the damn server! So stop being a bunch of whiney hypocrites and shut your unknowledgeable mouths! - User: Randomosityii
  • User's 7th edit. Wikibofh 01:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep this up. I mean lets not bash anyones sim here. If you want to make a encyclopedia about your sim thats fine and we have a right to as well - Karasoth
  • User's only edits. Wikibofh 01:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP!!! USG deserves a page just as much if not more so than any of the other government simulators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.115.49 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2005
  • KKEEEEPP! w00t w00t. Carrifel
  • User's only edit. Wikibofh 01:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP The US Government Simulator is the original and deserves its own article. Not to mention, elections are done through an actual formula instead of the way that other sims run their elections. TylerKCampbell
  • User's second edit. Jaxl | talk 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP USG is the first and original US Government Simulator. Regardless of the new stats on the new server, USG does and will always deserve a Wiki article. -- Eric3446
  • KEEP Wikipedia is not just for ancient events but for all events, and the events of USG are not ancient but ongoing and at the forefront of innovation, much like Wikipedia is.--msrpotus
  • User's first edit. Wikibofh 04:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bold textItalic textKEEP this game is the longest running gov sim game. First of all. Secendly Us Gov Sim helped at least one ex player win a Elected office using his campaining skill's he learned from this game for speachwritting. as for Noteariblity this game used to be on Avidgamers. so im not so sure the google spider would look there or on other Msg boards.
This Game has had post about it on Democratic Underground,Daily Kos and other Polical messge Boards and blogs.
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groton (talk • contribs) 07:37, August 18, 2005 ...user's only edit. Wikibofh 13:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - What put me off was its vanity style. I don't know about its notability, but the recent rewrite is a considerable improvement. Gloop 15:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's second edit. Jaxl | talk 16:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously done a few minor things under IP address User:82.43.52.87 Gloop 16:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP!, I've had enough of wikipedia douches trying to get the whole govsim/nationsim genre deleted 213.67.49.17 17:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:' It's as significant, if not moreso, than other similar games that have pages on Wikipedia Ryanpickett2005 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 10th and 11th edits...and number nine was vandalism Wikibofh 02:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment:I find it ludicrous that there are votes to delete this. Everything in this article is 100% factual seeing as I have written all of it and I founded the game. As for it being "non-notable" it is the single most notable Government Simulation game that exists. It was the FIRST comprehensive government simulation, and I pride myself knowing that this game is very much a learning experience as everybody who plays gains significant knowledge about american politics and government. Continuing, "AGS" another government simulator that came after this one, has a page here on wikipedia, and you dont see me voting to delete that, or the biased page on "Government Simulation" written by somebody not affiliated with USG and who conviently, it seems, left USG information off that page except for 1 or 2 lines. I am relatively new to wikipedia, so excuse me that I had the line "advertising" the game. I removed it, so there are no more qualms.
--John Joffey
  • Comment:Clie, Sorry, but AGS, NPS, and PolUS arent "passing USG up" (and by the way, get your facts straight...PolUS MERGED INTO USG!, Thanks for bringing your garbage into the discussion) and USG is certainly not being "outpaced". Thank you for wasting my time. I would really like to know what all these random people have against having this page up? So far, nobody is really giving any good reasons for these votes to Delete. Now, if a Admin from Wikipedia would like to contact me to discuss making this page more suited for Wikipedia, I would have no problem editing to meet these guidelines. However, outright deletion would just uphold the double standard of letting a copycat game, AGS, have its own page on here and USG not. Also, I am not going to vote on my own page, because I dont think deletion is a valid option. If a Wikipedia Admin wants to contact me, my AIM is PillagerConclave
--John Joffey
  • Comment:HERE! HERE! Joffey! What you wrote was factual!
--Frank Www.usgovsim.com
Enough with the sock puppets. Al 20:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a sock puppet, I'm the former VP at USG, and current Representative for Michigan's Third District there! Frank 16:48 (EST), 17 August 2005
That's right, he's not a sock puppet. - Calmypal (T) 22:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. "Meatpuppet" then. --Al 19:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:What you are is someone unaware of the difference between "factual" and "notable". Ben-w 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:NationStates is a BUSINESS-backed game made by somebody promoting his book and the idea of corporate government. USGovsim is not a business, its is just a free web-based forum game. It is THE MOST notable of any Government Simulator game, so the fact that you want to delete our page, but AGS (American Government Sim) a game that has been around alot less longer than USG and more or less a copycat game is allowed to have a page is a double standard. This is a FREE encyclopedia, and this page is 100% Fact. USG was *the* pioneer in Govsim-based gaming, so if there are going to be pages about Govsims on here, then I am going to make sure the facts are known.
--John Joffey
  • Comment:If this site is "THE MOST notable of any Government Simulator game", then you should have no problem citing refrences that establish its notability. Unless you can cite a large google result, a media or a news source that has done a report on this game, or some other piece of material by an independent site/organisation/whatever, then there is no reason why this page cannot be mentioned in Government simulation instead. Furthermore, this debate is not about AGS, nor does anyone here care about what % of this article is fact. From what I can see, AGS will probably be VFD'd eventually anyway. Jaxl | talk 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Additionally, the web site was recently moved to a new URL, so references on Google is less than important. As a forum, I wouldn't expect that spider would follow it. This is a notable site, as far as I can tell. Brian Sayrs 21:43, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
What was the old URL? It might help to establish notability. ManoaChild 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The old site and all the quotes on it are gone now, allowing many a politician to breathe a sigh of relief. - Calmypal (T) 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
(But now that I think about it, http://www.moobaq.com/usgboard)
  • Comment:Cane we just end this nonsense now and let us keep our page? I mean seriously, the only "delete" votes are coming from people totally clueless about the gaming world of govsims. The fact that they are passing judgment on us in such an ingnorant manner is really out of line. I implore Wikipedia Admins to remove the "deletion discussion" as soon as possible.
--John Joffey
  • Comment. The question isn't whether the article is factual, but rather whether the game is notable enough for its own article. That a number of passionate fans of the game have come here to "stuff the ballot box" and to counter what they perceive as an attack is all-too-common. There are thousands of games out there, all who would claim to be "unique" in some way, with some passionate fans. Should they all have their own article? Wikipedia is not a webgame directory. This article is not encyclopedic. --Al 13:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also suggest that those users who have signed up primarily for purposes of participating in this VfD actually look around and get a better feel for what Wikipedia is all about. --Al
  • Comment. I have rewritten to remove a lot of the advertisingness that drew initial complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomn (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 August 2005
  • Comment: Mr. Joffey, calling people ignorant does not help your cause. All we are asking you to do is to give proof that your site is notable, which you repeatedly avoid doing. It should not be that difficult; after all, this site is "THE MOST notable of any Government Simulator game", isn't it? Also, it is irrelevant whether or not Google picks up someone mentioning this site on a message board; that does not mean it is notable. Unless you can find a good number of different people on different boards (preferably ones with a large userbase) that have mentioned this site, then there is no notability here. Groton here also mentions that this site had been on Avidgamers (a statement which I have yet to see any evidence for); and even if it was, then why is it not currently there? And is that the only site that this game was on? Mr. Joffey, please give evidence supporting your claims. Jaxl | talk 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Not a single one of you can tell me why USG cannot have its own Wikipedia page, yet AGS and the other Govsims/Internationalsims already have their own pages? DOUBLE STANDARD. You let them keep theirs, let us keep ours. We are the most notable one. Sorry that there is no "Govsim Notability Tracker." I honestly cant beliueve you people have nothing better to do than bash wikipedia pages you know NOTHING about.
--John Joffey
  • Comment:Jaxl....247 members and 40,000 posts...IN JUST 2 MONTHS. That's right...2 months. But hey, you're so (personal attack removed) BIASED that you won't recognize that. Also, we're not on Avidgamers anymore because it got too slow and we decided to BUY our own site and forums. That's right...we BOUGHT the site instead of using a free one. That's why it's no longer on Avidgamers...but (personal attack removed) you can't realize that.
  • Comment: Biased towards what? Towards just wanting some facts? Forgive me for wanting to know more about this site. That information you provided would have been just fine, had you not added "...but (personal attack removed) you can't realize that." You should also note that 247 members isn't a lot, "But hey, you're so (personal attack removed) BIASED that you won't recognize that." Furthermore, nobody cares that you had to dish out a whole $125 to buy a "damn server"; no one here told you to do that. And you should note that I changed my vote from delete to merge. I do not want this to be deleted. If you have some free time (which it seems you do, since you have nothing better to do than to insult people who don't even want this deleted), then please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. Jaxl | talk 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USGovSim.com was mentioned on the September 1, 2004 edition of "Cafe Politics" on WKNT Knightcast, which is student radio for the University of Central Florida. UCF is one of the largest public universities in the nation with over 40,000 students. This discussion was not advertising based and discussed government simulators in relations to the study of politics during the 2004 US Elections. If necessary, I will attempt to attain a copy of that night's show for verification. -Roary Snider, Executive Producer, Cafe Politics on Knightcast WKNT 67.8.248.211 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nikolai of Denmark[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. As this boy is going to have a cousin who is the heir presumptive, thus Nikolai is not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). He is the heir of his father, thus deserves article a bit better than his own younger brother, but IMO does not yet deserve it. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the child in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect to parent's page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - someone who is third in line to the Danish throne should be kept. There is no discussion that someone third in line to the British throne should be deleted. Minor royals should not be deleted just because a Republican is anti-royal.
  • Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to father's page. And, it seems to me that there is very light and commonplace information in this article now. Arrigo 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think monarchy should be abolished, but not on Wikipedia. In other words: In my eyes this prince is not inherently notable, but my POV is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As third, soon to be fourth in line for the Danish throne, he is still an important figure. Likewise, if Lady Louise Windsor's article is kept, and she's eighth in line to the throne, then Nikolai, who is much closer, should also be kept. Morhange 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is third in line to the throne of Denmark. There was an article on the third in line to the British throne when he was a minor. Probably for other countries, too. Tree&Leaf 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about someone of wider interest than thousands of people we have articles about. Osomec 00:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, echoing sentiments above. Dottore So 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Members of royal families are inherently notable, particularly those close to the crown. 23skidoo 03:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep members of the royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets lots of press in Denmark. Thue | talk 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Grandchild of a reigning monarch is sufficiently notable. Caerwine 22:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep john k 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grandchild of a monarch, third in line to the throne now, fourth soon, people much lower in the line of succession to the British Throne are kept, so should this be. prsgoddess187 06:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Felix of Denmark[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. Please realize that in addition, this boy is a younger son, thus not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect to parent's page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this person is 4th in line to the Danish throne - it is befitting of a comprehensive encyclopedia to have an entry on him
  • Keep notable. Dunc|☺ 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to father's page. And, it seems to me that there is very light and commonplace information in this article now. Arrigo 21:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think monarchy should be abolished, but not on Wikipedia. In other words: In my eyes this prince is not inherently notable, but my POV is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 21:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's fourth, or soon to be fifth in line to the Danish throne, which is still an important position. Lady Louise Windsor is eighth in line to the British throne, yet her article is still up. Morhange 00:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about someone of wider interest than thousands of people we have articles about. Osomec 00:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, echoing sentiments above. Dottore So 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Royal family members are inherently notable. 23skidoo 03:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep members of the royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as with his brother. Caerwine 22:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets lots of press in Denmark. Thue | talk 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep john k 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep (no consensus). I know I voted here, but since it was a "delete" vote, I don't feel too guilty about closing this as a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ashdown[edit]

non-notable person Johntex 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Certainly a notable person. Andre (talk) 19:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I respect anyone who takes on Orrin Hatch, but we should wait until he's elected. Gazpacho 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if he actually gets elected in 2006 then list him, otherwise Wikipedia will have to list EVERYONE that stands for public office, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, so as to not to have perceptable bias. (This is a vote by anonymous user 81.97.114.168 added by andre 20:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC))
    • I have removed the strike-through tags. We don't automatically reject anonymous votes on VfD. -- Visviva 00:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pete Ashdown is notable for being the founder of XMission, not just politically. Andre (talk) 20:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'd say. Shimgray 22:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for me. K1Bond007 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be notable if he becomes the official Democratic candidate against Hatch. It is not neccesary to defeat Hatch, but he should at least gain the Demacrats' nomination before becoming sufficiently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about notable. Viable candidate for national election with press coverage. Sdedeo 13:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC). Ah, didn't know that he hadn't won the nomination. Delete, then, for now, thanks Sjakkalle. Sdedeo 13:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only until he gets the nomination. As per Sjakkalle. Meelar (talk) 14:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per 81.97.114.168. Nabla 21:32:47, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Keep. I cannot believe this is on VfD. What is that supposed to mean, "Wait until he gets the nomination"? Should we have waited until John Edwards was nominated (or as it turned out, not nominated) to make an article (Yeah, I know this is an amazingly imperfect analogy, but my point is still made at least to that extent). And "Wikipedia will have to list EVERYONE that stands for public office, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, so as to not to have perceptable bias." That is even more ridiculous. For one, United States Senator is not "any public office anywhere in the world." Writing about a candidate for U.S. Senator is not the same about writing about a candidate for Bergen County Freeholder. Please don't make really stupid hyperbolic statements like that one. And because we make one article on bananas doesn't mean that to "be fair" or "not have bias" we have to send osmeone out to make one on every fruit ever at that moment. D. G. 04:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Avoid calling other persons opinions ridiculous, that does not help. To me "Everyone" means "everyone candidating to a similar public office". Is a candidate to be a candidate of the US Senate anyhow more important than a candidate in any national parliament around the world? It doesn't look like so to me. Now, here in Portugal we have 5 major parties, each presenting 230 candidates to the parliament. That's 1150 candidates. If we include minor parties that would easily double, and it would also double if "possible" candidates were included. But let's stick to a nice round 1000 figure. That was Portugal alone. Multiply that for 100 countries with similar institutions and you reach a nice round figure of 100,000 similar candidates around the worls every 4/5 years. Do we want them all? I don't. Nabla 00:09:14, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Based on what is there, there isn't sufficient reason otherwise to keep the article, and I don't know enough about Utah politics to judge whether he even has a chance to get the Democratic nomination or not. Even if he does, being the next Democrat to lose to Senator Hatch hardly seems notable enough to warrant an article. Caerwine 22:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you guys even have any idea what Wikipedia's deletion standards are? Or do you just make it up as you go along based upon what you personally feel like at the moment? D. G. 03:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly marginal, but I think he has some degree of notability as a "geek / candidate". Also, unlike most candidates for office, he's clueful enough to use a .org address for his (noncommercial) campaign site, unlike all the marketroid types who inappropriately use .com sites. *Dan* 04:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I think Ashdown is notable enough. It's not necessary to have an article on everyone who runs for office anywhere in the world. (This is Lst27)
  • Weak keep, sounds notable on a rather small scale, but notable enough to be kept. - ulayiti (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle (note, I am the nominator) Johntex 21:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea bear[edit]

A minor joke in one single episode of SpongeBob. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or integrate into a 'minor characters' page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We've got to have some limits on cruftiness. [[smoddy]] 20:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is slightly excessive. (Alternately, while we're at it, we could duplicate the entire script of the episode...) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whoa, slightly excessive? I'd hate to see real excess. Dottore So 01:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants; fictional character not worthy of a whole article, but worthy of inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to The Camping Episode, or per above. Next up, the Sea Rhino. Ooooo.... %-/ — RJH 15:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although, it was more than just a short joke- it took up a couple good minutes of the plot. ral315 19:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. - ulayiti (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Flounder[edit]

Character that appears in only one episode, with no more than a guest appearance. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or integrate into a 'minor characters' page. Trollderella 19:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I should explain something: He's in the show for 30 seconds. SpongeCruft. -- A Link to the Past 20:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If this kind of stuff is really wanted, there should be a WikiCity put up for it. Wikipedia is not the place. [[smoddy]] 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge someplace, part of comprehensive coverage of Spongebob. Kappa 23:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't NEED a comprehensive coverage of SpongeBob. What are you, The Defender of the Cruft? The Koopa Kids had to be merged together, and they were in four games, but a character with nothing to say anything about who was only on for 30 seconds can have his own article? For Heavens' sake... -- A Link to the Past 23:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. If you're going to criticize people for their vote, there's no reason to even have a vote. This user has a good reason why they believe this article should stay, and it's their choice. ral315 19:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is excessive, even by my standards. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 01:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants. I already merged the information to this existing article. Redirects are cheap (and may prevent someone from recreating this article at a later date). -- DS1953 05:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per DS1953. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpongeBob CruftPants. Redirect to Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants or delete ouright. --Calton | Talk 13:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per DS1953. ral315 19:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't write every article, with a summary of every single thing they do. It can be reduced to a single sentence. -- A Link to the Past 19:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. - ulayiti (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Bull Worm[edit]

A one-time, plotless character with no personality or back story. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or integrate into a 'minor characters' page. Trollderella 19:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is considered more than a miniscule character, then the list will take up more space than any article. This is no minor character, it is a one-time character, as are the thousands of Planktons in that one episode. -- A Link to the Past 19:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsignificant minor character. Wikipedia is not a cast list for SpongeBob. [[smoddy]] 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No need to merge anywhere. Totally insignificant one shot monster of the week. Sabine's Sunbird 20:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transform into an article on the episode which is named after it. Kappa 23:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 01:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of minor SpongeBob SquarePants characters, as a fictional character worthy of inclusion, but not its own article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpongeBob CruftPants. Redirect to Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants or delete ouright. --Calton | Talk 13:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a character that was the plot of an entire episode. Alternatively, merge to that episode. ral315 19:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to minor characters, as Calton said.--Mihoshi 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants. - ulayiti (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to the minor characters page. An entire episode was about him and The Hack Slinging Slasher is also a one-time character, yet he has his own page. -Greensucksbluerules
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 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 keep for reasons I don't understand but that's the vote. Woohookitty 10:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Kiss[edit]

This event was an isolated, planned media stunt in a single award show. The information should be dispersed among the articles for MTV Video Music Award, Madonna (entertainer), Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. If someone was looking for this information, they wouldn't randomly search for "Madonna Kiss", they would look on the article page for the event or one of the entertainers involved. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Indeed. Theoretically, merge, but I think all the relevant info is available already, so more likely delete.--fuddlemark 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This was a pretty notable (albeit manufactured) media event involving three independently very notable people, and it massively transcended the significance of the media event at which it was hosted--it made mainstream new in my country, where the MTV awards aren't even normally considered a media even of any significance. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably move to another title such as Madonna's MTV kiss. Kappa 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks ok to me. Trollderella 00:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It really stands on its own and would be difficult to merge efficiently into any other single article. -- DS1953 04:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but needs a better name. Vegaswikian 06:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Madonna. Wikinerd 07:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable media event. Wouldn't be opposed to merging it with MTV Video Music Award, which is pretty short, but for now, weak keep and rename CanadianCaesar 04:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MTV Video Music Award. Alf 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Move to Shia view of the Sahaba and Sunni view of the Sahaba. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shia ranking of the Sahaba + Sunni ranking of the Sahaba[edit]

It should be noted that Sunni ranking of the Sahaba also exists and should be considered in this VfD. I am putting this up for deletion because the unsourced "ranking" seems inherently POV / original research to me. I originally placed ((move|Shia view of the Sahaba)) but Striver shot down that idea so I believe here will be a better place to determine communal view of this. For more reasons see my vote.

  • Move (with change of format and deletion of unsourced) to Shia view of the Sahaba or Shia views of the Sahaba. Because I was unclear: The content will be moved... the main change will be to have this article be descriptive (qualitative) instead of the quantative approach used now which is not found in other sources. gren グレン
I believe that the ranking is impossible to have NPOV. I am aware that there is general Shia feeling towards different individuals but not so we can place different ones in a list of who Shia believe are "strongly positive", "strongly negative", etc. as the page does. we have now, which wouldThe current article is not sourced and I believe this move will first allow a discussion of the views of the Sahaba instead of the list with the rankings which appear to be original research and I am doubting that there is any representative scholarly Shia source with the a ranking system. The viewpoint is fine but I feel this is more or less of a mockery of encyclopedic work. Oh, and for this wanting a more specific policy related reason -- I feel it violates WP:NOT 1.3, 1.7 and to a lesser extent 1.4 gren グレン 19:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lol, i love it, of cource we need a VFD for even this article, otherwise it would break the trend of VFD all shia articles... --Striver 20:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, are you opposing the idea that shias like the Banu Hashim and hate Umar, Muaviya & co, or is your problem that its not all in one single list somewhere? Well, List of cities in Georgia, USA is not sourced, why dont you go and VFD it? I mean, go read any random Shia book and you will se it curse any and everyone on the "strong negative" section and praise any and everyone in the "strong positive" section, as if there was some secret about that... i dont get you. Its common knowledge the stuff added in the list, i mean, its so COMMONLY known that NOBODY has edited or changed the list in ANY way since i created it or added people to it, NOBODY is contesting the ranking. I Mean, are you contesting the ranking? --Striver 20:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless "strong negative" and the strict classification of yours is original research. If you wish to cite what the books say that is another matter. Cities in Georgia is more objective fact than this... a completely different ball game. I am contesting the use of ranking in the first place. Sourced descriptions would be fine, but not a ranking. Which is why I believe it should be moved. I would also prefer you not imply that this has anything to do with it being a Shia article. The common denominator in Shia articles up for deletion seems to be your hand placed on them. My reasoning is this. I don't want anyone coming to wikipedia and being under the impression that Sunnis and Shia have some sort of ranking system for Muhammad's companions. -- the different groups will generally have different views and I acknowledge that, so source it and place it in context. One shia site does not mean that that view is correct. Make notable citations Striver and say whom your citing. That is my problem. I haven't editted it because I thought it was such a mess I didn't know what to do so I avoided it. I can't tell you other users' reasons. gren グレン 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those points are already addressed in great detail in the first part of the article. --Striver 22:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs copyediting, but appears to be a significant topic. No theoretical reason why it can't be neutrally presented. Osomec 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This entire enterprise is 'seriously' flawed. It would be interesting to discuss the Sahaba in the context of an emerging Shia & Sunni orthodoxy, particularly why different companions came to be viewed as they were (beyond the bullet point summaries here). But a laundry list like this is difficult to accept. It would be like Cathars ranking of early Saints, or Arianist ranking of the Disciples - a meaningless exercise. Would the author be willing to pen a more detailed exposition of the changing view of the Sahaba within an emerging Shia tradition, complete with proper sources and references? That would be a great article. If the article is kept, the existing content needs to be largely replaced. Dottore So 01:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good point, ill try to add to the article the historical reseason of the split in the view of the Sahaba. However, i feel its going to be hard for me to do that in a NPOV way and i might need some co-editor to help me write in a NPOV way. --Striver 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've come to the right place to find co-editors. In the event that you are able to expand upon the historical context, I would suggest moving the article to a topic heading such as Changing sectarian views of the Sahaba and unite the Sunni and Shia into a merged discussion. Dottore So 01:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move I agree with Dottore So, the idea can be tweaked to be much more encyclopedic with a further discussion of the views of individual members of the Sahaba, providing reasons for just how these views came to be with sources of course. Gren is right as well: it seems "ranking" screams "POV list" and Shia Views of the Sahaba would be more appropriate. The idea of ranking gives the impression that the concept is black-and-white, when in reality it's not. Sorna Doon 02:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the discussion above and the general agreement that seems to have emerged, I will vote to Move either per my own or the original suggestion, with the hope that the article will undertake a more systematic examination of how Sunni/Shia views on the Sahaba were formed, and - as importantly - the significance for both communities. Dottore So 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article is showing the rankings of Sahaba according to the shia view and there is nothing wrong wiyth that--Khalid! 11:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP for the same reason as Osomec

--Ya Ali 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - i'm with Gren on this one. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move, and restructure to deal with the OR and POV issues raised. Looks to me like there's some valuable and useful content here, however. Alai 17:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move both. Unless all Shia agree on the ranking of their 100,000 Sahaba and unless all Sunni agree on the ranking of their considerably fewer sahaba, both articles should be renamed, although I would prefer something more like Sahaba in Shia Islam and Sahaba in Sunni Islam. Are there differing views between Alawiya and Zaiddiyah, etc. and/or among the Wahhabis/Salafis and Sufis? I'm not opposed to lists, or even to rankings, as long as there is agreement outside WP as to the correct rankings. Tomer TALK 21:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move - I have never seen anything to think that there is a universal ranking of the Sahaba. There are different views and it should be moved to say that. rydia 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - there could be a good article in a discussion of how the companions of Muhammad -- the early Muslims -- took sides in various disputes. There's the succession to Muhammad and the first Islamic civil war, the Fitna. Basically, the Shi'a trust (rank high) the companions who took the side of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Therefore, any discussion of factionalism among the companions would necessarily subsume the articles under discussion now. Zora 03:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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

Current events in Cisjordan[edit]

A complete non-topic. It is supposed to be a Current events page, but nothing of any significance has been added to it since it was created. It does not justify its existence. brozen 19:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this fork created to make a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if only the whole thing could be made to go away by changing the name... Tomer TALK 01:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POINT, creative use of chemical terminology for political purposes. JFW | T@lk 09:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm certain that the ancient inhabitants of Cisalpine Gaul would be disturbed to hear you say that. Seriously tho, while the term Cisjordan has been used variously for just the West Bank, the West Bank and Gaza, or even all of the old Mandate of Palestine, it certainly is not the name in current English use for any of these. Caerwine 23:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There certainly are enough events happening in the region to make a Current events subarticle appropriate, but Cisjordan is too neologist to be the name used. Caerwine 23:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's updating the page, regardless of the name -- which is part of the reason for deletion. brozen 05:52, August 21, 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 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 keep. – NSR (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paanchi[edit]

--A dicdef, fits the Deletion policy criterion. (and I personally am not a deletionist) D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, wiktionary doesn't take "dicdefs" of people. Kappa 22:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man was a king. Of a real, if now historical, nation. [17] I can't see how that could fail any test for notability ever made. (And I am (sometimes) a deletionist.) Cleanup, sure, but really... --Icelight 23:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I got this page confused with another; this doesn't need deletion; I got this confused with Foder article. Sorry.D. J. Bracey (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum I cleaned it up; also wikified and created disambiguation. I am very sorry, this was a terrible mistake May I take the VfD tag off? If feel like a real idiot. D. J. Bracey (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like it has potential. Trollderella 00:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kings of current or historic nations are inherently notable in my view. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per nom. -- DS1953 04:48, August 18, 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 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 13:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Chris marks[edit]

Administrator of an online forum. Not notable. Could perhaps be renamed to Nano-reef.com and rewritten accordingly. Note we already have a nano reef page. -- Curps 20:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, could be speedied? Sdedeo 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly as vanity. Hall Monitor 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, should have been CSD A7 --Outlander 21:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 13:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Foder[edit]

--Delete as per the former Joder article. A foreign "dic-def" D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 12:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew T. Austin[edit]

vanity, non-notable, promotion Ben-w 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per above. Sdedeo 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, distincly non notable. PubLife 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity article--take it to the User pages.--Craigkbryant 21:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Jaxl | talk 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Had this not been nominated for deletion I would have speedied it for not even claiming notability. David | Talk 23:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Secretlondon 04:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 12:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perpetual boyfriend syndrome[edit]

Delete Un-encyclopedic PhilipO 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neologism, original research. --IByte 20:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above --Outlander 20:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-as per nominator. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all of the above. --Craigkbryant 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Keep --Allen3 talk 12:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Qassim Afzal[edit]

this person has stood for public office a few times, but has been very unsuccessful, being a councillor for a year only. 81.97.114.168 20:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. David | Talk 22:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep factual. Trollderella 22:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he is notable for a number of reasons. (I improved the article). Punkmorten 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he is the first British born asian councillor. Secretlondon 04:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is extremely unlikely. A friend of mine is a British-born Bangladeshi councillor and was first elected in 1998, the same as Qassim Afzal. David | Talk 08:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, wouldn't that make it a matter of which result came in first, if they were elected in the same election? Clair de Lune 08:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked into this further and he clearly isn't the first British-born Asian councillor. Mehboob Khan was a councillor in 1996. Clair de Lune 00:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a world statesman but still someone we ought to cover. Clair de Lune 08:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - a good example of someone who I wouldn't have bothered researching and writing about, but now that someone has, he may as well stay. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't list every ex-Councillor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.25.107 (talk • contribs) 09:50, August 19, 2005
  • delete - not a notable person,agree we can not list every ex-Councillor— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.192.9 (talk • contribs) 16:29, August 19, 2005
  • Delete - He claims to be the first British-born Asian Councillor, but clearly he wasn't (as per Clair de Lune) - what else is he claiming which is factually untrue? - Colin Armstrong— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.192.8 (talk • contribs) 15:39, August 20, 2005
  • Delete this person is known in the Liberal Democrats as as self-publicist. Local politics is littered with people like him. Rhyddfrydol 01:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User had 3 edits prior to this vote, the first being made five days after this VfD was opened. --Allen3 talk 12:51, August 23, 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 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 12:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jerome Butterbrodt[edit]

Nn Bio, "Premier Rhinos" returns nothing in Google - maybe this should be speedy? PubLife 20:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -- DS1953 21:47, August 17, 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 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. the transwiki vote is more or less a joke vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OS switcher[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Darrien 20:51, August 17, 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 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 12:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jason_Tomlins[edit]

Only claim to notability is being the brains behind Fooforums, which has no Alexa ranking. GraemeL 20:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete quickly as vanity. Hall Monitor 21:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable vanity article. Take it to the User pages.--Craigkbryant 21:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not famous or notable either but the article is factual and clean and someday someone might try to look me up using Wikipedia just as they might David Bowie. --68.146.219.84 04:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Jason Tomlins.[reply]
    • Someday when you become notable enough that anybody but your family members or potential girlfriends will want to Google you, then somebody else, not yourself, can write an article on you. Till then, delete. Zoe 05:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, vanity. -- DS1953 15:23, August 18, 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 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 12:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Qicscript[edit]

Delete. advertising. "leading" seems exaggerated, it's mostly constrained to Ireland. --IByte 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Problem-solution dynamic[edit]

Neologism - searches of Google and Yahoo turned up several instances of this term, but none with the definition referred to here. Most cite the concept that "any problem has an ultimate solution". Outlander 21:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Interesting point on the inverted definition; perhaps it's an intentional joke about marketdroid speech? --fuddlemark 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Also, the stated law of evolution makes no sense. ManoaChild 21:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Ibne Hasan Nonaharvi[edit]

Doesn't assert sufficient notability KeithD (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Google isn't always a good indicator of notability, but the article in its current form doesn't assert any notability, it just says he was a religious scholar. If you know more, then by all means improve the article. KeithD (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I haven't heard of him, so I can't contribute and I'd prefer to abstain from voting. The main problem with this is that the article was written by an anon, and he has not revealed much about this person. But a google search on the term Sultan Madaris reveals that that it is a reputed seminary and they have produced many notable people. He could be one, but as you rightly said, anon hasn't mentioned anything out of the ordinary. He could have been as notable as Syed Kalbe Hussain, a cleric from the same city. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a single Google hit, with quotes. :( Is that name spelled right? If it isn't, then I will consider changing my vote. I feel pretty silly for thinking it wasn't in english earlier... --Phroziac (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep - "Maulana Ibne Hasan" gets some google hits, all in Urdu(?). I suspect he is notable, just not in the west. --Phroziac (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until someone can research it a bit more fully - there looks like there may be good reasons why someone famous for reciting urdu might not get many google hits. Trollderella 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried a number of variations on the name, including correcting the spelling of ibn and cannot come up with a thing. Not many google hits, maybe. None? Unlikely. Author needs to post sources. Dottore So 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sultanul Madaris confirms his prominence in a field that is under-represented in Wiki and Google. May have been the author of Chaudaa Baseerat Afroze Majaalis Dlyons493 15:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Spacemen[edit]

not notable, vanity - nomination by User:Ben-w

  • Speedy Delete - created by same anon as The Slabs which is was speedied PubLife 22:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something wrong with anons trying to fill in red links? Kappa 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not all redlinks are notable. Is that a "Keep" vote? --Alan Au 04:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that wasn't a vote, it was more a "don't bite the newbies" thing. However, since Music of Kansas cites a source for his original band's notability (Blush, Steven. American Hardcore: A Tribal History. 2001. Feral House. ISBN 0-922915-717-7), I will in fact vote Keep. Kappa 04:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, I'm a practically a newbie myself and I'm not biting anyone - I left him a message on The Slabs discussion page with some links and put a welcome note on his IP User Page. Having said that, I'm not convinced any encylopedia needs an article on an 'urban rap electronic trance' outfit once started by a minor musician in the Kansas 80's Punk scene, but still happily remove the Speedy part of my original vote. PubLife 09:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Prehaps actually READING the guidelines is a good thing... had I done that previous to putting in this entry, I would not have posted it. I don't think that the reference to The Slabs could be stated as a reference to an 'extremely notable' source, minor scene as you stated... so I would conceed the point. However as the page notes say not to remove it myself, I will let the process take its own course. Thousand pardons begged...lesterUbe
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.

boing bleep dribble dribble

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 Keep --Allen3 talk 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nizlopi[edit]

For your perusal...yet another band vanity stub. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Profiled by BBC, but as a local act [18] Does this make any difference though? PubLife 22:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the BBC article says "They have already got an album in the shops, have won over huge festival crowds and are so in demand they’re almost constantly on tour, in the UK and in Europe". Kappa 23:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks ok. Trollderella 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. These guys may well be on their way, though. Friday (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. We have a verifiable source namely the BBC saying that this band is "almost constantly on tour" in the UK and Europe. They therefore meet the WP:Music guideline about having completed at least one national tour. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I got dyslexic Googling the name (blush). - Lucky 6.9 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom comment. --Alan Au 04:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - their "JCB Song" is becoming internet cult classic. Try it for yourself and then decide if you want these boys out of here. Budgiekiller 12:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, they're always on tour, often on BBC radio and their fanbase is becoming huge.
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 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 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Synth-hop[edit]

Delete. Neologism used to support the article Di$h and ShiQuana. 74 unique Google hits. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Di$h and ShiQuana. android79 22:01, August 17, 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 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 11:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aimee G[edit]

Unverifiable vanity - according to the bio she's a musician, (electronic, classical, clash and jaz), movie maker (director and screen writer), exhibiting photographer, visual artist, furniture maker, sculpture and professional comedian. Ho hum! --Doc (?) 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google and the like all return very weak results for "Aimee G" and her other aliases. No evidence of notability within any of her multiple fields. Hall Monitor 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doesn't this qualify for speed treatment under the new regime ? Dottore So 01:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
nope, she asserts any amount of notability - its just that it's non-verifiable --Doc (?) 07:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 11:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rancid toast[edit]

Delete: Fails almost all of WP:WEB. Doesn't show up on alexa.com rankings. Might pass proposal #2 under web comics on WP:WEB. But, without having enough traffic to score at all on alexa.com, I think it fails in general. --Durin 22:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 11:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Gost bich[edit]

It's a band. Discuss. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • google search produces, count 'em: 1, 2, 3 whole entries! Delete, non-notable according to, well, every measure in WP:MUSIC. -Satori 23:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. A Prolific band though - 10 albums since Dec 04! PubLife 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. feydey 12:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Keep/Redirect to Circumcision. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncircumcised[edit]

Dicdef, no possibility of expansion. Should be redirect to circumcision Nohat 22:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Nohat. --Randy 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no redirect --Alan Au 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article refers to use of the term in the New Testament to "refer to unbelievers of either sex, regardless of physical circumcision." Could that be expanded enough to keep? Tree&Leaf
  • keep Tree&Leaf 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect, no need to delete. Trollderella 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, circumcision does not cover the "unbelievers" meaning. Kappa 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as disambiguation page. Do not redirect. Redirecting to any one article will exclude other possible meanings. Sirkumsize 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to circumcision. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rhobite 03:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Rhobite. Vegaswikian 06:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to circumcision. Proto t c 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to User:Scott Gall :)  Grue  20:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rhobite. Nandesuka 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't imagine how a simple disambiguation page could get VFD'd on any topic that wasn't so controversial. Is it that terrible to tell readers alternate uses of the word and ensure they reach their desired location? LizardWizard 04:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to circumcision, if possible move there valuable info too. --Anthony Ivanoff 10:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to circumcision. - Jakew 10:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The religious meaning, which is evidently not the same as physical circumcision in that it can be applied to females or males, should be expanded. Jonathunder 14:54, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
  • Keep.
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 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 11:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cookie Day[edit]

Unable to verify, Google returns no hits for creator names + "Cookie Day" [19], likely not sufficiently notable. --Alan Au 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep. There are probably some keep votes which should be discounted, but at any rate, there is only one delete vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore 64 (band)[edit]

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 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 11:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Resolving Who Owns Money[edit]

perilously close to speedy as patent nonsense Ben-w 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep.- Mailer Diablo 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation (album)[edit]

Article for planned third album by Kanye West. Meanwhile, his second hasn't even been released yet, and it's stands to reason that not a single note has been recorded for this album, or the planned follow up Good Ass Job (see that VfD discussion below) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FuriousFreddy 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ass Job[edit]

See discussion of Graduation (album) above FuriousFreddy 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 keep (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exploit (World of Warcraft)[edit]

Doesn't deserve an article of its own as everything here is covered by World of Warcraft or Exploit (online gaming) Kevin 22:56, August 17, 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 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 11:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Molossia[edit]

Delete Someone's internet hoax page. Icelight 23:23, August 17, 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to question. – Alphax τεχ 05:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning[edit]

Delete. At best, it's a dictionary entry. In reality, it is probably a hoax. This users edits don't help it's credibility. Wikibofh 23:51, August 17, 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 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 Keep --Allen3 talk 11:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Franz Tausend[edit]

I don't know what this is. But it's not an encyclopedia article. Ben-w 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More