< August 21 August 23 >

August 22[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS myths and urban legends[edit]

Personal essay, highly POV, tagged disputed for a long time and no efforts to mediate or resolve have been successful. No references. The subject itself seems borderline encyclopedic, but the article is entirely not so. WP:ISNOT a soapbox nor is it a repository for original research. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A move to such a page would be good. --Grcampbell 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has no original research --Grcampbell 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
References have been added. --Grcampbell 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Change - KEEP - After format change and additional references. Nice work. -PlainSight 13:31, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Topics and Virtues[edit]

(a) So far mainly contains biblical quotes, (b) Seems pretty redundant with Christianity, and possibly other topics, and (c) hopelessly ambitious given the general title Cheese Sandwich 00:45, 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 Gantz. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gantzs[edit]

This page should be deleted because the title is misspelled and there is an article more complete already with the right name (Gantz) JocPro 00:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opium Den[edit]

There is no such thing an album by this name released by a band called Tool, meaning that it is not an official release. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hohobans[edit]

Delete. Completely unverifiable; possible hoax. Wound up over at votes for undeletion, but in the interest of fairness, I've posted it here. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Members[edit]

Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Threads[edit]

Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Acronyms[edit]

Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tuthill[edit]

Delete Non-notable? Google search turns up nothing PhilipO 02:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketboard[edit]

Take it from an old homemade-explosive expert, this is a load of hoo-ha. Potassium nitrate plus sugar gives an impressive pile of smoke but not serious thrust. The "physics" comments about diameter of truck wheels vs. terminal velocity are sheerly comedic in their seriousness. This is flat out foolish. Denni☯ 02:37, 2005 August 22 (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 merge. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nermal[edit]

Delete and redirect The information on the Nermal page is already on much larger Garfield page. Character may not have enough information to add ot make it worth giving it a seperate page. Should be deleted and redirect to Garfield, just like 'Odie' does. Boycottthecaf 02:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Spears[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable band. Only hit for "Liquid Spears" "Monique Willemsen" is Wikipedia, and "Liquid Spears" doesn't fare much better. No allmusic.com listing. Niteowlneils 02:47, 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. User:Zoe also wishes me to point out that there was no consensus, which I'm happy to do. Even taking into account some socking, there just isn't consensus to delete this. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Lunch Design[edit]

Delete Promotional? PhilipO 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...? I didn't say "nn". I voted weak keep. Jaxl | talk 14:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly commercial, but they do offer free downloads and have some positive comments made about them on Google. Dlyons493 12:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ScotWatch[edit]

Delete. A Yahoo! mailing list. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:53, August 22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley family[edit]

No claim to notability. Martg76 03:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Syeed[edit]

Seems to be parts of two different articles. the one about Musa Syeed seems to be about a non-notable person -- exactly one google hit on "Musa Syeed" + Producer, 9 hits on "Musa Syeed"+film. Delete unless notability better established -- in any case cleanup. DES (talk) 03:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Mods[edit]

It's a Who's Who of the moderators a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to maintain membership rosters for their discussion forum. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:05:57, 2005-08-22 (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Top50[edit]

It's a list of members of a discussion forum that post the most, with their posting counts. As the discussion forum members will continue to post, this information will be out of date as soon as it is written, and thus is both worthless and unverifiable. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:04:04, 2005-08-22 (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 A7 (Geogre deleted "Xan Phillips" (Only says he used to be a videotape editor and now has a podcast: spam + vanity (click here!))) - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xan Phillips[edit]

Not notable. 474 Google and zero Alexa. Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 04:24, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard and Friends[edit]

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pollard and Friends/2005-05-03.

Redelete: this page already went through VFD and was nuked. Hoax page about a UK Simpsons spin-off. Speediable? JDoorjam 04:25, 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 Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (songwriter)[edit]

nonnotable songwriter. IF his group is even notable, merge; else, delete (and somebody take out his group, too). JDoorjam 04:34, 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 discussion aborted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination). --Tony SidawayTalk 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExamDiff[edit]

Re-opening abbreviated VfD. Original vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff.
Abstain. brenneman(t)(c) 04:53, 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 Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh danahay[edit]

junk/vanity/non-sense Rkevins82 - TALK 05:10, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Travel[edit]

This looks like an ad. Compare copy with their web site ;Bear 05:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shall we pillory that one again? ;Bear 18:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like someone cleaned it up shortly after this nomination was made and my comment/link brought attention to it. --maclean25 00:28, 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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK82[edit]

Not notable. Delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:29, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gooley[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. --23:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In a world[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic PhilipO 06:23, 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. -Splash 05:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liesl Jobson[edit]

Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Circa 500 hits on Google. PhilipO 06:50, 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 Early keep. Totally rewritten. No more dicdef. mikka (t) 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koleda[edit]

*Delete. dicdef MCB 07:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For deletionists I would advise to learn how to use google. mikka (t) 18:18, 25 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) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean whisler[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumpresto[edit]

Vanity and advertisement. Seems non-notable, and refers to website for any actual information. Uppland 07:38, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a clue what this is. It appears to be a fictional accounting of a large scale gang war of some kind. It's not encyclopedic, appears to make no distinction between fantasy and reality and cites no sources. In a Google search for "Illuminati X", I could find no results that were relevent to this. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Peace during the Elitez Gangbang" "Illuminati Victory in the First Ivy League War" "Emergence of the Bots and the NATO War" Those titles had me gut-laughing! My advise to Robert Pierce is to set this shit up on your own homepage or something, and at most include that there was a massive MMOPG battle feat. 50k people here on Wiki, the total breakdown and prose is unneeded though. -Wiffle0rz 09:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was worth a try.

They found the cure to cancer.... well only breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, and ovarian cancer.... its a common virus... it was on CNN about a month ago. RX something..... its going through FDA testing at the moment to be put on the general market. The virus by itself does not kill regular cells, only the cancer cells, but in conjunction with another virus it can cause regular cells to die.

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) 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaji[edit]

133 Google hits for name. Sample from text shows obvious self-promotion: "Rivaji is not new to politics and Congress. he is a born Congressman." delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, August 27, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Academy of Dance, Pacific Rim Performing Arts Studios[edit]

Looks like self-promotion for a local business offering dance classes since 1966 in a town (Tsawwassen, British Columbia) with a population of 25,000. See also links from 56th Street. Uppland 08:56, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Daddy[edit]

This is either 1. Totally Fake or 2. Real and thereby so flagrantly homosexual we can not alow this shit to stay and must delete it at once. Wiffle0rz 08:56, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress - IT Cell[edit]

This article doesn't shed light into the affiliated organization's significance. Google results for "Indian National Congress" and "IT Cell" total 64. Article created by an officier that started a vanity article for himself. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i agree - page should be deleted its not from a neutral POV and does not give much information Vino s 19:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, August 27, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thwog[edit]

Non-notable joke religion (Thwog returns 9 hits on Google if you exclude it's own site, all false positives by my count.). I was tempted to list it on speedy, but I'm not sure it would fit any criterea, anyway to quote the creed of Thwong: "Creation Is An Accident of Thwog.", I think that pretty much sums up this article. Delete Sherool 09:37, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aparant[edit]

Vanity/linkspam for a non-notable group that gets one Google hit and no Alexa rank. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +3/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:59, August 27, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Abreu[edit]

She used to sing in a band and is now solo. I could find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, however (I did find some googles in Spanish but I can't read that). Notable or not able? Radiant_>|< 09:47, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Fat Get Thin[edit]

Has anyone heard the theory that about half of published books in NA deal either with religion or dieting? This may be moderately well-known but I think we need a relatively high bar for diet books because a) its hard to distinguish them from ads b) the sheer volume of such material means notability is difficult to prove. Still delete tho the page looks better. Marskell 10:32, 24 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) 00:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnitch:gnitch[edit]

Two-piece experimental band from Australia. Fails WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 22, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

GardenGuideWiki[edit]

A wiki about gardening. 32 googles. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Petch[edit]

The article is kind of messy, but it appears to be a summary of the research paper of two people about material slippage. WP:NOR comes to mind. Also, the article claims to be copyrighted, which is kind of odd. Radiant_>|< 10:01, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Dudley[edit]

Wife to a 17th century settler. Article lists her children and says nothing much else; WP:NOT a genealogy database. Radiant_>|< 10:05, August 22, 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 delete as blatant vanity per CSD #A7. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Miikka Kuisma[edit]

Obvious vanity. About as notable as my left foot. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 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 Been merged, therefore I must redirect per GFDL. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mary[edit]

Appears to be an awful minor character in Pokemon with little to say about. I vote delete unless there's a list of minor characters I don't know about in which case, I'd agree to a merge. (Was incorrectly tagged as a speedy because a lack of context) - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Keevey[edit]

Was originally unformatted and signed by anon contributor. It was also tagged as speedy vanity, but I believe the Young Scientist Exhibition mention may be an attempt at assertion of notability. Still delete because I don't think entering or even winning that competition is notable enough in itself. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, August 22, 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 article significantly altered since listing, discussion no longer necessary. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gale[edit]

I doubt the popularity (read: notability) of this popular American country singer. He seems to have left neither a trace on Google (unlike the British author of the same name), nor will amazon.com sell any CDs of his. nn-bio. Unverifiable. No context. I'm almost inclined to speedying it, but for the time being, I'll be satisfied with Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 11:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new article. --DrTorstenHenning 07:41, 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 KEEP. -Splash 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh![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 KEEP. -Splash 05:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuktem[edit]

Originally tagged as speedy, but being the first in a large region to provide wireless internet to students, would make a university notable in my opinion. Abstain unless independently verified. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synapseboy[edit]

Unverifiable, at best. Sietse 11:28, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icewind[edit]

Non-notable band. Al 12:15, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad[edit]

A college kid. He is a friend of mine but I don't think he warrants an entry into Wikipedia. __earth 12:21, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DBZonPS2[edit]

Not notable web forum, Alexa: 379,797. Also vanity and promotion feydey 12:29, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlueAirNews[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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trisine Lattice[edit]

original research. Appears to exist only in the one old (unpublished) preprint referred to in the text. Salsb 12:42, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headwound[edit]

Non-notable band. Al 12:45, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koldfusion[edit]

Right, this is a fun one. I'd never heard of a band called Koldfusion despite knowing the Oxford music scene pretty well, so resorted to the dreaded google. Only music related hits I got were for 'Kold Fusion' - who have a stubby allmusic page and one electronica/dance EP release, on the orchard. So, in short:
- Koldfusion seem to fail WP:MUSIC
- Kold Fusion also seem to fail WP:MUSIC, having only one release on a 'digital label'
Any questions? --zippedmartin 12:55, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blankbabied[edit]

Neologism. Kelly Martin 13:50, August 22, 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. -Splash 05:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Mitzvah Boy[edit]

There's nothing here that isn't already on the main Play for Today page already. I can't expand it myself as I've sadly not seen this Play for Today, and the stub seems to have been up for two weeks without anybody else being able to come along and expand it either. Angmering 14:25, 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. -Splash 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Cohen[edit]

Vanity Page - nothing to see here. Benjamin Gatti 14:37, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (again). -- RHaworth 06:17:42, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Left Overtures (reprise)[edit]

This should maybe be a speedy, as it was almost unanimously VfDed before, but the content might be substantially different now. The guy who recreated it was, I believe, the same guy who wrote the original article, and a complete ass during the last VfD. -R. fiend 14:40, 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 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 COPYVIO, with no rewrite. -Splash 05:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom bond[edit]

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Assert notability quickly, or delete. JDoorjam 23:30, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UG Madness[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. Gets 861 Ghits...but most of them aren't even talking about the comic. Several Times 14:56, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hristijan[edit]

Non-notable biography PubLife 14:58, 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 Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

56th Street[edit]

Which 56th Street is this, you ask? Why, the one in Tsawwassen, British Columbia, of course! I mean, there aren't any other 56th Streets, are there? What we have here is a streetcruft article filled with a painful amount of trivia (including notes on where traffic lights are) on a road in a minor suburb. Mention a little of it in the Tsawwassen article, but this is ridiculous. I believe even the most inclusive guidelines for road articles don't include things like this. -R. fiend 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over there, at Tsawwassen, British Columbia, where that piece of information belongs, it says so already. That's still no reason to include every single traffic light on that road. Pilatus 22:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's delete it. Martg76 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the anonymous user who created the page and is obviously local to the area would get out his camera and upload a photograph of the border crossing point or of Point Roberts, Washington. That would be useful information; giving details of all intersections and traffic lights is just cramming irrelevant trivia into Wikipedia. Pilatus 11:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do you people really think that someone would have the patience and time to write a lengthy and detailed article about just any old street, unless it was an important 'landmark'? I see no reason for people to want this article to be deleted. The author of the article is clearly trying to illustrate the importance of a street which is considered to be of some significance in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. No one should judge this article simply because they have never heard of it nor seen it. I'm sure there are many of you who don't know what the Blarney Stone is, but if I told you it was a mere rock that was of historical and mythical value to the people of Ireland would you all vote for that article to be deleted? Piecraft 03:04, 25 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) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Byron - Augusta (Poem)[edit]

Delete. POV/OR essay, duplicate of Epistle to augusta which has been redirected as per a recently concluded VfD. This title isn't worth redirecting. --IByte 15:17, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pristine the band[edit]

A non-notable "band from the MK area", could not find any Google hits except "the official site". -- Mormegil 15:37, 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 speedy deleted as nonsense. (00:10, 23 August 2005 Geogre deleted "National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria" (Not a VfD! Contents were fgfgh)) - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National_Insurance_Corporation_of_Nigeria[edit]

If this is an actual company, I'd say edit it. But as it stands, gibberish. Christy747 15:44, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Fries & Dogs[edit]

Article claims "Super Fries & Dogs is an American fast-food restaurant chain that serves hot dogs and french fries, located in most United States shopping malls"; Google shows that it has one or two locations in the San Diego area. Non-notable; from Ddespie@san.rr.com, formerly MascotGuy. tregoweth 15:50, August 22, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X Airways[edit]

This is a poorly-written, content-free article about an airline that doesn't seem to exist. The external link to their home page is broken, a google search for "X airways" turns up nothing, and no one answers the phone (there's a generic voicemail message) at the number listed on the domain registration. Steve Summit (talk) 16:00, 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 Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. -Splash 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Henderson[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 Move. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Productivity of Wikipedia Authors[edit]

This doesn't belong in the main article namespace. Delete or move to the project (Wikipedia:) namespace. Mindmatrix 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at this and realized my comments were unnecessarily disparaging. This article was posted by a new user who obviously went to a lot of work even if I don't think it belongs. Anyhow, sorry GJG if you stop by here. Marskell 18:49, 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 Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Astrology prince[edit]

nn. seems to be an ad for their website. 202.156.2.74 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That might verify his existance, but I can't read Chinse and I'd like to see something more than a link to a personal website. --Apyule 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Instantnood 09:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
But now what are the actual reasons for deleting the entry? it is because 1)it sounds promotional 2)we don't know the name of this person recorded on his ID card 3)it will probably remain a very short entry. Which one(s)? --K.C. Tang 12:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too sure for the rest, but all three reasons u quote are valid for discussion here, although I am not too concerned about his real name. I am more concerned over just how much content u can add for something as secretive as this. Is wikipedia going to become a source for original research by unravelling this mystery?--Huaiwei 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then our petite prince should be qualified ... HK girls are crazy about astrology and the likes, u know. :P --K.C. Tang 01:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And he writes on several newspapers currently and in the past. I don't think it's possible for any newspaper in Hong Kong to survive with a readership less than 5000. — Instantnood 07:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That said, 5000 is actually a very small figure, and it probably should not be the only criterion when evaluationg this case. Just about any book published in Singapore and which are by law required to be stocked in the national library here already automatically gets an audience of over 5000, even if you are a minnow no one know about.--Huaiwei 07:26, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic cock[edit]

Band vanity. Most of the 400-odd Google results for "Cosmic Cock" are unrelated. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:40, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dom The Bomb[edit]

Unverifiable hoax by known vandal. Another one of this guy's plausible-sounding hoaxes is on VfD as well (see "O.A. Ruscaba" below). - Lucky 6.9 17:06, 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 Power (international). There's nothing to merge. -Splash 06:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World powers[edit]

This entry's topic encompasses too much information, and, since each of the topics listed within here are discussed elsewhere (and would be more in-depth in their own context,) I find this topic to be non-encyclopedic. Jolb 17:19, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one way to peel a banana[edit]

Original research, neologism. -Satori 17:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think this counts as OR; it has some unverifiable facts (which is impressive for such a short article) but the point of the article is the phrase, not an analysis of it. Nonetheless, it is a neologism, and one with no significant cultural importance, at that. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:15, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelappee[edit]

This page seems to be nonsense, possibly slang used by some tiny group of people

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!) 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Warriors[edit]

The content of the article does not seem to be verifiable. See Talk:Tino rangatiratanga. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:39, 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. -Splash 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of article series[edit]

What's the point of this page? List all the articles that have subarticles? This page could include all countries (History, economy, culture...), languages (Grammar, alphabet, pronunciation...), wars (causes, casualties...) ... CG 17:49, August 22, 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 delete as per WP:CSD clause G1. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Vector Inducer[edit]

Appears to be nonexistant device; no source provided A2Kafir 17:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's a cow-ranching amateur astrophysicist.A2Kafir 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's all those cow-orkers at NASA. GraemeL (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, NASA's talking about going back to the moooooooooooooon.....A2Kafir 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the author's own admission on his talk page, it's nonsense. Closing out. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Obfuscated Weird Language[edit]

Too weird for Wikipedia. Advertisement for nn language (very few google hits) Punkmorten 18:04, 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. Woohookitty 07:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Malnic[edit]

non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify something--- of course I agree that just because I don't recognize Malnic's name on the basis of my somewhat limited (but nontrivial) reading in this area is not grounds for non-notability. I mentioned that precisely to indicate what I know or don't know, but I didn't express myself very clearly. Again, what I am really trying to say to whoever wrote these three articles is: please either tell me something interesting this person did in mathematics, or in some other walk of life, or else let us delete it.---CH (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify something else--- I agree with Paul August and DS1953 that of course Wikipedia growth will be haphazard and therefore it will frequently happen that some towering figure in field F has no biography while lesser figures already have theirs. Of course, the solution then is to write the missing biography! But again, I think a good biography should not leave the average reader with serious doubt about whether or not the subject of the biography is suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the lack of "much more worthy mathematicians" is not a very strong argument. Nowhere does it say we should (or will) write about the most important people first! ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me put it that way: there are much more worhty mathematicians (like my PhD advisor let us say) who have more papers than this guy but who still don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that argument makes sense. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Paul, are you abstaining or did you forget to vote? ---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I guess I am abstaining. I agree this guy (probably) isn't very notable, but I am reluctant to delete based on a lack of notability. For some background on this see: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Importance, and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. If I were writing for a paper encyclopedia I would have a different view but of course, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. While some are worried (not unreasonably) about the possibility of Slovene "boosterism", I'm also worried about the possibility of first world parochialism. If you forced me to vote I'd probably have to vote keep. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, just to clarify: my concern is not really with possible Slavic boosterism (no-one has exactly come forward to explain the origin of the List of Slovenian mathematicians, but comments from a few users seem to support my guess that some math person active in the Slovenian wiki decided to tranlate a list there into English and port it to this one, without really thinking through the implications), but with making the math pages less useful as an encyclopedia. The discussions you pointed me at leave me unimpressed; I simply don't think they are relevant to the special needs of the math students (at all levels) whom these pages exist to serve (in my opinion). Wikipedia is not paper? The point is, Wikipedia can be better than paper (as an encylopedia), in fact, it could be so good (as an encyclopedia), that it's worth trying to make it as good as it can be!---CH (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the existence of one article, makes any other article less useful. Paul August ☎ 13:31, August 25, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Teen Podcasters Network[edit]

Advertisment for a podcasting site established less than a month ago. Site has no Alexa ranking. GraemeL (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Vanity? How about giving suggestions on how improve instead of destroying it? Creating is lot more work than destroying... what suggests do you have on fixing it instead of marking it for deletion?

Your arrogance and lack of flexibility will be your demise... and when do you see so much talent and creativity on a youth network? That's rare-- podcast directories have no spark. And since when was Alexa the big thing? Who exactly do you think you are? Members are the only one who know the history and what have you done for the Internet today? Deleting and destroying-- that's what...

The Alexa rating, along with the Google test, is what we at Wikipedia use for standards of notability. I am just enforcing the rules here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no explicit rule stating you must use the Alexa or Google toolbar. Correct me if I'm wrong b/c I see no proper documentation on low-ranking websites to be removed...

John C. Dvorak was right-- the downhill of wikis are imminent due to the arrogance of the admins and the Wikipedia community. Leaving gracefully here, and you've given us a new mission statement: ""We're not the Teen Girl Squad. A non-notable site established less than a month ago with no Alexa ranking. Members of the site show clear vanity, self-promotion and self-love. We're unimportant and we love everyone on TPN." ---Wikipedia" Sneer.

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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha Valley[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB with only about 100 members. --Durin 18:13, 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). --Ryan Delaney talk 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tappen[edit]

Delete: Dictionary definition. --Durin 18:17, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

USACasino.com[edit]

online casino adspam. No claim to notability. Sdedeo 18:18, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Playtech[edit]

Non-notable online casino adspam; company is non-notable (170 employees.) Sdedeo 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearification Please be more specific as to what exactly is wrong with this article? Is it that I mentioned the number of company employees? ,Lets try to improve wikipedia not by just deleting information, rather fixing it. Waiting for your kind reply. thanks Johny

Update Notice I have removed the so called "Non-notable" information about the number of employees altought I personally think its harmless. please advice. thanks Johny

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. Paul August ☎ 18:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

MonacoGoldCasino.com[edit]

Online casino adspam; no substantive claim to notability. Sdedeo 18:18, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woopiedoo[edit]

Content has been moved to Wiktionary. Article isn't, nor couldn't be, encyclopaedic. KeithD (talk) 18:22, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumpster[edit]

This is clearly a vanity page. Author 63.228.216.236 has shown his blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy with repeated vandalizations of the Chaos magic page. Denial 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: This is not a vanity page. This page was created by a fan of his site that felt is should be listed on Wikipedia. The edits to the Chaos Magic page were made by a different user of the same computer and I would like to apologize for them.

Sure. And the deletion of my user page was presumably done by a different user on the same computer, as well. This is ridiculous. Denial 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, my jerk roommate won't stay the hell off of my computer. All of this is really pissing me off. I just wanted to make an entry about a site I felt deserved recognition. There are plenty of other personal sites (The Best Page In The Universe Homstarrunner) that have had entries put up. I've already kicked my roommate out, and if you'll notice I also restored your user page AFTER he went in and blanked it. I want to set things right and again I apologize.

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. Paul August ☎ 18:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

O.A. Ruscaba[edit]

Not a real person, though plausible enough sounding. No evidence of the name or the novels. Boojum 06:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [20] - The original author's IP was blocked, which would explain the comments in the first link. Cursive 22:53, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

End of Summer Classic[edit]

nn - no google hits for either team, no references to the ball field, either. Outlander 18:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I did locate a "Sara D. Roosevelt Park" , but it has only a running track and basketball, no baseball diamond. --Outlander 18:31, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Anderson (Canoli Dynamite)[edit]

Probably a fabrication. Even if real, not important enough to save. (Unsigned nomination by Uucp (talk · contribs))

According to the deletion policy, "Can't verify information in article" is listed under the "Problems that don't require deletion" heading.

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. Paul August ☎ 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Optimo[edit]

Not notable enough

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!) 11:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaz Pisanski[edit]

non-notable biograpy CH (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He appears distinguished, but not at the level I think is required for a Wikipedia article. --C S 18:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a full professor who has been advisor for nine Ph.D. students, and claims to be co-founder of a newspaper[22]. More notable than the average professional baseball player. Uppland 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another question for Uppland: if his grounds for notability are that he founded a newspaper, shouldn't the biography explain the signficance of this newspaper? Or again, re the Order of Merit: I have no idea what that means. Shouldn't the article tell me? If this information doesn't convince any fair minded individual that the recipient is indeed suitable for inclusion in an English language encyclopedia, maybe the biography should go?---CH (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the job of being a professor is to be an advisor, so that part is not notable. So his claim to notability, according to you, rests strictly on co-founding a newspaper. Well, is this a real newspaper or more like a newsletter? --C S 00:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Part of the job of being a professor is to be an advisor, so that part is not notable. - That is a non sequitur, as it is dependent on how you evaluate things in the first place. Part of the job of being a professional baseball player is playing baseball. Besides all kinds of Pokemon cruft, Wikipedia includes anyone who plays any sport professionally, mostly people of no interest except to the fans of that particular team. This, admittedly, is rather convenient, as it avoids most VfD discussions over sportspeople, so I don't really want to change it. But, to use CH's comparison below, I do not consider a baseball hall-of-famer to be anywhere close in status to somebody winning a major, international scientific award like the Fields Medal. Uppland 05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a non sequitur, but it's one that you brought up! You're the one that mentioned him as a "full professor who has been advisor for nine Ph.D. students". If you are now admitting that it was irrelevant, and you just meant to mention that he is a full professor, fine. But don't bring something up as if it were relevant and then call my criticism of its relevancy a "non sequitur".
As for your position...I was just thinking the other day I would use a bot to input in every professor listed in the AMS directory into Wikipedia. I hope you will support any VFD's that occur over that! --C S 16:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Whoa! I hope you're kidding, CS! Please don't create mindless lists here. Why on earth would anyone want to duplicate here a snapshot of the AMS directory? Who are you trying to help? Disgruntled students eager to spam every math professor in North America? You'd just make a list which would updated irregularly at best, so unreliable, and God forbid some drone should decide to move arbitrary articles from your list into categories like this one. That would be terrible, because we want to help math students at all levels get a quick impression of who some of the major figures in field F are, and of course what their major contributions were. As I see it, that's the whole point of these darned VfDs! I wouldn't bother if I didn't see potential degradation of the utility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the overarching purpose, yes?---CH (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was not meant seriously. My main motivation in these VFDs so far is that unless a person is just super-famous, they should have some particular reason for being on Wikipedia, so their bios aren't orphaned. If there is an interesting math result that would link to their bio, great. Otherwise, there should be some particularly compelling reason other than "there's already a lot of junk on Wikipedia". I believe that now all the three persons you originally listed for VFD have futures on Wikipedia because they have some results that somebody will hopefully create pages for. --C S 03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I believe Hillman's comparison was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, you've made your stance clear. You are not so concerned with the rationale, but how many VFD discussions you can avoid. I can certainly see the appeal in that position, but I find it sad nonetheless. --C S 16:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I find it sad that you feel a need to misconstrue what I have actually written. Uppland 18:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose this could go on forever, so I'll just stop with this. You wrote right above that Wikipedia has articles on non-notable professional athletes, but you "don't really want to change it" because it conveniently avoids many VFD discussions. Which part of that did I misconstrue? Since you've made no effort to explain the newspaper angle or why being a professor is so noteworthy except to explain how convenient it is to allow cruft, how could I do anything else than "misconstrue" your position as I did? --C S 23:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes the "average professional baseball player" test. Kappa 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how. Care to explain your reasoning? --C S 00:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly! Kappa, to me (and I guess to CS), the analogies run something like this:
  • earned a Ph.D.: made the local Little League team
  • serves on the math faculty at some uni: plays AAA Minor League professional baseball
  • won tenure or obscure award: got a pat on the back from the team after a big game
  • made a major contribution to mathematics: set a significant major league baseball record
  • recieved an internationally known mathematics award: recieved MVP award
  • recieved Field's Medal: entered Hall of Fame
Do you see what I am trying to say? ---CH (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; does Slovenia have an Order of Merit? this list doesn't think so; and it's not on Prof. Pisanski's resume.[23] Septentrionalis 22:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'll find it's called the Order for Services. It wouldn't be on a military medals page. Clair de Lune 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Pisanski was awarded what is called Red za zasluge, which can be liberally translated to "Order of Merit". According to a national law, this ranks in the middle of 7 orders and medals that can be awarded by the President of Slovenia, them being "Red za izredne zasluge" (Order of exceptional merit), "Zlati red za zasluge" (Golden order of merit), "Srebrni red za zasluge" (Silver order of merit), "Red za zasluge" (Order of merit), "Medalja za zasluge" (Medal of merit), "Medalja za hrabrost" (Medal of courage) and "Medalja za castno dejanje" (Medal of honourable act). --Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly verifiable (Order of Merit statement possibly excepted). JYolkowski // talk 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What precedent? The sports pages metaphor? Please note that I propose that we use a more appropriate standard for the math categories in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random professor Pilatus 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable professor. Nandesuka 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — published 80 research papers, &c., &c. Appears notable. — RJH 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that publishing 80 papers alone makes one notable. I've seen C.V.s cluttered with scads of nonsense or almost identical "papers", even in math. No idea about this man's C.V.; I'm just saying that this alone is a worthless criterion for math biographies. Really, evidence of widespread recognition of significant work is the touchstone. There are plenty of ways to validate that criterion, e.g. by checking for mention in good review papers, in relevent textbooks (using common sense; very recent work probably won't be in the textbooks yet, e.g Wile's theorem took several years to make it into a proper textbook), etc.
I think the lesson which is emerging here is that non-mathematicians should be circumspect about creating math biographies; if you can't convince the math literate users that the subject is mathematically notable, then unless you're writing about someone who achieved notoriety in a non-mathematical context, expect the article to be proposed for deletion repeatedly.---CH (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear lack of notability. Dottore So 18:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable.  Grue  19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was my professor of Discrete Mathematics II at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics in Ljubljana. Demokracija was notable (although political, not mathematical) Slovenian newspaper back then. He was also chairman of the DMFA in 1998-1999. I'm not sure what Order of Merrit means, but I wouldn't be surprised if he won some national award. --romanm (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Romanm, I'm glad you enjoyed (apparently) taking the course, but if you really meant to imply that "he was my professor once" is grounds for notability, I doubt very many would agree with you! Founding a now defunct newspaper in Slovenia? Might be notable enough for the Slovenian language wikipedia, but is that really notable enough for the English language one? How many newspapers have been founded around the world in the past two centuries? We don't even have every "notable at the time" civil war era American newspaper listed here, much less obscure defunct ones in other languages! ---CH (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If something is a valid topic for Wikipedia edition in one language, it should be a valid topic for all other languages. That "sum of all human knowledge" thing.  Grue  13:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read Romanm's comment more as an affirmation that professor Pisanski is a real professor teaching at a real university. But this, I believe, was never questioned anyway. --Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I certainly never had any doubt that he exists, that his uni exists, that he works there as a professor, or the other facts of his life as given in the article. My problem is that no-one has told me why any of that information is sufficiently interesting to belong in an encyclopedia article. The only cure is for someone to describe a clearly interesting/important mathematical result clearly enough for me to agree that P has done something sufficiently notable in mathematics (or for some other good reason) for these mundane details (that he exists, where he went to school, where he works) to possibly interest a general audience in an English language encyclopedia. Again, my problem is simply this: I don't think it should happen that after reading a Wikipedia biography, a general reader has no idea why anyone would think that the subject is sufficiently notable for such a biography.---CH (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunalety, I cannot do that. I am not a specialist in this field, and after having a brief glance at your presentation page, I actually believe I know about graph theory much less than you do. Still, even though I have a rather high oppinion about your credentials, I don't believe the decision on whether to keep or delete a biography should be left to an individual's "feeling". We do need an agreed-on set of criteria about what qualifies for a matematics biography and what does not. And, unless I am wrong, we don't have it yet. Furthermore, as I argue below, I believe that the question you have opened concerns more the organization of articles in a usable manner rather than the sole existance of articles. Cluttering the Wikipedia might indeed be felt as a problem when you browse the article. Often, however, you simply search for a particular article, either using Google or Wikipedia search function. There, having more articles are a clear bonus. OTOH, I would speculate though that the ratio between searching and browsing the English Wikipedia is higher among non-native speakers of English, who often just try to find a particular article rather than browse a category. --Peterlin 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see two principal problems concerning deletion of the article.
Without clearly defined rules, I wouldn't have the guts to call any professional in any field "non-notable". There are of course many possible ways where to cut the list, e.g. a theorem is named after him/her, is a recipient of Fields Medal, is the editor of a major scientific journal (what is a "major" scientific journal? measured by its impact factor?), has published an important scientific monograph (what is an "important" monograph?), won a tenure, earned a PhD, etc. Any criterion is equally legitimate, if it is agreed on. Wikipedia not being limited by paper, I would vote for a wider coverage rather than a narrower, but this is just my oppinion. But first of all we need an agreement about who does qualify as "notable" and does not.
With English being a modern lingua franca, I believe that the "English" Wikipedia should strive to serve as a reference aimed at an audience wider than Americans, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders put together. English Wikipedia continues to grow and mature not only because of the contributions of native English speakers, but also because of the contributions of other peoples around the world. I am also not sure there is a consensus about which topics are interesting and important enough for the English speaking readers to be included in the English language Wikipedia. The argument doesn't hold even if the English language Wikipedia would be limited to native English speaking world. We probably all agree that articles in geography, zoology or botany describing topics not present in the English speaking world should remain in the English language Wikipedia. What is so different with biographies of foreign nationals? I am actually surprised by these cleansing tendencies in the English Wikipedia. Personally, I would be delighted to have short biographies of all American professors of mathematics along with all American professional baseball players in the Slovenian Wikipedia, and the only problem concerning this I percieve is that probably nobody is willing to write them up.--Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Peterlin, I agree with you that the English language Wikipedia is also the default lingua franca encyclopedia, and should strive to serve students and people all over the world. My concern is precisely that allowing unlimited cruft, particulary in the math pages to clutter up the encyclopedia will cause it to become unusable. Specifically: there are enough truly "notable" mathematicians to populate categories like Category:Algebraic graph theory with a dozen or more biographies. I feel that we need to keep the number of articles in each category to a few dozen at the most, but I hate to think of creating an even more complicated category tree than is already forced upon the math editors by the complexity of our subject. This is why I say that we can't get away with applying rules which originate in the sports pages everywhere, certainly not in the math pages.
I take it everyone noticed that after finding one of the other two is cited in a review paper I respect, I changed my vote to a weak keep for that individual. I still feel that the case has not been made that the remaining two individuals are anywhere near notable to require a biography here. They might well be notable enough for the Slovenian wikipedia, but what about the Urdu wikipedia? The Finnish wikipedia? Are they notable enough for these, or for the English/lingua franca wikipedia? I think, clearly not.---CH (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your concern. But I believe that it mostly concerns the organization of lists and categories, rather than the existance of the articles itself. It is completely clear to me that all the profesors of mathematics from around the world can not fit onto, say, a List of Mathematicians. The same goes for the categories. I believe though that with introducing a proper hierarchy a biography list can still remain manageable. I agree with you though that we don't want Category:Algebraic graph theory being cluttered by thousands (I am wildly guessing the number of people working in this field) of biographies of researchers. But I would move them to a separate subcategory within this category, say Category:Researchers in algebraic graph theory or simply Category:Algebraic graph theorists, then, once necessary, subdivide this category alphabetically, by country, by field of work or by some other means. There can be of course also some wiser way of organizing categories – from the usability point of view, there is probably some maximal depth of hierarchies that should not be exceeded without harming the usability of the Wikipedia itself. As for your other question – I cannot speak on behalf of the Urdu Wikipedia, but I certainly wouldn't mind having the content of Urdu Wikipedia – including the biographies of all Pakistani professors present there – translated to Slovenian and appearing in Slovenian wikipedia. With a proper organization, I don't believe they can harm anybody. Considering the number of people fluent in both Urdu (the situation with Finnish is a little better, but not much) and Slovenian, I don't consider this a realistic option, though. In fact, the most likely way for Slovenian Wikipedia to ever get some potentially interesting article from the Urdu Wikipedia is that the article is translated from Urdu to English and published in the English Wikipedia. --Peterlin 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Peterlin, yes, I think we agree on many points. You are right, I have no objection in principle to mindless lists, I just want to be sure cruft doesn't adversely affect the experience of readers who really need to find some information here. Of course it occured to me that one can try to handle this by moving cruft into tailor-made "cruft categories", but my objections to that are:
  1. it is all too easy for vandals to move cruft right back, in fact to move articles arbitrarily. You probably know some robovandals are doing just that; so far, this hasn't been a huge problem in these pages, but it's worrisome because even the small amount of this which has happened so far has clearly been a real headache for the admins.
    1. to whom would the task of this endless subdivision of mindless categories to organize all the cruft fall? Why, to those who care about not impacting the experience of serious students, namely you and I! I don't have time to spend doing that, and you probably don't either.
Unless "cruft control" can be automated (potentially dangerous, since recognizing cruft might sometimes require expert judgement), I still think it's only a matter of time before everyone sees cruft as a serious problem. Maybe participants in the Math Wiki project should set up a page to discuss formulating an "official policy". I am still a neophyte in such things, so I don't really know how policy issues are handled here.---CH (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks good. I'm changing my original delete vote. In addition, the book's authors appear well-known and have collaborated with Pisanski. --C S 03:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • lukewarm Keep. Good work, Tomo, if this is indeed P's most important contribution, the author of the original article (that wasn't you, was it?) should ahve described the result and why it is important in algebraic graph theory. Can you please do that? Otherwise someone else will come along and start another VfD on the same grounds that I did!
Hmm... just noticed that "Tomo" might be short for "Tomaz", as in "TP". I have no reason to think "Tomo" is TP, but this raises another point about mathematical biographies. The Wiki guidelines apparently do allow people to write their own biographies, so long as the article is factual/NPOV, and so long as the subject clearly meets the "notability" criterion. (As I think we've seen here, this criterion might be too imprecise, and setting the bar too low might cripple Wikipedia as more robovandals become active here, simply because the more articles exist, the harder it is to organize them, keep track of them, e.g. move them back when WoW moves them. So even if "Tomo" really were TP, my principal objection would not be to "self-promotion", but to failure to explain why TP is notable to mathematical audience which presumably includes the users most likely folk to be browsing Category:Algebraic graph theory. The current article makes no case at all that will impress we hard-nosed "show me" mathminded users, so, please, Tomo, fix up the article to explain why TP is notable. And why not write a biography of White? And improve the biography of Tutte, someone we all agree is a truly notable figure in math history? TIA---CH (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He has made several interesting contributions to the graph theory. -- Naive cynic 15:00, 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 KEEP. -Splash 06:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Marusic[edit]

non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • lukewarm keep; the citation in Cameron's review suggests that Marusic is an accomplished research mathematician whose work is recognized as useful by an international authority, which I guess convinces me that M "plays in the major leagues". Although I have to say that there must be dozens more who fit that bill, just in this one field. We need to always ensure that category pages never list more than perhaps a few dozen articles. If we had hundreds of pages on algebraic graph theorists alone, we'd have to have an even deep categorization tree, but I hate to think of getting any more specialized than the topic "algebraic graph theory" already is. Math is complicated enough without letting foolish prattle about "precedents" from the sports pages, for gosh sakes, mess up the experience of math students who could otherwise benefit from this encyclolpedia. The problem is that the more we try to include, the longer it will take for Wikipedia to achieve a more balanced coverage, which is absolutely neccessary for Wikipedia to be a really useful and reliable resource for anyone who needs to find information about some mathematical topic. I mean, c'mon, we need to employ some intelligence here. Clearly standards appropriate for sports fans can be inappropriate and even disastrous in more intellectually challenging pursuits. Math is not really very comparable to sports, and helping people find and absorb information about mathematical subjects calls for very different organizational principles than writing the sports pages.
For the benefit of latecomers: yes, I started this VfD, and yes, I did change my vote (see discussion below). Originally I wrote: Delete or else expand the biography to explain or at least describe a notable theorem or whatever. In lieu of that, Marusic has no preprints listed on the arXiv and I've certainly never seen any papers by him, hence my nomination. More discussion on the article's talk page. And I am sorry that I didn't follow this VfD process quite right on my first attempt.---CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Looks like this article will survive, but it should be rewritten by someone who actually knows M's work, or at least knows algebraic graph theory. I don't really want to take the time myself, but it seems that while I doubt there can be very many Slovenian mathematicians in the world, some of them happen to be Wikipedians (and might even have written or contributed to this article), so I urge them to dig up some papers by M, bone up, and add to the article an explanation of the substance of at least one clearly interesting and important result of Marusic.
Again, my bottom line is that I think that every mathematical biography should include a description of at least one clearly notable mathematical achievement of the subject. Let's drop the silly sports analogy at this point because it is clearly not serving our purposes here. We want Wikipedia to be a valuable encyclopedia for a wide audience. Those who come here searching for sports statistics may well have a legitimate need for articles on every major league baseball player from the beginning of time. That all inclusive umbrella might be appropriate in the sports pages, but it is not appropriate in the math pages, whose readers consist of students who need to get good information quickly about a subject which is inherently difficult, confusing, and daunting to newbies. We can't drive them away by allowing unlimited cruft in the math pages. Rather, we must above all guide them to good information which is genuinely useful to them. Among many other things, this means good categorization, which in turn means: no cruft. Cruft must be strongly discouraged in the math pages.---CH (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Someone's going to have to give a better reason than "he's a professor". --C S 18:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. After all the discussion, it seems this individual is particularly influencial in Slovenian mathematics, not necessarily for the depth of his mathematical contributions but his contributions to creating a mathematical infrastructure. His bio should be edited to reflect this. --C S 23:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't judge the importance of his mathematical contributions except to comment that he has one publication (with collaborators which include Malnic) in Combinatorica which is probably the most prestigious combinatorics journal. Also, he has the gray graph result (also with Malnic) which Tomo has linked below. I only noted these facts after Tomo's contribution to this discussion. Regardless, since I'm already of mind to "keep", this doesn't change anything for me, but it may for others. --C S 03:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article claims he was awarded the Zois Prize, and according to the article on the prize, it is "the premier science prize in Slovenia". Unless either of these claims is wrong, I'd say he is notable enough. Uppland 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment for Uppland: I have never heard of the Zois prize, which may or may not be a bad sign, but my point is that when a biography of mathematician M which appears in Wikipedia, and describes no non-mathematical notability to M (as in the case of the Unabomber), this article should explain a significant mathematical accomplishment of the subject. If the author can't do that, he should be able to cite a web page for the Y Prize or whatever which gives the formal Prize Y citation for M. If he can't do that, I feel the article should be deleted as non-notable. Er, hope it's OK for me to interject a comment like this. I cast my vote earlier, see above.---CH (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the premier science prize in Slovenia. The question is if that makes it notable. Has anyone outside of Slovenia ever heard of it? A Google search indicates to me that the answer is no. I expect that any reasonably accomplished individual from a country like Slovenia would have such a prize. Should we, in effect, lower the standard for these individuals? I'm honestly asking this. --C S 00:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain for now, but the citation is at http://www.mszs.si/slo/ministrstvo/nagrade/zois/2002.asp (I think), though I admit that I'd never heard of the Zois prize before. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Jitse, I hereby award you the first Biographical Barnstar for Brain-numbingly Obscure Web Research :-/ Congragulations!
So can someone, maybe Tomo, please translate this citation? Maybe it will convince me to change my own vote, eh? Like I said, if I'm wrong about any of these three being non-notable, please edit the article to explain or at least describe some truly notable accomplishment! ---CH (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quick translation:
prof. dr. Dragan Marusic - Zois prize for scientific achievements at the field of graphy theory and algebra.
Dragan Marusic, professor at the pedagogical faculity at the University of Ljubljana, is one of the leading slovenian mathematicians, and is also known around the world. His main area of scientific work is algebraic graph theory, where he explores the symmetries of graphs and the workings of finite groups on combinatorical objects. He is the founder of algebraic graph theory and the theory of permutation groups in Slovenia, where he has taught a group of co-workers which is now well known around the world.
The main scientific opus lies with the research into half-transitive graphs and their classification. The sequence of his work on this area reached its apex in the accurate description of transitive permutation groups with their mirrored orbits of length two. This enables the description of orbital graphs of length four and the complete characterisation of the stabilising crossings. This deep and important result got a wide response in the world. Professor Marusic also achieved important results in other areas such as Hamilton paths and cycles in Cayley graphs, and in the research of half-symmetric graphs. He has published his results in 52 original scientific papers in international journals, from this there were 32 articles in the last seven years. His work is often cited by other authors, and he has presented his work at various international mathematical conferences and foreign universities.
prof. Marusic is one of the most visible researchers in the field of finite groups on graphs. His research work is characterised by deepness and a well of ideas, and the findings of totally new methods at solving problems. His results on half-transitive graphs have opened new ways of development on that area. Much of his work presents a lasting contribution to the knowledge of mankind.
(I apologise for any errors or possible mistranslations of mathematical terms (I'm going to FMF this fall). Based on this I'd say keep, but I will not vote.) 193.77.153.149 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks much, 193.77.153.149, whoever you are. This is very helpful, and gives us a much better idea of what this Zois award is all about. The sentence He is the founder of algebraic graph theory and the theory of permutation groups in Slovenia, where he has taught a group of co-workers which is now well known around the world clearly means the Marusic has founded the Slovenian school of algebraic graph theory, meaning that before he came along, this wasn't being taught at the graduate level and research in this subject was not done in Slovenia. I'll take the Zois award committee's word for this, since this claim certainly seems plausible.
From the time I spend trying to promulgate the Joy of Math here and elsewhere, it should be obvious that I take my hat off to anyone who is a successful and accomplished educator, and I acknowledge that far fewer can teach at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level, because to supervise doctoral students of your own you must have enough ideas for yourself as well as for your students. Founding a school of subject X in your native country is a significant accomplishment of which anyone should be proud. However, with all due respect, hundreds of professors could credibly teach graduate students the basics of algebraic graph theory, and there must be dozens of mathematicians who could supervise doctoral students in this field, so I am not sure that (in the baseball analogy), we are really out of the minor leagues yet.
Well-written award citations usually state the most important reason for the award first, and I take this to mean that the Zois award was given to M primarily in recognition of his service to the developoment of mathematical research in Slovenia. At this point, I observe that since this came up, I noticed that the List of Slovenian mathematicians apparently first arose in the Slovenian language Wikipedia, and then someone, mabye 93.77.153.149, translated this list into English and put it here. Now cross-fertilization between the various Wikipedias is obviously a good thing, but I also think that some sensitivity is appropriate to whether a translation of everything which is appropriate/timely/important for the Slovenian language Wikipedia is important for the English language Wikipedia. Going the other way, guessing that say Cricket is not a popular sport in say Finland, translating pages on cricket from the English language encylcopedia into Finnish is probably a waste of time; anyone who can translate English to Finnish should be translating the math content articles :-/ And going the other way, translating any good articles on indubitably interesting Finnish mathematicians (I can think of a few) into English.
32 papers in 5 years could be very impressive output, or not, since it is an apolitical fact that the quality of journals varies very considerably even in English, and it is true that the highest quality work does tend to appear in the major journals in the major mathematical languages (English, French, German, and a few others; the roster is generally agreed upon, although it has changed over time, as you would expect is probably becoming less eurocentric, and I stress that I am not denying that important papers have appeared in more obscure languages like Ukrainian, and that I am not denying the possibility that important papers are appearing right now in some of the many languages which very few "Western" mathematicians read). My point is that it is not clear from this figure along that everyone would agree that M is a truly major player in the international mathematics scene. Again, I am now convinced is a major player in Slovenian mathematics, but I don't think that alone would make him a notable person in the English speaking world.
I happen to have read some of the literature about Hamilton paths and cycles in Cayley graphs a few years back, so I know that Peter J. Cameron is a leading authority on permutation groups in the international mathematics scene who has written a recent survey paper which I happen to have right... (mumble, mumble). Ah-haaaa!!! Here we go, Cameron does cite Marusic's paper on vertix symmetric digraphs, and one other. Ok, 2 out out of 104 papers. OK, at least some of M's papers are internationally known and recognized as significant. What we need now is a recent survey of algebraic graph theory... Hmm... I am not finding one on the arXiv, although we all know that some extremely valuable papers are never listed there, including the one by Cameron I just used. The books I mentioned are too old to take account of any recent work by Marusic.
OK, bottom line; the article should have been written by someone who actually knew enough about M's work to describe his work, and anyone who knows that much would probably know the literature sufficiently well to be able to judge its importance. At this point, I am convinced that Marusic is an active research who has done some good work, so he must be a competent mathematician and a dedicated teacher. I guess I could change my own vote to an abstention or even a weak keep, if that is allowed.---CH (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the information on the Zois prize is correct, he appears to pass the "average professor" test. -- DS1953 22:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)**
    • Comment: with all due respect, the "average professor" is NOT notable. Recent professorcruft is starting to annoy me. With that said, yes, I'd like to see this expanded and more detailed, but weak keep for now. JDoorjam 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PROF say "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." For my own voting, I assume that college professors fall into a type of bell curve and that the "average" includes the middle part of the bell. You can't really put a percentage on it, but as I apply the test, it would not be limited to the top 2 or 3% of professors nor would it sweep in 49%, but rather somewhere in the middle. I think any professor in any country that receives national recognition, like the Zois prize (whatever that may be) must certainly stand out from the "average professor". Finally, though this is an English language encyclopedia, we need to be careful not to concentrate our coverage in favor of English-speaking areas. -- DS1953 14:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I notice that you avoid my question above: if an individual is above average for a Slovenian professor, but is well below average (or at best average) internationally, are we supposed to lower the bar for this individual to be in Wikipedia? --C S 16:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your question above. My personal answer would be that I would not knowingly lower the bar to admit a professor whose qualifications are sub par simply because the poor quality of academics in his country makes him notable among his own peers. Obviously all of this is very subjective, however. The fact that a professor from a small country may not have as many English language papers published, or even present as many papers in total, as a comparable level professor at a publish-or-perish American university does not necessarily mean than his contributions are less notable. For my vote, receiving a national prize will generally tip the scales in favor of keeping the individual in a vfd vote. -- DS1953 17:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why do you assume that average Slovenian professor is automatically "well below" his counterparts from other countries, CS? -- Naive cynic 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, stop, let's not go there, because nobody is implying that Slovenians are less capable than other folk. Lots of academics get some kind of award at some point during their careers, so just getting an award by itself doesn't mean much. I think CS is just saying that this particular award might refer to a limited pool. I.e. if there are only 100 Slovenian mathematicians, and if (as I guess) this award only goes to Slovenian nationals, then by itself, the fact that M has recieved it might not imply that he's very notable compared to an international award for which the pool would be the tens of thousands of active research mathematicians around the world. See what I mean?
The useful evidence is not the prize citation, but the keywords which led me to look at a review paper by a mathematician who's work I know and admire (and who I know is an internationally known authority), Peter J. Cameron, where I found that PJC does indeed cite the work of Marusic. The award itself probably doesn't mean much at the international level; the citation in Cameron's revivew is much more impressive. What the heck, I'll change my vote to a weak keep.
  • Keep. The Zois award page at the site of the Slovenian Ministry of Science and Education calls him "one of the greatest researchers in the world in the field of actions of the finite groups on graphs", and says that "results of his research on the semi-transitive graphs opened new possibilities of development in this field" (or something like that, I don't know Slovenian). -- Naive cynic 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 22:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep professor's who win national level awards. Klonimus 03:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His result with Malnic was a featured headline news in Math World. He is also on

the editorial board of Discrete Mathematics. Tomo 02:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tomo, by now we've spilled a lot of virtual ink, but this VfD would never have been initiated in the first place if the editors of this article had described this result and why it is important! Think about the users browing Category:Algebraic graph theory. They are likely to be math students, and unlikely to be Slovenian or to know personally the subject. So, they are unlikely to find mundane details (where he attended Gymnasium, some decoration which is very unlikely to mean anything to a non-Slovenian user) at all interesting. So grab their attention by describing an intriguing result! So please edit the article to explain this result and its importance in algebraic graph theory. TIA---CH (talk) 11:31, 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. Paul August ☎ 19:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hugh Howard Gibson[edit]

This page appeares to have been created in Error the actual name for the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was Hugh H. Rowatt, as verified by this link Commissioners of the Northwest Territories I think what happened was someone got confused between Hugh H. Rowatt and Roy A. Gibson Cloveious 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not fitting for redirect. Punkmorten 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, false imformation in any case as Hugh H. Gibson was NOT the commissioner of Northwest Territories. --Hurricane111 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, good spot Cloveious. Alf 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to deem this a speedy, on the grounds that it's an objectively wrong title that isn't suitable for redirect to the correct one. Go go gadget admin privileges! Bearcat 16:43, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCREE FORD[edit]

Advertising. Not notable DJ Clayworth 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertising that, like most annoying car salesmen I've known, shouts at me. -Satori 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- looks like an ad to me. Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- advertisement --Hurricane111 21:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Badvertisment. Alf 01:17, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Diff. Radiant_>|< 09:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

ExamDiff[edit]

The first deletion nomination was borderline by my count, and I decided to close it with a keep after a good rewrite by the author. This has been disputed and one sysop even peremptorily deleted it. I'm listing this for further discussion. I would like to ask the deleting sysop not to make further attempts to delete this without a proper discussion. It is in no way a candidate for speedy deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a popular programming tool, given a good editorial review by download.com. The article was written by the author of the software, but in my opinion the article lacks the promotional language and the unjustified superlatives (or inded at the moment any superlatives) that are characteristic of advertising. It is well written and encyclopedic, and is useful. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) addendum: If not kept, redirect to diff. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it seems like a nice program, it is really not very notable -- it's just a windows implement of the unix command "diff". Sdedeo 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, of all the diff tools I can find listed on download.com, it has both more downloads total and more downloads last week than all the others put together. It is given the third highest CNet rating after both versions of DiffDog, and the second highest user rating after ExamDiff Pro. It had more downloads last week than the CygWin Unix porting suite. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a verifiable topic. There are precedents for this sort of article: see kompare, WinDiff, WinMerge. If the program is really just a variant of "diff" (doesn't look like it, because it includes a GUI), then merge into diff and redirect. --MarkSweep 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an advertisement, even after the re-write. --Carnildo 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Am I allowed to vote?) -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you are the author of the article and of the software tool so as long as we all know that, the closer can take it into account. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not the author of ExamDiff. Why do you think I am? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dunno. Brainfart induced by excess consumption of anno domini, I should expect. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diff. It's already mentioned in the Related Proprietary Software subheading of the Diff article, and I fail to see what's so encyclopedically notable about this program that it merits its own article. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I could go with that one. If it isn't kept, I think that would be good. I'll edit my vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually use this product but am puzzled as to how it could be considered encyclopedic. It is a very ordinary piece of utility software that, though well written, is simiar to many other competing products. I cannot imagine how it would contribute to history in any way, and can't imagine why an encyclopedic project -- even one as broad as Wikipedia in scope -- would be a suitable reference source for such ephemera. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Uninvited Company --TimPope 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony's assertion that it's a popular programming tool. Kappa 22:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's "popular" for a very limited definition of "popular": Linux and MacOSX both come with a very nice "diff" utility, which is far more widely used than ExamDiff. Also, most programming IDEs come with an integrated "diff" utility. That means that this program is popular among programmers who meet all of the following:
      1. Have a need for a "diff" utility
      2. Don't use MacOSX or Linux
      3. Don't use either Cygwin or MinGW
      4. Don't like their IDE's "diff", or don't use an IDE
    • It's a very small market. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also used as the version comparison utility in QVCS. Uncle G 23:55:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a man page. Steve Summit (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that's not a criterion for deletion. At best it's an argument for improving the article. --MarkSweep 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, my stated reason was a little flip, but my point was that I think it's inherently a man page, I can't really see how it could ever be properly encyclopedic, without duplicating too much information that would more properly be (and already is) on a central, non-particular-implementation-specific diff page. Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how it's encyclopaedic on it's own merit. Would people wanting to know about ExamDiff actually go to Wikipedia to do it? Cursive 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable enough. Erwin Walsh
  • In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2, User:ESkog commented on the lack of criteria for determining the notability of software. I suggest the answer to the following question as at least a guideline: "Did anyone else care enough about the software to review it?" In cases of software products that would probably be universally considered notable, such as PKZip or PC Tools, that is the case, as such products have many reviews in computer magazines and the like. However, for this package I haven't yet located anything other than simple reprints of the "blurb on the side of the box" (sometimes thinly disguised, and mostly as product descriptions in on-line catalogues). You might be able to sway editors' opinions, User:Alex Nisnevich, if you can locate reviews of this package, to show that people have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published articles that focus upon it. Uncle G 23:55:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure this can be the sole criterion for determining the notability of software (and I don't think you're suggesting it should be). We have articles on a lot of traditional Unix system software, such as diff, dd, cmp, ls, mv, cp, even Unix system calls like mmap. I'd be surprised to find a serious review of cp somewhere ("All those of you who thought 'cat foo > bar' was great, wait till you try 'cp foo bar'! A++++++"). --MarkSweep 04:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prepare to be surprised. You might not find a review, in the magazine sense of the term, but you'll find that for those programs, people indeed have "written and published articles that focus upon them". People write "Useless use of cat" articles about cat. If you look at the references section for diff you'll find that there's an entire book on that command. People have actually written teaching courses that focus on on cp, mv, and ls ([24] [25] [26]). And, yes, if you look at the references section of mmap you'll see that people have written programming guides that focus upon it, too.

        The fundamental point is that people, independent of the original author, have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it, be those works magazine reviews, teaching courses, books, programming guides, or other commentaries. So, for example, if someone had written a book on ExamDiff for O'Reilly Media, or a teaching course that specifically addressed it as a topic, then those would be arguments that could be used to sway editors' opinions towards keeping an article on the subject. Uncle G 14:41:25, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

  • Redirect per Fernando Rizo, no reason to leave a blank page here if we actually have information on the program somewhere. Doesn't need its own article though. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --fvw* 04:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. What was the reason for creating Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination) when Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2 already existed, except to avoid the appearance of someone else reopening a questionable VfD closure? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article was deleted out of process by User:Radiant! shortly after you listed it. I should have checked for your own Vfd and seen it, but I didn't and wasn't aware of its existence until today. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and if Tony had done a proper job at closing the original VFD in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Radiant_>|< 07:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I take exception to that false and damaging statement, one in a recent series of unjustified personal attacks. There were only four votes, it was borderline, and the article had been subject to a good rewrite. There are two principles that supported the keep in this case: that a rewrite during VfD should be taken into account, and Deletion policy, If in doubt, don't delete!. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, if you make a mistake and somebody corrects it, it's not very nice to accuse and attack them. It is not very mature to take exception at criticism. Radiant_>|< 14:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, should have been deleted the first time round. Proto t c 10:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diff sounds sensible. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both because it is not notable, and because it is a process violation to have undeleted and relisted it here while discussion is still ongoing at WP:VfU, in my opinion. Nandesuka 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article was deleted in violation of process shortly after an earlier VfD nomination. And there is nothing to stop an article listed on VFU being undeleted and listed on VfD, although I have made a personal undertaking to avoid doing so in the case of contested speedy deletions. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a ridiculous allegation. The article was deleted because the earlier VFD had consensus to delete. Read up on our deletion policy, would you? (and also, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:FAITH) Radiant_>|< 13:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • You have your facts wrong. I am the administrator who closed the first listing. I closed it as no consensus. Please don't make blatantly false statements. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. You wrongly closed it as "no consensus" when it obviously had a consensus to delete. You should follow consensus in the future rather than impose your own point of view. And it wouldn't hurt if you stopped attacking people who disagree with you - it's not very civil. Radiant_>|< 13:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
          • Tony Sidaway did not have to count the votes, as Wikipedia is not a Democracy. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reading through this, it looks to me like you (Radiant) are the one making statements which I would consider to be attacks. Just an outside view. Rob Church Talk | Desk 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - probably advert - Tεxτurε 14:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 18:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. Jonathunder 01:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we can all agree that ExamDiff is no longer an advert, not after the rewrite. And Tony Sidaway explained about the program's popularity. While it will not make it to the Brittanica, it's certainly notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia with nearly 700,000 pages! So what's your argument for why this should be deleted?? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's no longer an advert. It is a simple man page. Wikipedia is not a repository of man pages. Jonathunder 01:31, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... do you really think it's a man page? Well, while I was rewriting it I guess I was so determined for it to not be an advert that I made it go all the way to the other side and become a man page: advertisement--------neutral------X-man page. I think that while we shouldn't leave the article as is, we shouldn't delete it. I'm determined to make a decent article about ExamDiff, even if it's just a stub. What do you think? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current page looks like an advert to me still, or part of an advert, the "Technical details" section often found in online ads for software. The presnece of a list of 'features" simply screams advertisement to me. But even if rewritten, I see no reason in the article or in anything said here to indicate that this utility is itself notable. The genreal class of diff utilities is of course notabel, and pershps this product could be mentioned in a "popular implementations" section in such an article. DES (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --zippedmartin 01:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you search for this program on download.com, which is a major distributor of freeware programs such as this one, it shows that it has about 120k downloads. It has also been reviewed by the CNET editors on the same site. Absent a really good set of objective criteria for determining notability of software, I think that's probably enough to justify a keep. (vote pasted from aborted discussion at the other vfd) ESkog 03:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ESkog. -- DS1953 04:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an ad, not an article. No indication of notability or widespread use is in the article. There are many "diff" utilities, and i see no reason why this particualr one should have an article, particualrly this article. DES (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if kept, redirect. This is an ad; although not quite speediable. Septentrionalis 15:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my opinion, this piece of software would not be in a list (short, medium or long) of the most notable software applications. Reads like an ad. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Having looked at the article, the related article diff, the previous VfD, the VfU, the curiously abandoned second VfD, and considered WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and the comments here, I think the page at ExamDiff should be made a redirect to the article diff, in which a couple of sentences may be written about ExamDiff as an example of the diff utility. UninvitedCompany's comment is compelling: this is not something that meets the notability requirements of an encyclopedia to deserve a page of its own. The only reason I do not vote for the page itself to be deleted outright is that I think it serves a useful purpose as a redirect.—Encephalon | ζ  02:28:30, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • After reading all the comments I'd say Redirect to Diff. Although i'm still wondering what will happen to ExamDiff Pro after deletion or redirect, as it is almost the same piece of software. And good luck for the closing admin. feydey 01:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable software product. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:21, 29 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 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

"casual complex"[edit]

Vain, nn. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC — Lomn | Talk 21:55:18, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Delete; the article itself says the band is "little known". Loganberry (Talk) 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As yet little known. Alf 01:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

completing VfD - nominator gave no reason. However, starts "Little known progressive rock band" WCFrancis 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not bad. I abstain at this time.--WCFrancis 21:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. Also does not meet guidelines for Musician notability. (didn't take long to decide, did it?) --WCFrancis 21:16, 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. Paul August ☎ 19:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Benedict XVI[edit]

NN. Google produces 20 hits. Erwin Walsh

  • Keep. See Satire. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Should darthbenedict.ytmnd.com this be added as an external link to the article? ‡ Jarlaxle 20:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be a hoax (how could a comic titled "Emperor Benedict XVI" have started in November 2004 if Benedict was only elected in April 2005?) -- Kirill Lokshin 20:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-notable character who appears in a non-notable web comic that ran for less than a year before shutting down. Sdedeo 20:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill Lokshin. --Scimitar parley 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill Lokshin. -- DS1953 22:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sdedeo. JDoorjam 23:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who wrote this? Luke 'Paisley' Skywalker? (well I suppose that would make the - 'I am you Father' bit really interesting)--Doc (?) 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Hoax - Aranda56 20:33ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn at best. --Etacar11 02:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ha ha. Banes 08:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (don't forget the image) as it appears to be hoaxy and fail Webcomic inclusion guidelines. I wonder if the author of this article or the webcomic was involved in the vandalism of the Pope Benedict XVI article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and wrong (how can the opposite of Benedict XVI be cruel and stupid?) — JIP | Talk 10:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being wrong is IIRC no grounds for deletion. But there are enough reasons left to Delete this. --DrTorstenHenning 17:53, 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 KEEP. -Splash 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winning percentage[edit]

Irrelevant, definition, "winning percentage" highly ambiguous. Erwin Walsh

  • Keep, I've expanded this article somewhat. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:55, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
  • Keep, a very common sports statistic and a stub that has room for expansion with its use and prominence in various sports. The term may be ambigious, but take that up with the people who invented it since that's what the term is. Lord Bob 20:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, common terms that has lots of potential to improve/expand.--Hurricane111 21:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fixed the incorrect forumla from [WINS / (WINS - LOSSES)] to [WINS / (WINS + LOSSES)], the correct way of computing winning pct (which, unlike the original entry, will never result in a negative number or a number greater than 1, including infinity). - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Key Baseball term - User:Aranda56 20:33ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep why not, short but clear article. Alf 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep short, but valid stub. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 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. Please do not bite the newbies, Erwin. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Flavour[edit]

A very insignificant act. Suggest author listens to better music. Erwin Walsh

  • Comment. Erwin, your nominations are good, but your comments are overly agressive. Please try to be as civil as possible. Sdedeo 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC from what I can see. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sp1te[edit]

Irrelevant, vanity, no place here. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete. nn netusergroup. Alf 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. BorgQueen 16:06, 24 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. Paul August ☎ 19:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Herobracelet[edit]

Erwin Walsh

  • Comment: It could evolve into more than just a spam article. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • If it evolves to the point where it becomes well known (Notability HeroBracelet) then it will deserve an entry. Until then: Delete. --GraemeL (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • . Sorry, couldn't resist. Sabine's Sunbird 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Erwin Walsh
  • Strong delete. No references from external sources explaining cultural impact means: not notable. Let's not let these vultures use the EnWiki to make money off of the tragedy of the Iraq War unless they do something encyclopedically noteworthy. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pilatus 22:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spammish.Amren (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hamster sandwich.jpg Extreme hamster, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Špããmm. Alf 01:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't top that with a better image ,Alf. Delete as spamvertising. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I DON"T LIKE SPAM!!!Indrian 06:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - spam - Tεxτurε 15:48, 29 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). No votes. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almanac (Jazz)[edit]

Delete - Not important/famous enough --Hurricane111 20:31, 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 CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Rj harris[edit]

(Note: Page is now moved to RJ Harris. If it's decided this should be deleted, please, don't forget about the redirect.) Vanity page; poorly written; badly formatted. --Ian Pitchford 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (changed from Delete) thanks to Mgm's sniffing down (mostly WHP related) sites that show at least reasonable media coverage outside of the show itself, what the heck, it's good enough for me. Alf 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a notable radio show host. ([27]). Bad writing and formatting is not a reason to delete. I'll format it now. -Mgm|(talk) 10:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MacGyverMagic's inadvertent research. The link cited above ([28]) gives only 25 entries, the rest being duplicates (and of those 25, most are duplicates).
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. Paul August ☎ 19:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gesualdo (town) (disambiguation)[edit]

There is only one town named Gesualdo. There is a composer with the same name, but there is a disambiguation page at Gesualdo. I see no need for this page. Billhpike 20:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - what Billhpike said :) -Satori 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This title resulted from an editor helpfully filling in a redlink that in turn resulted from the use of ((otheruses)) instead of ((otheruses2)) at Gesualdo (town). I've fixed the disambiguation. Uncle G 23:05:45, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Delete, fix disamb note on town's page to say Gesualdo (disambiguation) instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group, Inc.[edit]

Delete Non-notable company? Their products get very few hits on Google. [29] Furthermore, the article creator is spamming links to their site from biological articles. PhilipO 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete image seems to have been posted by user created to upload this one image. Badvertisment. Alf 01:50, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

How to Sell Cars like a Pro[edit]

finishing nom. not encyclopedic Ben-w 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That what I would have said first if I could get this page to save. Rmhermen 20:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research - nn --Outlander 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice, but delete as original research and as a how-to. - Lucky 6.9 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amren (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I first thought Wikibooks, but I don't see how this could become a useful module. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 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 Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stanley Band[edit]

Article does not establish enough notability according to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Only notable member's two top 100 hits appear to have been after he left the band. Francs2000 | Talk 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The band seems to meet WP:MUSIC; they " rocked arenas all over the midwest" [30]. Never heard of them, though. Flowerparty talk 21:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn | Celcius 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Michael Stanley. As indicated in Michael Stanley, the band had two top 40 hits under the name Michael Stanley Band (Michael Stanley had no solo top 40 hits), thus qualifying them under WP:MUSIC. (Allmusic, however, provides most of its information about them in the article about Stanley himself. [31]) I would change my vote to "keep" if this article is significantly expanded during the VFD period. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 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 KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Frisbie[edit]

Another band stub that does not establish the notability of its band according to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Francs2000 | Talk 20:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Frisbee--plausible misspelling. Meelar (talk) 21:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They seem reasonably notable [32] [33]. No reason to assume they fail WP:MUSIC. Is failure to assert band notability a CVfD now? Flowerparty talk 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC guidelines IMHO. —RaD Man (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Flowerparty. Alf 01:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per the above. This is an alternate spelling for "Frisbee" in parts of Europe, and the band seems passable enough. Radiant_>|< 10:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I added more detail. Seemed like a fairly notable band to me. -- user:Matt.whitby
  • Keep and move to Frisbie (band). Add a disambiguation at Frisbie. Band passes WP:MUSIC, and is also a valid Euro spelling for Frisbee.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 17:51, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hut Hut[edit]

Band vanity --Ryan Delaney talk 20:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of the worst kind. Sheesh. Delete with extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 21:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - band vanity page. --Hurricane111 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --PhilipO 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Trash | Celcius 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAmren (talk) 00:09, 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 KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Third Temple[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Satori 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.75.31 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. --PhilipO 21:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Needs rewrite and update including massive references | Celcius 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A well-written article on the movement to build a Third Temple would be encyclopedic. However, unless and untill such a structure is actually built, an article on the Third Temple itself is crystal balling. -Satori 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 56,800 google hits [34]. Kappa 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would expect enough people want to see this project succeed. I don't have a problem with the article, it's not like guessing who/what/where/why/name of a future happening. Alf 01:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given someone makes it encyclopedic. As for "crystal ball", this is an important concept of Messianism. We don't really need to have a material object to describe it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article appears to be about the religious significance of belief in the temple, not about the temple itself. That said, article could use some cleanup/expansion. --Alan Au 07:41, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Black Bat[edit]

Nothing to do with an animal; it's a company vanity page. --Firsfron 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, I messed something up)[reply]

  • Delete - vanity page--Hurricane111 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. --PhilipO 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn | Celcius 21:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the company is real, is the Fox network page a vanity page? Is the Mcdonalds page a vanity page? Is the St George page a vanity page? Just because it talks about a company dosen't mean it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.10.9 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 August 2005
  • Delete - Fox and McDonald's are multinational conglomerates. Saint George is the patron saint of several countries. This is neither. That's the difference. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity+NN--inks 05:19, 29 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eratosthenes stadia[edit]

The contents of this article is mostly just a copy of large sections of Eratosthenes, but spiced up a bit with the contributors ideas. Nothing points here. Delete -- Egil 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment; Either poorly written (wikify) or poorly explained (context). Can't determine validity (possible delete). | Celcius 21:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eratosthenes, I think. Ken talk|contribs 11:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article is a discussion of the various different combinations of stadia and feet, remen or nibw tthat either make Eratosthenes calculations work or not work. Just because Egil lacks the knowledgebase to see the value in this discussion doesn't mean it should be deleted or redirected. Its too much info to put in the main page and properly focused on just what it says it is focused on. It is not poorly written and its very difficult to wikify until Egil stops marking pages for deletion.Rktect
  • Weak delete. I have to agree with Celcius's comment above: if I understood what this was about, I might vote to keep this -- but as it currently stands it does not fit in an encyclopedia. And if Egil's tagging is preventing you from making it useful, then finish writing it offline until it is. -- llywrch 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, thats a good suggestion maybe one of the first good constructive criticisms I have encountered here. Rktect 03:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article seems to be meant to prove that the ancient Egyptians knew the exact circumference of the Earth, and that they defined their units of measure directly from it. There has been a number of articles on this theme from the same author on VfD before, and this is more of the same. For more info, see User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Selected_claims. -- Egil 09:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is not about a specific, distinguished-from-others-by-the-Eratosthenes-name variety of the units of measure called stadia. Rather, it is known that Eratosthenes used stadia of some sort or another, and that he got the number of 250,000 (probably not 252,000) of them in the circumference of the Earth. This article is speculative stuff about possible theories which would fit that 250,000 to 252,000 and make it very close to modern values for the circumference of the Earth, and make it part of some system supposedly hardwired into the human brain or something like that. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reposting of research that has already gone through may vfds. -- (drini|☕) 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Haven't I seen this stuff go through VfD before? --Carnildo 03:44, 30 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. Paul August ☎ 20:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zach Stefanovich[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable web designer. —Charles O'Rourke 21:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as above. --PhilipO 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn | Celcius 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteD. J. Bracey (talk) 22:04, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yndamiro_Restano[edit]

Political acusation of an individual. This page appears to be a poorly written ALL-CAPS stub on a person of questionable notability, and consists of what appears to be a political acusation of loyalties. Does not seem to have any factual basis, or usefulness. Either a real article needs to be written, or the page deleted. Dmeranda 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline speedy unless someone coherent rewrites this to actually say why he should be in an encyclopedia. Delete. Meelar (talk) 21:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Bashing, conspiracy, unfounded, nn | Celcius 21:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the obvious and already-stated reasons. Steve Summit (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Notes from the Cuban Underground
On February 6, 1996 Yndamiro Restano was awarded the golden pen by the International Federation of Daily Editors which represent more than 15,000 dailies in 100 countries. This group declared Mr Restano, " a pioneer in the struggle to restore a free and independent press in Cuba. He has demonstrated his courage in face of adversity and has paid with his own person for defending his convictions."

This is bashing of a notable individual, delete and add his name to the requested articles list. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jujimufu[edit]

Keep it! I doubt that Juji wrote this himself, and he has done alot for the sport. nonsense, almost speediable Ben-w 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Birthday...check. Place of birth...check. Attempt to sound important...double-check. Anyone for a game of speedy? - Lucky 6.9 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Vanity | Celcius 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT! unsigned vote by 130.123.128.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-22 01:09:00 UTC
  • Delete as vanity, though not speedily as he attempts to assert notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Dottore So 18:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Al 02:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete already. Vandal targeted page with nonsense. --WCFrancis 18:44, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ascenzion[edit]

Could not establish notability; vanity page; contains little about the individual anyway. No links, and zero Google matches on "ascenzion freempeg4".-choster 21:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Blatant vanity | Celcius 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, probably vanity —FlooK 22:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity.Amren (talk) 00:34, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Chaingun cha-cha[edit]

Gaming cruft (Google isn't god - by 87 hits says nn) shoot it down --Doc (?) 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Not very notable. Then again, we have far more trivial stuff survive VfD here. Collabi 22:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the heck should this be deleted? It describes what it's about pretty well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.24.136 (talk • contribs)

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). --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Krebs[edit]

nn-bio He wrote a how-to book on tinting photos and he has an online gallery of his photos. Less than a half-dozen relevant hits, most to his sites. No R/T gallery shows, no media coverage, no publication of his art, no noteworthy reviews. Outlander 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pass — Should any published author with books available via Amazon be considered at least marginally notable? I'm not sure. Note that there was also an Ed Krebs who was a professor at UC Davis who appears somewhat more notable.[35] — RJH 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Amazon sells his books, he's notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 17:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with DrTorstenHenning's standard asserting notability. Dottore So 18:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as this figure does appear to be at least marginally notable within his field. Hall Monitor 19:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mildly notable for his photography and his activism. Should be disambiguated, however. I will do that if the article survives. —Theo (Talk) 09:06, 28 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). You might want to relist this, since IMO it would be deleted if it got more votes. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angel tech[edit]

Denied speedy as vanity. AFAICT a nn band not known outside Bristol; does not seem to meet any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines -choster 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. They seem to be prominent in the Bristol music scene. Pburka 01:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC quite spectacularly. FCYTravis 02:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...except for criteria 2[36] and 6[37]. Since a lot of their work seems to have been for theater, film and television, I'm suspicious that the WP:MUSIC guidelines might not apply very well to them. Pburka 23:00, August 26, 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 21:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Beeswax On Parade[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable weblog, advertising. —Charles O'Rourke 22:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Amren (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity entry. Not-notable. --GraemeL (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Article has been expanded to include educational and entertaining information from Beeswax On Parade with the kind permission of the author.

  • Delete nn vanity Groeck 06:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity in need of a life Cje 20:39, 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!) 11:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish eats the goat[edit]

Hoax. Nothing on Google or Yahoo, nothing on imdb. Nothing on "Tiffie Risco" either. Created by a user with several warnings on their Talk page about inserting nonsense. Zoe 23:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. BJAODN material? David | Talk 23:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't give it that satisfaction! Also, delete. 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Confirmed not on google or imdb. Steve Summit (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amren (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, Zoe has invited the intial editor to comment. Alf 02:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either hoax or not notable per lack of IMDB and google info.- Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Doogie[edit]

I'm new around here, so forgive me if this nomination is in error...but this page has no meaningful content at all. GinaDana 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Vanity page. Doesn't even bother to identify the person that the article is about. ManoaChild 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Vanity page. Aranda56 20:42ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. No assertion of notability. Pburka 00:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy per above. --Etacar11 02:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted under criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Toon force[edit]

Delete: Not encyclopedic. Original research (at best). Cleduc 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense and OR. ManoaChild 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should've been speedied.Amren (talk) 23:58, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Balisto[edit]

It's written in a non-encyclopedic way and is somewhat irrelevant. If someone wants to change it - that's fine with me, but I think it's stupid so far Dungo (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- nn, opinionated Steve Summit (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't know if this candy bar deserves an article but definitely not this one. --Etacar11 02:38, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon DiTroia[edit]

vanity, original research Ben-w 23:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, Vanity page. Aranda56 20:44ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. No assertion of notability. Pburka 00:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. He's 18, I'd say nn as a scholar at this point. --Etacar11 02:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly. Hall Monitor 19:42, 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.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as recreation of afd'd article [38] --Doc (?) 00:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stewart (Inventor IP Multicast and Music)[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 SPEEDY DELETE. Rje 01:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Wither[edit]

Only one result on Google. The article isn't even a complete sentence. Acetic Acid 00:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - as above. --PhilipO 00:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable - I can't even seem to get one Google result. --Kwekubo 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Likely Hoax. Aranda56 20.47ET 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. "Very short article providing little or no context" and "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" Pburka 00:52, 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.
.
More