< July 14 July 16 >

July 15[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lilian Lee Li Zhen[edit]

Delete non-notable vanity friendity. At least she's not frugly, though.-Splash 00:10, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

List of soft drinks by country[edit]

Yet another unmaintainable list - all nations on earth, every brand of fizz, tea, coffee, energy drink (do we then include supermarket own brands too?) ...... --Doc (?) 00:13, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Tangerine (genre)[edit]

A little bit vanity, a little bit neology. This band has been around since 2002, I'm a little skeptical of them creating a genre since then. Googling finds very little on the genre. The band may be notable, but the genre is not.-- BMIComp (talk) 00:20, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 22:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Septoid2[edit]

Vanity. NN.-- BMIComp (talk) 00:52, 15 July 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. Roughly 29 keep votes, 21 delete votes. Cleanup take will be added - I'd suggest possible attention tag too. Hedley 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

Always going to be POV; limited encyclopediac value. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This Vfd has gone through 1 week of voting, and appears to be a close match. I suppose we could err on the side of 'caution' and completely redesign the article, with some help of course. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely astounding. Wow. Imagine if we deleted all articles on the basis of what 15-year olds did on their talk pages. —RaD Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant then. Like I said earlier, if it's kept it needs to be started over from scratch and only w/ groups with notable sources. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing. :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I just noticed that this is protected from editing yet does not have a protection header atop the article. Secondly, it seems like a catch 22 (or conflict of interest) that an article cannot be improved while it is up for deletion. —RaD Man (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a vprotected tab...but it was removed by someone. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RaD Man brings up a good point. This article, while being placed on VfD, has not had a chance to be improved. That really weakens this VfD, because one of the benefits of a VfD is that the article itself often gets improved during that time. If this article gets deleted (and it's pretty borderline right now), that makes it a strong case for a VfU. Perhaps this article should be unprotected and placed on VfD for another week. I'd like to see how (or if) this article gets improved. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be unprotected at the moment. I think any admins who voted on this should watch it carefully, however. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 18 July 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 (10 redirect to existing page, 4 delete). - Mgm|(talk) 22:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Right opposition[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 (likely copyvio and lyrics are not an article). - Mgm|(talk) 22:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

One card short[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Is this a copyvio? Exabyte (talk)­ 01:59, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rave[edit]

Delete Nothing but a vanity page. 24.143.142.212 02:15, 15 July 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. The article now describes a nationally broadcast TV show from Australia. - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Getaway[edit]

This disambiguation page seems to serve no purpose. of the four entries, the last two are simple dicdefs and clearly should be deleted; and Google research implies that the Australian program is not particularly notable. Delete carmeld1 02:36, 15 July 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 (8 delete, 2 keep). - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Progressive student initiative[edit]

Less than 100 Google hits and below the 100K radar for Alexa. Denni☯ 02:52, 2005 July 15 (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.. - Mgm|(talk) 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful land[edit]

Created by User:Kojangee to illustrate a point. Foreign language dicdef at best; I do not see any potential for this to become encyclopedic. Therefore, delete. Visviva 02:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the English name of the United States is not a matter of international dispute, perhaps...? Oh, wait, it must be because we're idiotic dupes of the great international Korean conspiracy to denature the English language. -- Visviva 14:28, 15 July 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 listed as copyvio. - Mgm|(talk) 23:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fairlawn Library[edit]

Libraries are great, but this one seems unremarkable (and is not listed in the List of libraries). Delete. Nukeqler 03:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 00:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Division No. 6, Alberta[edit]

Delete Not notable. Created only by Statistics Canada for census purposes, little to no local knowledge of census divisions. List of attractions, etc, can easily be integrated into the Calgary or surrounding towns articles. Kirjtc2 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not too interesting, but nonetheless it exists, it's probably going to be around for a long time, it's probably going to be referred to now and again, and it's something somebody may need to look up. Might be a candidate for a merge, though. Gzuckier 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is still being worked on and is part of lager a series. (template:alberta)Series does not yet contain other articles, but I bet it soon will. May be up for a merge, but Alberta and Calgary are large enough already that they don't need to be filled with a bunch of statistical data. Zhatt 05:37, July 15, 2005

Keep. Equivelant to a county in the U.S. Please do not waste our times! -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut out the attitude, it isn't very becoming. This article should be renamed Greater Calgary Area, and merged with the Calgary Regional Partnership article. Nuff said. Snickerdo 06:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually not equivalent to counties. Alberta has counties that StatsCan counts as CSDs. This would be like an article on a school district. Kirjtc2 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is like a U.S. county, in terms of it being the level below the province. It has no governance however, but is a statistical region. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. Statistical regions aren't really all that notable. Nobody's going to go to wikipedia to look up what attractions or protected areas are in "Division No. 6". At most I can see a small article with the population and some other stats, but this page is made out to look like a major well-known government district. Kirjtc2 06:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's only fair that Alberta's Census divisions get the same treatment as Quebec's or Ontario's -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? People in Ontario and Quebec know their counties/MRCs/etc. They have a cultural meaning there. People in Alberta do not know their census divisions. There is NO cultural meaning. Please stop creating useless articles on things only census nuts know about. Kirjtc2 17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know very many people familiar with either system really. It just is us census nuts who do. Again, I point you to my Alaska Boroughs example. Clearly census entities are worthy of articles, like it or not. Even the Province of Alberta Statistics Division uses CD's. The Manitoba federation of Municipalities even gave their census divisions names for organizing purposes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Province of Alberta *Statistics* Division. Basically a provincial version of StatsCan. And seeing your updates to the Census division article, does this mean all the health regions, school districts, etc are going to get articles on here? Kirjtc2 22:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some school districts have articles, check out Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We have articles on the Census Boroughs of Alaska, and they pretty much serve the same purpose! -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Youngamerican 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep logical way of breaking down articles that would otherwise probably become too massive Sam Vimes 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable --Simon.Pole 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earl, even the Ontario census division articles don't generally list politicians and attractions and such; they simply list the cities and towns within those divisions. A few do have "attractions" lists, but those should really be listed mainly in the individual towns and cities. The articles for Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and Greater Sudbury are a different matter entirely from most census division articles, because those census divisions are actually single united cities, and thus their articles simultaneously function as city articles; most Ontario census divisions don't work that way. So the Alberta census divisions, which also don't work that way, have to be treated less like Toronto and more like Frontenac County. Bearcat 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten to them all you know. I'm starting with the more populated ones, like this one, and Peel, and York, etc and working my way down the list :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to support keeping this; whether it's common knowledge or not, it is a region with definable boundaries which serves an important purpose that fits within the definition of what Wikipedia is supposed to cover. Bearcat 17:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what's unfortunate here is that Alberta has chosen to number its census divisions. Snickerdo is right that many Calgarians do not know what Div. 6 is while most Ontarians know the "Peel Region" and many Vancouverites know the "GVRD". HOWEVER, even though names like Peel Region and GVRD make much more sense than Division No. 6, they are NO different. They mean exactly the same thing to StatsCan. All census divisions in BC are "Something Regional District", most census divisions in Ontario are "Something Region" (GTA is not quite the same thing) and all census divions in Alberta are "Division No. #". It's not very descriptive, and so nobody pays much attention to it. However, since it means exactly the same thing as something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should stay in Wikipedia for exactly the same reasons. Modify the article if necessary, but I have voted to keep it. -Tyson2k

I agree completely, and I do believe you are an Albertan as well? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am. -Tyson2k
The Greater Toronto Area is not a census division. It's actually a combo of the CMA and the regions surrounding Toronto. It doesn't even exist as a legal entity, and is rather used as a rough reference to the areas surrounding Toronto by various businesses, tourist groups and chambers of commerce. The whole debate here is the fact that Alberta's "Census Divisions" exist for no reason beyond book-keeping purposes. In Ontario and British Columbia, the census divisons also follow legal municipal boundries, and have a cultural link to the community. Sorry Earl, but writing an article is not going to suddenly make "District 6" a part of the Calgary culture. Snickerdo 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The GTA is a lot like the CRP. Agreed... it is not a legal division. I don't believe I ever made that case. However, Div. 6 DOES follow legal municipal boundaries like true census divisions in Ontario and BC do. Why do you think they don't? Look at the northern boundary of the municipality of Rockeyview and Div.6.... they are THE SAME. Furthermore, I would say that there is very little cultural similarity between communities in the GVRD (not unlike Div. 6). I have lived in both Calgary and Vancouver and can tell you that CULTURALLY Aldergrove is no more like Vancouver than Airdrie is like Calgary. The way of life, the ethnic/racial composition, and the socioeconomics of the cities of the GVRD are very different. I am not going to list off stats, but there is plenty of information at StatsCan if you need a source. -Tyson2k
You totally missed my point. The individual census divisions of Ontario are actual legal entities onto themselves. Even the Greater Vancouver Regional District is exactly that - it is a regional municipality, and even has an upper-tier government. What government does District 6 have? Is there a 'District 6 Health and Welfare Department' ? Is there a 'District 6 Regional Police Service' ? District 6 has ZERO impact on anyone in the area, nadda, zip. GRVD and the various Regions and Counties, however, play a significant impact on a BC and Ontarian's day-to-day lives. Hell, I live off of Niagara Regional Road 83. Could you please show me where Alberta Census Division Number 6 Road 83 is? It's a census article, nothing more. Snickerdo 01:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Internal political divisions in eastern Canada operate completely differentely than those in western Canada. The same is true for counties and municipalities in the west. They have very little political or legal power. No division in western Canada greater than that of the municipality has its own police force for example. BC's system is identical to Alberta's. The GVRD does operate a parks network and a transit system, but only by virtue of the fact that it has been incorporated and follows the StatsCan-determined boundaries of Greater Vancouver (it is the same situation that would arise if the boundaries of the CRP or the Calgary CMA were to correspond exactly to that of Div. 6, which they don't). You will not find the same in the BC division of the Caribou Regional District for instance. And the same is true everywhere in western Canada whereby provinces are governed almost exclusively by the provincial government without internal divisions. What do governance and political structure have to with whether or not this article should be kept anyway? Police forces, transit systems, etc, are a direct reflection of an area's government or lack thereof. Boundaries and divisions are no less valid in their absence. The boundaries of Div. 6 correspond exactly to the legal boundaries of the municipalities contained within it. Thus, it is a legitimate division which happens to be one unit of magnitude larger than the municipality and one unit smaller than the province itself... just like the GVRD. -Tyson2k
I actually have talked to Albertans. None of them had ever heard of Division 6. Kirjtc2 21:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I demand sources! ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:24, 19 July 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 - Mgm|(talk) 23:17, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sams stuff[edit]

Not Encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 03:42, 15 July 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E-42 s[edit]

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 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 wasNo consensus (you can't merge to a category!) humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E-43 s[edit]

For a prior VFD discussion, see Talk:1_E-43_s.

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 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 no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E1 people[edit]

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E2 people[edit]

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Blue Team Productions[edit]

Non-notable/vanity. Last I checked, gets 21 hits on Google -- all from the same site. Delete. Alynna 03:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally useless.--Kit fisto 19:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of comparisons[edit]

This is essentially a flattened (and outdated) version of Category:Comparisons. Why maintain two versions? minghong 03:55, 15 July 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 (14 delete, 4 keep). - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in religion[edit]

The article is innately unable to achieve a neutral point of view. The concept of "unsolved problems" in religion is without basis, and may well be a contradiction in terms. Alterego 04:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Every time I reread this article it gets worse. The title is completely misleading, as it suggests that the article is going to contain a discussion of actual problems that are soluble, or at least open to intricate philosophical debate, with reference to a particular set of faith assumptions (like, for example, the problem of evil). That's not at all what this article is. It would more appropriately be titled Flaws with religious belief or Reasons that religion is incompatible with society's now fully evolved rationality-based belief system—and to state that is to realize that the topic is inherently POV and therefore unencyclopedic. I think Colby and Peter Ellis are overly optimistic in their assessment of the salvageability of this article.
Oh, and what's with the "topics for further discussion" at the end? When did this become Wikitextbook?
Je dirais même plus: Bleah. -EDM 04:34, 20 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Back of the School Bus[edit]

falls under original research and is clearly NPOV, also non encyclopedic and cannot be accurately fact checked due to the fact that facts change from school bus to school bus Jtkiefer 04:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

*This seems like an informative article, I vote for this to stay. (Unsigned vote by 205.188.116.65)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Suncoast Primate Sanctuary[edit]

Obvious advertisement. Notability not established in article for the subject, and a google search pulls 328 hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alexis, Paul, Justin and Cole Cimoch[edit]

Neither the fact that they're simply quadruplets, nor bit parts as extras on Friends, makes them notable or encyclopedic. Suggest delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as obvious vandalism and recreated as redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Unstoppable Juggernaut[edit]

Vandalism Hansonc 04:12, July 15, 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. Hedley 23:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Revolution games[edit]

Far too much crystal ball and reliance on rumors and speculation. "Revolution" is a code name not the actual name of the system. See Nintendo Revolution for an actual list of games that have been aknowledged or confirmed by Nintendo. This page is no where near ready and far too soon for a system that won't be released till 2006. K1Bond007 04:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

And now, it turns out that there are five more games announced. This article is no longer speculation, if it ever was. -- A Link to the Past 21:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tatiana Soskin[edit]

Non-notable; possible attack page Madchester 04:42, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

T W G[edit]

Verging on nonsense. I'm not sure if this is a band or a fan group, but there's hardly enough information in here to make a stab at judging verifiability. Joyous (talk) 05:00, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yong Chi Heng[edit]

vanity / not-notable Tobycat 05:03, 15 July 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 for Ong, Sweeney or Ogonowski, transwiki for the rest -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ong, Madeline Amy Sweeney, David Charlebois, Steven D. Jacoby, CeeCee Lyles, Alan Beaven, Colleen L. Fraser, Thomas F. McGuinness, Jr., John Ogonowski[edit]

These are all the remaining 9/11 casualties I could find who haven't yet had their articles transwikied to the September 11 memorial wiki (which was set up a long time ago for the hosting of these pages, and to which nearly all articles like this have been moved), and who didn't appear to be notable in a way that would merit their inclusion in the main part of the encyclopedia (I was quite conservative about this and decided not to VfD many borderline cases). My vote is not to delete, but to transwiki, as has been done with all the others, so that these brief articles can grow into more extensive pages on a wiki specially created for the purpose. Wikipedia itself is not a memorial, and the people listed here are unfortunately not notable except for the tragic circumstances of their deaths. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 13:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ecologics[edit]

I debated whether or not to go ahead and nominate this page. It's a large text addition by User:Adisaji, who joined Wikipedia today and whose sole contribution is this article. Because it's a large text addition to a new article, I suspected copyvio, but I was unable to locate the text anywhere else on the Internet. I still suspect it may be Original Research. I don't know enough about what the article is talking about to really know, but it just feels wrong. I've added ((cleanup-importance)) and ((cleanup-verify)), but I'm going ahead and calling the VfD and asking for other editors opinions...particularly anyone who might be more knowledgeable about this subject than I. If it's legit, great, let's keep it and make it great, but I'm very dubious of this page. )) EvilPhoenix talk 06:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote on this one. Adisaji has made an effort to improve the article, and has contacted me to ask for help. I believe user is editing in good faith, and I am willing to give this article a chance to grow. I would ask other editors to consider this when voting. EvilPhoenix talk 03:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Repy to Dragons flight I have not been able to find the book you referenced by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilber entitled "Ecologics". Can you provide the ISBN or publisher or the website you obtained this information from. If validated I will include it in my revised submission.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adisaji, here is a copy of the citation information from my university's online catalog. Frankly it reads rather strangely, since the "publisher" is given as "Los Angeles". I wonder if this was someone's thesis, or something like that. Regardless, they did use the word "ecologics", though I have no easy way of knowing what they meant by it. Dragons flight 02:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Author      Agran, Libbie.  
Title       Ecologics / written by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilbert ; with the help of Joyce King & Penny Kamin.  
Publisher   Los Angeles : Barbara Gilbert and Mary E. Agran, 1971.  
Description 102 p. ; 28 cm.  
Note        Cover title.  
Language    English  
Added Entry Gilbert, Bobbie.  
Format      Book

UPDATED!!!--Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)== Strong Rebuke == Amicuspublilius Your comments "pseudointellectual claptrap" were insulting and actually a violation of the "professional" and "non-attack" basis of wikipedia. I hope other members report you. I checked YOUR USER PAGE, and you DO NOT CITE, where you received your degrees in Philosophy and I find your claims of academic excellence flawed and dubious. I'm sure online pesudeo academic degrees are common and easy to obtain. You obviously have deep seated biases/prejudices (ie. comment Dianetics)and perhaps you need to go back to school to learn standards in professional objectivity. For the sake of harmony, I am removing these earlier statements that have been misconstrued as a 'personal attack.' --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, wikipedia editor does not have spellcheck/grammer check functions. I will attempt to make corrections as found. Rather than making blank criticisms, spend your time providing the specific sentences that have errors.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from page author:

Talk:Ecologics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ECOLOGICS

I am responding to those citing the submission for "deletion" on ECOLOGICS. I spent a lot of time preparing and researching this submission. Yes, it has historical relevance and I am prepared to offer copies of news articles and clippings that would substantiate this claim.

I think it is unfair and unreasonable to delete an article submission just because the reader has NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject. If you don't have knowledge about this topic then you should not comment. I would appreciate any serious contributions and help in editing this material since I am brand new to the Wikipedia community.

I really think this online source is important specifically because minor topics or information often ommitted in commercial dictionaries or encyclopedias can be now be viewed by researchers.

Thank you. Adisaji

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecologics"


Comment: "Black Ecology" appears to date from 1970 [10]. This doesn't seem consistent with the article. William M. Connolley 21:10:35, 2005-07-17 (UTC).


RESPONDING TO ONGOING DISCUSSION[edit]

I really found the assistance of EvilPhoenix very helpful and supportive. The "comment" by William M. Connolley seems well-founded. I am trying to locate the actual article by N. Hare so I can determine whether the term "black ecology" was used in a generic sense in the journal article or as an actual introduction of a new english word/term. It is possible that both N. Hare and R. Davis both began to popularize the term. For example, the 1960s black activist Stokely Carmichael is largely viewed to have introduced the term 'Black Power.' However, the term 'Black Capitalism' is accredited to former President Richard Nixon, and there is some indication he (Nixon) might have also introduced the term 'black power' preceding Carmichael (see book "Star Spangled Hustle" -- I'll cite detailed references later). I have located several scanned copies from the following presses: The Washington Post, Bronx Press Review, Our Daily Planet, NY Daily News and Cornell Daily Sun which all pertain to the material in the article -- Ecologics. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW I CAN UPLOAD THIS IMAGES, so interested parties can review them and assist in the ongoing discussion. Natalinasmpf Your comments were I believe a violation of the very Wikipedia policies you accused me of violating. It seems you just want to emotionally dismiss the submission -- for the record, I did not attack an editor. I'm trying very hard to be polite and scholarly.

(Updated!!!) I think at this point ... maybe the article should just be DELETED. I'm feeling so pressured to revise this article before your "five day review" deadline. The nature of this research for acquiring citations will take time, since the material is not easily recoverable and deals with material over thirty years ago. This was well before the digital age and internet age -- so most citations will have to be manually researched at the libraries -- not Internet. Before, I take time and money to do that (often to get archived reprints from journals or newspapers cost money) PLEASE MAKE THE DECISION TO DELETE OR NOT DELETE. --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) I will revise the submission as needed "as a work in progress" in good faith if I can just have some patience from all you editors and respondents. Thank you. --Adisaji 09:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Adisaji[reply]

SCANNED NEWSPAPER ARTICLES IN SUPPORT OF WIKI-SUBMISSION 'ECOLOGICS' & TERM 'BLACK ECOLOGY'[edit]

The below images have been uploaded to wikipedia. I have not posted them at the article site or revised the actual article until I receive clear support for completing this submission. --Adisaji 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMD Cornell Daily Sun - 4-27-78.jpg
File:Named EPA -Bronx Press review 1972.jpg
File:TalkingBlackEcology - ODP 12-1971.jpg
File:Wash Post -Courtland Milloy - 2-7-89.jpg


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. – ABCD✉ 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comunleng[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion in May, but after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus. This is a non-notable conlang ("known by an only guy" according to ArnoLagrange) that has managed to sit on Wikipedia and become spread around the internet in mirrors and apparently by other self-promotion. Part of the reason people objected to the suggestion that it was original research last time around was that there are three interwiki links, though people didn't seem to appreciate that it's possible to create articles worthy of deletion in multiple languages. The French and Spanish versions of the article are extensive but have unanswered questions about such things as just how significant this language is on their talk pages. After the last VfD func put various questions on the talk page relating to verifiability and notability. These have not been answered. This article has sat around for far too long and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • The nature of a Wiki is that anyone can modify anything at any time in any way. There is no logic to a 4 month lock after modification: it runs counter to how this 'place' works. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! I've been misunderstood before, but never so egregiously! (I blame all my problems on poor communication. Just never on my poor communication.) I was suggesting that when consensus in a vote has been reached, that that vote not be re-introduced again for four months. And before anyone whips out "show me the policy" of course it's not policy. If you don't feel bound by a vote you didn't participate in, Splash, does that mean you don't recognize as policy anything you didn't vote on? (That's a rhetorical question.) Pacific Sunwear was kept by a 7 to 1 vote and you voted keep. So imagine Nova Cygni thinks this was a "spectacular example of faulty logic" and nominates it again in four weeks. And imagine that by some crazy coincidence everyone was on wikibreak but for a bunch of rabid surf-short haters. When you'rE back from the beach and find PS gone, you'd feel cheated by the system. Justifiably. brenneman(t)(c) 15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! What part of "after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus" do you not understand? There was no consensus in vote reached. Why do you compare it to a vote that ended in a 7 to 1 to keep? Quale 17:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I responded on your talk page, but you probably spotted that already. -Splash 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a problem with this "4 month rule", and that is it's open to abuse by people who want to keep an article. Let's say I write an article on Origami chocolate and manage to convince just enough people its a real thing so that it just barely misses consensus to delete. It looks like that vote was a fluke and it will be deleted when it comes up for a vote again. So I nominate it in 3 months, and it again evades deletion because "it's last vote was not 4 months ago". Now it has another 4 month reprieve. Again in 3 months I nominate it, etc. This process goes on forever, and my travesty of an article on chocolate origami stays in Wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 6 Keep votes last time, three were based on its having interwiki links. One makes the claim that "conlangs are a special case", not backing it up with any reasoning. One is from an anonymous user claiming that it is a "well-recognized auxlang name"; when challenged, produced a Wikipedia mirror as more evidence of its existence. The last claimed it was a userful article even if the subject was not widely known -- taking the position that all original research should stay if the articles are good?

I don't care about Comunleng; I just want to make the case that the renomination is not out of process (and yes, I will kick the WP:ASS of anyone who renominates GNAA anytime soon), and that the previous default keep should not be a reason to dismiss this nomination entirely. This is the sort of article Wikipedia:No original research was meant to provide justification for deleting; there's a conlang Wikicity here for just such things. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

brenneman(t)(c) 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of point one, though, I wonder why the process matters. I.E., in the absence of affirmative arguments, does that not obligate us to repeat the deletion process until such time as an affirmative argument about merit is produced or the article is successfully deleted? Whether we wait 4 weeks between nominations, 4 months, or 4 years, all of the first bullet will remain true in the absence of affirmative arguments or changes to the article's content that meet, for instance, the requirements set forth by func - which would constitute an affirmative argument for keeping it. What makes a 4 week interval disrespectful or abusive of the VFD process, but not a lengthier one? An article that is infused with "obvious craptitude" has obvious craptitude, regardless of the time at which it is discussed, the number of edits between nominations, or any other consideration not related to the content of the article and the standards for an acceptable article. I believe voting to keep or delete an article based on the results and date of a previous VFD is what constitutes abuse of the VFD process. The process exists to judge the article's content in its present form and, if the present form is unacceptable for Wikipedia, to determine the proper remedy: merge, redirect, delete, move. Either this article is or is not acceptable; if a user judges it unacceptable but votes keep, that is abuse. If a user judges it acceptable but votes delete, that is abuse. If a user judges it unacceptable and in light of that nominates it for deletion, as Trilobite has, that's proper use of the process.
That said, I will place those notices, though I believe it will be a repeated travesty if this article is kept a second time. The Literate Engineer 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you have placed notices on the talk pages of those who voted to keep last time while not notifying those who voted to delete. Would you consider doing this? It seems very unfair to only tell one side about it when the others would probably appreciate the opportunity to voice their opinion a second time. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do, Trilobite. I actually don't believe any notices should be given, but you're right that they should be given to all concerned parties if given at all. I feel like I'm participating in meatpuppetry, and I really regret (and wish I could take back) the original notices I gave last night.The Literate Engineer 23:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a serious oversight on my part. You are correct, it is inappropiate to notify only those who voted keep. Thank you for that. brenneman(t)(c) 04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must object most strenuously to one user thinking he can hold the VfD to ransom. If you want something done around here on the Wiki, do it yourself. Don't go demanding that other users do it for you. Your vote is no more (and no less) important to the process than anyone else's. If you want to vote keep because of the reasons you give above, that's fine, but don't go demanding that the rest of us do things to placate you. -Splash 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, you seem to think there is some lack of clarity over inconclusive VfDs. There's not: they are kept unless there is a "rough consensus" to delete. Then, they can be renominated anytime someone feels like it. -Splash 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Held to ransom? Did my vote somehow become really important and I wasn't notified? Stating conditions upon which you'll change your vote is almost standard practice: I'll vote "keep" if (this article is expanded or the other one is deleted or its notability is proven to me). Look closely that last one. Isn't that, to use your word, "demanding", that others commit some action to "placate"? I'm also puzzled by your repeated misinterpretations. I state I think "we should wait four mounths between VfD nominations", your response is about "locks on editing articles". I raise "how long is appropiate between nominations", your response adresses " no consensus means keep". I'm left with several possibilities: Either you aren't reading my comments before you respond, you are failing to understand my intent (which could be my fault), or you are being deliberate. This questions was raised when Trilobite func first stated he was going to re-nominate (see Eventually Back to VfD) so it should some as no suprise now. brenneman(t)(c) 04:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting delete-unless-made-better is quite different. It (in my case, anyway) usually means that I don't think the article can be made into a keepable one, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the area to verify this fact to my own satisfaction. I mean to encourage others to help out who know where to look for information. Your condition here, however, has nothing at all to do with content and is something you could just go and do and yourself rather than expecting that others will do it for you just because you say so. As for my "no consensus means keep" response, this was because you said "The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is", and the appropriate process is keep. -Splash 16:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to doubt my ability to form english-like sentences. If it were not the default that a VfD without strong consensus was a de-facto keep, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? From the context of this discussion, a reasonable person would read that sentence as "The only open point is what the appropiate [time until renomination] process for inconclusive VfDs is". Again, either we are not communicating well or these straw-man arguments are an attempt to divert. brenneman(t)(c) 04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Wikipedia wold be better off with clear and consistent way of addressing issues like this one. Hop over to Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland for a moment. Whatever happens there, someone is going to be left "shaking their head" at the outcome. How about if that article get re-cycled every four weeks for deletion/undeletion? And how about all the contentious articles about religion and race, why don't we have a go at them once a month as well? This article is a fly-speck, and if it had been simply trimmed back to a verfiable stub and left for six months, there would have been no real harm done. But when we start jacking with the system because we get our knickers in a twist, then there is harm done.The last VfD was conducted properly and closed properly, and even though I think they were idiots, it's insufferable to simply say, "Well, we think that was dumb, so it doesn't count." brenneman(t)(c) 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is, it's back on VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles supporters to argue why we should keep. So far, not one of them has said why this article is worthy of staying on wikipedia. Every keep vote has complained about the proccess. Renominating this article is not against the rules. I do not see that there was any other option but to renominate, because every article on wikipedia must be verifiable, a fair chance was given on the article's talk page for evidence that the subject can be varied to be submitted into the article. No such evidence was submitted. It is fair and correct therefore, that, considering that there's no evidence of verifiability, that the article be subject to another VfD. No article should be on wikipedia unless it is verifiable. -- Joolz 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact of the matter is, it passed one VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles opposers to argue why we should delete. Every keep vote with concerns about the process is not against the common practice. Your argument fails to address:
  1. How closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus affects perception of the process,
  2. The possible follow-on effect for other more contentious articles,
  3. Why other options were not explored for this article in light of known objections to renomination, and
  4. What you would propose is to soon to re-nominate. Would the next day be too soon?
Perhaps it's my eventualist leanings, perhaps it's my love of order, but I strongly believe that more harm is done by removing an article in this manner than by leaving one crappy article around for a few months. brenneman(t)(c) 02:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brenneman, I answer your four questions in this way:
1. Closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus (which does not apply in this case, as the month's time passed does not constitute "closely following") improves perception of the process by allowing the process to do what it exists to do: efficiently dispose of articles that do not belong on wikipedia through an appropriate method, of which deletion, merging, renaming, and redirecting without merger are common choices. It ensures that the appropriate keeping of inconclusive articles is kept as a temporary measure, and forces debate to continue until it is resolved in consensus - either clear consensus to keep or to delete. Indeed, I believe that policy should require renomination of any inconclusive VFD after no later than two to three weeks.
2. The possible follow-on effects are desirable, as more inconclusive VFDs may be revisted. Furthermore, we are setting valuable precedent that inconclusive VFDs, rendered inconclusive due to keep arguments that are quickly shown to be factually false or otherwise faulty (accurate descriptors, I believe, for all the "keep" votes in the original Comunleng VFD) are no different from consensus-to-keep VFDs that are subsequently shown to have been kept on false premises. Finally, we are establishing that articles are to be voted on due to judgement of their content alone, and not due to procedural matters that have no place, I believe, in VFD discussion. I repeat and clarify what I said earlier: to vote keep for this or any other article, for any reason at all, if you believe it does not meet such criteria as verifiability required, no original research allowed, no advertising allowed, or encyclopedic nature required, is a worse abuse of VFD than any renomination could ever be.
3. What other options are there? This is an unsalvagable article. It is vanity about a conlang so unnotable that it is unverifiable to the point of being indistinguishable, in my mind, from a hoax. Three or four reasons all of which the deletion policy defines as grounds for deletion. I can't find anything in this article that belongs on wikipedia.
4. As I see it, as a VFD can be closed after 5 days, then by the same reasoning that 5 days is sufficient time for consensus to be reached and edits that would change an article's status from Deletion Required to Keepworthy to be made, 5 days is sufficient time for new edits to be made prior to a revisiting. I believe inconclusive VFDs are more often inconclusive because of faulty reasoning one way or the other than because the article's contents do not lend themselves to consensus; 5 days allows enough time for those articles whose contents do require some clarification to be edited enough to tip the discussion in the appropriate direction.
Every article and every topic has a fundamental essence. That essence is either Deletion Required or Keepworthy. It is the purpose of VFD to discover that essence with maximum efficiency. If its essence is Deletion Required, our duty as editors is to eradicate the offending article. If its essence is Keepworthy, our duty as editors is to edit and reshape the article until it is someday transmuted to Ideal. Yes, I'm being foolishly metaphysical, but I believe it is wholly inappropriate to allow inconclusive VFDs to stand. They need to be renominated. And in this case, it needs to be deleted, and it did not "pass" anything. Discussion was closed too soon, and the original "keep" votes were never legitimate to begin with. The Literate Engineer 03:43, 19 July 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, already merged. -Splash 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Red (book)[edit]

Advertising. brenneman(t)(c) 06:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising! (comment added at 06:35, July 15, 2005 by User:Prescott

Delete per Brenneman. See :) Hiding 07:19, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brockhall[edit]

Not notable. Malathion 06:56, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

WinMatrix[edit]

Forum vanity. "WinMatrix (commonly abbreviated WM) is a self-described desktop customization community, launched on April 29, 2003, which currently boasts almost 15,000 members." EvilPhoenix talk 06:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Speedied by Dunc. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa's Birthday[edit]

Should have been speedied but author is stubborn and there seems to be a lack of admins so here's my last option. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest any voters look at the page history to see what's been going on. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, it's nearly impossible to speedy something if the tag keeps getting removed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Xavier Lozano[edit]

This page is believed to be a vanity page, and according to Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Vanity_page does not belong on the Wikipedia. In addition parts of the entry is fiction. (Sorry, X, better luck with your next article) GSchjetne 07:44, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Edwin Low[edit]

After a quick googling, most of the hits seem to refer to a photographer, not an inventor. Hence, delete as a vanity article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:57, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Juggernaut group[edit]

I came across this using Wikiwax when I made a disambiguation page as a result of another VFD. Delete as blatant advertising please. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel Coloma[edit]

Notability not established. Sietse 08:53, 15 July 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 13:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Secret Maryo Chronicles[edit]

Complete fancruft, not notable, no better than putting a random fan fiction in. Delete. A Link to the Past 09:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

User's only edit. --Allen3 talk 13:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
User's only edit. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Unsigned vote by Stephelton is the user's 7th edit--Allen3 talk 13:24, July 29, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Apiakp[edit]

Vanity/Advertising of local church youth group. Article originally had duplicate links to the external sites embedded in the text. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Meanderthal[edit]

No hits on dictionary.com. Looks like a faulty dic def. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, July 15, 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 Speedied by Morwen. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Adventures_of_Tracy_Dick:_The_Case_of_the_Missing_Stiff[edit]

Delete There is nothing sitting in the article. Unless someone can contribute more worthwhile information to it, I do not see why it exists. TheMonkofDestiny 10:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the page is now gone. TheMonkofDestiny 10:14, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kody Kinzie[edit]

Vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Toro[edit]

This article is almost certainly a copyvio. Also appears to be original research in places. Delete Dr Gangrene 10:24, 15 July 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 deleted by User:Morwen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Armypants[edit]

Questionable notability. Anonymous IP 68.191.163.243 created article 04:29, July 15, 2005. Article tagged speedy shortly thereafter. 68.191.163.243 removed tag. Multiple users replaced tag, 68.191.163.243 has repeatedly removed tag. See also comment from anon on talk page. Admins, please assist. EvilPhoenix talk 10:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

note: User:TimonQ's fourth edit. I suspect sockpuppetry. jglc | t | c 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
note: No sockpuppetry here, I've been a registered patron of Wikipedia for some time now, and have chosen to contribute to this article as I have first hand knowledge that this article is completely relevant and factual User:TimonQ 13:24, July 15, 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 (8 keep, 3 delete; if margin is not large enough it defaults to keep due to lack of consensus anyway). - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Honkey[edit]

Dicdef of a derogatory word; it is already in Wiktionary and I don't see it having encyclopedic potential. Radiant_>|< 11:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Morwen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Yellow Yell[edit]

Nonsensical, not encyclopedic.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:47, 15 July 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 deleted as copyvio and recreated as redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 13:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

IP mapping[edit]

Original research, very probably a copyvio too. (Includes copyright notice.) Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:28, 15 July 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. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Especial:Imagelist[edit]

Transfer from WP:PNT. Physchim62 11:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tranferred discussion form Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
Looks Spanish to me. --TheParanoidOne 21:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is, it's some sort of article about ships. Title is compeltely misleading, so I'm thinking it's some sort of silly joke. The sentence structures are all mixed up, but it's an entry about why vessels that can't get certificationsohouldn't get into the sea. I'm passing on translating this one. drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
    • I´ve transwikied this to es:Transwiki:Buques sub-estándar (the sub-title that appears as the first line of the article). The image links are still broken even on Spanish wikipedia and as the article is mostly a discussion of the images (which supposedly illustrate boats in various stages of substandardness), it is left as pretty useless. I suggest we wait a day or two to see what happens on es:, then speedy: otherwise it's straight to VfD. Physchim62 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The transwikied article has survived Spanish RC patrol and been marked as wikify. The article here could be speedied, but I have chosen to list it on VfD as it seems a less clear-cut case. No vote. Physchim62 11:44, 15 July 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 13:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Munt[edit]

Term: Munted is used within New Zealand culture. To describe the destruction of a car or other comparible object. I believe this is a case of double meaning. Where one word is good in one culture and highly insultive to the next, aka Culture Clash. It shouldn't be deleted but noted down as a offensive word in some cutures and the cultures the meanings belong to, be applied. T94xr 29th July 2005 - New Zealand.

Neologism used at a single school. Oliver Keenan 12:07, July 15, 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 deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nature in ramayana[edit]

I don't know what this is about, but I know it's not encyclopedic and likely a copyvio as it largely contains a translation of copyrighted material. Delete. Nature in Ramayana is the correct place should it be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, July 15, 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. Woohookitty 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Biscuits[edit]

Delete nn band, doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Also the redirect: "The Biscuits". TheMidnighters 12:09, 15 July 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wet tube[edit]

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:43, 15 July 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 13:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Nikolopoulos[edit]

non notable Elfguy 12:45, 15 July 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stair-cane[edit]

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:52, 15 July 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 John Q. Public. -Splash 00:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sixpack[edit]

Dicdef for 'the average guy' and already in Wiktionary. I don't see how this can possibly be more than a dicdef; it may be possible to merge/redir it somewhere but since I couldn't find a suitable place I'm nominating it for deletion. Radiant_>|< 12:53, July 15, 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Microflyovers[edit]

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:54, 15 July 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hallicart[edit]

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:55, 15 July 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hallipath[edit]

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

List of quarterlies[edit]

Small list of some magazines that appear four times a year. Redundant with List of magazines. Radiant_>|< 12:57, July 15, 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maizlish[edit]

Vanity. This is the name of the person who patented the products this guy is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Total vanity page and deleted. Manning 13:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

There were a set of 8 pages related to this - all of which were blatant corporate self-promotion with no informative merit. I deleted all of them.Manning 13:26, July 15, 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: 6k, 2d including original nominator and completor. -Splash 00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where You Live[edit]

Finishing VfD for another user..., Comment: Keep Weak Keep. (N.B. Although the article has some crystal ball-like qualities - released in sept. 2005) Feydey 13:00, 15 July 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 Merge to Children Act 1989. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residence vs contact[edit]

Text is so incoherent and fragmentary that I first put a (db) on it, which was promptly removed by the author bob tillings ; I'm putting a Vfd mostly to call it to the attention of Wiki pros who know how to deal with it. This said, although it must have some basis in fact, I think if I knew what it was, I'd still vote Delete. Bill 13:02, 15 July 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

General Transit[edit]

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this - it was a no brainer and no discussion needed.Manning 13:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 13:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thai beer[edit]

No reason for this article to exist - non encyclopedic. -- Cnwb 13:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat concede. I think there is a place for an article on Thai beer, and realise now that sometimes substubs can fool one into thinking an article is worthless. I enjoyed many a Singa and Chang during my Thai travels. Cnwb 14:25, 15 July 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable birding-related books[edit]

Not an encyclopedic article. At the least, could be merged into a bird article. Elfguy 13:06, 15 July 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Tank[edit]

This smells of vanity. Delete Alynna 13:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moneynet[edit]

This article is an advertisement. User 217.30.116.158 Special:Contributions/217.30.116.158 continually adds a link to moneynet.co.uk to the Credit Card article. User has also been blocked for this behavior User_talk:217.30.116.158. Monkeyman 14:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bod, this is the only edit/contribution to Wikipedia you have ever made. You'll forgive me if I suspect you're the owner of the site. Monkeyman 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Monkeyman you can suspect that but you would be wrong I am afraid. No offence taken however.--Bod 16:54, 19 July 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Notcalling[edit]

Pseudo-linguistic nonsense. Joyous (talk) 14:14, July 15, 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. Woohookitty 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MTV2-ing[edit]

Neologism. Poorly written article. Not Notable Oliver Keenan 14:17, July 15, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Moran[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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mitchum[edit]

Vanity page. Joyous (talk) 14:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No notoriety, no verifiability. -- DrTorstenHenning 14:43, 15 July 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 Speedy Delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sober view on Firefox patch releasing[edit]

POV fork, essay, etc. The title says it all. Meelar (talk) 14:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Miranda[edit]

Vanity. Recent college grad, which seems to be the highpoint of his career. Calton | Talk 14:49, July 15, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag Bhimani[edit]

Vanity page for a civil engineer. Features a mug shot bigger than the article text. Calton | Talk 14:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep (with suggestion to merge to etiquette) Also, I'm going to excercise my editorial (and not administerial) prerogative and move it to Office etiquette (lowe case) per naming convention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Office Etiquette[edit]

Would the goal of the re-writing be to make it more encyclopedic or more humorous? :-) RoySmith 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ettiquette. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Not my cup of tea - the phrase honour among thieves comes to mind -- but merge with etiquette. --Simon.Pole 08:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with etiquette. It'd be worth keeping if there were massive improvement of content beyond its present "behave as is polite for where you are, with whatever extra rules the company has". This is a complex area: it needs stuff like cultural differences, the crossover with office politics and netiquette, reference to people like Robert Townsend who tried to alter office culture (seeing etiquette as one of the ways inefficient business practice is propagated - as Simon says, honour among thieves), etc. It also needs quality sources (anyone can sit down and write a list of things not to do in the office, and most such online guides are just personal views). Company etiquette summaries like this umass.edu one are worth reading as objective sources. There are plenty of topic ideas at the office etiquette section of the Wall Street Journal's executive careers site here. Tearlach 17:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dienst[edit]

Apparent vanity page, no Google hits for Kevin Dienst other than to wikipedia/mirrors, no Google hits for Veritas Arcanum. I'd tag it speedy but I don't want to waste some admin's time relisting it here. Delete Eliot 15:18, 15 July 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 (more or less). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005[edit]

And basically every other article in the Category:2005 English cricket season matches, which is hundreds of articles. Wikiepdia is not: any spiel that comes out of the mouth of Bob Costas (or whoever his British equivalent is). I think several hundred thousand cricket games have been played in the world (multiply that times the number of sports out there) and we've got millions of poor articles, written in a completley unencyclopedic manner, that made the Tuesday paper and were lining parrot cages on Wednesday. Important games should have their own artciles, but these aren't them. -R. fiend 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all voters: These articles are temporary. At the end of the season, they will be merged, under the auspices of WikiProject Cricket into seperate articles (here, Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, and National League Division One in 2005). Please take this into account when voting in this discussion. Cheers, smoddy 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary articles[edit]

I've created a new heading here to make adding comments easier for we who have size limits with our browsers, and to try to open a discussion of temporary articles in general (see my comments above). I had never heard of such a thing before, and I think it warrants some discussion. While I think this is a good place to formulate such a discussion, I think it should soon be brought elsewhere. If I am incorrect and there is a policy or precedent for temporary articles, please point me in the right direction. Thanks. -R. fiend 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all things in WP are done without there being an explicit policy saying you can do it. Really, as long as what is being done is within the aim of improving and/or adding to the encyclopaedia, it should be encouraged. New ideas, methods, approaches will be developed as we progress. Whilst they should accord to the normal WP style, we'd be fools to ourselves to prevent them on the grounds that as nobody has thought of it before, there is no explicit "policy" saying you can do it! Our goal is a better Wikipedia, not blind obeisance to "policy", jguk 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bad idea to have temporary article snippets in the main article namespace. There are ample policies and precedents that describe what a wikipedia article should be--temporary article snippets that do not meet these criteria and that never will themselves be expanded to legitimate artices have no business being in the namespace, even temporarily. Anything else requires a change of policy with a broad consensus--a couple of very obscure VFDs is not enough to justify such big change in what is acceptable as an article. If it's such a wonderful idea, why is there so much resistence to getting a broad consensus for it? (By the way, when these articles are no longer wanted, don't they have to go through the existing, labor-intensive deletion policy, or are snippets exempt from this policy as well?) PRiis 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that when the content is merged, the original articles would be left as redirects, as is normal merging policy? Sam Vimes 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they don't really take up too much room, I think it'd be nice to keep them. Category:2005 English cricket season matches is a very useful index - we shouldn't get rid of it in a hurry, jguk 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you say keep "them" I assume you mean keep redirects, otherwise we're back where we started. As for PRiis's comments, I'm tempted to agree. While I suppose it might not be against policy to have temporary articles, it does seem just sort of, well, strange. It also sort of opens a door that I'm sure can be abused. While I realize wikiepdia itself will always be a work in progress, this creation just to delete seems sort of contrary to wikipedia, in a way. Now, should this discussion be moved to a policy page somewhere, because that's where this is going? I think such a move would also get opinions from a wider perspective outside of this VfD. -R. fiend 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can accuse the Cricket WikiProject of being bad for Wikipedia - indeed, it has done much good work for Wikipedia - and has many featured articles and featured lists to its credit. The WikiProject can hardly be compared to an instance of a rogue editor, or a newbie not used to WP ways - it would be easy to distinguish circumstances where what is happening here is being used as a precedent where it shouldn't be, jguk 20:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone accusing Wikiproject Cricket as being bad for Wikipedia. This VfD is about a somewhat small portion of the project, and this section at the bottom is about temporary articles, which should be seen as a separate issue entirely. This is a new thing, as far as I can tell, and if there's no policy on them there should be, whether the policy is "no temporary articles" or simple rules/guidelines for how they are used. There are issues here. Who decides what articles are temporary? I assume the originator, but since no one "owns" WP articles what happens if a contributor objects to their temporary status? How do we prevent the use of them from being abused, and people from using temporariness as an excuse for poor articles, or ones that are early stages of works-in-progress that are a jumble of cut-and-paste messes from other sources? (I am not accusing Wikiproject Cricket of doing this, but I can see it happening somewhere in Wikipedia.) At the very least there should be a template:temporary for each such article, and there should be discussion among general Wikipedians. Again, that should occur elsewhere, as it is not really a VfD issue. -R. fiend 06:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anyone except smoddy suggest these articles are temporary. If that is true then keep them in the User namespace, the Project Cricket (which I am not challenging) namespace, or anywhere but the main article namespace. Niteowlneils 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the concerted and continuous attack? They were subpages to begin with. That was attacked as being not in keeping with page-naming, so they were moved to separate pages. Now the subpages are being VfD'd one by one. When there is no consensus to delete the first, they move on to the next. Now you want them userified? Why the systemic attack on one of the top two sports in the world? Any First Class cricket match is at least as noteworthy as a minor character in a Harry Potter book, or a DS9 episode, and they don't even get VfD'd. Or are you saying that first class cricket matches are less important than minor Pokemon characters? Guettarda 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Olson[edit]

non-notable. One edit on the page even says "A Quick Bio on a low-level artist in the nerdcore scene." (emphasis mine) While the people he's worked with are noteworthy, IMHO, it does not save this entry.--Mitsukai 15:44, 15 July 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

Hot coffee[edit]

Seems to be nonsense, what's your opinion? Manik Raina 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

and this could be a fine article, as mentioned above. Themindset 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utopics[edit]

A rambling, uninformative how-to of a "16 level program to transform into your inner animal or Meta animal, find true love, and join nature to become free - ascension." Non-encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 16:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Delete Meaningless screed from unknown source. --Lee Hunter 16:34, 15 July 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:8k, 2r, 1d. Anon IP vote discounted. -Splash 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of imagination[edit]

Obvious phrase. Sure it was used in the 9/11 report but in the same way that "brake failure" is used to describe the failure of brakes.--Lee Hunter 16:29, 15 July 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: 4k, 1d from original speedy (signed in user). Note taken of Tony Sidaway's point; today is 5 days. -Splash 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farid F. Abraham[edit]

Was tagged for speedy delete with a reason given as being "not notable". Moving this to VfD to determine if the subject is considered notable. No Vote --Allen3 talk 16:36, July 15, 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. Woohookitty 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QFS pen[edit]

Injoke, non-encyclopedic and non-verifiable, no Google hits other than wikipedia/mirrors (and good god, there are 300 of them!) Delete Eliot 16:49, 15 July 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 07:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trust-forum[edit]

This appears to be a "vanity" article about a new software project which is not (yet) notable. The user who wrote the Wikipedia article is the same person who is the author of the project. The project appears to be a FUSSP -- an unproven attempt to "solve the spam problem". In any event, vanity articles and original research are both criteria for deletion under Wikipedia deletion policy. FOo 16:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is only the reference to the antispam solution that is the reason to delete this article, we can just delete this aspect and focus on other aspects of this software, that can be interesting too ?--Spoirier 19:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete it isn't that it's an FUSSP; it's that it's vanity (you wrote the article about your own program) and that it's not a notable project (yet). Once you solve the spam problem for thousands of people, one of them will write a Wikipedia article about your program. --FOo 03:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All right, anyway I don't worry: important corrections are being made these days, as I'm starting to use the system for myself, and I expect that thousands users will finally come in the next few weeks. So even if it is deleted now it is likely to come back a bit later.--Spoirier 10:34, 17 July 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 deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ngee ann wichita scouts troop[edit]

It's a scout troop. Not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 17:03, 15 July 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 Move and Keep, I think. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy's Page[edit]

Delete Appears to be nn vanity. Icelight 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. -- Joanne Jacobs

I also vote against deletion. This is blog is notable for her iconoclasm, wit, and insight.

Do not Delete People who are so quick to urge deletion have obviously not read her site much. Betsy may not be shy, but she is hardly so insecure as to post a vanity listing on Wikipedia.

I vote against deletion. I get so much out of reading Betsy's Page and think her blog deserves the recognition. -- Crystal

PULEEZE... what standards are being applied here? She is not writing about her sex life and her dog... she aggregates information, provides commentary and relevant links, focuses mostly on politcal issues, and does so with a high degree of wit and erudition. There is a personal touch also... but, I submit, no more so... and easier to endure... than Dan Rather's describing his wife's mastery of "Texas tact" as having learned how to french kissing a guy who chews tobacco...

I vote against deletion. Betsy's iconoclastic blog allows me to see what's going on in politics and education in a new, better-informed light. She has a wonderfully independent way of looking at things that brings me back to her blog at least several times a day. She is, to my mind, one of the top three bloggers on the planet--and believe me, I read a LOT of blogs. --Barb Oakley

e.g. Note that all of the "Keep" votes except for one have been made by either anon IP addresses or user's first posts. Icelight 00:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Against Deletion - space is not a problem, so what's wrong with having entries that are relatively minor in import? Like it or not, Betsy's Page is an excellent example of the blog as citizen journalism. She is a regular poster, and has demonstrated the utility of blogs by her fisking of Kerry's Daniel Webster quote. [Linda F, Right As Usual, http://rightasusual.blogspot.com]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burn the Children[edit]

Band vanity - I can't find any listings on allmusic or any major retailers offering to sell me their music. And with all due respect to beautiful Conway, New Hampshire, being that town's "premiere metalcore band" just isn't very impressive. CDC (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediacrity[edit]

Delete Non-notable blog. Icelight 17:19, July 15, 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.
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 Fetus-X kept, Monkey Day deleted, everything else smerged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feral Calf and associated other entries[edit]

Feral Calf, Casey Sorrow, Eric Millikin, and Fetus-X are all webcomic entries created by anonymous IPs User:207.179.100.190 and User:68.248.28.159. Monkey Day is another entry created by the former anonIP, and its entire content is "Monkey Day is an annual celebration of monkeys and primates on December 14th," plus two external links (both of which go to pages created and solely maintained by Casey Sorrow)
Feral Calf receives 139 Google hits (the first few of which, at least, do correspond to the webcomic), Casey Sorrow gets 3730 (the first few pages of which, at least, correspond to the artist), Fetus-X receives 6,050, and Eric Millikin receives 6,010. I doubt that Feral Calf is notable for a webcomic, and I vote delete on it. Fetus-X, on the other hand, is somewhat notable, I feel (I, at least, used to read it), but I'm not certain: I vote weak keep. Eric Millikin, for creating Fetus-X, may be notable, but I suggest that his article be merged into Fetus-X, and redirected there. Casey Sorrow may be notable as an artist on Fetus-X, but I don't think he qualifies for notability under Feral Calf. for Monkey Day, as a non-notable, fan-created holiday, I vote Delete. jglc | t | c 17:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote "keep", because I can see that the only reason this article has got a lot of "delete" nominations is because it is about controversial subjects (fetuses, sex, politics) and it is about a controversial comics scripter, who American Christians, Catholics and many similar people do not like.

I am surprised that not more people listed above have the brains to be able to spot this, and instead put down pathetic reasons such as "non-notable" (a really stupid term, by the way, Wiki creators. As are some of your other bureaucratic neologisms.)

If I am researching comics or web comics, I naturally expect there to be extensive articles about anyone of note on the scene, such as Millikin - and his best-known comics. If Wikipedia deletes these entries, Wikipedia. is even stupider than I previously thought it was.

No, I don't like you guys, have never LIKED you. But you're free - that's the great thing - and constantly updated. Still. I frequently wish you'd get hacked. Especially when I see totally LAME attemps at censorship such as all the above. [User: Liz. OH - and BTW - what right have YOU people got to a) log people's I.P. addresses and b) publish them on the Web? None, I would bet.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.104.65 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 July 2005 Note: User's only post

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gein gemekker[edit]

Blatant vanity in Dutch. A rough translation: "Gein gemekker" is a group of friends that has existed for five years. They all come from Roermond. Their names are [list of names]. Sietse 17:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Bohlin[edit]

After the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HansaWorld this should probably removed as well because no notability is established. Delete. --S.K. 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Especially without the page on the company he founded, there isn't any reason for him to be listed here. --Icelight 18:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable with or without his company. Dcarrano 02:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, unknown even in Sweden. / Alarm 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinconc[edit]

I wish Mr. Concrete the best in his upcoming musical career. However, he does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines by a long shot. Even though he has his own message board. Delete Eliot 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

  • Delete per above. Friday 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn musician vanity. --Etacar11 23:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:53, 16 July 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 05:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three beautiful things[edit]

A supposed 2004 cult, size unknown, started in England. Unfortunately, only 3 google hits for "Three beautiful things" +Cult, and only 8 for "Three beautiful things" +"Clare Grant" (the supposed founder). Non-notable, essentially unverifiable. Delete. Meelar (talk) 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-verfiable, not trace of this group on the web. Brand new and perhaps a vanity. -Willmcw 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certainly a vanity page. --Zappaz 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a definite movement in the sout-east. The first two statements above contradict each other -- there either is web reference or there is not. If these contributors can decide to delete an entry, then I must state they have too much power.
  • Delete. Badly written, and probably not notable. "Clare Grant is the one that done it." is particularly bad. If it was better written, I might be persuaded to change my vote. Themindset 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page for this blog and nothing more. Meelar, be careful with searches like that... supporters of a "cult" are not likely to describe themselves as such. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable movement. Dcarrano 00:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable non-movement; HorsePunchKid is right, it's just blog-vanity.--Pharos 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable cult. JamesBurns 06:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. V. interesting to see how this site works. Someone has add the "Clare Grant is the one that done it" bit. I agree it is badly written, but can it not be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.249.237 (talk • contribs) 11:31, July 16, 2005
    • It certainly can be edited. If you would like to establish the noteworthiness of the subject, now is the time to do it! Just keep in mind that cleaning up the writing will probably not be enough to save this from deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:15, July 16, 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bryan St. Clair[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Only reference is relation to a brother who is only slightly more notable. Icelight 18:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable card gamer. Banning from tournaments isn't exactly notability. -Harmil 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Friday 21:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable cardie. JamesBurns 02:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. IINAG, 18:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable player. Riddle | Talk 04:46, 31 July 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. The vote was 15 for keep, 21 for delete and several for rename. Woohookitty 23:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White supremacists[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted NoahB 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently POV. Before, at the earliest, 1920, most notable public figures in the U.S. and many other countries expressed white supremacist ideas. The number of white supremacists is so large that any list is going to be limited, which means that we're going to be unfairly singleing out certain people as racist. A related problem is that almost no one these days (not even David Duke) consider themselves white supremacist, so labeling them as such is POV. Finally, it has been suggested that the article be restricted to people notable for their white supremacist beliefs or who are leaders in the white supremacist movement. The problem here is, who decides who is notable for white supremacist beliefs and who isn't? Again, I don't see any way to put the list together that isn't inherently POV.

  • Keep if you look at this very VfD page, you'll find a lot of people deciding what is and isn't notable. There is nothing inherently POV about judging someone to be notable or not. --malathion talk 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply a list of people who express a certain belief. It shouldn't matter that "almost no one these days" calls themselves that, as a list can encompass historical figures as well. -- BD2412 talk 19:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As repulsive (or not, depending on one's POV) as this list might be, as BD2412 said, it's a list of people who express a particular belief. We have lists of other things just as potentially problematic here, but it's an encyclopedic matter (if only for the historical figures alone) and should be retained.--Mitsukai 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of Historically Notable White Supremacists and leave out anyone who fails to meet the double-criterion of historic and notable. Alternatively, make it a category. The Literate Engineer 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with White supremacy, upon further consideration, maintaining only the most influential half dozen to a dozen. Create a category, as a sub of [Category:People known in connection with identity politics], for the rest if need be. The Literate Engineer 06:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why does Wikipedia need a list of white people who think they were/are better than everyone else? When is someone going to want to look at a collection of these people? Phoenix2 22:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we are not here for censorship but freedom of information Yuckfoo 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of modern white supremacists. It seems from this discussion like the historical change in attitudes that the nominator mentioned is going to be an issue; I see a lot of people here using slippery slope arguments, and if there's technically nothing preventing, e.g. Abe Lincoln from being listed due to his many pro-slavery statements, the slippery slope would get ridiculous and the article would just become a free-for-all. However, I think the definition of this list can be pinned down, if limited to a certain timeframe. Dcarrano 23:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep For the reasons stated above.--Gramaic | Talk 00:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's an unmaintainable list. If one believes, as many do, that white supremacy was systematic and inherent in western society before the Civil Rights movement, then practically anybody can go on the list if you can pull up a quote that would justify their inclusion. Yet, to do so would be to apply modern moral standards to historical people, a practice which presents POV problems. There are already problems with, for example, Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson appearing on the list, and conceivably it could go on forever: Shakespeare, Jack London, H.L. Mencken, FDR, Lincoln, George Washington, Mark Twain...??? It might be possible to exclude historical figures, which would keep the list limited to people like David Duke who clearly belong. But in practice, is that really going to happen or is the list going to be cluttered up with edit wars by people who insist that their own POV be represented by the inclusion of one historical figure or another that they don't like? Alternatively I would support a name change to "List of notable modern white supremacists". Kaibabsquirrel 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a list of contemporary white supremacists in the White supremacy article (which is also controversial). My understanding was that this new article was created in order to have a more comprehensive list. (Whoops! Forgot to sign earlier -- this is by me. NoahB 18:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Weird mixture of people. It doesn't make sense to mix contemporary Ku-Klux-Clan leaders with Nazis, revisionist "historians" and others. Martg76 06:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is detrimental to the Wikipedia project as it's potentially the opening of pandora's box. With a white supremacist list, there will be lists of all other things popping up, furthermore, there is no segregation between 'white supremacist' and 'white seperatist' or 'white nationalist', many of the people on the list at the moment express anti-white supremacist views. It's flawed and a waste of space, next we'll have other fanatics listing black supremacists and every other ethnic group which will all fall down to a mamoth name calling and labelling tantrum, something we don't need! Jachin 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above user has also voted with two sock puppets - David Gerard 16:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was over-ruled by Wiki stewards, IP is a proxy host. Jachin 04:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in its current form. Jachin is pretty much right, and its already happening w lists like List of fascists and so forth. ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is stupid, obviously an attempt to slander people. There is a distinct difference between a supremacist and a nationalist and there are several nationalists on this list. This only serves to de-legitimize wikipedia.
    • (User:Izmorrow)
  • Comment, Wikipedia has been good in regards to promoting diversity. We don't need to pander to hatemongers on this balanced site. How many more must be oppressed and gassed until we learn that we can only allow 'Free Speech' as long as we all agree to stay free. If this list dies,so does our future. You say that every ethnic group will have a list like this? Who have the Jewish people EVER oppressed? NO ONE. - JDL Rep. "Never Again!"
    • (User:JDL Rep)
    • Note: I restored the original comment. This edit by an anonymous user modified it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Ought to be verified.--81.134.102.240 17:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't about jews, blacks or other ethnic groups. This is about whether the article should be deleted. Try and stay on topic and not let your hatred of White's blind you too much. (User:211.31.9.5)
  • Keep, but possibly rename. Also are all white supremacists? I'm not sure Ray Hill is (read the article.--MacRusgail 17:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I believe this is inappropriate for the Wikipedia project.
    • (User:Kinej)
  • Keep, Maybe convert to table & include a specific reason for including their name. pamri 18:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Who determined that these individuals are "White Supremacists"? I think listing individuals borders on slander. Wikipedia should not become a "hit list" for individuals with an axe to grind. I'm Jewish and I denounce what the JDL person said in his above statemnt. Robert Rosenberg. (UTC)
    • User:Robdepasquale, who was the one who added the anti-Jewish comment to the above statement. [24]
  • Delete, it's inappropriate and racist for white people to be singled out as "supremacists". Afterall, the "Jewish" state of Israel makes the former apartheid state of South Africa look like a bastion of civil rights and equality. I'm tired of the double standard...perhaps we should start a "List of Jewsh supremacist" page?(UTC)
    • (User:Tizokman)
  • Delete, Whites should not be singled out and labelled as "supremacists". This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention unnecessary.
  • Comment Um, I thought Jews were White? (Sorry if that offends someone) Why isn't Ariel Sharon on there? He is anti-Arab. Do the Jews see themselves as nonwhite? Oh wait, they aren't Caucasian, they are Semitic like the Arabs, but jews DO think they are superior to everybody so aren't they the real supremacists? Master Cylinder 19:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, the name is spelled wrong, move it and make that w lowercase if kept. Anyway, we should not single out whites for being supremists, but, if they are well known to be white supremists, what's it going to hurt to keep a list on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not censored. --Phroziac (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the notion of "white supremacy" alone to be, more often than not, a laughable mirespresentation of any semblance of racial awareness or interest expressed by any White. Let's face it: supremacists don't really exist anymore, and if they do, Sharon or the powers that be behind the oddly named "Aztlan" movement should be named in similar manner. This list is useless and, what's more, ignorant. The term alone sounds comical, much like the overused term "racism," today a meaningless moniker used to smear any opponent of the prevailing religion of egalitarianism, much like "heretic" was once employed. Some simply do not share the views of the lumbering majority, and the voices of the dissenters amount to just a bit more than "supremacist" ideas, but very valid concerns which should be presented in a fair light.
    • (User:Exil2)
  • Delete This article does not contribute anything to the Wikipedia project and opens pandora's box. I agree with Jachin and other users statements on the matter, it's downright stupid and racially vilifying potentially non-white-supremacists by listing them there.

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually very racist that Wikipedia calls these people, "White Supremacists". I guess that Jews cannot be "Supremacists", only "Zionists"? What is someone called who acknowledges races are different but doesn't feel "supreme"? Does that definition take on a more sinister tone if you are a European?
    • (User:68.38.136.135)

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to List of white supremacists. "White supremacist" is a designation that really is applied to people. We didn't make it up. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's been a lot of modifying of other people's comments. I'm trying to clear some of it up, but unless it's done as it happens, it's probably hopeless. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mean to bash other Wikipedians, but the only contributions Izmorrow, Kinej, Tizokman have made were to this page, and Exil2, has only made five edits here in Wikipedia; three of the edits to Hilton twins and the two other edits were to this page.--Gramaic | Talk 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous (i.e. unregistered) and newly registered users actually are allowed to vote according to official policy. However, in a contentious vote or if there is evidence of sockpuppetry, there's a good chance that they will be ignored. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All these lists make no sense. They are hard to maintain and add no value. --Zappaz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. We have all kinds of lists of people, List of conservatives, List of Libertarian Politicians and Media Personalities, List of Los Angeles natives, List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, List of gangsta rappers, and so on. I think that "List of white nationalists" may be a more accurate name for this article, and uses a term that most people on the list would use to describe themselves.-Willmcw 08:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just invites POV, if not outright abuse. Perhaps rewrite per The Literate Engineer. A verifiable list of leaders or theorists of white supremacist movements might be encyclopedic, but the current list is simply too broad to be meaningful. (Unless someone wants to add a mini-bio on each and every entry to justify their inclusion.) Peter Grey 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as it stays verifiable and accurate of course -max rspct 15:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Some of the keep arguments presented here disgust me as a human being. Especially that by JDL_Rep, hostile, dispicable and a shame to our people. ADL488 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of racist fuckwits. (count this as a keep vote)  Grue  18:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a category. It is despicable but these people do exist. Include only the self-professed and definitely verified supremacists - Skysmith 08:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guettarda 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definately delete. This is hideously inappropriate content for the Wikipedia project. Adam249 08:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. Radiant_>|< 17:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure how long this vote goes, but since there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus, I'm going to go ask a few other editors who have contributed to articles on race-related articles to comment. I hoped we could leave the vote open at least a couple more days to see if any of them wish to vote. NoahB 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this list were to be kept, it would have to include nearly every white person before 1900. And many blacks as well - most black people in the United States would have said publicly (if asked to do so) that white people were fit to rule over black people - to say otherwise would be suicide. So who's a white supremecist and who's not? This category is problematic beyond repair. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, though not necessarily under this name. Probably should be moved to List of modern White supremacists. And there should be clear criteria for the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Change the name per above, but then again I could see some heated arguements over whether or not a person should be on the list. MicahMN | Talk 21:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The votes thusfar are as follows.
    • Delete 19
    • Keep 12
    • Move 2
    • Weak keep 2
    • Rename 1
  • Delete. I agree w/the originator of this VfD that any proper list of white supremacists would be endless and that any list we could come up with would, necessarily, be POV. I recently added the names of several dead U.S. presidents, along with a few others, to the list to make a point: white supremacy is a pervasive ideology -- and has been, for centuries. We might just as well undertake to make a list of people who are not white supremacists. A fairly convincing argument could be made that such a list would be shorter. deeceevoice 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: While a holocaust denier can be totally wrong and crazy, does that automatically qualify him as a white supremacist? nobs 04:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list already appears to be going along the lines of 'almost anyone who's white can be labelled a white supremacist', which is why it's a stupid concept and detrimental to the Wikipedia project, it's all opinionated drivel Jachin 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could easily be libellous. Who's going to check to make sure all these people really are white supremacists? Moreover some of them (like Sen. Byrd) are apparently on the list for things they did in the distant past; I don't think it's fair to put him on a page whose title implies he's a white supremacist now. --Trovatore 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, I added Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA) to the list. He was a racist, old fart who croaked in 1966. You're probably thinking of Robert Byrd (D-WVA). deeceevoice 06:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, right you are. Doesn't change my larger point though. The page is libel bait and unmaintainable. --Trovatore 04:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification: "right you are" that I was thinking of Robert Byrd. I know almost nothing about H. F. Byrd and have no comment to offer on your characterization of him. --

Trovatore 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think your entry of Harry Flood Byrd, whomever he happens to be, is a substantial example of why this list is a moot concept. He was a 'racist' and an 'old fart'. I'm not quite sure which applies to declaration of white supremacy out of those two? On one hand, almost all white 'old farts' (pre-1930's) are white supremacists, yet almost all 'racists' would be, by capita, not white as whites are not a majority and racism is a proven facet of the human psyche. So in theory, how can we list 'racists' in a 'white supremacist' list when most racists aren't white?
The fact ultimately remains, there is not enough underlying definitive quality of product provided by this article, the concept is a loose name-calling / labelling project similar to a nazi death-camp, except in this modern era of 'enlightenment' where we forego our forefathers who worked to put us in a position with so much leasure time that we can damn the entire history of human development as an evil empire, we are instead handing out more than just stars of david to people.
We had the 'communist' badge of the post-WWII era, dozens more between, and now we have our current 'terrorist' badge. The question is, where do we draw the line at generic stupidity of attempting to label or catagorise everything into big broad sweeping statements? It all smacks of witch-hunt mentality that I, as a human, have always wished we'd have gotten over by 2005. Jachin 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trippin' a bit, Jachin, though we essentially agree, I think, on this list. No. Racism isn't a come-with kinda thing; it's not, ipso facto, automatically part of being human. That's far too facile; it reads like somone was looking for an excuse. Your argument may pretty much be correct in the case of whites, given the pervasiveness of the ideology of white supremacy -- which has been my experience. It certainly has not been my experience with regard to many peoples of color (though, it seems to me, Asians (of the Far East) rank pretty high on the list of folks with racist tendencies). Be that as it may, there is absolultely no question of Harry Byrd's racism or white spremacist beliefs and policies. And, yes, white supremacy was pervasive in a particular time period -- but it is pervasive, still; it simply has been sublimated to political correctness, its prominence among those in the news pretty much relegated to backroom/backwoods/boardroom/country club conversations, instead of front-page media quotes and explicit public policy agendas. But then -- oops -- there're always the public slips/foot-in-mouth gaffs; the atrocities, like the lynching of James Byrd, that surface from time to time. Again, white supremacy is so pervasive, it might be easier to make a list of who isn't one than who is. deeceevoice 10:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and rename to List of white supremacy theorists and List of white supremacist politicians. To merit inclusion, white supremacism should be a major and essential (and I mean "essential" here literally, as in "constituting the essence of") part of the person's ideology/policies. Junes 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as with some other lists, inclusion should be on quite strict criteria, not (of course) to include smears, slurs and so on. Charles Matthews 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe problem with restricting to strict criteria, or with trying to keep it to people for whom white supremacism was essential or major or some such is that this is also POV. If you are going to keep people off the list who were clearly, by word and action, white supremacist (like Woodrow Wilson, for example, or Jefferson Davis, or Thomas Jefferson or Christopher Columbus or even Abraham Lincoln) then you are going to hugely minimize the extent and power of white supremacy as an ideology. You could make a pretty good case that white supremacism was a central part of the ideology of America for the first couple hundred years of its existence -- it's enshrined in the Constitution, no? The problem isn't that there's a threat of the list being too large and therefore libellous -- the problem is that for the list to be inclusive is impossible, and that a non-inclusive list is hopelessly POV -- both unfair to the people on the list (since their white supremacism is not properly contextualized) and unfair to people of color (since it downplays the power of racism in our culture.) NoahB 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You got a point there, but I don't think it's enough reason to give up on what could be a potentially useful list. I think the list should be designed with this usefulness in mind. I don't think anyone interested in the history of white supremacism would be helped much with a link to Christopher Columbus or Abraham Lincoln. Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, may be a useful addition - that's for the editors of this list to decide. If, after a few months or so, this article turns out be nothing but a bait for edit wars, I'd have no problem with deleting it. For now, I have faith in the Wikipedia process of establishing criteria for inclusion (this is what we do constantly, not just for this list). To prevent people from thinking that these were the only white supremacists in their days, some sort of introduction text could be provided. (By the way, we have a List of anti-Semites that would arguably have a similar problem). Junes 09:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV. White Supremacy does not have a clear definition and making it a list is a way to shut down debate about the validity of the label. Tfine80 01:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as deplorable as they all are, those white supremicists play a role in American history and civil rights. This entry must stay. 69.167.100.155 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C team[edit]

Vanity, orphaned, not notable DR31 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google lists only two matches for the team and league name together. nn as far as I can tell. -Harmil 19:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Forbsey 20:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a former football team. how very not notable. Friday 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability for a now defunct team not established. JamesBurns 02:55, 16 July 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. – ABCD✉ 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Math Blaster[edit]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Someone seems to care about these guys, but that might just make it a vanity page. Icelight 18:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Google says they don't exist, and while they might, 3 self-produced albumbs (which should also be VfDed) are not a source of notability. I wish them all the best in making it big, and showing up here in the future. -Harmil 19:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bandcruft. Friday 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The computer game by that name might be notable; the band isn't. --Carnildo 21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 02:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought it was about the computer game too, I had it at home back then. Also, the band's three albums, The Public Physics, The Public Physics, Too?, The Piblic Physics 3.14 should be deleted too. Most likely vanity considering the last album page was created by user Math Blaster.--Madchester 05:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite so that the article is about the computer game. Delete this nn vanity bandcruft. --Idont Havaname 05:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but let the redlinks stand. The game by the same name is notable. If appropriate, Userfy to User:Mathblaster. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone want to recreate about the game, ok. But get rid of the band vanity. --Etacar11 00:32, 18 July 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. – ABCD✉ 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell Moens[edit]

He is born somewhere and has a mother and a father. --Uppland 18:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 18:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no notability established — RJH 18:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 talk 18:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userify or delete per User:BD2412 -Harmil 19:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 02:57, 16 July 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. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anildigital[edit]

It's a personal page. 202.63.160.146 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: took the liberty of correcting improper wikiformatting. (Abstain.) Marblespire 18:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism/Made up word. Says so itself in the article. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - "'anildigital' is the word created by Anil Wadghule... Anil is my name. Digital is my inspiration. So I use anildigital as my online identity". Enough said. -- BD2412 talk 19:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Userfy nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made-up word and vanity. ‡ Jarlaxle 00:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity neologism. JamesBurns 06:52, 16 July 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. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mulchie[edit]

Local slang. DS 19:29, 15 July 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 & redirect to Kirby. – ABCD✉ 23:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbies[edit]

Searching google this internet slang word doesn't seem notable. Feydey 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definately not notable. Gwk 19:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. -Satori 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kirby, since some of the characters shown people sometimes use in chat rooms to show emotions or expressing themselves. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a notable sub-group of Neopets users and is worth having information on. The only reason it can not be easily found is because the majority of these users have grown and left; it is still history. --Nathan Goldman 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article should be preserved as it referred to a formerly prominent internet group --CharlesJ 21:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I smell sockpuppetry... -Feydey 21:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Feel free to check our IP addresses. Charles and I are simply two people with a good deal of information regarding this subject. We are not the same person. --Nathan Goldman 22:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable forum trolls. Dcarrano 00:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Zscout370. Nifboy 01:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, possibly, merge to Emoticon, of which Kirbies are a subsection. Nifboy 22:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 06:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zscout. Xoloz 16:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Kirby. No point in merging really. Radiant_>|< 13:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as above. There is no such thing as a "notable sub-group of Neopets users" in Wikipedia's sense of the word "notable". --FOo 05:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Lopez[edit]

Note: This article was listed on VfD on July 9, but (despite some discussion) got no votes either way except for the nomination itself. Although that may technically justify deleting the article, I am re-listing it in the hopes of getting a broader response. -- BD2412 talk 19:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(original nomination and discussion follows)

Spam. Stilgar135 9 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Question. Spam? By what definition? And why? Granted, the article is a stub -- and I can rectify that, if that's the only problem. Otherwise, I'll likely vote against. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 9 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
Spam probably isn't the right word; vanity would be better. If she is notable, and you can write a good article about her, then that seems like the right thing to do; but seeing an empty page with only a name, measurements, and a link to a personal site definitely makes it seem like a vanity page.
I would agree with the vanity part. It looks like Kikki Daire would be the same boat, but I did work on that before I called it a night. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can turn it into a good page, more power to you. Stilgar135 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's a very well known and popular pornographic actress, as a google search will quickly confirm. She has starred in several high-budget productions. This article needs to be expanded, not deleted. --Malathion 20:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is factual and NPOV. We do not delete biographies because they are stubs, especially on figures who receive half a million hits on Google. Hall Monitor 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely not my thing, but does seem to be notable. Themindset 23:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable porn star. 23skidoo 04:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable porn star. Capitalistroadster 05:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons mentioned above, including notability. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 66 films and a director for 2. However the article needs to be cleaned up. Do we really need links to all of those pay sites? Vegaswikian 07:41, 16 July 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. – ABCD✉ 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Slicer[edit]

Delete It may have existed, but this is a page about a car in a movie that was never finished. As such, it probably doesn't deserve it's own page. Icelight 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 19:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN JoJan 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 21:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Fallstorm 03:55, 16 July 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. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oklahoma College Republicans[edit]

Vanity, non-notability. See also California College Republicans and Maine College Republicans Gamaliel 20:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If College Republicans are noted in Wikipedia then why wouldn't you want the federated chapters information also? They are not bragging on accomplishments they are a legal and noteable orginization in Oklahoma. Tassidar 15:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is this user's (as an IP adress) first edit. --Icelight 21:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it is not clear from these articles that the California College Republicans, the Maine College Republicans, the Oklahoma College Republicans, and the College Republicans in 47 other states are significantly different from each other except that they conduct their activities in different states. Even if a given state's chapter was significantly different from the others, that would probably be more valuable information in the main College Republicans article rather than an article for the state chapter. Delete. --Metropolitan90 01:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable sub-group of a notable organization. Similarly, we wouldn't need an entry on the Casper, WY division of AA, while the group itself deserves mention. Could be merged to College Republicans with a brief entry for each group. --Icelight 21:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, most college clubs are not notable. Dcarrano 00:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another student club. Is it my imagination, or are we getting a lot of these lately? --Calton | Talk 03:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable college club. JamesBurns 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable club. Xoloz 16:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP: 5k, 1d. Final vote discounted, though from registered user. Had been present only 3 days and although with a number of edits they were a series of rapid-fire minor non-show-preview edits to about 3 articles. -Splash 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Boys[edit]

*Delete. Inflammatory, offensive and certainly not deserving of a WP article. Forbsey 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I accept the points made below by Xoloz that 'offensive' 'inflammatory' are not suitable criteria for deletion. After expansion by PatGallacher I have withdrawn my vote on the grounds that it is both encyclopedic and notable despite personal reservations about the article's content. Appologies for the VFD tag, I guess I let me own personal viewpoint get in the way of what is notable and encyclopedic. Hopefully the article will be kept for the sake of WP. Forbsey 20:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not claim that the article is particularly polished even now, if you have reservations feel free to edit it. PatGallacher 11:06, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article has been cleaned up somewhat. Gwk 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Keep - the expanded article has become encyclopedic. JoJan 07:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why would anyone think a football chant is encyclopedic in its own right, sectarian or not? --Stevefarrell 23:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Keep Sectarian songs are a major issue in Scotland and Ireland, especially at football games. Since expansion the article is much more encyclopedic, and clearly shows it is much more than 'just a football chant'. --Stevefarrell 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this is certainly an unsavoury issue, it is encyclopedic. I have expanded the article slightly, I hope those who previously voted for deletion will re-read it. It is more than just a football chant, it has been widely sung over the decades. PatGallacher 23:53, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of stirring it a bit, looking at this user's talk page, they seem to have a history of casting controversial votes to delete articles (or sometimes include them). PatGallacher 11:06, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep It sounds encyclopedic to me, and 15000 Googles hits suggests so. If Forbsey is the nominator, I am not sure he stated a proper ground -- "offensive" and "inflammatory" are not reasons for deletion, and "being deserving" is a somewhat-POV way of calling something non-encyclopedic, if that is what was meant. Xoloz 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanded version appears encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. – ABCD✉ 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Draconis Lumenis[edit]

Delete A moderate sized guild, but no notability. Probable vanity page. Icelight 20:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Friday 21:21, 15 July 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 05:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Miss The Big[edit]

Ad for non-notable band. Gwk 20:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN JoJan 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Friday 21:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:48, 16 July 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 and redirect to Chipmunk. – ABCD✉ 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmonk[edit]

Not notable local band that never peformed for years. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chipmonk was a real band. They were a garage band, but they did play several shows in their short tenure as a musical group. I should know; I was substitute lead singer for the band at their show at Marquis de La Fayette hotel in Cape May in March 2002. (Check the external link page for more info) --Runciblerabbit 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that though the band might have existed, but I want you to look at WP:MUSIC to show what we think bands have to meet in order to get articles on here. Better yet, I am going to pull examples to show you on why I placed it here. "Chipmonk is the name of a little-known improv/punk band from Cape May, New Jersey formed in January 2002 by a group of friends composed of bored, 20-somtething, college dropouts and some high school students. While Chipmonk was short-lived (lasting only 3 months), they were quite prolific, producing three self-released albums, consisting of a total of over 90 songs." A local band lasting for three months, self produced records. That does not meet the requirements for notability. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Same user also created articles for each of their "records". Friday 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the exchange above, this can be considered a vanity article since he was a "guest lead singer." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Gwk 21:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. I didn't know of the notable rule before I started creating the page and since they never released an album I guess that they're not notable (Though you'd be hard-pressed to name another Improv/Punk band from South Jersey with 90+ songs).--Runciblerabbit 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mainly, users do not want Wikipedia to be used as launch-pads for advertisements for bands, shows, groups, etc. That was why we have the WP:MUSUC guidelines to set a bench mark on which bands should be included in here or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'll just have to go back to building that shrine in my backyard--Runciblerabbit 21:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hee... funny VfD, nice to see a sense of perspective here. Delete, natch. Dcarrano 00:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns
  • Delete and redirect to Chipmunk as likely misspelling. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and redirect, per Angr). This doesn't seem to be a sufficiently notable for inclusion now, I'm afraid. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:30, July 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. Woohookitty 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Davis[edit]

I believe this person is not notable and suspect this is merely a vanity page. There has been only one editor (two IP addresses) who has basically never done anything else except insert himself into the birthday list. Jdavidb 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no evidence of notability. Friday 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search on google doesn't suggest this person is notable. MarkS 22:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. --TheMidnighters 22:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be self-written, definitely not encyclopedic. Themindset 22:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 00:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:47, 16 July 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 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Really Really Crappy EP[edit]

Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Gwk 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 21:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 00:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:47, 16 July 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 05:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Sucks[edit]

Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eyes accuse you.--Runciblerabbit 21:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err....what? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A polite reminder: Wikipedia users are generally discouraged from making irrelevent comments in VFD discussions. Gwk 22:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity, as with the rest. --Etacar11 00:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:46, 16 July 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 06:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck You[edit]

Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 21:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the artwork on that baby. How could you want to delete it?--Runciblerabbit 21:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it was a CD by a group that has an article up for VFD, because the group calls itself a "small unknown garage band" which "lasted for only 3 months." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option: well, though this article is about a CD, there is an English term by the same name. Could we redirect this to Fuck? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the band Chipmonk is being deleted, otherwise move to Fuck You (album) or else merge with Chipmonk article. Strangely enough, this article was in my watchlist, so apparently something existed with this name before. Jdavidb 21:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I checked in the article history, [25], there were only two edits: Runciblerabbit creating it and me placing the VFD tag on it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article history wouldn't have history for a previously-existing article that got moved. Jdavidb 22:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...well, I typed in fuck you and see what it did. Fuck you redirects to Fuck. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity, the band and all the records. --Etacar11 00:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Fuck (where lower-case Fuck you already redirects) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Redirect per Angr. Xoloz 16:46, 16 July 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 merged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Shartzer Stadium[edit]

Delete Not notable as a high school stadium. If there was an article on the school it could be merged there, or just left with the reference it has in Louisville Bulls. Icelight 21:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge what little content there is with Louisville Bulls. Gwk 21:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. I suppose a redirect would be appropriate too? Friday 21:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable schoolcruft. JamesBurns 06:45, 16 July 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. Woohookitty 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Lifeboat[edit]

Not notable c. 600 members, and article contains some Fcukin slander. Feydey 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per above. Gwk 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youse are all a right shower. Keep it, I say.

  • Delete. Forums like this may have a place in the lives of their members, but not much impact beyond that. Joyous (talk) 01:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable forum. Dcarrano 02:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable forum. JamesBurns 06:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Never mentioned me once , Tigerroolz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.176.204 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well stop yakkin and delete it already if you're going to but you will be deleting a piece of history if you do.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 07:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherohonkee[edit]

Almost nonsense. Seems to make some sense, but also seems completely unreal. smoddy 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think this is a hoax. Gwk 22:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is real. I know these people. A real term. 69.203.207.56 (talk • contribs)
  • I can believe the phrase exists; 579 Google hits, and seems analogous to such slurs as Oreo, banana and wigger. However, virtually all of the hits seem to refer to a book by Robert Lanham, so, since it doesn't seem to have especially caught on beyond that book, merge to Robert Lanham. Dcarrano 00:59, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't have the book to hand, but from what I can remember of the relevant page, this is almost certainly a copyvio from Lanham's book. - Mustafaa 17:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- bordering on copyvio, and a neologism to boot. I like Robert Lanham's books as much as the next guy, but seriously. Haikupoet 04:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Robert Lanham. I suggest that Food Court Druid also redirect to him, once it has been deleted as the copyvio it currently is. —Stormie 09:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron price[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 22:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Vanity page MarkS 22:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, vanity. Themindset 23:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn astronomer vanity. Sorry, my brother. --Etacar11 00:28, 16 July 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, sad to say. :) Woohookitty 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ /rupture[edit]

Vanity. Gwk 22:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Themindset 22:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Special Gunpowder" was on several magazines' and music sites best album lists for last year, and a quick Google confirms that he's well known. JZ 23:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, Google has many hits and the artist clearly has a following of sufficient quantity to be notable. --Stevefarrell 23:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A Google search with quotes returns 75,000 results. Seems notable enough. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 23:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 06:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Googling also reveals that he's toured internationally (large parts of Europe), which explicitly meets the criteria for notability. JZ 18:01, 17 July 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 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is art?[edit]

The only reason I don't think this qualifies as a speedy is that it represents an apparently sincere bit of thinking from someone. Is there a place for it? Deb 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see a place for it. Thunderbrand 22:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Gwk 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could have been speedied. Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For all reasons above. Themindset 22:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deep thoughts. Haikupoet 04:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly redirect to art. Radiant_>|< 13:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted POV rant about suicide bombers.Dunc|☺ 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Women's Organization[edit]

Nominated for deletion because it appears to be a POV essay or letter, not an article. I can't figure out how it could be cleaned up into anything usable. Add to that my confusion as to why it's at the title, and the fact that it looks very much like a copyrighted letter (although I can't find it elsewhere online), and I think it's best deleted. Jwrosenzweig 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Gwk 23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rant. -EDM 23:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given disconnect between title and contents, it's impossible to know what subject matter the author intended to describe. Dcarrano
  • Rewrite if there is an actual Iraqi Women's Organization, otherwise delete. Revolución 02:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My letter has been modified/revised to present a more complete Christian view of suicide bombers. Vincent Bemowski

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 rewrite. – ABCD✉ 23:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

17092 Sharanya[edit]

  • Delete? This looks like an ad and probably copyvioed. Vanity too, perhaps. -- Zantastik talk 11:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity article written in the 3rd person. ~~~~ 19:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Textbook example of vanity. Wikiacc 19:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. NatusRoma 01:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity Columbia 08:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite; the article properly deals with asteroid 17092 Sharanya, named in honour of S. Sharanya, 2003 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair winner. It looks like it came from the news clippings that can be found about the two Tamil girls, S. Sharanya and P. Senthalir. Urhixidur 18:50, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. 100% vanity. Gwk 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite should be about the asteroid. --Etacar11 00:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then rewrite; why should this entirely irrelevant vanity page be left in the history? - Mustafaa 01:02, 16 July 2005 (UT
  • Delete This is a vanity piece not an article about anything remotely noteworthy. If someone has information on the coresponding asteroid, then rewriteHamster Sandwich 05:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. Current page should be rewritten, and only be a section of article describing the namesake of the asteroid. Almafeta 16:30, 16 July 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. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peach Friedman[edit]

This page is not authored by the person in question. I know this because I worte it and I am not her. Moreover, while I would agree that she is not reasonably well known, I would argue that very few modern poets are. By the standard in the Wikipedia guidelines, "One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I would say that several original publications would qualify someone to be featured here. Keep. Snowberg

  • Vanity page, by the person in question herself. Her brother and uncle are both reasonably well known, but she hardly qualifies. Delete. JZ 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardcore vanity. Gwk 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Phoenix2 23:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim to notability. The article describes her as an "aspiring poet", which is fine and laudable, but only poets with established careers should have an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm the person in question. I did not write the article. My boyfriend did, sweet of him. I would actually have no clue how to figure it out. I am only writing this comment thing right now because he set it up for me. And honestly, I don't really mind whether or not I have a Wikipedia page. It's true that I'm not famous. I have a few poems published and lots of people used to read my blog before it became an exclusive community, but other than being Nat Friedman's sister, I'm not that noteworthy.

BUT! Not in my own defense, rather for the sake of Wikipedia's consistency, there are MANY people with Wikipedia pages who are really not well known at all either, EXCEPT IN TECH FIELDS. It does seem like there's a real slant toward technies in here--so I may be as well known in the field of poetry as another is in the field of Linux, and you guys will only recognize the Linux people. Makes you think, no? I'd ask the question of whether or not you're representing the whole population of people, or just one slice of the big ol' pie. I'm known in certain cirlces. x's and o's, peach.

  • Delete reluctantly as a Google search comes up with 61 results. [26] My understanding is that the benchmark for poets includes publication with a circulation of more than 5,000. If it can be shown that she has been published in a publication of reasonable note, then I will vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'll change my vote if we can get more information on how she's been published. Almafeta 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. Xoloz 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Peach's point is noted, but I think it's that we're letting in too many techies, not too few poets ;-) Dcarrano 23:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Bolaffi[edit]

Vanity from a nobody. Bobbis 23:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally vanity. Gwk 23:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any article that says 'more information to come' in every section is clearly crap. --Stevefarrell 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the person in question and this was written by a freind as a joke. You can delete this article, it's just stupid.. 10:41, 24 July 2005 (AEST)
  • Speedy Delete. Under new criterion. --Canderson7 12:49, July 24, 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. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

OmniNerd[edit]

Non-notable web site. From the article: "Since its inception, OmniNerd has seen moderate growth surpassing 100 registered users in the summer of 2005." 680 Google hits. tregoweth 23:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advert. Gwk 23:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website. -- BD2412 talk 00:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My personal standard for forum notability is 1000 members. Come back in another order of magnitude. Almafeta 16:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the page's primary author. Two reasons have been listed thus far, both of which are not grounds to delete a page. First, if the Omninerd page should be deleted because it is considered an 'advertisement' then other similar pages covering webpages (such as slashdot) should also be deleted for the same reason. Second, there is nothing in the Wikipedia deletion policy that lists a certain popularity level as requisite for coverage in Wikipedia. If the page is to be deleted, there needs to be a concrete reason as defined in the deletion policy. Brandon 03:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slashdot is sufficiently notable to qualify for an article. Listing the popularity level is a way to illustrate if a website is truly important or well-known enough for an encyclopedia article. tregoweth 06:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing the delineation in the delete policy either. All that aside, I find it troubling that it's just assumed that this page isn't worthy due to it's at-a-glance 'non-notability.' The site is a quality one, it's not a spam-center, and has features like the listed 'NerdRank' that are quite unique to the site. It seems silly to me to delete a wiki entry due to the lack of current membership and then re-add it when that barrier is broken in the near future. OmniNerd is a solid site with solid growth. I could understand if it were a personal website or a non-interactive page, or even just another bulletin board using the same code found on every site, but it's not. OmniNerd is built on 100% original code. I think it's unfortunate that such a site is getting resistence in a forum like wiki that seems to promote original thought and user interaction. If it is decided that this page must be removed, can we at least have the privledge of knowing some exact criteria for acceptance? We're not trying to abuse wikipedia, just add to it. Helpful suggestions, not abrupt deletion, would be much appreciated. MarkMcB 05:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be the highest-quality web site ever, but quality does not equal notability. Also, as one of the site's founders, you might have a slight bias. It would be best to allow someone else to create the article, to avoid the appearance of a vanity article. tregoweth 06:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. Dcarrano 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not good enough. -Haniff July 18
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Dmcdevit·t 03:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Prophecies of Joseph Smith[edit]

I don't see any way that this article could eventually conform to NPOV. It has about as much potential as a page devoted to examining the Scriptural backgrounds of papal proclamations. Furthermore, by analyzing the claimed prophecies, it would violate the "No original research" policy. Analysis of whether a prophecy is true prophecy or not belongs on sites other than Wikipedia. Kadett 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we know that everyones always going to put NPOV language and of coiurse thier own opinions into this, if we look at the edit history, hence delete. Gabrielsimon 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has already been discussed. The article has undergone major changes as a result. I believe the idea right now is to document the prophesies only, and make no attempt to determine truthfullness, which, as you've suggested, would be inappropriate. I thought this page should go away previously as it could serve only to promote fighting. See the take page for history and details. Friday 23:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, encyclopedic so long as it is essentially a laundry list of what the prophecies were. -- BD2412 talk 00:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, but only if it fits into the style suggested by BD2412 Youngamerican 01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if it can be brought up to a reasonably comprehensive list of prophecies and placed in something resembling chronological order. --MrWhipple 02:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Up until recently I had serious reservations about this article, but they have since been resolved. In its present form, it's informative, neutral, and does not represent 'original research' in any way. Gregmg 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, agree with Gabrielsimon. JamesBurns 06:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is important and can detail a vast amount of research done by various people on this critical topic. Please see the discussion concerning this part of Joseph Smith, Jr. on the Joseph Smith talk page as well as on this page. Jgardner 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. POV, but we've kept POVer lists of prophecies before. Almafeta 16:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a list of Smith quotations, and Smith's POV is certainly notable. Possible magnet for disputes, I suppose, but no more than any other religious page. Xoloz 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep, as long as the article explains how believers think the prophecy came true. Otherwise, there is little informative value, as only those who already know about the prophecies can judge whether they came true. --K. 05:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree strongly with K. This was how the page was originally organized, but this was opposed by several users. I think the page should have prophecy, evidence for, and evidence against -- this make it useful to see how Smith's prophecies have been interpreted by supporters and critics. Perhaps a neutral editor could be brought on board to help sort these issues out.
Response: Absolutely. The article certainly needs work, but I think that it can be worthwhile. NPOV doesn't mean no POVs are allowed; it simply means both (or more) POVs should be included. I have never read any of Smith's prophecy's and have no idea how to work out if they came true. This article could help by explaining both how supporters think it came true and why critics say they didn't. Being new to Smith's teachings, I'd be happy to help in adding different interpretations. --K. 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisionial Keep, This article can be informative and a worthwhile article on Wiki. However, it should be limited to a list of prophecies and possibly a very, limited explanation of each prophecy. Readers are quite capable of determining the value of each prophecy without an interpretation from each side or arguement regarding the validity of Joseph Smith's prophecy. Storm Rider 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is problematic. Smith was constantly issuing prophecies. A list of all of his prophecies would be a good part of his writing and speeches, much too long to fit in one article. Most of the prophecies listed so far are ones which are considered to have come true, gathered from pro-Mormon sites. Most of the prophecies are as unspecific as Nostradamus's prophecies. Almost anything could match the prophecy. Discussing the accuracy of the prophecy is worthwhile. Where does one go to find out information about Dan Jones? Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith#Word_of_Wisdom_related_conspiracies is similarly vague, but meaningful to modern Mormons. How can a casual viewer determine what these mean without further references? Maybe that is the point of a prophecy, it is general enough that it is probably true. Nereocystis 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Delete: The article as it stands at this time has no substantive content. There is no discussion of which of the prophecies have been fulfilled, or partially fulfilled, or failed. If the article previously had such content, then its deletion while a VfD was in process is a serious breach of Wikiquette, resembling, but not exactly, vandalism. Robert McClenon 22:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is too POV. Gateman1997 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find a few of the above comments disconcerting. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it's not a battleground. A religious war has no place in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Gregmg 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which comments? I can't see any that could be construed as soapboxing. --K. 05:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns aren't with inappropriate comments on this page, but instead with the desire of some to add POV to the referenced article. Gregmg 14:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people consider analyzing the prophecies to be POV. Others consider not analyzing the prophecies to be point of view. It would be helpful to specify what type of comments you don't like. Otherwise, it difficult to discuss objectionable comments. Nereocystis 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of analyzing prophecies is first identifying the meaning. As you review the current article's history, the two sides are miles apart on what Joseph Smith meant in a prophecy. I do find it interesting that those outside of the LDS church seem so stridently confident that their interpretation is the only legitimate prism through which to review Smith's prophecy. Conversely, those who are followers of Smith believe there is only one prism; the one that makes a prophecy true. I still remain unmoved that readers are not capable of reading individual prophecies and making their own interpretation of what it is meant. An introduction to the prophecy is adequate, but an analysis will only result in constant revert wars as is so evident in this article. Storm Rider 22:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Interpreting the Independence temple prophecy in D&C 84 depends on what Joseph Smith meant by "generation." Critics believe he meant within his lifetime. Believers believe generation is synonymous with dispensation. Some context here is necessary to understand the possible interpretations. I say give both and let the reader decide which is correct (or if they want a third alternative). --MrWhipple 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An analysis shouldn't be original research or opinion; it should simply state what different groups believe as to how the prophecy came true. That isn't POV, it's presenting facts about what people believe. How will there be edit wars about that? Does anyone disagree on what the LDS think about his prophecies? --K. 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the prophecies do not have official LDS interpretations. This is especially true of prophecies which may not have come true. There definitely is not a monolithic non-LDS viewpoint. However, this should be attempted. Let's try it with one or two prophecies, perhaps in the talk section, and see what it looks like. Nereocystis 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. As long as we stick to "this group believes this, while this other group believes this" then we don't get into POV issues of "this didn't come true/this did come true". --K. 13:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. But only if an analysis of the prophecies is included. Nereocystis 21:52, 22 July 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. Woohookitty 09:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Strawberry Alarm Clock[edit]

Not notable. Phoenix2 23:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep A very well known radio show in the Dublin region and quite well known throughout Ireland, definatly notable.
Unsigned comment by 83.70.226.51 (talk · contribs)
  • KEEP Very well known in the Irish capital.As it says in the article 'Dublin's Favourite'.This radio show would be known by 9 out of 10 Dubliner's in the street.Definetly notable.

--Fenian Swine 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • These comments are the first contribs for their respective IPs. Gwk 00:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is notable throughout Ireland. User:Mavetunney 01:50, 16 July 2005 (GMT)
Above comment is user's first and only edit. EvilPhoenix talk 00:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Will consider changing vote upon arguments from established editors demonstrably from Ireland. EvilPhoenix talk 00:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic local radio show CDC (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm demonstrably from Ireland. The page is accurate, the show exists, and is relatively well known in Dublin. Notable? I don't know what the threshold is for ghastly morning-commute radio shows and don't care. Ben-w 03:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Irish radio program as per Ben-W. If decided not to be notable, please have as redirect to the sixties band Strawberry Alarm Clock who had a huge hit with "Incense and Peppermints". Capitalistroadster 05:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anywhere, this belongs in the page about the radio station. Almafeta 16:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should be kept and added to the FM104 page. The show IS very well known in Dublin. Tunney 00:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with FM104. It's on the bubble of notability IMHO, though I suspect the standards for what makes a notable drive-time radio show depends a great deal on the size of the radio market in question. Just as an example, I'd take as a minimum standard Loren and Wally from Boston's WROR -- they are so well known in the Boston radio market that their parody songs have been played on other stations in the area from time to time, and their presence pretty much overshadows every other jock at the station (Matt Siegel, from WXKS in the same market, probably also qualifies). That said, I would ironically consider their station to be non-notable -- it's not exactly a cookie cutter station, its format defies easy categorization (classic hits, I believe it's best known as), but they are not the first station to hold those call letters and they're one of a stable owned by a fairly minor conglomerate whose major claim to fame is being early adopters of HD Radio. I would argue that if we were to assume some validity to the "Loren and Wally" test, altogether very few jocks meet the standard to begin with, and few of those jocks would be outside major markets. (I don't consider syndicated jocks in the same category -- they tend to be inherently notable. This "test" applies strictly regionally.) Haikupoet 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into FM104: A Google search for ("The Strawberry Alarm Clock" +FM104), with quotes as noted, returns 634 results. I find it non-notable for its own article, but if it truly is so well-known, put it into the FM104 article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:41, 17 July 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 both. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 01:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Hanson (Web designer) and EarlyBird[edit]

Non notable vanity pages. No real google results for various combinations of Richard Hanson, EarlyBird, Manchester, etc. Article doesn't establish notability, and this person has spammed links to eb.cx in various articles. Also relevant, see [27] and Special:Contributions/Attitudepc CryptoDerk 23:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, vanity, and more vanity. I wish this garbage could be speedied. Gwk 23:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You'll actually find dozens of pages related to this person. I think this is a simple case of user bias against the person. As you can see, other people have already shown an interest in the article, adding information to it.
    • Comment:Note, this unsigned vote is by the creator of the articles. IP is from England, surprise. Within minutes of posting an article the other person on the EarlyBird design team edited the article, surprise. Please stop spamming and self-promoting. CryptoDerk 23:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:Do you not think it's a bit arrogant and presumptious to assume that the other editor was from my team? A friend maybe, a member of my team certainly not.
    • Comment:OK look! I am not on his team whatsoever... Friend is what I am and nothing more... if you would notice. if you put my screen name into google, you'll find more links for my s/n than just his website... I'm also friends with a guy named brandon, who's website is exonyte.dyndns.org and my screen name appears for hits for his website thank you very much
  • Keep. because it provides biographical information about someone that some people on the internet may have an interest in. - attitudepc
    • Comment: I smell sockpuppetry... Gwk 00:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's kewl... - attitudepc
    • Comment: And I'd consider that comment defamatory. It's easy enough for people to check based on IP addresses if we are the same person and I'd caution you against making claims that impact somebody's reputation without having evidence to back it up.
    • Comment: Wait, were you making the claim that my IP is from the UK? If so, you're mistaken... I am very much in America. Houston, Texas to be more exact
      • Nobody claimed that. The two people involved with eb.cx are from Houston and England. The two IPs that have edited this page and the Richard Hanson page are from Houston and England. CryptoDerk 00:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • People shouldn't make assumptions about situations when they don't know what is going on. There is only one person involved in EarlyBird Web Design. EarlyBird. That is why the site is in England, the telephone number is in England, the fax number is in England and the address is in England. Attitudepc is only listed on the site because it was the only way to give her a blog on it.
          • This has nothing to do with the VFD. Vanity pages, self promotion, etc. are not allowed on Wikipedia. The fact that the IPs match with the locations listed for the people involved and the name "attitudepc" matches with what is on the eb.cx website are just meant to add evidence to my claim that this is vanity and self-promotion. That you two have continued to comment on here just backs up my proof. CryptoDerk 00:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To "Richard " or "Richard's friend" - Stop wasting your time. There is no way this is going to survive the VfD unless you include verfiable information that Richard Hanson has actually done something noteworthy. And it doesn't matter how many votes you or your friends cast here because WP is not a democracy anyway. Bobbis 00:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Richard is responsible for the world's first URL redirection service. The ruling on this site is that you shouldn't vote on subjects unless you have knowledge of the subject. If you had knowledge on this subject you would know of this person.
      • Well, TinyURL was around in Feb 2002 [28] and eb.cx domain wasn't even registered until 6 December 2003 [29]. Perhaps you need to provide evidence of where the EarlyBird URL redirection service was hosted prior to Feb 2002 to backup your claims? Furthermore, the Alexa rank of TinyURL.com is 1582 [30], which compares to an Alexa rank of "no data" for eb.cx [31]. You didn't really make the most of that first mover advantage, did you? P.S. nice work plugging your own site on Amazon reviews. Bobbis 01:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eric Forste 00:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/unverified. --Etacar11 00:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wouldn't find him notable even if his invention claims are true, since no proof has been given that this accomplishment made him especially well-known. And obviously his EarlyBird username is not independently notable either, that's just crazy talk. Dcarrano 02:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Richard may have a loyal friend, but his notability has not been established. carmeld1 00:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a business card holder. There are too many pages which are in effect mini biographies of persons who haven't established their noteworthiness. Just a hint to all aspiring brilliant persons: If you are noteworthy, someone else will write the article about you without prompting. Posthocergopropterhoc 05:35, 27 July 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. – ABCD✉ 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallitube[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable device. See above for similar products that were speedied and recreated by User:Hallitubes. Bobbis 23:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google hits: 6. Gwk 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [32] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, shameless. Manning 05:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain. I find the proposal interesting in itself, although the stub article is uninformative. Numerous other transportation proposals are in Wikipedia, and are not proposed for deletion. I'll fill some details in. I'm not associated with the project in any way. User:Ray Van De Walker 17:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax ? This is a 60+ page website, 100+ images, many 3d rendered, behind it is a cadre of transportation engineers and urban planning experts. Could one of you visit www.generaltransit.com ? We have not done news release yet...

Size of the website is not relevant. I have visited your website and saw nothing to change my vote. Manning 05:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

How can Manning Bartlett be a serious Wikipedia editor if he calls an Anti-congestion initiative "shameless advertising" with the top of the site saying "Nothing for sale"?

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for original research. Even though I listed this for deletion, I do think it is a very interesting proposal. However, it is only a proposal. Unless it is accepted or at least gains support in a wider sense, then it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if there was a prototype to show or if a technical journal had described it or if a newspapaer had done an article about it, then it could stay. As it stands the only evidence is a single website describing the concept. As an encyclopedia, WP should be very conservative about including new things - it should record history, not be a party in creating it. I am sorry, because I can tell this is something you are passionate about, but you should be directing that energy into gaining support for your ideas from the people that matter (venture capitalists, politicians and the media). Bobbis 12:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of edits over nearly 4 years pretty much gives me some credit as a serious editor. I am not suggesting your ideas aren't interesting or potentially successful. I also have no doubt your ideas might become encyclopediacal one day, and they will rightfully take their place in the pedia. But in the early days it was decided that the 'pedia is not the place to present every new idea on earth. Most new ideas fail and we cannot record them all. Hence the "Crystal Ball" rule that Bobbis describes above. It's nothing personal. Get your project implemented and you'll get no end of coverage here. Manning 10:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The difference (and significance) of an electronic (as opposed to physical) encyclopedia is that it can rapidly respond to events, and has lower institutional barriers to entry. The Hallitube Initiative has over 20 separate proposals, here is what academics say about it from our news release:"An innovative strategy that merits consideration for alleviating congestion and encouraging alternate transportation". Dr. Stephen Mattingly, Univ. of Tex. "A great attempt to solve the current urban transportation problem", Dr. Morton Gulak, Va. Com. Univ. "Maybe we cannot beam you up, but we can tube you over" Dr. Kenneth Waldron, Prof. of Mech. Eng., James Clark Faculty Scholar, Stanford Univ. "Makes a lot more sense than the public vehicle aspect of other PRT systems" Dr. K. Kockelman, Univ. of Tex. "An interesting project worthy of consideration" Dr. Kevin Krizek, Director, ACT Transp. Research Group, Univ. of Minn. "Sounds really promising" Prof. R. Gakenheimer, MIT, Chair, Int. Sci. Cmte. of Coop. for Dev. and Improvement of Urban Transp. "Hallitubes should provide everyone who is frustated and disgusted by the traffic situation in our cities with the hope that very soon,we well be able to cost-effectively tame the monster that the car has become." Dr. J. Kolo, Florida Atlantic University. "The (referendum) microflyovers make sense..." Dr. R. Layton, Prof. of Transp. Engineering, Ore. State Univ. "The proposed Hallitube pylons are an innovative potential use of prestressed concrete.." Dr. A. Schokker, Henderson Prof. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Pennsylvania. "This is an innovative private market solution that deserves further study and consideration." Friends of S. Calif. Highways,Fixtraffic.org.

Traffic is the biggest urban problem of the day. This is not a remote subject, unlike the surface composition of Mars, it carries intense public interest. The costs of this problem are extreme, and we have waited for 20 years for academia and government to act. You say you cannot present every idea. For most areas that makes sense, but in this particular area, you should really present every idea, in part because it does not take experts to examine the viablity. If you become like bureaucrats defending rules, you fail to fullfill a novel role wikipedia can represent. If major academics say this deserves attention, and you suppress, you identify yourself clearly as part of an establishment that apparently has decided someone's interest are served by traffic congestion.

How do you go about deciding that a discussion of the French Trottoir Roulant should have a concept design of an American version removed, or that "car stopping" technologies should not be included in an enceclopedia, when 1000 California mothers could not pick their children up in time because of another police chase ? By definition, the discussion of any concept is an advertising for itself. If you write a thread on a BB, prior to the existence of the web, the idea of an "online encyclopedia called wikipedia" is this a new concept, or should it be suppressed because it is "advertising" something ? You need to look for informational density and novelty to determine if something is an advert. The California Stem Cell proposition was 2 years in the making before it was passed. Should this be suppressed from discussion because it has not been voted on yet ? The inclusion criteria must be 1)relevancy and 2)informational density. The fact that it is being proposed cannot count against inclusion. Would you have allowed Michelson-Morrison to allege that there is no Aether when everybody in Physics thought there was one ? Open up a little, and think about the collective costs of traffic congestion for humanity as a whole. You are saying " let the west fail, we don't like it anyway". Incidentally, the current entry for Hallitubes is not written by our staff. (by 66.27.105.251 16:02, 26 July 2005 )

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Google. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Google community[edit]

Found nomination unfinished, completing. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be merely self-promotion; subject does not warrant a Wikipedia article ~ Booyabazooka 02:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the above person is right, since this article hasn't been updated in a long time and seems to serve no purpose as of yet other than a placeholder page, which potentially can be occupied by an article deemed capable and purposeful. Eric 09:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Google. Gwk 00:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Google, Alexa #39,096 and decent membership justifies a link or one-sentence mention there, but not a full article. Dcarrano 03:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Google, not notable on its own. JamesBurns 06:38, 16 July 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 02:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Highway electrification[edit]

Advert (see numerous other entries above Bobbis 23:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [33] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Car-stopping technology[edit]

Advert (see above) Bobbis 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 00:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (or redirect to one of brake, wall, telephone pole...?) CDC (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would add gun, SWAT team, police car and spike strip to the list above. UncleFloyd 05:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [34] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

car-stopping technology IS under development. Not covering the details makes wkipedia poorer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 02:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Spot-a-lot[edit]

Advert Bobbis 00:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [35] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Accident shielding[edit]

Advert Bobbis 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedy if possible. Enough with the 'parking lot' adverts already! Gwk 00:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are seeming like a series of jokes or something. "H.Patrol" in the article is not even defined, I am guessing it is the California Highway Patrol or some variant there of, perhaps to the level of Eric Estrada in a CHP uniform, as it would be better than the Arkansas real estate ads you see on TV at 3AM he has been doing of late. UncleFloyd 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [36] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yielding Light[edit]

I'm getting pretty tired of VfDing these adverts. Could probably speedy these, but some might want to be redirects (see above). What should I do about User:Hallitubes who is creating all this rubbish? I have left a warning on his/her talk, but (s)he needs watching I suspect. Bobbis 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. This is rediculous. Gwk 00:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — unreferenced article about a "proposed" law. — RJH 22:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [37] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect Gigi - no merge anywhere, because text was just a c&p of Gigi (1958 movie). CDC (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi (movie)[edit]

  • Delete or at least redirect to Gigi (1958 movie) --Amoore 03:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually redirect to Gigi to cover all movies by that name (even though we seem to have an article only on the one). I'll do it if no one objects to this. -R. fiend 00:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, on second thought, the other redirect is better. That's the movie everyone will be looking for. A dab header at the top should be added though (if not there already). -R. fiend 17:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. This "article" appears to have been cut-and-pasted from somewhere so is probably a copyvio anyway. 23skidoo 04:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gigi. JamesBurns 06:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Vegaswikian 07:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Gigi (1958 movie). There is a separate Gigi page that covers all the movies. — RJH 22:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per RJH. carmeld1 00:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
More