< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[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.

Harry Timmer[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete Dunc|☺ 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC) This is an article about a non-notable person that provides very little in the way of information. I vote for delete. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 16:47 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs; adding to today's log. --cesarb 4 July 2005 00:21 (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. Dunc|☺ 14:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gil_Student[edit]

because it is a Vanity Page Eliezer 4 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

A page for Slifkin too[edit]

Above, JFW wrote that "even Slifkin probably shoudn't have a page." Why not? This controversy is shaking the Orthodox world, and may even reinforce both a sociological split and have huge theological repercussions for the entire idea of rabbinic authority in Orthodoxy. It is of very serious historical interest. Just because something happens over the web and on blogs doesn't mean it isn't "real". This is real.

The publisher of books that were banned in the midst of a world-wide controversy is certainly noteworthy. Dovi 07:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

While the person who put this article up for VfD is indeed member of Chabad, it must nevertheless be judged on its own merits, regardless of the motivations of the nominator. Jayjg (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dovi, there is something called vanity and non-notable, this exists in this situation to try to argue against it by saying that it is because of his stance on chabad is avoiding the issue and an attempt to change the subject. This has nothing to dow ith anything that Student has said or done in the past. Writing a book that is published by a vanity press isn't notable and neither is running a small blog. Even printing a controversial book in his own printing press doesn't make someone notable. --Eliezer 08:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not just "controversial." It is at the center of a world-wide controversy. A Cherem of the type that happened here is not unusual at all, by the way. What is different is that this cherem was followed by an internet rebellion, one that included the active participation of rabbis and scholars from around the world! This has never happened before, it is of extreme historical interest, and yes, Eliezer, it is of extraordinary importance.

Of course, Jayjg, I agree that the case should be decided on its own merits. But the fact that that has not happened on this page is a cause for concern. Wikipedia has the stats on every mediocre athlete in the country, and they are not deleted as "vanity" pages.

Eliezer, I would like to point out to you that I am not a big fan of Gil Student, and in fact his extreme views on Chabad are part of what I oppose. But there is no denying that he has played an important role in extremely important events recently. Dovi 08:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is a vanity page?[edit]

This page is listed for deletion as a vanity page. However, it meets none of the requirements for a vanity page:

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

The article as it stands is salient and not promotional. Even if Gil Student wrote the page (which he apparently did not) it would not be a candidate for deletion.

In fact - and this is cute! - even if Gil S. himself thinks he is not noteworthy enough for a page (as Jayjg wrote above), that is not reason for deletion :-)!

Since there are no "vanity page" grounds for removal in terms of policy, I move that we dismiss this whole motion. It is not even worthy of a vote. Dovi 08:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, this isn't how wikipedia works, you get a chance to vote which you have, and so does everyone else. Apparently based on the votes placed until now nearly all votes that are allowed to be counted say that it's either vanity or not notable. --Eliezer 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that some people really weren't fully aware of the events going on that Student was involved in, or of why they are so important. I dare say that no one would consider deleting information about actors in a controversy of similar importance regarding another religious or policial issue. The article as it currently stands is quite clearly not "vanity" and is quite notable. If fact, more articles should be added on the topic, including Nosson Slifkin and cleaning of Jewish creationism (though this controversy goes well beyond general Jewish creationism in its importance). The article on Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv should also be expanded to reflect this and other important charamim that he has decreed. Dovi 10:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

To quote JFW above "If Student's only merit is putting out controversional books with a small readership, then he may not be notable." --Eliezer 11:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, their readership is huge now, precisely because of what the article described. They are having a publishing boom. Second of all, I respectfully disagree with the notion that publishing banned books in general is not of notable interest. Actually, it is of great interest to many (witness the "Banned books" section at the "Online Books Page"). Even JFW was hesitant ("may not"), because this really goes against all intuition. Thirdly, this banning controversy, especially because of the immediate and publically defended reissue, goes well beyond a general cherem of the Rav Shach or Rav Elyashiv type.Dovi 11:08, July 10, 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 DeleteDunc|☺ 16:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myosin Unrooted Tree[edit]

Almost nothing but an image. The image itself is at use in phylogenetic tree and myosin. Nabla 2005-07-04 01:17:50 (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 00:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

SoBe No Fear[edit]

Oh, for god's sake, here it is again. We deleted this last year; all the reasons still apply, I think?DS 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Article listed on WP:VFD Apr 21 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to delete (9 votes v. 3 to keep and 1 to merge). Discussion:

Promotional material and a wikified list of ingredients. - DS, 18:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And several others linked from South Beach Beverage Company. Niteowlneils 18:25, 21 Apr 2004 (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 keep Dunc|☺ 17:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Kelly[edit]

Being the CEO of a bank is not sufficient notability for inclusion. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 01:32 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and move to Del-Vikings. 9k+m including redirects, 1k, 1d(before rewrite). -Splash 01:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dell-Vikings[edit]

non-notable entry, may be related to 1950s band The Del-Vikings, which does not have an entry of any kind. --Mitsukai 4 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)Redirect to The Del-Vikings--Mitsukai 4 July 2005 15:58 (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 deleteDunc|☺ 17:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nevenic[edit]

Ran twice, lost twice. I think you have to be pretty notable to merit an article on that basis. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 02:17 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Userfy to user:Grujic.markoDunc|☺ 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Grujić[edit]

Classical vanity Denni☯ 2005 July 4 02:43 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 17:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeafrel bahian[edit]

No evidence of notability. Delete. JeremyA 4 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Jewish media[edit]

Article is blatently point of view skewed and I can't see how this article could be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV Guidelines Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 04:42 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 18:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updation[edit]

WP:WINAD. Dicdef neologism without possibility of expansion. Delete. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

Additional Comment -- even if it were a good word, it would only be a candidate for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. -- WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense JeremyA 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Meneber[edit]

Delete - nonsense. Rocky July 4, 2005 05:31 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboardia[edit]

This article is about a messageboard with very little internet presence. The site itself seems to be down, and this journal makes me believe that it's down about as often as it's up. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Read the writing on the wall, or insert your own cliché here. Please, just let this die with no further fuss. ADB 9 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Comment The critera by which something can be declared "not notable" apply to personal biographies, musical groups and webcomics. Thus any attempt to apply these criterea to this article is inherently flawed.

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 18:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Jahangir[edit]

This is a criminal, but not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.

Just a correction here, Kala Jahangir is a criminal, not a terrorist (being from Bangladesh, I can attest to that). There are hundreds of thousands of criminals who are convicted of this crime or other in every country. Not all of them get articles. --Ragib 4 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to FireWire. – Alphax τεχ 4 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

I.link[edit]

This overlaps with the information already found at IEEE_1394. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
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 deleete Dunc|☺ 19:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Pancho[edit]

I created this article April 17 last year. Pancho (not to be confused with the Hotel chain) didnt reach the final of Popstars and hasnt done very much since, Delete. Iam July 4, 2005 06:16 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to wiktionary. Dunc|☺ 18:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mezanmi[edit]

WP:WINAD. This is a foreign language dicdef. Already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 07:04 (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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armchair Position[edit]

This page has returned --Bedel23 July 4, 2005 07:21 (UTC)

I've changed the template to ((deleteagain)). Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)


Too bad this kind of rubbish is not speedy deletable. Not that I'm a prude - it's that the writing is so pathetic. Denni☯ 23:34, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep @Dunc|☺ 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Part[edit]

*NN, POV, "he is a cock." Vote to Delete. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete (though it could have been speedied asnonsense) Dunc|☺ 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gavin[edit]

not notable enough; perhaps after deciding the color of his hair, he can achieve some notability ? JoJan 4 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Adrael[edit]

Delete. Not notable. Though wikified, the text of this article come from the subject's site. Google results yield only posts by the subject. Bubamara 4 July 2005 08:47 (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 No consensus. Woohookitty 07:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Consciousness Review[edit]

Should this go in the "External links" section of consciousness instead? —Ghakko 4 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

  • Comment I can assure you that it is legitimate science - Ned Block and Patricia Churchland are on the editorial board as well. This is an area which science is just starting to be able to address because of the cognitive revolution in psychology.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aynarchists[edit]

This is an unreferenced personal essay about a sub-strand of discontented anarchists (isn't that an oxymoron?). Its POV, names no believers of the cause, and shows no proof that the political belief exists further than the anon's bedroom. Harro5 July 4, 2005 09:26 (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 Keep. Woohookitty 07:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Seen On TV[edit]

Amazon and Google both failed to return any results for a book called "As Seen On TV" by Chris Kerr. The book is apparantly only in print in the UK, and the article seems to be spam. Non-notable, spam, etc. Alphax τεχ 4 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Rebecca Birch[edit]

Looks like a hoax, I couldn't find any relevant google hits. I did find a relevant VFD here though. Leithp July 4, 2005 11:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep Dunc|☺ 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Observatory[edit]

Obsolete and irrelevent bunch of elderly time-wasters contributing nothing to Professional astronomy or Physics. Vote speedy delete.

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

The result of the debate was keep Dunc|☺ 19:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gifford Observatory[edit]

Just another small amateur observatory with antique equipment, contributing nothing to Professional astronomy or physics. Vote speedy delete.


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as very short article with no context. FCYTravis 4 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Intersoft[edit]

Delete. There's no content, just contact info for some company. I tried (a little) to look it up, but the name is so generic, I didn't get anywhere. Bubamara 4 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletee (nonsense) Dunc|☺ 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samir al-Sumaidai[edit]

Tagged as speedy without reason given, while the mentioned interview should make this verifiable. I'm unsure whether the UN had a Iraqi ambassador though. Bringing it here instead. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 11:28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Charles Reid[edit]

Blatantly obvious vanity. If someone's going to write your biography eventually let them. But a Wikipedia entry should state why someone is important. And then there's also a WP:BIO. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 11:54 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was it's a copyvio. The article was tagged as such. - Mgm|(talk) July 5, 2005 07:54 (UTC)

Frugalware[edit]

Wikipedia isn't an FAQ. Delete - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 12:06 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was This article was nominated for deletion on July 4, 2005, but the vote was a unanimous keep. Meelar (talk) 15:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The System of the World (novel)[edit]

DELETE - THIS IS ADVERTISING A NOVEL. by User:66.68.202.116

This was never posted to the log, so I'm completing this process. This does look like a vandal, I agree, but summarily closing an unposted VfD is unusual so I thought I'd bring it here. -Splash July 4, 2005 12:12 (UTC)

*Notice: this IP is a vandal taking revenge because two of his pages are going to be deleted. I am closing this VfD, as such. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

  • I'm not too happy with a summary closing of a VfD by a non-admin. It wasn't even listed on the log properly; a VfD is rarely closed early, more usually the probable vandal is given a slap on the wrist and after a couple of keep votes, nothing else happens until, after 5 days, someone closes to keep. I've also reinstated the VfD tag on the page. If an admin wants to close this discussion and remove the tag, I would raise absolutely no objection at all. -Splash July 4, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
Good to report them. I just think that following process is the way to go, and, like I said, I wouldn't object to an early close if that was done by an admin (just because it's out-of-process). -Splash July 4, 2005 12:15 (UTC)
Aye, the report was acted on, quite fast I might add. I just asked an admin to come by and close this VfD, if appropriate I suppose. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:21 (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 00:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Newell[edit]

Either non-existant person, or person claiming to do things that they just did not do. Xtra 4 July 2005 12:37 (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 deleteDunc|☺ 19:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Community communications[edit]

Looks like an advertisement, certainly not NPOV. Delete page. IByte 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Definitely not an advertisement (?), but rather an synopsis of a quasi-religious organisation's beliefs. est and Church_of_Scientology have entries.

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

The result of the debate was Merge & Redirect to Clifton College Dunc|☺ 19:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton College Register[edit]

This is a book about Clifton College. This page however duplicates Clifton College. All encyclopedic information, (a list of famous old boys, and all headmasters) are already included the Clifton College article. The rest of the page is a short description of Clifton College (duplicating what is already in Clifton College) and some subtrivia about who was the 100th pupil listed in the book. I was going to say redirect to Clifton College, but since there's a guard on it I'm going to vote delete. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 13:14 (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. Woohookitty 07:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Championship Game, 1966[edit]

one-liner, and there's so many NFL related article I'm sure that one line could go somewhere else Elfguy 4 July 2005 14:17 (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 delete Dunc|☺ 19:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Fun Pack[edit]

This article (Jolly Fun Pack) is currently under attack by many prominent members of Wikipedia.

Although the Jolly Fun Pack's roots are obscure, (Who knows of Charlotte, VT, where the first Jolly Fun Pack was created?) this article is not vandalism! For some reason, prominent members temporarily block me from editing pages for my contribution, as they probably will for making this text blurb here. Well this one is for all those who keep nagging me and calling me a "vandal": I'm trying to contribute, not vandalize! My intentions are the same as yours! To convey correct, conscise information to the general public! Why do you persecute me for that? You can block me from editing pages for putting this text blurb here but it will only be a lasting mark on your conscience! You will have shut up an innocent member of Wikipedia! Somebody tell me! Why is this vandalism? Why do I get punished for my contributions? If that's the way this whole "free encyclopedia" is, then it should be erased immediately because it's not free. My voice has been deleted from this encyclopedia many times! Where's the freedom in that? Exactly. There is none! There's not enough justice and peace in the world today, and we don't need people creating more problems in Wikipedia by banning someone when he tries to contribute! Block me if you must, see what I care! You are only injuring your own clean conscience! You can silence me through blocking but this message will have already been received by thousands, maybe even millions of people across the world. If I get blocked, they will turn away form you administrators because they know my plea! Someone tell me what I need to do to make this not portrayed as "vandalism"! Let justice prevail in Wikipedia! That will be all.

vanity page, check contribs by the person who created it, he made tons of pages about himself and related subjects Elfguy 4 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete #Dunc|☺ 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander craven griffiths[edit]

vanity Elfguy 4 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Deleted I will create a short article at CRISP to link to the original source Stewart Adcock 20:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of biomedical terms[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

The cited article is just a placeholder for 27 long articles containing nothing but lists of terms:

all of which I'm proposing for deletion. I only put the ((subst:vfd)) tag on the first one, because doing it 27 more times was too painful (and seemed rather pointless).

This is a huge list of terms imported from a thesaurus found on an NIH web site. They appear to be keywords culled from research grant applications. The problems are several. The vast majority don't link to anywhere. Many of the concepts have corresponding articles, but not under those exact names. It appears that the source is updated weekly, which means this list is out of date almost immediately. This is a mindless import of data, with no added encyclopedic value. See Talk:List of biomedical terms for more info.

This was on VfD recently in a slightly different form, and was voted to keep, but it appears to have been largely by default with little or no discussion and almost no voter input. I think it's worth another round, if only to build a strong consensus one way or the other.

RoySmith 4 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Hi Elfgy this comment may refer to something I did when I broke up these pages. Could you clarify what you mean so I can learn how to do it correctly in the future? David D. 5 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
I answered off-line at User talk:Daycd --RoySmith 5 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with these; can you provide a link to them? --RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
To be fair to the whoever started this, it's almost certainly not a copyvio, since it (apparently) comes from the NIH web site, and the US government doesn't assert copyright. RoySmith 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
But are they missing articles? I think this is the main problem with this list. Do we want these articles? Why invite people to create articles that will eventually become merged or redirected? Why don't we focus on the important gaps. There are already wanted articles lists in wikipedia. The difference is that those articles have been requested for a reason. David D. 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
I think that would be a mistake. I just took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. It says (in big friendly letters), The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available. That may be a laudable goal, but wholesale importation of this list isn't going to advance it. This isn't a list of somebody else's encyclopedia articles, it's a list of keywords from a database of research grants. It's not even clear that they came from a controlled vocabulary, such as MeSH. What if somebody created List of every professional athelete who ever played in any sport? What about List of every license plate number ever issued in the US? Would those be worthy of becomming List of missing encyclopedia articles? RoySmith 5 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
You know what - you're right, and I should have done more research first. We should certainly be looking out for a medical encyclopedia, and looking to match its coverage, but this list isn't it. It's more than just keywords, if you look at CRISP, but it is only a thesaurus, a controlled vocabulary. There are a huge number of terms in there that we should have articles for, but probably at least an equal number that we shouldn't, and there's no way (without specific knowledge of the topics, which I don't have) to tell which is which. Changing my vote to delete, unless anyone more knowledgeable wants to take it on. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

This should not be deleated. It does provide a great way of redirection of definitions not found elsewhere.


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

The result of the debate was:Moved to SOKOL, awaiting promised expansion. Stewart Adcock 21:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOKOL Aircraft Building Plant[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, in my opinion. Zpb52 July 4, 2005 15:23 (UTC)

But this article is about the plant that produces the planes, not the company itself. --Zpb52 July 4, 2005 15:49 (UTC)
If you think that the company is notable, whereas the plant itself is not, then maybe we should just move this article to Nizhny Novgorod Aircraft building plant Sokol (the name of the company) instead of deleting it. As far as I can tell from the company website, the company operates only this plant, so the article can more or less stay intact. Sietse 4 July 2005 16:12 (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. Woohookitty 07:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HansaWorld[edit]

No relevancy established, seems to be just an ad, too little for even a stub, unwikified, ... Delete. S.K. 4 July 2005 15:25 (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 delete Dunc|☺ 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dike D[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. No related Google hits. No "what links here" articles. No article substance. Looks like just a platform for external link. Zpb52 July 4, 2005 15:29 (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 No consensus. Almost a tie vote. Woohookitty 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess[edit]

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
Then by that logic, let's get rid of BJAODN and the Department of Fun, too! I'm sure it's not related to Wikipedia at all! -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
No that's not the point. There's no where else you can commit to community-building. "Other websites" do not have a en:wikipedia community. Let's delete BJAODN too, by that logic. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
Comment. 217.43.8.74 only has 3 edits. Furthermore, it's not "going elsewhere to screw around", because it's to build relations with other editors, so "going elsewhere" wouldn't work. Building such relations indirectly contributes to a more cohesive, consistent encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has expanded ever since its conception over three years ago, and we currently have hundreds of active members, each offering his/her contributions, building up the diversity and greatness in Wikipedia. With the growing usage of the site, though, tensions will inevitably amount. Tempers will flare, and edit wars will begin. Users with no other place to turn will vent their frustration on other Wikipedians.

While the above may be an "Armageddon" prediction, the truth is that Wikipedians need places to relax and unwind. WikiChess, currently located in the sandbox, is one of the multiple sites for WikiFun. Incidentally, Wikifun is an extremely popular game that has now drawn a plethora of attention, and multiple users are playing it as we speak. WikiChess serves a similar purpose to the many other Wikipedia pages which serve to entertain or challenge. BJAODN has kept hundreds of Wikipedians laughing for months; the WikiFun tournament has frustrated- and amused- users for a long time, and X-treme deletion has lasted through its own x-treme VfD. What distinguishes WikiChess from the other entertainment and amusement pages?

Indeed, WikiChess is no different from WikiFun or the other entertainment pages. It serves to keep Wikipedians involved, and is a great place at the end of a long day of RC patrolling to meet with fellow Wikipedian chess enthusiasts. In fact, chess has been scientifically proven to stimulate the mind- allowing better editing and writing! Seriously, though, WikiChess has done no harm- there have been no recorded incidents or complaints that it impedes with normal Wikipedian editing and Wikipedia operations.

As to WikiChess being in the sandbox, it can- and should- be moved to a Wikipedia: page of its own soon. It has attained an honored status similar to that of WikiFun, and is deserving of its own nameplace, just like the many other Wikipedia: pages which serve to keep us amused.

To respond to the concern that WikiChess will draw more users who will only play chess: the more users, the better! We currently have a dire situation where most people who create an account do not stay long-term. Are we to chase away potential editors, writers, and Wikipedians when they stumble onto our pages? Besides, there will be no influx of people who join Wikipedia solely for the chess- as argued in your letter above, there are much better gaming sites that offer free chess. People only interested in chess will ultimately end up in those sites.

Erik also makes an argument that once the games have developed, it will clutter up the RC patrolling. Will one move per game per day really make a huge difference? Do people not respond to the challenging questions at WikiFun, and do people not add more nonsense to BJAODN? The extremely small number of edits to be performed would hardly make an impact, and personally, when I am RC patrolling, do not mind these edits. Besides, it certainly does not require much effort to look at the edited page and determine that it is a chess game.

In addition, the above letter also argues that the page clutters the Wikipedia: namespace and also will serve as a reflection of Wikipedia. One additional page will not clutter the namespace, and one page (out of over 600,000 articles alone) will not change the reflection of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, was, and will be a free-content encyclopedia, albeit with policies, user pages, and other community-building pages.

Finally, I do share the concerns with Erik that there will be an abundance of new game pages. However, the matter at hand is the fate of WikiChess, and the other pages should not affect this vote. A new policy limiting the start of new pages, as proposed by Erik, should be a completely different debate irrelevant to this one.

Thus, I urge everyone to rook- oops, I mean keep- and save this noble WikiGame. Thank for taking the time out of your busy Wiki-Schedule to read this, and happy editing!

Regards,

Flcelloguy --Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 8 July 2005 20:59 (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 Either keep or no consensus. Keep either way. Woohookitty 07:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Game_of_Go[edit]

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (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 keep, but a move to Wikipedia:Hangman may be in order. -- BD2412 talk 02:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Hangman[edit]

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)
No, because there aren't any other sites for recreational activities modeled for the en: Wikipedia community, and where the editors can thus gather to commune. -- Natalinasmpf 15:04, 11 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 10 to delete (including the nominator); 8 to keep; 2 to move; and 1 to merge. -- BD2412 talk 02:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers[edit]

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free checkers online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinar Dilseker[edit]

A short stub in Turkish. A web search indicates that it might be about a musician. The article has been on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks without being translated. So I'm listing it here in order to decide what we're going to do with it. Sietse 4 July 2005 15:29 (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, note that HOUSD will be kept due to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HOUSD ending with a no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Graham[edit]

tagged as speedy, appears to be vanity. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 15:42 (UTC). Also consider HOUSD. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 15:43 (UTC) oh and The Genghis Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 15:44 (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. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Dreamer's Theory[edit]

Delete non-notable neologism lacking proper citation. The reference included in the article[9] doesn't seem to refer to the phenomena cited in the article and a google for the term turns up no hits[10]. Axon 4 July 2005 15:47 (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. Note: "What links here" clearly shows that there are at least two notable (and very dead) James Lindsays. Nothing in this article would be at all helpful to the creation of those articles. Rossami (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Lindsay[edit]

Vanity Groeck 4 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HOUSD[edit]

Seems to be at best, non-notable fancruft and vanity. While not criteria by deletion by themselves, the element of advertising, plus the lack of NPOV, and the non-verifiable material condemns it all the more. Delete. Consider also The Genghis and Ali Graham. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 16:05 (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.  Grue  19:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Genghis[edit]

Seems to be at best, non-notable fancruft and vanity. While not criteria by deletion by themselves, the element of advertising, plus the lack of NPOV, and the non-verifiable material condemns it all the more. Delete. Consider also HOUSD and Ali Graham. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 16:05 (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.  Grue  19:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gkfa[edit]

Article about website- could be ad, vanity, or non-notability. As always, I could be wrong. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:34 (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.  Grue  20:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher[edit]

Vanity. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 16:39 (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 ambiguous.

The majority decision is clearly to delete this as a mere dicdef. However, there is merit to Proto's suggestion to make this a redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. This would be a logical shortcut that parallels such shortcuts as [[be bold]] and [[assume good faith]]. Finding nothing objectionable in the history that requires deletion from Wikipedia, I am going to make it into a redirect as suggested. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

undelete[edit]

For an old notice about administrators following links in deleted articles, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Undelete/2004 November 14.
User:Duncharris nominated this article for deletion on 2005-07-04, but since a discussion page already existed omitted one of the three steps. I've moved the prior page out of the way and added the required header. This is not a vote. Uncle G 4 July 2005 17:30 (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.  Grue  20:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon R Jones[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. There are many famous people named Simon Jones, but not one, according to the article itself. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 17:05 (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, 11k, 1d(nominator), 1 anon, 1 repeat discounted and Oirvin too since ~20 edits at that point. Already listed for expansion. -Splash 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deepcut Barracks[edit]

The page is biased and does not present both side of the story, it has no relevance. (ColeR 04/07/05 @ 1832)

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

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 1 "keep as is", 2 "redirect" and 5 "delete" (including the anon nominator). In this case, I find no evidence that the anon is a sockpuppet and will allow the vote.

The concensus is clear that this article should not remain as an independent article. Looking at the article myself, I see an unexpandable single sentence at a title which is unlikely to be used. I am going to call this one as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Mule Pati and Pem Dorjee Sherpa[edit]

Note: Relisting this, as the previous nomination seems to have been incomplete. Original nomination follows.--MarkSweep 4 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

No relevance --213.7.22.2 10:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free hugs[edit]

Non-notable with some original research. Note that no pages link here. GabrielF 4 July 2005 17:59 (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 keep, but move to Human Cannonball (album). Rather than make this title a disambig, I think the better practice is to redirect it to Human cannonball, and drop a reference to the album above that article. -- BD2412 talk 02:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Human Cannonball[edit]

Delete as unencyclopaedic--File Éireann 4 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

  • Comment: If this were merged into School of Fish, then it would also call for merging in their other album (School of Fish (album)) into the School of Fish article. If one was to merge that one into School of Fish as well, then that would make a really confusing article with two infoboxes. The albums should be kept seperate from the main article. I'm still in favor of moving to Human Cannonball (album). Jaxl 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
  • Comment: Problems with formatting are not a reason to seperate separate an article. Fourty or so extra lines can easily fit in the 'base' School Of Fish. Unless there is something particulary noteworthy about these album other than their existance they do not merit their own articles. OkI'llUseTheSameNameJustThisOnce 9 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe so, but I've definitely seen album articles with less information. I didn't author the article, and it doesn't really matter to me if it is deleted or merged into School of Fish, but I wouldn't mind it being moved as I said above. If someone can figure out how to deal with the infoboxes already present (or maybe even just delete them), then go ahead and merge the articles. Jaxl 9 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. -- BD2412 talk 05:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oxford Union Society Hilary 2005 Elections[edit]

Pfft - it's not that bad. Plus, it's quite funny.

I can't believe the amendment to the drugs entry was deleted, removing reference to the lib dems! shame!

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously with discounted malicious anon nomination.-Splash

Donggala[edit]

nonsense, where is this alleged place 203.98.57.97 4 July 2005 18:58 (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, 4k, 1d, nominator discounted. -Splash 01:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drivecam[edit]

nonsense, its a camera in a car, possibly a trade name and advert 203.98.57.97 4 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreated deleted content. FCYTravis 4 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Pink_Poogle_Toy[edit]

This article has been deleted previously ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PinkPT ). Website/Forum advertising, doesn't need its own page. Melesse 4 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously. -Splash 01:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Python Imaging Library[edit]

Merge into the Packages for Python section of Python programming language IByte 4 July 2005 20:38 (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!) 10:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mowbray's[edit]

I can't make sense of this entry. Google doesn't enlighten the meaning either.

lots of issues | leave me a message 4 July 2005 20:43 (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 backlight. CDC (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backlit[edit]

DicDef. Merge to Backlight if anything. Nifboy 4 July 2005 21:10 (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. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Severiano Juncal[edit]

not notable/vanity--Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:11 (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. CDC (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agoratherapy[edit]

Not notable enough/original research -- BMIComp (talk) 4 July 2005 21:36 (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 keep. The vote to keep an article on the concept of the expression of anti-polish sentiments is clear. For the record, I count:

16 straight "keep" votes (discounting an anon vote and several voters with few Wikipedia edits)
4 "keep or rename"
5 "keep and rename"
4 "rename"
1 "Keep and split" (which a number of voters agreed was a good option)
2 "delete" (including the nominator)
1 "merge"

What really appears to be at issue in this VfD is the appropriate name for this article. That is a matter to be settled on the article's talk page. -- BD2412 talk 05:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism[edit]

This article is an admitted neologism, as well as an apparent attempt to incorporate Nazi attrocities against Poles, the Prussian (later, German), Austro-Hungarian and Russian (later, Soviet) occupation of Poland, ethnocentric denigration of Poles, and perhaps a few other gripes, together into a single article. What's here can mostly be incorporated into Polish September Campaign, Holocaust, History of Poland, and Ethnic slurs. Even after the cleanup by Jayjg, it remains absurdly POV. The rest of it needs to go, as it's little more than uncited WP:NOR and a magnet for POV-pushers. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Which books? HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
The term is used in an article written by a Warsaw University professor. HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Again a Polish source. HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
I wouldn’t call the wars anti-American prejudice either, since they were wars, not planned extermination of people (civil men, women and children) of particular ethnic groups. The Nazi kind of occupation was not normal (as you noticed) nor it was similar to the same in other countries. Also, it’s not about the Nazis only. The article refers mostly to war times, because there were mostly wars in Poland. Still, there is a difference between occupation and persecution, though both may happen simultaneously. If you can develop the issue of prejudice against Polish emigrants, please, do. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

A.J. 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Ejdzej (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. A.J.) has 20 edits on enwiki (1268 on plwiki). To quote User:Ttyre: "Votes of the users from other Wikipedias were not counted during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote." HKT 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Is there any official policy that prohibits to edit more than one wiki ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I'm merely citing a precedent (about the validity of votes) for which there seems to be consensus. HKT 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
krzyp (talk · contribs) has 6 edits, all to his user page and this VfD. HKT 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Unsigned edit by User:82.139.13.231 - Noted by It'sMe 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
Piom (talk · contribs) has 3 edits to enwiki (4659 to plwiki). To quote User:Ttyre: "Votes of the users from other Wikipedias were not counted during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote." HKT 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are basicly two points being debated here:
  • Is this a new word for an existing thing? (I.e. should this article be renamed?)
  • Does this thing actually exist? (I.e. Should this article be deleted?)
The answer to the first question is contained in the article itself. Thus, at the very least this article should be renamed.
The answer to the second question is more complex, and could perhaps be restated as:
  • Does this thing actually exist as stated in this article? (I.e. Would someone without other knowledge of the topic get NPOV information here?)
In this discussion there are nationalist tendancies being shown that are clouding the issue. This is not about minimising any injuries that Poland has suffered, nor is it about revisionist history. This article, however, appears to me to be synthetic. As such not encyclopedic. Thus Delete - MeAgain 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Of course it exists and even outside the Nazi/Communist references.If you would bothered to read the links and articles you would see that they speak about antipolonism in Tsars Russia or in Prussian state where Poles were considered culturally inferior.

A - Sign your edits User:82.139.13.231.
B - I (surprisingly) do read the links, think a bit, and even look at other users contributions before entering my own opinion.
If you didn't understand what I was alluding to, let me be specific:
I was born in the United States and currently reside in Australia. I have no particular allegience to this or any other nation, and to be specific I have no personal interst in Poland. I do however belong in spirit to the Deletionist Association.
See, there I'm making it clear that I am responding to this article. Now if you would perhaps reciprocate and say (for example)
I'm from Guinea-Bissau and I like to make lots of small changes to articles about Germany,
It would be clear to others what you are responding to. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
Ed Zietarski (talk · contribs) has 23 edits, 16 of which are related to his user page and this VfD. HKT 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
What is that supposed to mean now ?!! Are you weighting votes by voter's experience ? or are the novices not allowed to vote ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, of course. I'm pointing out evidence that is typically considered a red-flag for sockpuppetry. HKT 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. (Let's see how quickly User:Witkacy can create tiny stubs for each of the following. WP:POINT?):
Anti-Polonism - 514 google hits. Anti-Polish - 5,960 hits.
Anti-Italianism - 638 hits. Anti-Italian - 9,270.
Anti-Canadian - 10,900. Anti-Canadianism - 7,980.
Anti-Hungarian - 5,370.
Anti-Australian - 6,910.
Anti-Latino - 5,840.
As far as Anti-French (86,200), that article is merely a redirect to Anti-French sentiment in the United States, which doesn't even claim that it's an international phenomenon.
I can see it now.... Hundreds of new, non-notable stubs all saying "Anti-Timbuktuism is hostility towards those from Timbuktu" (and the like). I strongly urge someone to attempt to present evidence of "a unique, significant, international phenomenon of serious anti-Polish sentiments," as I mentioned above. HKT 06:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we use this intro:

" Anti-Polonism (alternatively spelled antipolonism; also, Polonophobia) is a translation of the Polish language word antypolonizm, which is an anti-semitic term used by Polish ethnic nationalists, mostly in the sense of "Jewish anti-Polonism", as a counter-concept to "Polish anti-Semitism". It denotes Polish hostility toward Jews."83.109.173.80 (talk · contribs)

--Witkacy 23:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Tomer: I explicitly agree with everything you say. However, I think the only solution to the problem is replacing the present contents with something that makes more sense, rather than deleting the article itself, which is likely to come back anyway. --Thorsten1 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... you are showing your frustrations ... with your aggressive comments...--Witkacy 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... Witkacy, watch out for WP:Civility and WP:NPA... --HKT 16:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... No doubt it's my Anti-Polonism oozing out the cracks of my withered and knotty exterior. Tomer TALK 16:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
How about responding to his allegations instead of resorting to unfounded ad-hominems, User:Witkacy? Just an idea. --Moritz 16:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not only has the response from the keep side to the VfD been generally disappointing (with a small number of exceptions), but Witkacy's repeated deletion of the VfD notice in the first place, followed by his harrassment and blind reverting of Tomer, followed by his creation of a biased article for the purpose of harrassing user HKT (after a rather unpleasant discussion of the amusing nature of doing so on the Polish Wikipedians board), is most distressing. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg: not disappointing but overwhelming on the keep side, I think. It's Votes for deletion page, remember, not a talk page. I've rechecked and do not find any "unpleasant discussion" there, mere two brief comments. What's your problem here ? --Wojsyl (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disappointed that people voted "keep" (I haven't voted myself, as you might note), but rather that the comments made by the keep side (with a couple of exceptions) were quite disappointing; I've commented on exactly why above, did you notice that? Basically it boils down to not addressing the issues raised. And the discussion was unpleasant because it essentially outlined a strategy for harrassing a Wikipedia editor based on his username. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary to explain the rationale for voting either way. Many voters didn't do so, which is why they might be considered disappointing. I quote from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion: "Votes without rationales may be discounted." --Moritz 19:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you guys started a personal crusade against me :)--Witkacy 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you avoid making any comment to the allegations. --Moritz 18:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moritz , account created on 15:11, 4 July 2005 (the same day when Shilo12 listed anti-Polonism for delete) see also [User contributions - (looks like a sockpuppet account)--Witkacy 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jerk. I'm not a sockpuppet. Write me a mail if you want. I'm a newbie, yes, I didn't know that was a crime. Bah.--Moritz 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Witkacy: If an editor has amassed 140 edits in 6 days, it is extremely unlikely that he/she is a sockpuppet. Again, watch out for WP:NPA, as well as WP:bite. Moritz: Calling someone a jerk is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility (even as a retort). I understand that you're new, but you should read up on these and other Wikipedia policies soon. HKT 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have read all of those pages, most of them more than once. Sorry for getting out of line. I was (and still am) quite insulted. --Moritz 20:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and your first edit was [17] - a typical newbie... :)--Witkacy 21:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I leave for a coupla hours and look what happens. Moritz, don't let Witkacy get to you. He can't come up with any rational arguments in favor of his positions, so he falls back on insults. If you follow him around WP a little bit, you'll quickly see that I'm not the first person he's made the subject of his attacks, nor until he's censured, are you likely to be the last. As for his allegations of sockpuppetry, even if I were using sockpuppets, Witkacy's behavior makes him uniquely unqualified to point it out. His accusations are further evidence that he simply does not understand the concepts of WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Tomer TALK 21:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Great teamwork guys! We Poles should learn from you :)--Witkacy 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously still contend that I'm a sockpuppet? No that was not my first edit, since obviously I didn't do my first edits using a registered account, like pretty much everone else I did it anonymously. If you had bothered to look you would have noticed that I only registered an account because someone else in the very discussion you link to encouraged me to. Regardless of that, many of my edits (even as an anon) were in the VfD category because I think it's an important part of WP and, believe it or not, it was fairly easy to get into compared to updating the already excellent articles I typically wanted to contribute to. All that said, I don't understand why I'm defending myself against your unfounded allegations—you just continue doing what seems to be the only thing you can do, avoiding the real issue by attacking and discrediting other people. BTW HKT I want a freaking medal for not going against WP:NPA and WP:Civility at this point! --Moritz 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Jews were one of the main targets in the Chmielnicki Uprising. Now, as far as the main point being discussed here: You seem to agree that anti-Polonism is primarily a regional phonomenon, but you think that it deserves an article. You wrote that "if civil citizens of an occupied country are treated with unnecessary cruelty, or suffer planned ethnic cleansing it is a sign of great hostile and irrational prejudice." This is mostly true (though this doesn't prove anything about "irrational"), but such situations are also, sadly, extremely common. In any event, it seems that you'd at least agree that this article needs to be renamed as Anti-Polonism in Central and Eastern Europe, or something to that effect. Am I making a valid assumption? HKT 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, how about Europe, greater part of Asia and North America, though I'm not sure about Australia. --SylwiaS 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main, yes. But the *main* were Poles. In CUprising and the Deluge Poland lost approximately 3 million of citizens, out of which Jewish losses IIRC are under half a million. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no argument there. HKT 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! That's a horse of a different color, as they say! If you could convince me of this, you'll have won my vote. HKT 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"This was the Nazi pretext for war on Poland." With all due respect, TheUnforgiven, that is sheer nonsense. No serious historian will dispute that the reason behind WW II was a vague desire to expand the German lebensraum eastward, coupled with a strong anti-Semitic urge and the sense of an anti-communist mission, plus a vague sense of Germanic superiority over Slavic nations - there was nothing particularly anti-Polish about Nazism. Let us not forget that Hitler, presumably representing Austrian Catholicism and not Prussian Protestantism, was initially seen as a welcome change in Poland; that Hitler was said to have admired Piłsudski's May Coup; that a phony peace lasted and even some degree of comradeship was staged between Sanacja Poland and Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1938. Even in the last days before the outbreak of WW II, Hitler was trying to force Poland into the position of a junior partner in his crusade against Bolshevism. There can be no doubt that the Nazis had little respect for the Poles and treated them with extreme inhumanity. But reducing the cause for WW II to some kind of "anti-Polonism" is at least as ridiculous as reducing the motivation of modern Palestinian suicide bombers to "anti-Semitism". --Thorsten1 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
During WWII, the Nazis killed around the same amount of Poles as Jews. However, the Jews were much more severely targeted and almost all Polish Jews were slaughtered, while a much, much lower percentage of Poles were. Anyway, the Germans and Russians clearly hated the Poles deeply, but that is still a regional phenomenon. Why isn't there an article on anti-Tutsiism (though Witkacy may now quickly add a stub)? Tutsis in Rawanda were slaughtered mercilessly. HKT 22:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HKT. Nobody is disputing that Jews suffered the most during the IIWW, but this is not the issue here. It is evident that Nazis were pursuing anti-Polonism (or more widely, Anti-Slav) policies - just check aticles on Lebensraum, Generalplan Ost, Armenian quote and related ones if you need more proof. Whether the phenomena is global or local (and I think it is global) should not matter much, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr, I agree with everything you just wrote, except the last sentence; you don't need to convince me of the existence of regional anti-Polonism. (I only mentioned the bit about WWII in response to the previous post, but I agree that it's irrelevant to this VfD in general). The reason that I think that it's important to determine whether anti-Polonism is global or regional is that such regional phenomena are a-dime-a-dozen and not notable enough to be mentioned as distinct phonomena. I agree that regional anti-Polonism has been extremely severe and tragic. However, I think that it is only noteworthy in the context of regional conflicts and relations, and should be discussed only in the relevant historical articles. It isn't an isolated and independent phenomenon as is, for example, hostility towards people of African descent. HKT 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is your problem with this article (except that it is in need of major rewrite)? The phenomena existed and still exists in a milder form, thus is encyclopedic and should be mentioned in Wiki - this is a bottom line. Rename should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for move and I look forward to this - current name is not perfect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. So you are saying that anti-Polonism is a unique international phenomenon, and that international anti-Polonism isn't simply xenophobia? I've already written that if you can convince me of this, I'll vote support. This is why I haven't voted yet. If you're willing to bring the evidence, I'm willing to look at it. HKT 17:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I see your point. But then I will ask for you to describe to me where can we draw the line between general xenophobia and more specific anti-<insert ethinic group name here> feeling. Besides, didn't we estabilished without a doubt at least that anti-Polonism formed a part of Nazi ideology? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As to your second question: Yes, I believe so. Semantics aside, the Nazis severely and particularly hated the Poles. As to your first question... it's a very good question, and I believe it can be answered as follows: Usually, when people around the world tell a Canadian joke, for example, I would assume that they have no specific desire to deride Canadians. They're just playing on existant stereotypes, and they would just as soon tell a Latino joke or a Chinese joke. In other words, most mild instances of anti-X are only manifestations of a general desire to joke about stereotypes. When one finds that a specific group is widely targeted for any negative treatment or derision, in a manner that noticablely surpasses the negative treatment or derision of other groups, that indicates a unique phenomenon. Can you show me examples of this for Poles or Poland? HKT 23:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, if the answer to my second question above is yes, isn't this enough reason for article to exist - even if the only undisputable section would deal with IIWW period? Second. For the wider scope of anti-Polonizm. 1) I think that the 19th century germanization and russification of Polish population, under partitions, are examples of actions target specifically against Polish culture. 2) There is some evidence of anti-Polish feelings during the interwar period, and the following two quotes I will give here did convince me sometime ago that there is something more here then just xenophobia - perhaps they will do the same for you. David Lloyd George: An historic failure, which has won her freedom not by her own exertions, but by the blood of others source, at Versails he (wouldn't give the Poles Silesia like he wouldn't) "entrust a watch to a monkey., in 1939 Poland "met with the fate it deserved" source. John Maynard Keynes: Poland is an economic impossibility with no industry but Jew-baiting source. Also, both are quoted on the first two pages of Davies God's Playground Chapter XIX together with some other interesting quotes. The bottom line is that those important people, with world-wide influence, seemed to have some grudge with Poland. At least in case of DLG it did transform into significant influence - like blocking aid to Poland during the Polish-Soviet War (see this article for details). I could give you some more examples, but if you are not convinced by this nor by any articles from Category:Anti-Polonism, then I am not sure what else I can write to prove that this regretable phenomena does infact exist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HKT - please dont make fun of the massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda.--Witkacy 22:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me assure you that the massacre of Tutsis is no laughing matter, though it has received a pitifully meager amount of international attention. I'm afraid that discriminating towards the regional phenomenon of anti-Polonism can serve only to eclipse other, very important phenomena. While none should have an "anti-____" article, making such an article will only diminish the apparent gravity of all those other terrible cases of severe regional hostility. Far be it from any of us to ridicule massacres. HKT 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Insights from Google:
  • search: anti-polonism - 520 articles
  • search: anti-polonism & anti-semitism - 489 articles
So, in 95% percent of cases, when anti-polonism is mentioned on the web, anti-semitism has to be mentioned also. This goes a long way to convince me that the word anti-polonism does not have an independent existence, but it is some kind of a construction in reaction to the concept of anti-semitism. The article should clearly reflect that fact, if it is to be kept. Editors who try to deny this connection are simply hiding their heads in the sand. Balcer 22:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free to add it :) --SylwiaS 23:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The two are linked, because so many Jews were Polish. The article attempts to describe how Gentile Poles were victimised as if they were the Jewish targets. There is a distinction between them and Jews don't need all the press in the world. This honours the painful memories of being attacked by mistaken identity. TheUnforgiven 23:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English. [...] I warned you about playing the stupid Nazi[.]
  • Look at this racist Jew [...]
  • [user] is the most biased administrator I have ever met, although I am sure of there being other Jewish admins [...].
allows me to assign your arguments their proper weight. In the event that I have misinterpreted your overall position, please correct me. In summation, could we have input from people for whom this is not a personal issue. This is taking my time away from creating PokéMon stubs. Aaron Brenneman 00:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aaron_Brenneman#This_Page:_Is_Shite How could you be offended, with language such as shown so prominently on your User Page? When others heckle me with their vehement partisanship, I take no sides and spare no assailants. This is all prompted from their invasion of my peace and tranquility, with their POV edit warring. Put it into proper context, please... TheUnforgiven 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The manifest non-offensiveness of "shite" (in self-deprecating reference to one's own user page, even), hardly needs to be explained. On the other hand, there is no proper context for "You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English." and "Look at this racist Jew."--Pharos 01:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I get my stinging frustration with trolls from User:RickK. TheUnforgiven 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An example : http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html "Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815), by Dariusz üukasiewicz. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of the history and social sciences series. 183 pages. Illustrations, tables and indices of persons, localities, and topics. ISSN 0079-4651. ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries.

The stated aim of this scholarly study is to trace back the negative stereotypes of Poles entrenched in German historiography and popular culture ever since Prussia and Russia engineered the partitions of Poland in the eighteenth century. The treatise begins with a survey of authors and readers of the Prussian statistical publications in the period under review. We learn that the credibility of Beamtentumsliteratur (studies written by petty officials in Prussia) was often marred by corruption and dishonesty of said officials, as well as by their lack of proficiency in Polish. The data they collected were also marred by incompetence, ignorance and a classically hostile attitude toward the Other--in this case, toward the Poles. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften). A certain Lichtenberg (said to be Forster's friend) wrote that Poland was inhabited by "landowning despots, dirty Jews and plica" [Weichselzopf, or koltun]. The expression "German cockroaches" must have entered the English language owing to the similarly brutal descriptions of German immigrants to America by those who came earlier from the British Isles.

Among the specific complaints of these official record keepers were the prevalence of Catholicism among Poles (it was considered scandalous), low level of education, consumerism and vanity of the Polish landowners, poverty and servitude of the Polish peasantry, and the greed of Polish Jews who were seen as Poland's "third estate" and whose numerosity in Poland (by comparison to Prussia) irritated the German officials. üukasiewicz's conclusions are that the Prussian officials created a taxonomy within which persons of Polish nationality were perceived as inferior and in need of Prussian tutelage."

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1724846635492 More dangerous than an entertaining, if somewhat condescending, fascination with quaint folkloric customs was the tendency to link customs with biological characteristics, a topic explored in Chapter Eight, "Peopling Eastern Europe, Part II: The Evidence of Manners and the Measurements of Race." While Herder was reflecting on the Slavs, Fichte was teaching in Poland and writing negative, racist comments about the Poles. Polish women were slovenly and with a stronger sex drive than Germans (p. 335); Poland was full of wild animals, wild people, and Jews. A racist diatribe published in 1793 (Joachim Christoph Friedrich Schulz's Journey of a Livonian from Riga to Warsaw) was republished in 1941 after the Nazis had conquered Poland, reflecting a trend among German scholars from the eighteenth into the twentieth century to perceive, in the difference between Germany and Poland, a boundary between civilization and barbarism, high German Kultur and "primitive Slavdom" (p. 336).

Although concerned primarily with the emergence of racial classifications of Eastern Europeans, Wolff's chapter includes an interesting discussion of the writings of Georg Forster, a German born in Poland who traveled in Russia and with Captain Cook's second voyage to the South Pacific, for whom racial differences were significant only between white Europeans and Negroes (Poles, although oppressed, were still Europeans). In other writings, the black/white distinction was grafted onto the barbaric/civilized distinction in Europe itself, appearing in such extreme statements as Ledyard's claim that there were "no white Savages." Eastern Europeans, as barbarian, were therefore not white. (In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Ledyard interpreted the Tartars--a broad category that included, on occasion, Jews, Poles, and Russians--to be American Indians [p. 348].) www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s18/s18-blackbourn.pdf These European parallels with the Americas expressed contempt towards "uncultivated" peopleswithin Europe itself. In the German case, this meant Poles, and the motif runs through the 18th-century history of Prussian reclamation. The line of the Prussian "improvements" ran eastwards. Itbegan immediately to the east of Berlin in the Electoral March, then crossed the Oder to the Wartheand Netze marshes before turning south-east towards Silesia and north-east, to newly acquired partsof Pomerania and above all to West Prusia, the booty from the first Polish partition. On the easternmargins of protean Prussia, reclamation and settlement "secured" the border -for how could youprotect or even define a frontier that was under water half the year?Officials carried contempt for the indigenous Poles with them. The draining of the Oderbruch wasintended to plant good German colonists where "superstitious" Wendish fishermen had lived, amental connection that was even stronger when it came to the new eastern territories. Frederick'sown views on "the slovenly Polish trash" of West Prussia were expressed in unflattering NewWorld parallels. They were like "Iroquois". Or: "I have seen this Prussia; I believe Canada is bettercultivated". This was "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity" (note the metaphoricalundertones of the French verb "croupir" -sunk in, wallowing in, stagnating) I hope this books as well as roots of antipolonism that they show will be put in the text, which I do hope will stay on wikipedia.User:194.30.182.7

A lot of chauvinist and nationalist literature has been published in Poland, both during the stalinist People's Republic, and after the fall of communism. This is not news at all. But does reliable English scholars describe this "anti-Polonism"? I believe if we are going to have "anti-Polonism", we should also write an article about anti-Germanism, illustrating with half a dozen of pictures of Poles and Soviet-Russians killing German children. How about that?User:83.109.177.183

Out of three sources given only one was Polish.

Comment. What User:194.30.182.7 is describing is not so much about any specific German contempt of Poland, but rather the general idea of a cultural gradient from East to West. Speaking of which, the Polish image of Ukraine as "wilderness" was in fact strikingly similar to the German image of Poland - read Sienkiewicz's Ogniem i Mieczem some time. Should we collect such material, throw in horror stories about crimes committed by Ukrainian partisans against Polish civilians, plus stuff about SS Galicia and maybe some of Putin's remarks concerning the Ukrainian revolution, and then neatly label all this Anti-Ukrainianism? --Thorsten1 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's nice to read comments from someone who unemotionally discusses the horrific problems with this article as it currently stands. Tomer TALK 05:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Forsters and Fredericks remarks are about Poland and Poles thought.And of course those beliefs led to persecution of Poles in Fredericks Prussia.

Weell, what;s anti-polonism for me (I am Pole): The phenomenon DOES exist, though it is not as widespread as anti-semitism and does not have so grave consequences. Not sure whether it deserves article on its own, but since other articles describing similar phenomenons do exists, why not this. Also, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER. When I started to contriubte to Wikipedia, it was said that if someone wants, he may make article about his favourite poker game variation, because there s enough place in wikipedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper <- strange, last time it seems that people start to violate that rule by demanding that articles should cover "important" topics, should have size limits etc)
  1. Attitude showed by many Westerners ridiculing any research done in Poland, which cause any opinion based on sources different from Western as "nationalist" and "chauvinistic" (see for example above, when quotes wre immedietely dismissed on basis that since Polish, they were probably biased and chauvinistic)
  2. Attitude showed by Germans in the past (as e.g by Prussian king Frideric, Bismarck etc) that Poles are incivilised, can't govern themselves and should be turned into nice, decent Germans. (As well as all references to polnische wirtschat, polish troyan arse and all others).
  3. Attitude showed by Russians that Poles are traitors of common Slavic family
  4. Attitude showed by many Westerners, that Poles are tiny insignificant nation, so they should not be taken seriously and whenever Poles have different opinion it's because they are barbarian, arrogant, nationalistic and immature
  5. Attitude showed by very few Jews that Poles are the most anti-semitic nation in the world and committed all crimes could be imagined and actively helped Nazis during holocaust (search for Bob Kolker in usenet and phrase "90% of Poles are swines)
  6. Attitude showed by some racists and Nazis that Poles are untermenschen, not white, rather mongols and should be exterminated or expelled
  7. Attitude which cause that most of Poles which appears in 7/10 of Western modern movies either criminals or dumb or at least black hat.
  8. Phrases like "polish concentration camps" used in context when it is clear that the camps weren't even on territory on Poland (and which caused that in oen high school children polled answered that Nazis were of Polish nationality)
  9. Attitude which causes Poles to be safe object of widespread ethnic slurs and which was described by (but to tell the truth, few).
  10. Recent anti-Polish mania in France (e.g. famous Figaro article about most-antisemitic country etc)
Most anti-semites do not describe their actions as anti-semitic. Similarly, many of actions which I would describe as caused by anti-polish sentiment, would not be described as such by people who commited them. People rarely realise that they are driven by stereotypes. Ah, well, you may I am a bit bitter here, but if you are not Pole trying to discuss with Western guys, you have no idea how it feels.

Szopen 11:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we are making such an extensive list, let's also add.

  1. A tool of propaganda used by some Polish right wing nationalist (and often antisemitic) politicians and writiers, who believe that all of Poland's past, present and future misfortunes are to be blamed on omnipresent and raging anti-Polonism, present especially among Jews. For an example of this, see: [18],[19],[20].
  2. A word used by some Poles to deflect any charges of Polish Antisemitism, by bringing attention to the supposedly equivalent and entirely similar phenomenon of Jewish anti-Polonism.

Balcer 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Szopen, although some Poles are eagerly collecting evidence (such as Witkacy in his sandbox), I have never run across the phrase "Polish death camps" in the wild. However, I have heard and seen it umpteen times in Poland or Polish media, who are trying hard to convince their audience that the rest of the world is constantly talking about "Polish death camps". That way - and in many other ways - they are spreading and consolidating the stereotype that the world outside (and not only outside) Poland is anti-Polish to the core. As self-centeredness goes, the Poles are right up there with the Americans, Jews, Germans, and French (in no particular order, and not a complete list). Unfortunately, as you say, people rarely realise that they are driven by stereotypes, Poles being no exception, but are usually just brilliant at identifying the stereotypes other people are driven by... But, to pick up on what you said, if you are not a Western guy trying to discuss with Poles, you have no idea how it feels. ;) --Thorsten1 22:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer-can you point any examples.So far you pointed to books that detail antipolish statements made by various people.While perhaps oversensetive, this do not fulfill the criteria you wrote. Molobo

Look, for me the whole book is one giant example, and just about any random paragraph would prove my point. If you really read this book and see nothing more than a harmless list of anti-Polish behaviours, then I don't think I am going to convince you of anything. I am reluctant to paste and translate quotes from the book here, since this would needlessly propagate its rather pathological views. Balcer 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is one book. I really fail to see, when and why the voting on Anti-Polonism changed into discussion on Anti-Semitism? In which place the article, which is the subject of this voting, is offending to any non-Poles? --SylwiaS 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Szopen made a long list of meanings, so I made some additions for completeness. Plus, as you know very well, the problem is not just with this one book, but with a widespread set of beliefs held by at least 10% of the population of Poland (as reflected by their voting preferences). Balcer 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10% of population? Hmm... Let's see: election to the Polish parliament in 2001 - frequency 46%, election to the European parliament - 21%. In the same time it is widely supposed in Poland that our president is of Jewish origin and yet he was voted a president of Poland, twice. Frequency in 1995 - 68% and in 2000 - 61% and he won in the first round. --SylwiaS 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not quibble over numbers, which of course cannot be precise. I had in mind the fact that a party like the League of Polish Families regularly receives between 10% and 15% support in public opinion polls. Now, of course, let me say here that I am not accusing all the supporters of that party of being anti-semites or xenophobes or whatever. Having said that, it does appear to me that some politicians from that party do employ the idea of anti-Polonism in their rhethoric, so it must find at least some resonance among party supporters. Balcer 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sylvia, I am not sure if your comment really proves your point - or the opposite. The question is why do so many people care at all, and sometimes obsessively, whether or not "Kwaśniewski vel Stolzman" (try Google for this one!) is "of Jewish origin"? Perhaps because they want to prove that, at best, he can be president although he is Jewish - thus proving the Polish electorate's generous tolerance. And at worst because they want to prove he is one of "them" (oni) not "us", that he is an agent of some foreign powers-that-be and working against the Polish national interest. Thus, your example demonstrates the very reciprocity of the two concepts, anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism. --Thorsten1 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand Balcer says that people with an anti-Semitic bias are a serious problem in Poland. I guess that they were those people, who let everyone know that Kwaśniewski is Stolzman according to them. What I meant was that voting people didn’t care for what the other prejudiced people were saying only voted for the man they wanted to be a president. So the prejudiced people make only a big fuss but without any serious support. Then, I think they are not as big problem as Balcer claims. That was my point. I didn’t vote for Kwaśniewski and I don’t think it makes me an anti-Semite. I would rather say that one people longed to some advantages of communism while other didn’t and voted according to that, so the prejudiced people had nothing to do with decisions of voters. I still think that the article at hand is not about that at all and is very important for many other reasons mentioned in the discussion above. --SylwiaS 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sylwia, I saw where you are coming from in the first place. My point was that the same facts you mention can just as well be seen from a different angle. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion that the prejudiced anti-Semitic people are not as big a problem as Balcer claims. And we are entitled to our opinion that the anti-Polish people are not as big a problem as the article claims. Are we even, then? --Thorsten1 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The particular anti-Semitic people are not as big problem, because they are hardly taken seriously in their own country. I don’t say their prejudices are not problematic. The article describes many people killed, because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call it a small problem. --SylwiaS 23:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The particular anti-Semitic people are not as big problem, because they are hardly taken seriously in their own country." Fair enough (although one might indeed beg to differ), but then how do you know that anti-Polish people are being taken more seriously in their own countries than anti-Semites are in Poland? Knowing the situation both in and outside Poland, let me assure you that anti-Polish hostility is much less tangible in the west than anti-Semitic hostility is in Poland.
"The article describes many people killed, because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call it a small problem" (read "as small as anti-Semitism"). Please see my response to TheUnforgiven above: The insinuation that the outbreak of WWII and the ensuing cruelty against Poles (Jews, Russians, ...) has its cause in "anti-Polish prejudice" is not supported by international (or Polish, for that matter) scholarship. It is original research at best and Polono-centric soapboxing at worst. Also, what are you actually comparing here - the present verbal anti-Semitism in a country virtually without Jews with the anti-Polish atrocities of WWII? Let us compare the past with the past and the present with the present, shall we? No matter how you look at it, the death toll of German and Russian anti-Polish atrocities will always be much higher than the death toll of Polish anti-Jewish atrocities. But to belittle the relevance of anti-Semitism in modern democratic Poland by comparing it to atrocities in occupied Poland is anything but fair discussion. --Thorsten1 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thorsten, I’m afraid that again you know where I come from, but try to show my words from a different angle. I wrote just three sentences, but you avoided the one, which would contradict your interpretation of the remaining two. I said: I don’t say their prejudices are not problematic (read: every anti-Semitic sentiment is a problem). How am I trying to belittle the importance of anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist? Did I say that there shouldn’t be an article about anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism in Poland shouldn’t be described in Wikipedia? Please, let me conclude my opinions to avoid any future misunderstandings:
1. Every prejudice against a nation, religion etc. is a problem and deserves its own article.
2. The fact of existence of extreme opinions of some people from one nation about another people, do not diminish the importance of prejudice against the nation itself.
3. Every prejudice should be condemned. (read: if you wish to add examples of prejudiced opinions of any Polish politicians or mass media, you are free to do so; you have to your disposition articles like: History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism with two Polish sections, Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne and many others, lately you also voted to keep Anti-Semitism in Poland so you can add it there as well).
4. I never tried to make a death toll competition to show that one prejudice is more important than another. I think the numbers are of secondary notion, as people should be always put in the first place. No matter how many people died, they suffered the same, and suffered unjustly. Not for what they did, but for what their origins were. I don’t think we have the right to draw a line showing where it is a serious problem and where it is not.
I really think I already said all I had to say about this issue. I hope then, we can stop this discussion now, as there is really nothing new I can add to it. I understand that we both agree that anti-Semitism exists and is a serious problem. I also understand that we disagree in our opinions on existence of anti-Polonism and its importance. We don’t have to agree, really. --SylwiaS 15:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I wrote just three sentences, but you avoided the one, which would contradict your interpretation of the remaining two." First off, when it comes to being selective about which points to respond to I do not think I can best you... However, the sentence you are referring to does not at all contradict what I said, considering the circumstantial evidence. I have, of course, no way of knowing what you really meant to say. To me, however, the statement in question comes across as a rather phony concession. "How am I trying to belittle the importance of anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist?" Hell no, you even said it was "problematic", even though it was not "not as big [a] problem". This raises the question - "not as big as what"? Well, not as big a problem as the "many people killed because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call [this] a small problem". You are evidently comparing modern Polish anti-Semitism, which does not kill, to historic anti-Polish sentiments, which did kill. This is logically incorrect.
As for your other statements: "Every prejudice against a nation, religion etc. is a problem " - yes - "and deserves its own article" - no. This one does, though. "The fact of existence of extreme opinions of some people from one nation about another people, do not diminish the importance of prejudice against the nation itself." True enough. But then I never implied otherwise and it's not really the issue here, either. What I said was the concept of anti-Polonism was designed in response to accusations of Polish anti-Semitism and does not really have an independent existence outside Polish-Jewish relations. Even the fiercest proponents of the concept rarely use it in any other way than to counter the accusation of one-way prejudice and hostility in Polish-Jewish relations. "Every prejudice should be condemned." Yes, but please not here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to "condemn" anything, as condemnable as it may be. We are working on an encyclopedia, not a collection of indictments. "If you wish to add examples of prejudiced opinions of any Polish politicians or mass media, you are free to do so; you have to your disposition articles like: History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism with two Polish sections, Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne and many others, lately you also voted to keep Anti-Semitism in Poland so you can add it there as well." What is that supposed to mean? Something like "this is our playground, the Polonophobes have their own playgrounds"? Also, may I remind you that I voted keep on this article? What I criticise is the body of the article, not the title. May I further remind you that I initially voted delete on Anti-Semitism in Poland because of the article's clear anti-Polish POV message, and did not change my vote until Prokonsul Piotr - whom you will hardly suspect of being anti-Polish - rewrote the article from scratch? So please stop trying to frame me as a Polonophobe. "I never tried to make a death toll competition to show that one prejudice is more important than another." No, but you nonsensically juxtaposed the supposedly harmless anti-Semitism in modern Poland and the harmful anti-Polonism in WWII and earlier conflicts, which obviously had a higher death toll than the former. "I think the numbers are of secondary notion, as people should be always put in the first place. No matter how many people died, they suffered the same, and suffered unjustly. Not for what they did, but for what their origins were." These are all noble declamations that no one would contradict. "I don’t think we have the right to draw a line showing where it is a serious problem and where it is not." No, but we do have the right and the duty to draw a line between a decent article based on established knowledge and attempts to establish "new" knowledge and usages in Wikipedia. "We don’t have to agree, really." That is the one thing in your post I wholeheartedly agree with. Let's bury the hatchet until next time, then. --Thorsten1 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not as big as Balcer claimed. That was my meaning and I already wrote it before. I don't see any sense in responding to all the other things. If you wish to read my words as not sincere, I really cannot help it. Let me assure you that my hatchet is safely buried. --SylwiaS 20:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just clarify that I am not out to promote the image of Poland as a country with a big antisemitism problem, as Sylwia's remarks seem to be implying. I only pointed out that in Poland there are nationalist groups and parties promoting ideas unacceptable by the liberal mainstream, xenophobia and anti-semitism in this case, and that these parties can count on the support of about 10% of the electorate. This is a phenomemon quite similar in kind to what occurs in France (Jean-Marie Le Pen), Germany (National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)), Italy (Northern League (Italy), and many other Western democracies in good standing. At the same time, the presence of such phenomena needs to be acknowledged and, in my opinion only of course, opposed. In particular, we should not advance the ideas of such parties by creating articles such as this one, in its current form. Balcer 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Balcer, I know you didn't and also please, accept my apology for referring to your name so many times in the discussion above. I should have said: Not as a big problem as I first thought you claimed, before you clarified you didn't, which was in fact before the huge discussion emerged. I really shouldn't have used the big stretch, which could insinuate that you promoted a bad image of Poland. --SylwiaS 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thorstan that is absurd, since I fail to see any connection between Antipolish sentiment and statements made by Frederick the Great, Forster or prussian officials.Likewise antipolonism of Russians has nothing connecting it with antisemitism as it based on Russian state aspirations and accusing Poles of betraying panslavic ideals etc. Hence the accusation that antisemitism and antipolonism are connected doesn't survive a simple test.Of course that doesn't mean that antipolish statements by Jewish representatives don't fall into category of antipolonism and vice versa.But still antipolonism is neither the creation of antisemitism/as Russian and Prussian examples show/ nor is the tool of mythical ultranationalists of Poland.Molobo

Molobo, I apologise, I was wrong. My idea that anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism were somehow connected was crazy, as it did not survive your test. And, of course, the existence of ultranationalists in Poland is just a myth.... ;) Seriously, when I said that the concept of anti-Polonism is a reaction to allegations of Polish anti-Semitism, I did obviously not want to imply that nobody had ever said anything bad about Poles before. If you can produce any plausible evidence that the concept of anti-Polonism (not the fact that people made statements hostile toward Poles) was in fact widely used in the 19th century, and not in connection with Jews, I might have to change my mind. But be careful to observe WP:NOR. Good luck, and good night. --Thorsten1 23:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"If you can produce any plausible evidence that the concept of anti-Polonism (not the fact that people made statements hostile toward Poles) was in fact widely used in the 19th century, and not in connection with Jews". It has been already shown that Poles were treated as inferior and barbaric people since XVIII century and legislation followed-for example polish nobility had to put higher taxes in Prussia, polish monasteries were persecuted("lairs of idleness" according to Frederick, polish language forbidden.)And of course antipolish policies and ideology of Russian officials(shown btw in the first source in the article) weren't connected to antisemitsm at all as they were based on Russian imperial ambitions and panslavism.Molobo
Yes, Molobo, it has been duly shown that Poles were considered and treated as inferior by non-Poles at various times in history. But since nobody seriously doubted this, you didn't actually have to "show" this, either. What I did ask you to "show" was that the concept of anti-Polonism has really been used to collectively describe and interpret the various injustices done to Poles, and to assert a genetic connection between, say, the tax policy in 19th century Prussia, accusations of Polish anti-Semitism in the Jedwabne debate, and "Polish jokes" in 21st century America. You are constantly talking about historical events, whereas I am talking about concepts. You being a student of "International Relations and Journalism and Social Communication", as you say on your user page, should be aware of the difference - otherwise you might run into some serious trouble during your studies. (Unless maybe you are studying at Rydzyk University, whose motto puts fides and patria on an equal footing with ratio.)
Hammering my point home (hopefully), the issue is not whether or not non-Poles have acted hostilely towards Poles. The issue is whether or not the concept "anti-Polish" has seriously and verifiably been employed as heuristic tool for understanding any behaviour hostile towards Poles, and not primarily as a counter-weight to allegations of Polish anti-Semitism. To the best of my knowledge, it has not; you have so far failed to put forward any evidence that I am wrong. Unless you can come up with anything convincing, I will stick to my vote - keep the title, but rewrite the body of the article to highlight the origin of the concept in Polish-Jewish relations, and to keep much more critical distance to the concept.
On a formal note, please remember to always sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and a time stamp. This will make the discussion easier to follow. --Thorsten1 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The issue is whether or not the concept "anti-Polish" has seriously and verifiably been employed as heuristic tool for understanding any behaviour hostile towards Poles"
At least two sources linked to the article use this.Molobo
Two is too little. And kindly sign your posts. --Thorsten1 12:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will three be enough ? Four ? Twenty three ? Or just twenty two ? Or maybe just five ? Frankly just one example is enough if something is proven to either exist or not exist.--Molobo
"Frankly just one example is enough if something is proven to either exist or not exist." I did not say that your usage of anti-Polonism does not exist. I can see that it exists in your post, even if I hadn't known about its existence before. But that doesn't make it encyclopedically valid. Look, my dog exists, too. Does that mean I can write an article about it? Why, Wikipedia is not paper, right? Seriously, when 95% of all authors who use the concept of anti-Polonism use it in a very specific way, with the other 5% using it in a more universal way, and someone goes and builds an entire article on the "universal" usage, then it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if one quotes two or twenty-two examples for the "universal" usage. Nie potrafisz zrozumieć czy po prostu nie chcesz zrozumieć? --Thorsten1 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge keeping the title, Antipolonism, which is a noun and refers to a real phenomenon, and revising the contents as appropriate. Logologist, 13 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 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. CDC (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese raping chair[edit]

A hoax, no such thing: article was originally lifted verbatim but has since been re-worded (a bit) and the source credited. However, every single hit from google (about 11) is an identical quote from that same source, and it should not be taken seriously. Sadly, half of the google hits are crediting Wikipedia for this unpleasant bit of misinformation. Veledan 4 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

"On the items set fourth in the present volume four basic types may be identified-
  1. matters of fact, well attested
  2. matters of fact, poorly attested
  3. matters of subjective evaluation
  4. matters of fiction and legend
[…]I leave the reader to judge to which class any particular item belongs…" Thus this article definitely gets a new Strong delete vote from me. —Tokek 5 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy-merge & redirect. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Solem[edit]

Merge into The Rembrandts (possibly as members list): The article describes hardly anything more than his membership of this band. --IByte 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

--IByte 4 July 2005 23:44 (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 00:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma (mythology)[edit]

Original research by Anonymous IP here: [21] later moved to here: Akuma (mythology). I vote delete. —Tokek 4 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

Comment Yes, devils appear in works of fiction, but they're as Japanese mythology as superman - that is, not at all. Swap "Japan", "akuma", and google count with any other country, translated word, etc, and your statement is most likely true. For example: (teufel is a) "Widely known name in German culture. Word appears often in novels, television, film, etc. both as a translation of the word "devil" from English (and similarly from other Western languages) and in original German fiction. Please note that the existence of teufel is not what needs verification; the existence of the concept of teufel is what does, and yes, it is both notable and verifiable, with more than 800,000 hits on Google. Important aspect of German culture." That's like saying that we need about a dozen foreign language dictdef stubs for every English word. This reasoning is problematic because it doesn't address the real issue, which is the current article. The anonymous IP's contribution is bogus. Even on the slim chance that it was actually describing a character in a real work of fiction, without referring to the specific work of fiction it is placed out of context and equally worthless and meaningless. Furthermore akuma, as described in dictionaries, do not refer to entities specific to Japanese mythology. —Tokek 7 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
You probably think you know who Thomas Edison was. But there is one aspect of Edison that might surprise you: Thomas Alva Edison, Shinto god. Yes, the American inventor's likeness appears on ema at a prominent, important, and ancient shrine, and when visitors to the shrine write their wish on one of these ema, they bow in prayer to Edison. My point is that Japanese culture alters the concepts that Japan takes from the West, in ways that are worthy of attention. The anonymous user has done Wikipedia a service by separating a longstanding cultural phenomenon (Christianity reached Japan at least as early as 1549) from the popular anime/game/manga fluff. Give this article time to grow, and let's see how the Japanese notion of akuma differs from the Western devil. Fg2 July 7, 2005 06:41 (UTC)
You may have a point if we were voting on "Thomas Edison (mythology)". However you don't seem to deny the fact that what the anon IP contributed here is original research, which is arguably worse than game article fluff. The Japanese term "akuma" is already covered at the akuma article. Is there enough content to justify yet another akuma article? —Tokek 7 July 2005 14:33 (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 --Allen3 talk 01:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Peers[edit]

This looks like vanity, and POV besides. Jeff Anonymous 4 July 2005 23:16 (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 08:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spoon feeding[edit]

Actually, as can be seen on Wikipedia_talk:Spoon_feeding, kizzle and I have been discussing this article endlessly, to no avail. People can't seem to even understand what the article is about, even after all this. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
If you look on the talk page, the last comment is me requesting more information from you to help either clean up or merge before posting a VfD. You completely ignored my request. That's what I mean by lack of discussion. --kizzle July 6, 2005 03:21 (UTC)


OK, instead of just deleting all the info here, maybe lets talk about what is wrong with it. For those that believe the page is POV, where is it POV? Specifically what passages? For those that want it written over from scratch, what specific aspects do you disagree with, in either content and/or form? And for those that want it merged to NPOV, where is a good place to put it? --kizzle July 5, 2005 17:13 (UTC)

K, will draft something along this article's lines for inclusion in WP:NPOV--kizzle 23:06, July 11, 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 provides information at a glance on the subcommittee and could prove an important resource; deletion would be ill advised.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense, no such place has ever existed. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

Gold city, california[edit]

Probable hoax; Google turns up nothing significant. The flying saucer stuff is obvious (no 19th century sightings--that's a peculiarity of the 20th century) but since I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be at least one miner's camp in the Gold Rush with this name, I'm putting it on VfD. Neither Google, my National Geographic Atlas, nor my southern or northern California Gazetteers, which include ghost towns, reference this place. Antandrus (talk) 4 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (2 votes each way). -- BD2412 talk 05:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

At17[edit]

Given ample time to show some importance of this Hong Kong band, the anon has failed to do so. This article meets no requirements of WP:MUSIC and is obviously band vanity. Harro5 July 4, 2005 23:57 (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 keep. CDC (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Bar prank calls[edit]

Unencyclopedic.--Nabla 2005-07-05 00:04:15 (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 already deleted. Woohookitty 08:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What The Muffins?[edit]

This is an advertising article for a non-notable website. Much of the article text comes from the website's FAQ, suggestive of advertising. The website itself appears to have a limited active fan-base. Its fan discussion board has only 142 members. Google retrieves 1,600 results but gives the "omitted similar" message after 55 results. Most hits seem to be blogish references. Note that the redirect for this page is listed below. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:06 (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 (deletion actually done during removal of redirects phase of processing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/What The Muffins?) --Allen3 talk 00:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What The Muffins[edit]

This is the redirect page to What The Muffins? which is up for deletion above. Both are up due to lack of notability and advertising. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:06 (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 00:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Willy Charleton[edit]

Non-notable local rich boy (or wannabe rich boy). DS 5 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a short article with no context. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)

Maksim Shulman[edit]

Run-of-the-mill vanity page? Think so.DS 5 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

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