This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

A Wilhelm Scream (band)[edit]

Deletion Nomination Suspected of advertising/original research due to pervasive POV throughout article coupled with vanity nature of page and lack of reference for information that includes multiple quotes attributed to band members. (Listed link to fansite www.mute-print.com is now a browser redirect to the band's official website, the other listed link.) The Literate Engineer 07:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup, although a borderline case per WP:MUSIC. Band has toured the whole U.S. and Japan, they've got a slot on the 2005 Warped Tour and their label Nitro Records is not insignificant. Most of the ad-type stuff is straight copy from the label's press release, which may be copyvio. (Sorry, I still haven't gotten it straight whether press releases qualify as copyvio listings.) I like that their music "keeps the listener on the edge of their seats" since hardcore punk audiences are well-known for staying seated during shows. . . . . . . Soundguy99 07:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Band is notable and warrants an article, but this is not it. Aecis 09:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment it's a cut and paste from [6]. Not sure if the anon author has permission. JamesBurns 10:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Does that mean I need to withdraw the deletion nomination and send it over to the Copyright Problems page for them to sort out (after which it's either deleted or gets shipped over to Cleanup for encyclopedizing)? The Literate Engineer 21:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, just place a copyvio tag on it and list it at copyright problems if you feel it violates copyright. Leave the VfD tag on if they decide it isnt. JamesBurns 06:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable band. Pretty good, too. I cleaned it up a bit. --Tothebarricades 00:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as meeting Wikimusic Project guidelines providing it is not a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm changing my vote (withdrawing my nomination?) due to edits by Tothebarricades. The Literate Engineer 02:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (gibberish). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Machaela[edit]

Neologism. Hits on google seem to refer to people named Machaela rather than the word. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. High school prank. Aecis 09:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this article was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense by FCYTravis (talk · contribs), but the tag was removed by GhostCow (talk · contribs), with no explanation given. Aecis 09:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is not patent nonsense (see the criteria), so it should not be speedy deleted, but it is apparently a joke, so I think we should delete it anyway (via VfD). Sietse 09:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, but in that case: is it up to GhostCow to remove the speedy tag? Isn't that something only admins can do? Aecis 12:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Read the tag. It says anyone who disagrees with the speedy may remove it, excepting only the creator. --MarSch 14:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I'll bet 10 wikidollars right now that this is merely an attack page against someone with that name. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• I definately thought it was some nonsense about someone named Machaela. del--MarSch 14:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense and probable attack.-Splash 16:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete. patent nonsense. Firestorm 17:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as gibberish. I couldn't make any sense of it, although the words seemed to be English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

WordClock[edit]

Vanity page, not notable. Apparently self-promotion by the owner of the Global Language Monitor who wants more links to his site. DELETE. Macrakis 07:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Scholars agree that it is nearly impossible to define what exactly constitiutes [sic] a word (does 'go,' 'goes,' and 'going,' constitute one word or three?). The first half of that is OK, but the sum of the words in the example is one. Chuck in "gone" for good measure and you still have one. Add "goner" ("Two bullets in his brain? He's a goner") and you have two. Pluralize it ("goners") and you still have two. It's a matter of inflectional morphology, baby: you have two lexemes. Linguistically underinformed self-promotion. Delete. -- Hoary 11:02, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, with a few four-grapheme words thrown at Hoary for beating me to it ;). -- Jonel | Speak 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author me [[User:PJJP|PJJP] who is definitely not anonymous and created a PJJP some time ago.

You apparently weren't logged in when you created the article, because the edit is identified by your IP address. --Macrakis 16:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the number of words in the English Language: this is applauded by serious linguists who are tired of the games that are played over words; the number of which can never be cited for the reasons you cite. However academics in other disciplines fail to understand how scientists can estimate the number of stars, galaxies and even atomic particles in the Universe, the number of neurons in a human brain, the number of people on the planet, but cannot provide even a rough estimate of the number of words in the language. The estimate is used worldover as a starting point for discussions. If you feel you must delete, then sobeit; I've had my say. PJJP

Please provide evidence of worldwide usage. -- Jonel | Speak 01:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it is possible to estimate the number of words used in a language, by any of a number of criteria. But that is not the issue in the proposed deletion of the article. The question here is whether your WordClock web page deserves an entry in the Wikipedia. There is a separate discussion on Number of words in English. --Macrakis 16:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 6 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

Paul JJ Payack[edit]

Vanity page, not notable. All substantive edits from the same anonymous IP address as other pages related to Payack: WordClock, Global Language Monitor, etc. Payack's main activity on Wikipedia appears to be generating pointers to his Web site. The books referenced in the article are all published by vanity presses (iUniverse). Googling "Mythomania Payack" finds only Wikipedia mirrors. Contemporary Authors, which he cites, publishes authors' self-descriptions. DELETE. Macrakis 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup - His link to the Global Language Monitor may be notable, gets some Google hits - but the vanity press bookcruft can go away posthaste. --FCYTravis 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Pjjp or delete. -- Hoary 10:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• The author me PJJP who is definitely not anonymous and created a PJJP some time ago has had over 400 works published in such well-known and established pubs as The Paris Review (5 works), Boulevard, New Letters (24 works), etc. I am the creator and president of one of the most respected language sites in the world (yourDictionary.com) which has links to thousands of Academic institutions worldwide (check our board of Advisors for a who's who of the world's linguists); while the C is one of the most respected analytical media tools globally. The BBC interviewed me twice in the last six months, CNN over two dozen times, PBS twice in the last ninety days. The vanity pubs you cite (iUniverse) are merely me collecting my previously published works. BTW, Mythomania, was published in '76 and is out of print, hence the mirrors. Check Bowkers for definitive lists of books in print from the past (I have some dozen between '73 and '87 that are now out of print.) My bio appears in scores of pubs of which the Contemp Authors is one of the most accurate because the author can correct it (but it usually runs 2 years behind reality.) As for the number of words in the English Language: this is applauded by serious linguists who are tired of the games that are played over words; the number of which can never be cited for the reasons you cite. However academics in other disciplines fail to understand how scientists can estimate the number of stars, galaxies and even atomic particles in the Universe, the number of neurons in a human brain, the number of people on the planet, but cannot provide even a rough estimate of the number of words in the language. The estimate is used worldover as a starting point for discussions. If you feel you must delete, then sobeit; I've had my say. PJJP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.128.16.20 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2005 Jun 23

Apparently you were not logged in when you edited the article; that makes your edits anonymous. I did look in the Paris Review--using their search function, I could only find one poem by you, published in 1976--or is Peter Payack also you? You are clearly very successful at public relations and have succeeded in getting your Global Language Monitor quoted by the press. You have also succeeded in getting Google to rank your site well, perhaps partly by the linkspammy links in the Wikipedia which you have inserted: they generally point to articles with very little substantive content. The board of advisors of yourDictionary is impressive, I agree. I still think that, as another contributor says, "If you have to write your own article you're not notable." --Macrakis 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re the "previously published works", I can't find them in a few major library catalogs (Boston Public, Library of Congress, Harvard...) I checked. And on bookfinder.com, all the listings of your books are from the vanity presses, none from the original non-vanity publishers. Interesting.
About yourdictionary.com, you say of it that you are "the creator" (my emphasis); according to the Library of Congress record, it was created by Robert Beard; is that incorrect?
About Contemp Authors, the point is that you quote what it says about your work as though it was an outside resource; but in fact you wrote that quote yourself, which seems a bit like what you're doing here on Wikipedia, adding links to yourself in various places.
About "applauded by serious linguists" — can you document this?--Macrakis 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• usefy If you have to write your own article your not notable--Porturology 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. CDC (talk) 14:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity. --Kevin 18:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

FatBottomLine[edit]

Blatant, first person advertising by a non-notable company. -- RHaworth 08:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Delete --GrandCru 17:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable company. JamesBurns 10:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously an advertisment. I also request that this "company" be taken of of List of United States companies. Rentastrawberry 04:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The author appears to have removed the advert, and I removed his comment, and now there's only one line. Falcon 18:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with GameFAQs message boards. Merge notice attached to article. Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Lue online[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 08:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 10:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the LUE section of GameFAQs message boards. — Kjammer ⌂ 17:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move the first paragraph to the article Kjammer suggested and delete the rest as non-notable cruft. Wipe 17:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge w/GameFAQs section. 15:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Merge into GameFAQs message boards. I'm not sure if this is even worth a passing mention there. - Thatdog 30 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Dunlop Public School[edit]

I hate to do this, given that I'm a school-inclusionist, but this one is a problem. Technically, it could possibly be speedied - no context at all (where is this school?) - but by listing it here at least there's a chance that someone will be able to do something to stop it being consigned to the viod. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing to a weak keep after the rewrite. But there are enough dissenting votes here to keep the vfd process going, even though the nominator has changed his opinion. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and now to a definite keep. Well done DoubleBlue - feel like tackling a couple o'hundred more school stubs? :) Grutness...wha? 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could spend some time cleaning up and expanding the school stubs in a proper and thoughtful way rather than hurriedly adding what can be found to save an article in VfD. Could we agree to tag poor articles with a ((cleanup-school)) or ((school-stub)) rather than ((vfd)) from here on?, said DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) in a hopeful tone.

*Delete unless it can be expanded upon.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to Keep. Great rewrite Double Blue.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, worthless. Proto 09:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A quick on hunt tells me it seems to be in Ottawa, but I stand by my vote. Primary schools are non-notable. Proto 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as substub unless expanded to have a significant BEEFSTEW score. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • At the time that this article was listed, it was a stub, not a substub. What's more, it was a very expandable stub, as shown by its current state. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Sppedy delete no context. Dunc|☺ 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Delete primary school.Dunc|☺ 19:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded the article a little bit (including location and external link). Pburka 13:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Primary school? That's pushing it. What about kindergartens? Delete. Radiant_>|< 14:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, failing that merge somewhere. Thanks Pburka. I can't believe User:Radiant! has never seen a primary school article on wp before. Kappa 14:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course I have. And I still think they're pushing it. Btw if you suggest merging, you might at least give an idea where to. Radiant_>|< 18:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Most schools are not notable. --Xcali 15:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most primary schools aren't notable. --Scimitar 16:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN school.--Nabla 16:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly has context now. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Merge into a school district article. — RJH 17:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ottawa, or into an article on this school district if established, per WP policy on schools lacking individual notability. (Note: not "merge somewhere".) Good to see improvements in context, but there's still nothing indicating any significance beyond thousands of primary schools. Barno 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I knew I could rely on someone else to figure out the best place. Kappa 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 21:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that moving the information from this article to Ottawa would be a bad idea. There are a lot of things in Ottawa, and having separate articles for them makes it easier to find what you're looking for on Wikipedia. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 21:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non-notable schools Columbia 03:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable. -- Visviva 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All schools are notable? What about that elementary school that I visited in South Dakota? The one that only had four students and one teacher. ‡ Jarlaxle 03:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds interesting. Tell me more. How did such a school come to be? How long has it been there? Was it always so small? Why is located where it is? What kind of students study there? What are the prospects for its survival/expansion? How is a one teacher-school managed? What qualifications does the teacher have? How many years do the students have that same teacher? What school do they graduate to and how different an experience is it? How does the school and teacher raise the funds to survive? What challenges/advantages do they have with so few students? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. I was hoping for a response like that. ‡ Jarlaxle 07:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have expanded the article further. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Very nice work. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• All schools are not notable for me. Likewise I feel you need something more then verifiable and NPOV. This last rewrite, while still needing more cleanup, should be a Keep. Vegaswikian 07:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no need to delete it. It's a legitimate article, and there's no waste of paper here. Or room, for that matter. ‡ Jarlaxle 07:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The current version of the article is informative and establishes context. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks again, DoubleBlue! --Unfocused 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep the article has made some major changes and would make jimbo proud. good job double blue! Yuckfoo 18:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:47 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Otserv[edit]

This was speedied last time I spotted it, but it has been re-added. It is now more comprehensive, but it remains un-encyclopædic and it seems to be an advert. So, delete Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This refer to Tibia open server that violates copyrights of CipSoft Gmbh over the original game Tibia since it uses the game original source code, and have not been authorized. Delete Baruk 20:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not true, OTServ does not contain any code written by CipSoft. Everything was written from scratch and no Cip copyright is harmed. But the article itself is not very good. Tliff 22:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Actually what was written from scratch are the maps but the main source code is the very same used on Tibia (it even uses an old client version of the game), so yes, it violates copyrighted material. and the article is not very good :p. So delete 200.20.118.197 23:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No it does not, I wrote a lot of the code and i have never ever seen a single line of the original Cip cide Tliff 00:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So that would explain why you would never admit that it does violate copyrighted material ... and i dont think the creators of the game (known as the Tibian Gods - Guido, Steve, Durin) and the Senior Game masters would say that it do violate Cipsoft copyright if it didnt. Even that it didnt use (what it does) the game main source code, it uses a modified Tibia client to give players acess to the game. delete 200.20.118.197 28 June 2005 18:43 (UTC)
      • Which shows that you did not understand the topic at all. There is no such thing as an OTServ client. OTServ has no client, and never had. The only thing OTServ does is to provide a server implemenation. (In fact it was stated on the Tutor board by a Senio Gamemaster, that OTServ itself is in fact legal) Tliff 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 10 "deletes", 7 "keeps" and one too ambiguous to call. I'll add my own vote that I do not believe he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.

However, even with my own opinion, this fails to rise to the level of concensus necessary for deletion. I am going to close this as a "no concensus" decision. Rossami (talk) 8 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

Dr Ong Teck Chin[edit]

This apparently is the principal of a school in Singapore. No further evidence of notability. Aecis 09:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. You don't realise do you? I'll add stuff later, I have been working on other articles, and not my school, but he's the incumbent principal of Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)...for those that don't know, this generally evokes gasps/awes among the Singaporean population, or at least on one's PSLE slip after graduating from primary school (for joy factor at least). Seeing how he's the one that's going to pioneer some radical programs, I think notability IS established. This is way too far, do you mind actually finding which schools happen to be prominent first, aka mentioned constantly in the Straits Times that is read by millions? Maybe you'd actually DO SOME RESEARCH, first? [7] [8] What's next, you're going to start deleting articles on our GRC ministers and electoral candidates just because its not documented on google? This is systemic bias at its worst, and intolerance of something that could change that, as well. Oh, something else, the school is uniquely (legally) a corporation, and he played a hand in that. -- Natalinasmpf 11:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So what? School principals arent inherently notable. Hell, even associate professors and professors of larger universities get deleted on Wikipedia. The school maybe notable, but he isnt.. as I've said countless of times before - being associated with X does not make Y notable. The school isnt up for VfD - he is. JamesBurns 06:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this is basically the leader of a pioneering programme currently being comitted by the school, being responsible for a host of new things. FYI, he's the school's second principal, and considering generally how its advanced over the past decade, and how those improvements could be attributed to him....-- Natalinasmpf 06:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Calm down, natalina. I understand that you care about this subject, otherwise you wouldn't have created this article. But accusing users of systemic bias and intolerance won't get you far. The issue is not whether the Anglo-Chinese School is notable (I believe it is). The issue is also not whether dr. Ong Teck Chin has played an important role in the history of the school (I'm sure he has). The issue is whether that makes him notable enough to be on Wikipedia. A major problem with this article is that it simply states that Dr. Ong Teck Chin is the principal of the ACS. No mention is made of all the valuable information you have posted here. Also keep in mind that three weeks have gone by since the creation of this article. In that period of time, there have been no serious edits to this article, only some minor copyediting and some stub-tagging. That's it. That of course doesn't make Dr. Ong Teck Chin non-notable, but it doesn't plead in his advantage either. This article doesn't give a shred of proof of notability. Aecis 11:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS. Planning to do something doesn't make someone notable, it's doing something that makes someone notable.)

• Delete until more information is given. I have no doubt Dr Chin is notable but why have an article that just says he was appointed in 1994. This is an insult to Dr Chin and the readers of Wikipedia. It would have taken very little effort to include the above information. Did you put this sub stub on just so you could put another notch on your belt to say how many articles you had 'written'? --Porturology 11:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I wrote it because I didn't want a red link, not to "put a notch on my belt". Note, I boast very little on my user page, maybe counting all the articles you write is something you do. I myself isn't a student of ACS(I), I was expecting Wikipedians who go to that school (which I think there are two or three) to write up about it. I will include more information when I finish writing some other articles first. -- Natalinasmpf 12:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • If you didnt want a red link then dont create a link. The red links aren't there for article creation - they're there because someone was sloppy enough not to preview their article and remove the link before submitting an article. JamesBurns 06:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete School principal. No claim to notability given in article. Google (76 hits) reveals nothing that couldn't be said of any other school principal on the planet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Did you read anything? Its far more than 76, and furthermore, does "any other school principal" teach in three NATIONAL universities, most notably in the medical faculty, administrate a school like a corporation in addition to the style as an academic institution, be a pioneer of reform in an Asian education system (which is noted for rigidity and high stress) and a principal of the school that won the Odyssey of the Mind competition in 2002, as well as a host of other NATIONAL DISTINCTIONS? CAN YOU ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH FIRST? Furthermore, google is not omniscient - and actually there are a bunch of other pages that mention him, but their robots.txt prevent google from indexing it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Give him a mention on Anglo-Chinese School. --Xcali 15:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Xcali.--Nabla 16:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in school article, unless article author wishes to expand article at least enough to make a plausible claim of notability for the subject. --FCYTravis 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Can't you be more patient? I was inevitably going to work on it, you deletionists. And here it is, and more to come, how far does this have to go? -- Natalinasmpf 21:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I must say that this is the best improvement of a VfD'ed article I've ever seen. The article itself is now definitely up to Wikipedia standards. I'm still not convinced of Ong Teck Chin's notability though. I don't know what can convince me either. If this article indeed will be deleted, I hope that the content will first be added to Natalina's user talk page or somewhere else. This is too much of an improvement to go by unnoticed. Aecis 22:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Patient? Well, you've got five days until the vote actually closes to make the improvements. I don't think voting delete until improved is being impatient. Oh yeah, zomg, im a deletionist, I'm eeeeeeeeevil. --FCYTravis 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not Thomas Arnold. Dunc|☺ 19:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. What about this page? (See bottom). [9] PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEW VERSION, NOT THE OLD.

• Move to Ong Teck Chin, as having Dr. in the title is, I believe, against our naming conventions.--Scimitar 22:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Done. -- Natalinasmpf 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Ong Teck Chin --GrandCru 23:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. ALSO NOTE ALL THE REFERENCES I HAVE CITED. IS THIS ENOUGH FOR SOMEONE TO BE SENSIBLE AND ACTUALLY REMOVE THE BLOODY "NO REFERENCES" TAG FROM THE PAGE? This is way too far. How many references have I cited, and how many things must I add, and you still want to delete it?! -- Natalinasmpf 22:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know exactly how far a principal has to go to become notable but it seems to me that the article establishes that he is more notable than an average principal. Playing into my judgement, to some degree, is that the author has over 500 edits in the last week and seems to have a very good grasp of what Wikipedia is about. For me to sit here in Chicago and say that a principal is not notable is very difficult. Here, the former head of the Chicago Public Schools was so notable that he ran a very viable campaign for governor in the last Democratic primary. Wikipedia is not paper and I think we have a new bytes to spare for Dr. Chin. DS1953 00:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Ong, you mean. Its a Chinese name, the surname comes first. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 00:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - after schools the flood of teachers - Skysmith 09:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - its hardly a flood of teachers. I mean, its not just any principal either. Did you bother to check out the references? -- Natalinasmpf 09:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, not this article. Modifying vote, could need clarification - Skysmith 09:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Not an average principal, and I really don't think principal's on the whole should be included, but he seems notable. --Scimitar 14:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable principal of notable school. -- Vsion 04:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DS1953, fixing article title as appropriate. Jgm 29 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I see no birthdates. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 06:17 (UTC)
• Weak Keep After reviewing print and online documentation, appears to have an unusual constellation of personal achievements including 'Best Actor' in the local Youth Festival, several military awards, a PhD in Biochemistry and a Rhodes scholarship. Autolycus 30 June 2005
• Delete. I've discovered Wikipedia fairly recently and, coming from Singapore myself, I was surprised and interested to discover this article about Dr. Ong Teck Chin at its consideration for deletion. I agree with what's been said above about being the principal of a well-known school not being sufficient criteria for an entry in an encylopaedia, unless the circumstances are exceptional. I think this article as it currently exists is very biased and reflects the propaganda at this school (and supportive elements in the press) would like people to believe rather than the reality. ACS (Independent) was not the first school in Singapore to introduce a 4-year integrated programme. It was the first local school to take a firm decision to use the International Baccalaureate, but others are considering this too. Deciding to use the IB is not as "pioneering" as this article makes out. It's a major international exam curriculum which has been used at schools around the world for decades, including at a number of the international schools in Singapore. Fundraising is something all schools in Singapore do, and that independent schools particularly try to push. The school's achievements in these areas are not that remarkable. If this article is kept, people associated with all the other leading schools in Singapore (and probably many other schools around the world) will be encouraged to also put trumped-up articles about their principals in this encyclopaedia. Singopo 6 July 2005

• Checking with IBO shows that this is the first Singapore-system school to be authorised to use the IB Diploma Programme. Suggest you tone down the inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. 'trumped-up') and be more concise as to your grounds of objection. Brythain 6 July 2005
  • I know it's the first local-system school in Singapore to adopt the IB (I already noted that above). But that in itself is not a "pioneering" move. A number of other schools in Singapore are also considering doing so. This article currently implies that Dr. Ong is responsible for doing something revolutionary, and in my opinion that is "trumping-up" his significance. Singopo 6 July 2005
    • It's the first such school to be authorised in Singapore. Not pioneering enough? To clarify, it is the first local-system school in Singapore (known internationally for its education system) to actually offer its students a different terminal qualification from the GCE-Cambridge system (as opposed to 'considering' doing so). Considering that every single one of the other 179 Singapore secondary schools and junior colleges offers GCE terminal qualifications, this is revolutionary enough, surely.Brythain 7 July 2005
      • The school was not the first to start a 4-year integrated programme, just the first to choose to have the students sit IB instead of A-Level exams at the end of it. I DO think that's significant enough to note on the page about the school on Wikipedia. But I DON'T think it's enough to mean that its principal merits an individual page in an international encyclopaedia. Singopo 7 July 2005 14:55 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 01:44 (UTC)

Welding Man (Television)[edit]

Character from a Flash comic that has no Wikipedia article (which itself doesn't seem particularly notable). Only 6 displayed hits for "Welding Man" "burnt face man". If kept, it should be moved back to Welding Man, since there doesn't seem to be a need for disambiguation, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with television. Niteowlneils 09:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is a notable web cartoon, but does a single character and his corresponding episode summary really need an article? No. Modular 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)y
• Delete non notable flash. JamesBurns 10:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Blankfaze (no context). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James murray drake[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 09:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Dizzlete - vanity begone! --FCYTravis 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No context. I'm speedying this. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 09:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:02 (UTC)

The droids[edit]

Non-notable band that hasn't produced an album (just two demos), and based on their website hasn't played any gigs other than a couple dozen last summer in the greater Seattle area. Only 5 displayed hits for "The droids" "twenty cart pileup".D'oh, wrong "The Droids"--Zero hits for"The droids" "adam Nadeau". No allmusic listing. Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Niteowlneils 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable - probable vanity page put up by a band member Jez 13:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:58, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Ashley Penney[edit]

Blatant vanity. Would loved to have speedied it, but I can't. :( Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete immediately Vanity. Sundar 11:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm embarrassed that I have friends so stupid they thought this was either funny or clever. Someone please remove this nonsense, as it's referring to me. I'm not even sure who's responsible, but I'll suggest they stop attempting to be funny, they aren't. --Ashp 12:15, Jun 28 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all articles - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Zillions games by Karlscherer3[edit]

Includes (but isn't limited) to the following: Bad Neighbors (Zillions game), Bubbles (Zillions game), Bubbles II, Bump (Zillions game), Butterflies (Zillions game), Cat & Mouse II, Cat & Mouse III, Cleanup (Zillions game), Cleanup II, Cleanup III, Clingon (redirected), Clingon III, Crisscross (Zillions game), Domina 4, Domino Puzzles (Zillions game), Doors III, Doughnuts (Zillions game), Drop (Zillions game), Dropmania, Fruit (Zillions game), Fruit Basket (Zillions game), Fruit II, Harry (Zillions game), Hearts (Zillions game), Jugs (Zillions game), Jugs II, Liars (Zillions game), Marbles (Zillions game), Marbles II, Marbles III, Matchsticks (Zillions game), Matchsticks II, Max Solver, Mem (Zillions game), Mem II, Nutts Solver, Pancakes (Zillions game), Pento Solver, Quadrilles (Zillions game), Rabbits (Zillions game), Row (Zillions game), Saltwater (Zillions game), Spaghetti (Zillions game), Tetrasticks (Zillions game), Triki, and Unplay Chess.

Were mass tagged by User:-Ril- as a speedy for advertising, but doesn't qualify by the criteria. I think that at least th e variants of the same game need to go. Still, not every game is notable in itself. Delete the lot. An article about the collection as a whole is IMO acceptable. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Karlscherer3 has created literally hundreds of articles which can be seen as spam advertising his website. N.b. apart from the 40 or so listed above there are at least 104 articles of this form. This is a place to consider deletion of all of them as a collection. The list is available at Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer

• Delete wikipedia is not a product catalogue. ~~~~ 10:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, JPat
• Delete, this is overarticlization. Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Judging by the non-catchy names this is the contents of one of those "1001 Awesome Games for Windows" packs. The pack itself is not notable, let alone the minigames contained within. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 10:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment User:Karlscherer3 is also User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17 (see edits to Turing Machine), and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58. ~~~~ 10:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete them all. NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All I'm in favour of keeping all released games, even obscure ones. However, freeware mini-games made with the Zillions of Games engine and released online don't really count. If we're being really nice I suppose these could be merged into a list, but even that's pushing it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete them all, and inform user of criteria for an article, what wikipedia is not. Proto 11:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This user (Karlscherer3) has also edited many puzzle-related articles, on occasion making vanity edits, and re-structuring them to suit how his Zillions games are organised. ~~~~ 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. In addition to Zillions-Games related articles, this user (Karlscherer3) also seems to be adding articles suiting his own personal mathematical theories and terminology, rather than standard terms or theories. ~~~~ 11:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All, Karl Scherer is obviously not aware about Wikipedia policy not publish own inventions and original research (Wikipedia:No_original_research). Andreas Kaufmann 12:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the lot of them as spamvertizing, and send Karlscherer3 a shot across the bow with respect to future activities along these lines. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete all - probably spamvertising, definitely nn. OpenToppedBus - Talk 12:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• "probably advertising" ? how do you know without researching the truth? There is no advertising in this at all, and I make no money witrh this. Please don't spread half-truths or liews without knowing what is going on, thanks. I was asked to write an article for each game by administrator Silke two. I onloy started doing this AFTER it was suggested to me by an administor. If you now want to delete them I suggest, you sit together and agree on your policies. That I document only my own games, has simple reasons like shear workload associated with it etc. I have asked other Zillions game to document their game in Wiki accordingly. Since these are many, I am not willing to document their games. I have doiscussed all that in length with admin Silke2 already, and we agreed on the important subjects.

Regarding maths: yes, some definitions have been invented by me about 20 years ago, since in the area of tilings there was no word for the property of neat and nowhere-neat tilings then.

I'm just going to interrupt here, to point out continuous tiling, and its opposite, dis-continuous tiling. ~~~~ 15:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But this and other definitions have meanwhile (over the last 2 decades) become used more and more amongst people who research in these and similar tilings, see Journal of Recreational mathematics. Special areas of maths have their special language; this makes it much easier to communicate.

Therefore, (with the exception maybe on the article of 'slices'), I think the documentation of everything else is well justified.

The area of tilings and puzzles has undergone quite a lot of blossoming the last two decades (maybe widely unknown to the ordinary public or even to mathematicians who do not read journals like JRM).

Cheers, Karl (unsigned comments by User:Karlscherer3)

Karl, we are discussing both the game articles, and your edits to puzzle related articles. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and you should certainly not be adding your own name and claimed achievements into Wikipedia. See Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer for the full list of articles in question. ~~~~ 13:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the fact that recreational mathematicians are not professional mathematicians. And the terminology of mathematics is generally regarded as being decided by the professional, rather than amateur, mathematicians. ~~~~

• It doesn't matter whether it is commercial or not, it is still a flood of articles intended to promote the author. Delete. Morwen - Talk 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartr from that, I have no qualms if you delete or edit any of my stuff; I already said that to Silke2. You admins know better than me what you want in wikipedia and not. I will not take perosnal any of that, I only try to share information and increase knowledge. indeed was not aware that scientif results are not wanted in Wikipedia. I apologize therefore if I did not fulfill your guidelines, but it was unintended. Keep up the great work!!! Karl (unsigned by User:Karlscherer3, tidied by ~~~~)

By the way, Zillions games are without violence, blood splatter, horror,etc, but thinking, intelligence games without time pressure and stress. They represent a much more healthy way to enjoy games that the point-and-shoot arcade games etc. Yes, they deserve more publication because they can help people increase their mind power and teach cids better skill than shooting well. I hope you can see these aspects and appreciate them. Let us foster the good! Karlscherer3 13:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (sorry for not signing properly last time);I dont talk much usually; use my time more for creative work. Karlscherer3 13:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a publicity company, or an arbiter of public morals. Please bear that in mind. ~~~~ 14:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it is generally accepted here that if you or your creations (e.g. the games) are famous, someone else will write an article on them. Hence, they are sometimes called self-promotion, or vanity. Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. --Xcali 15:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Oleg Alexandrov 15:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all, and tell the user to stop it.-Splash 16:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all and lay the smack down on User:Karlscherer3 Tom k&e 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them but Tom k&e should be careful not to bite the newbies... If you read his comments, he just seems not to know WP policy to well. Try to be nice. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

He is not a newbie. User:Karlscherer3 is also User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17 (see edits to Turing Machine), and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58. These edits go back to at least 2002. ~~~~ 20:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being a newbie has more to do with how aware you are of policy than with how long you've been here (apparently a brief time 3 years ago) Slike2 20:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete all Dunc|☺ 19:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, not encyclopedically notable and no potential to become so. Barno 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this discussion refers to zillions games. Please remove from your category or specify articles which are not games. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer. Slike2 20:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, this refers to all of them. The title of this VFD originates from merging two seperate VFDs. ~~~~ 20:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost 100% of the edits he has made to puzzle related articles which are not explicitely about the games, are to add links to his zillions website, and introduce terms and ideas he himself (above) admits he made up (i.e. original research), into a field of mathematics that, apart from him and a small group of his (non-professional) friends, does not use them.

Apart from this, his edits are to add things such as "Karl Scherer [i.e. him] solved this maths problem on date X, with the following theorem", which is both original research, and definitely non-neutral, as well as vanity.

The articles will remain in the category for the duration of this VFD. ~~~~ 20:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of the reasons given for deletion here are based on the assumption that these articles are ads for non-notable games. I agree that those articles should be deleted, but if I vote to delete, will my vote be interpreted to apply to other unrelated articles that I haven't even seen? Factitious 23:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the assumption was made that they were ads, just that they were non-notable. I think it's stupid to delete clearly factual information about anything, no matter how obscure, but most people seem to disagree. Unfortunate. Slike2 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, Extremely strong keep on articles that are not zillins games. This vote is clearly marked 'zillions games', and all examples given are zillions games. There has been nothing on this page to indicate that some of the articles listed have not been created by other people, edited by other people, and so on. It would be a complete violation of process if an admin were to delete them. Slike2 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other non-zillions-games articles are attempts by Karl Scherer to promote his own personal categorisation and terminology. These things are not notable usage, mathematicians and others do not use his terms. Also, many of them are simply an attempt to justify adding all zillions games as links - by splitting the games up into very small categorisations, creating an article for each category, and then adding external links to the games in each article. It is a massive abuse of Wikipedia. This is why I am including them in the deletion and urge an Extremely strong delete (n.b. I have voted elsewhere, so this vote should not count in addition to my earlier vote). ~~~~ 07:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here, it sounds like you're saying "delete everything listed"; below, you exclude pre-existing articles like tiling. So it seems vital to clarify the intent, and to ask what care has been taken to separate edits from new article creations. In any case, do we have prior history with Karl Scherer that suggests intentional bad behavior? He claims he was asked to create articles by an administrator (presumably Slike2, misspelled); is that disputed, or was it misunderstood, or what? Yes, we need a massive deletion of all the separate games articles, perhaps accompanied by a merging of the content into a single article. Yes, we need to educate the author about what's expected in Wikipedia. What I see is a somewhat misguided attempt to contribute, not a deliberate attempt to spam or to distort mathematics and games terminology — unless I hear facts to the contrary. But this proposed vote is not clearly enough limited in scope. It strikes me as excessive on the part of -Ril-, more of an angry rant than a reasoned response. In fact, with a little guidance Karl might happily do most of the cleanup work himself, sparing the need for this debate and vote. Otherwise, Niteowlneils seems to have it about right. (And yes, I've heard of Pollyanna and read Candide.) KSmrq 10:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you check the category, you will see that tiling is not in it(, and never was). ~~~~ 21:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check his talk page, you'll see our discussion, and his completely reasonable and polite responses. And -Ril-'s not-quite-so-reasonable comments. He had his games linked from one of the pages, I informed him that editors don't tolerate external links of that sort, and that they would only make sense if there was an article about them directly. I also pointed out that some people don't like to have what they deem is 'minor' information in wikipedea, and noted that he should try to put them in one big article. I doubt his intent was to advertise, only to inform people about the things he knew the most about and was most enthusiastic about. I find this whole process sad to see, it should have been handled in another way first, considering the user's positive attitude. Slike2 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is really sad in reading his talk page is that he seems to have begun creating all the Zillions pages because he believes that's what you recommended! Yet, despite that, -Ril- launches an assault. Karl claims to have a doctorate in mathematics, which is prima facie evidence that he may be a bit strange (said tongue in cheek), but not that he is unwilling or unable to place nicely with others. Yes, I believe adding numerous links on WP pages to one's own work shows a certain lack of professional and social awareness; it is inappropriate, disturbing, and creates a bad impression. We can only hope our own gaffes are treated more helpfully and with more compassion. KSmrq 16:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you check the contributions he made before that, you will note that almost 100% of articles he created are either

(a) articles describing a classification which he created, and is not used by professional mathematicians. I.e. it is original, and very non-standard, non-notable, research. or

almost 100% of which list many zillions games as external links

exactly as if the entire set of articles is designed to create enough articles to spread the games accross, so that all of them can be listed without there being a huge list of external links in any one article. This is an appalling abuse of Wikipedia. It seems to be designed to function as a zillions games catalogue, for spreading accross Wikipedia mirrors, and causing google-bombing. If this is the case it is to be condemned in the strongest terms.

(b) are articles describing friends of his, which is also original research, not NPOV, and non-notable

On top of that, many of his edits to pre-existing articles are to insert claims that he (i.e. Karl Scherer) has solved such-and-such a maths problem. Which is (a) not verified, (b) not NPOV, (c) original research (as it is him doing the insertion), and (d) a massive vanity edit

This users edits over the past 2.5 years constitute nothing but these, and consequently I can see him only as a massive problem. His behaviour is an abuse of Wikipedia, and even a newbie in their first edit would know that they aren't supposed to behave like this. ~~~~ 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I linked to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on your talk page, obviously you havn't read it, which is too bad. Read what KSmrq said. You have absolutely no reason to act as you are acting, considering his polite replies to even your criticism. What are you basing your hostility on? An explanation would have sufficed, instead of an immediate rfd and the crap you left on his user page. Slike2 22:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The indents were getting a bit deep for me, so I'm responding to -Ril- at the same level as my previous comment. We agree on two key points. (1) Yes, his edits look a bit egocentric. (2) The Zillions proliferation is over-the-top. We also agree that if he is deliberately google-bombing that is abusive and to be condemned. We disagree that such is the case. We also disagree, apparently, about the best means to resolve these difficulties. Read his own words on his talk page; they do not support your position that his behavior is a manifestation of evil intent. Nor can I agree that "a newbie in their first edit would know". By all means, we seem to be reaching a massive concensus that the behavior and its artifacts need correcting, so some action is called for. However, at this point we do not have concensus that we need an overreaching deletion to accomplish this, nor do we have consensus that the person (not the behavior) is to be attacked. Can we please first try educating the guy? After all, what kinds of social skills can we expect of someone living in a country with more sheep than humans (tongue firmly in cheek)? Also, I understand (and sympathize) that you are upset because the boor spilled red wine on your beautiful white Wikipedia carpet; but please turn down the flames, at least reserving boldface for votes. The mess can be cleaned up, and we might as well be civil in doing it. It was a very good catch spotting the problem contributions; it's a pity they couldn't have been corrected sooner and more calmly. KSmrq 05:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red wine stains are easy to remove from a white carpet. Due to useful feature of chemistry, if poured on top immediately, they can be removed by white wine. ~~~~ 10:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KSmrq, could you please remove the referance to red wine above? It is incredibly superfluous, yet it's apparently making it incredibly difficult for -Ril- to acknowledge every single point you've made in your edit. Slike2 17:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The references are a metaphor rather than superflous nebulosity. ~~~~ 23:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He said the equivelant of "I understand that think he's a boor and messed up something you like, but please stop being so rude, and reserve boldface for votes", and you answered with "the solution to the problem is a vfd", which is not a reply to any part of his message. Yes, fine, you think this deserves a vfd. That's not his point. His point is, if I may offer a blunt translation - or rather, lets just say that this is my point - considering Karlscherer3's reasonable responses, an alternate solution may have been to talk to him first, and that even if you do decide to vfd some of his articles, there's no need to be a righteous bastard about it. Slike2 01:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Curious, how perceptions differ. The white wine suggestion made me smile. I took it as a tacit acknowledgement of my diagnosis, and a hopeful sign of a more productive tone. At the end of the day, style and personality aside, we all want a better Wikipedia. Red wine is a metaphor, and (at the risk of speaking for -Ril-) white wine might be taken as an alternative to ripping out the carpet. Is either of you two (Slike2 or -Ril-) experienced Wikipedians willing to guide Karl through the nuances of what is and is not an appropriate contribution? Shall we first give him a chance to clean up his own mess, perhaps also assisted by a targeted delete of only the Zillions sprawl, leaving him to back out the vanity edits? (And I use "vanity" in the Wikipedia sense, with no interpretation of user intent.) That would seem to agree with the opinions collected in this discussion, and let us return to building better pages! KSmrq 2005 June 28 08:11 (UTC)

It doesn't seem curious to me :) My expectations of -Ril-'s good will being not as high as yours may account for the difference. In regards to the metaphor, I fear it's lost on me - I have no idea which action correlates with ripping out the carpet, and there seems to be no mention of "having the spiller himself clean out the carpet" (and it wouldn't seem to be red wine, because these 'stains' are really quite easy to get out). I don't know how well your suggestion would work at this point, but asking him to clean it is worth a try, though I doubt it'll do much: he seems to have been discouraged to the point of leaving [10], thanks to -Ril-'s absolutely innapropriate behaviour (I'm not talking about the vfd). I'm afraid I'm no mentor as to wikipedia policy, as I've stated before. If someone could name all the policies that apply, I would be able to, well, copy them to his user page. Slike2 28 June 2005 11:47 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that Karl Scherer is still here, but using a sockpuppet. Not being a Developer, I am unable to test my strong suspicion as to who it is, I have asked for a check to provide potential evidence, but it has not yet been carried out as far as I know. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Could you fill us in? Slike2

Of course, I could. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

• Delete all of them, not what this place is for jamesgibbon 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh crumbs, what an accumulation of adcruft. Send this in and clean the whole lot out. Anthony Appleyard 21:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all! I'm afraid most of the games don't have any potential to once become known and famous enough to give enough material for good articles about all of them. — Pt _(T) 22:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These are not notable now, and will be singularly non-notable in ten years. One thing an encyclopedia is about is posterity. These games are not worthy. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete all. Notability not established. — Ливай | ☺ 05:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Notability not established. JamesBurns 06:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all game articles and any pure original research topical articles; cleanup other affected topical articles to reduce inappropriate original research and self-promotion of contributor's personal website and projects. Niteowlneils 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hedley 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all drini ☎ 21:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. --W(t) 23:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Comment: What about Puzzling object? There could be arguments for its deletion, but it doesn't look like advertising, and being created by someone who made many deletion-worthy articles does not qualify it for deletion. I think we should be careful about mass deleting articles without checking whether they all should actually be deleted. Perhaps this could be limited to the (many) articles mentioning Zillions? I haven't looked through the hundreds of articles being discussed here, so I'm not sure what the best way of sifting through them would be, but I am concerned that a few legitimate ones will be deleted because of the others. Factitious 23:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It has been created by someone who wishes to promote his own categorisation of puzzles. Look at the "mechanical class:XYZ" aspect. There is very little else in content terms. ~~~~ 07:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a useful article, yes. However, it is not an advertisement, nor is it about a game, and the arguments on this page simply do not apply to it. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Tiling is one of the articles tagged with this VfD notice. Is anyone seriously proposing that it be deleted? That article has been around for years, and contains very useful information. Please, limit this to Zillions games. Factitious 00:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. No it isn't. Please look carefully. It is a different tag, indicating that the Tiling article has been subjected to much editing by Karl Scherer and needs to be cleaned up and verified in consequence. It is also a different colour (the deletion tags are light blue, the one at Tiling is a form of dark purple). ~~~~ 07:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't check the tag carefully enough on that one. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I support the deletion of Text based adventure game, because it provides no information not already present in Interactive fiction. It should be made into a redirect. However, none of the delete votes above seem to apply to it. It's not an ad, original research, a neologism, or even non-notable. It should not be included in this VfD listing. Factitious 00:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: removed Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game (suggested merge), Puzzle jewelry/Puzzle box (both may be googled, and images of both may be found). Others that are clearly exempt from this vfd may exist. Slike2 02:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:I have put Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game back into the category. They duplicate material at Adventure game, to suit Karl Scherer's own categorisation. ~~~~ 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Many people on this page appear to have been voting based on the misconception that the pages under discussion were ads for Zillions games. It is unreasonable to try to make those votes apply to Text based adventure game. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I've removed them again, putting the non-redundant part of the articles into the adventure games discission section. Slike2 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE ALL. I've read about one third of them and can't stand it any more. First year programming assignments at best. bjd
• I vote to delete the articles about Zillions games. I vote to keep the other articles under consideration here, until they can be discussed on their own terms. When that happens, I'll probably vote to delete or merge them, depending on the case. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the games. Abstain on the others. — P Ingerson (talk) 13:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. My opinion as a mathematician is that Tetrad (tiling) is non-notable / original research, and that Karl Scherer doesn't pass the professor test. (By the way, the definition of "Tetrad" in the opening paragraph of that article is wrong. Boundaries have measure 0.) dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)
• Comment: Puritile and Pure tiling fall in the same category. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • note. Please also see the related VFD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 22:29 (UTC)
• Comment: Mechanical puzzle, Topological puzzle, Routefinding puzzle, Disentanglement puzzle, etc., seem to be legitimate topics. They ought to at least have a separate VfD discussion, since they weren't listed explicitly above. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)
  • The 3rd paragraph of the 3 that introduce this VfD is N.b. apart from the 40 or so listed above there are at least 104 articles of this form. This is a place to consider deletion of all of them as a collection. The list is available at Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer. The first 4 words of the first paragraph are Includes (but isn't limited), before listing 40 of the articles. This clearly indicates that this VfD includes all the articles in the category. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)
• Delete all "He who talks doesn't know. He who knows doesn't talk." --Lao Tzu i.e. Self-promotion is not neccessary for work of true notability. Therefore, Wikipedia:No original research. Psora 29 June 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that this discussion has become confused by matters of personality and etiquette, discussion of which belongs on Talk pages. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#The most important things to remember and remember that the discussion is about the articles in question, not the people involved. Psora 29 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)
• Comment this VfD has been open for 6 days now. I thought they ended after 5? There seems to me a clear majority for deletion of all the articles from the votes cast so-far. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
• Comment N.b. the current voting state is 1 to Keep, 1 to Keep the non-game articles but delete the rest, 1 to abstain about the non-game articles, but delete the rest, and 30 to delete all the articles. This constitutes a 90% majority to delete all. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

• Well, in case it doesn't yet -- Delete all. Uttaddmb 30 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)

• Delete all --Wetman 29 June 2005 21:55 (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 a deletion review, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Eugene Scott. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Betty Ann Frazer[edit]

High school sweatheart of television evangelist. Delete. (see below) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Gene Scott, her ex-husband who does have an article. 209.106.0.250 15:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well, since they married: Merge into Eugene Scott (we do have an article, just differently named - that's why I didn't find it before.) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Blikey[edit]

Article reads in full: This is a person of a double ethnic minority as a member of the travelling community and of dark skin. So for a start, it looks like a dicdef. However, searching Google for both "blikey" and any one of "traveller", "travelling", "traveler", and "traveling" brings no evidence whatever that it is so used. Hoax or neologism; delete. -- Hoary 10:47, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - No context, no hope of becoming encyclopedic. Word gets all of 160 Google hits. --FCYTravis 10:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I think you'll find that the great majority of these 160 are irrelevant. -- Hoary 13:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Comment: This looks like a portmanteau of "black" and "pikey". Kappa 14:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per FCYTravis --Xcali 15:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• del--MarSch 16:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:07 (UTC)

Global Language Monitor[edit]

Advertising for website. WP is not a web directory. -- Hoary 10:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. Michael 12:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising and per nomination.-Splash 16:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. humblefool® 00:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Macrakis 16:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 01:04 (UTC)

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance[edit]

No real content other than the list of chapters which cannot possibly be each described as a section given time. Also it arguably falls under What Wikipedia is not since it's akin to a list of facts or links. But even without the TOC list, the book does not seem especially noteworthy (~5000 Googles). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the contents and redirect the title to the book's author Robert Spencer until someone is prepared to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about the book. But in case that counts as a keep vote under VfD rules, my vote is delete the title too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are 199 articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the author article is worthy of retention, then it is a fairly natural progression to wikify his book titles. These red links then cry out for articles. It would be silly for these to be redirects back to the author page. That's how Wikipedia grows, or at least one of the ways. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for listing its article here; in fact it is a very bad reason. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  The reason I'm voting delete is that the author of this article has created a bunch of POV stubs, including only publishers' blurbs, chapter lists, sometimes quotes from the authors, and pictures of the book covers. They're free advertising for the publishers and hopelessly POV data dumps: violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. They could be made to conform to NPOV, but it would be a lot of work for someone. It therefore makes sense to redirect the title to the author's page until an editor actually wants to write a neutral article about the book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  How is a contents list of a book in breach of our POV policy? Granted the chapter titles reflect the POV of the book, but that is an entirely different matter. I cannot see any merit to this argument, I'm afraid. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is POV because it is lacking a paragraph critiquing the views in the book. Radiant_>|< 12:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  It's the lack of any balancing material that's the problem. If it were a neutral article that just happened to list the TOC at the end, it would be okay, but when the TOC's the only thing, and the chapter titles are things like "A Muslim by any other name blows up just the same" (this is from one of the Ann Coulter titles), there's a serious POV issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • The fact that an article is POV is not a valid reason to list here. If it is impossible for it ever to become NPOV, that would be different. This is not the case here. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Hence my vote to blank the page and redirect the title to the author's page until someone wants to create an encyclopedic article about the book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia.--CltFn 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  CltFn is the author of these pages. I agree that good book pages are essential to Wikipedia, but you're not writing good ones. In fact, you're not writing anything. You're copying publishers' blurbs and essentially producing free commercials. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete content, for starters, since copy/pasting a table of contents is copyvio, not to mention unencyclopedic. Redirect to author for the time being. Radiant_>|< 12:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • (by which I mean that an article about the book would be encyclopedic, but this is not that article, or indeed an article at all). Radiant_>|< 12:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep but also cleanup. WP needs an article, not a table of contents. Book is certainly notable, with a noteworthy author, a real publisher, and a decent Amazon rank (~15,000). The book itself might be POV, but there's no reason that an article on it must be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the article on the author, for whom the creation of books on Muslim bogeymen seems to be a cottage industry. -- Hoary 13:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete the table of contents listing for starters. Sadly, I believe it's notable, but I'll see about adding some useful content. Keep the book.--Scimitar 14:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the book. Kappa 14:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, besides the controversial content, and non-notability, the article is atrociously written. ~~~~ 14:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup by first losing the list of chapters then providing a more lengthy summary of the central argument. Valid encyclopaedia topic. David | Talk 14:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Get rid of the contents, merge anything useful that's left into Robert Spencer, and redirect. — Ливай | ☺ 15:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect until some decent content appears. Saswann 16:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Clearly, Keep notable book, let the process work. Jgm 16:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article as unencyclopedic. If someone wants to write an encyclopedia article about this book, that would be fine, but I see no benefit either for them or for Wikipedia in having this lying around. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable book. Capitalistroadster 17:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, should be cleaned up, not deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep if article is cleaned up and expanded. --Alabamaboy 18:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep without any "if"s. There is nothing to cleanup. It is vanilla neutral in its shortness. An even in this form it is informative: the article clearly says what the book about and what opponents think about it. And of course it is notable, since it causes heated discussions, not to say about over 5,000 google hits. mikka (t) 20:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Look at the article history to see when it was not always so. David | Talk 10:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. this version was the one I nominated. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 12:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• However, it could be argued that an article that could be improved so quickly should never have been listed here at all. Filiocht | Talk 12:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• LOL! Yes, but that would require that me to have incredible foresight which, I'm afraid to say, I do not have (as exemplified by my exam I am supposed to be sitting today). And this is probably the first "prime Vfd candidate" that's changed so quickly after my nomination, so I didn't exactly have any track record to go by to "give it a chance". But I'll be happy with whatever the Vfd brings. Indeed in many cases a Vfd is the only way to get an article improved, whereas before (and, as a rule, after) it languishes in mediocrity for all of (forseeable) eternity. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, certainly jamesgibbon 21:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested by SlimVirgin. Lists of chapter titles are not articles on books. Grace Note 23:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason to redirect because when articles are redirected they tend to have a harder time expanding, IMHO. Falphin 00:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable book. JamesBurns 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. --MikeJ9919 15:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please do not let your personal biases sway your votes that is not the wiki way Yuckfoo 18:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have seen MUCH worse things on a random jaunt through the wiki, and i recall seeing this on major news outlets a while back
• Keep Although critical comments are urgently called for. PatGallacher 2005 June 28 16:23 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:10 (UTC)

David Sankidze[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted

unsourced, zero google-hits.--Fenice 11:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax.  Grue  16:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 23:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Leon Goldstein High School for Sciences[edit]

Not enough information to justify an article, non-notable, delete if not expanded Proto 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, covering high schools is necessary to coverage of education, and this article establishes even greater notability than that of a typical high school. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 14:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Covering high schools is *not* necessary to coverage of education. If I want to understand education in some country I do not want to read a thousand articles on similar schools but one that shows a global picture of the subject, probably pointing to a few notable good/bad examples.--Nabla 16:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    • But what if you want to know about education in a particular town? Kappa 02:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Look at the town's article? Many (most?) of them don't even mention the existence of a school. Why? Maybe because it is not relevant for the towns article as it is just another school. Yet the main point is we have to stop at some level, as the only way to have the whole picture on education (or anything, for that matter), is to have an article on every thing and every one involved. Every building, every teacher, every student, every household, etc.. They are all important, they are all related. I bet you don't want that, so we simply disagree on where to draw the line, which is fine by me.--Nabla 15:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa, though it seems that the main page should be the one without the "The" and not a redirect. DS1953 16:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually the school site includes the "The" in the name but other sources do not. So maybe the article has the correct name. Vegaswikian 07:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some notability is established, being just another school is not enough.--Nabla 16:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep — more notable than many of the umpteen train station articles, &c. — RJH 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems prestigious enough (this is the kind of article that should be kept rather than just "X is a comprehensive school in Y. Amazingly it has pupils"). Try to identify some old boys though. Dunc|☺ 18:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa, but retitle per DS1953. --Unfocused 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 21:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks fairly notable. As a comment on the "not enough information to justify an article" concern, the wiki way of fixing that problem is to improve the article by adding information. Which is, of course, exactly what other people have done. Factitious 09:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• keep but please fix the double redirects Yuckfoo 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well written and referenced article on a notable school. I think I've seen small articles in print media about this school so I'm sure it can expand. JYolkowski // talk 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A good start. CalJW 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:47 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP NSR 1 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Waterproofing[edit]

• There's a lot more to be done here.

Dicdef. Couldn't really be expanded, I don't think. smoddy 12:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• At present a dicdef yes. But I think there is some possibility for expansion (methods of waterproofing for instance). I will vote a weak keep on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for same reasons as listed in the vote above. Jtkiefer 12:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extreme potential for expansion. I wonder how many patents have been granted in this field. Kappa 14:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be willing to bet that a lot of waterproofing patents have been issued. The USPTO grants many patents, many of which should be invalidated because of prior art, basic scientific error, technical infeasibility, or simply not being legitimate subject for patents (e.g. basic software interaction methods). Nonetheless, such a search would support the implied point that waterproofing is an area widely considered significant and worthy of attention. Meaningful things beyond a dicdef can be written and verified. Keep and expand. Barno 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sjakkalle. 209.106.0.250 15:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, can certainly be expanded but would need a tag to encourage this. Being of technical mind, I can see an opening for ingress protection for example. -Splash 16:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Definite potential for expansion such as methods of waterproofing and applications. Capitalistroadster 18:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Capitalstroadster. Falphin 00:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 06:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep and expansify Yuckfoo 18:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

User:Panda of doom[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place to put comparison tables of cable services, even in User:. smoddy 12:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Things to remember: Which rules if any does this page violate?, does the posting of said information violate anyone's copyright?
  • See Wikipedia:User_page#What_should_I_avoid.3F "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", though perhaps these might need to be formulated more specifically, we should normally assume good faith and avoid m:instruction creep. Dunc|☺ 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete after reviewing page, Wikipedia is not a place to post such material, since none wikipedic it may fall under personal spaces provision and definately of questionable copyright status. Jtkiefer 12:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia isn't a webhost. These are the user's only edits and (s)he hasn't shown any interest in the actual project. Maybe a welcome and a clarification about our goals is in order. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. only edits to own user page. Dunc|☺ 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Carnildo 21:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this attempt at free hosting and advertising. humblefool® 00:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Attempt at free hosting? This is a page trying to help NZ'ers get the best deal for internet possible. I have checked the copyright also and nothing questionable. Simply relaying information in a easier form than trying to contact every ISP. Get over it. (Unsigned note by User:203.173.144.192/User:NZ User)
  • Which makes its commercial advocacy. Delete - Skysmith 09:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a webhost. JamesBurns 06:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Wovle[edit]

Marketing for Woolworths in Australia. A very odd article, perhaps it is an in-company review page? I couldn't find a copyvio, though it does feel like one. smoddy 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is advertising or not, but there already exists an article for Woolworths Limited, so this one is really redundant. I dunno if "Wovle" is a slang term for Woolworths or something. If it is, a simple redirect should do the trick (I don't think there's any information in the article that needs preserving). If not, delete. -- Captain Disdain 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A quick delete is more aproporate. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag. smoddy 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you say so. Woolworths Limited does exist. Article is about Woolworths Limited. Faster it gets deleted the better IMHO. Anyways... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Due process, my friend, due process. Let's not be accused of cabalism. smoddy 12:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Exterminate! as soon as possible. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• del I have no idea what a wovle is and this article doesn't contain that string. --MarSch 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm Australian, the word "wovle" isn't used at all, reads like an advertising screed.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Levocetirizine[edit]

Tagged for speedy, and I will grant that this is a one-sentence substub. But there is one piece of information in the article: Levocetirizine is an antihistamine. Remember, we keep articles of the type "xxx is a village in yyy" without blinking. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Do we have a list of antihistamines? I'll try to expand it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because: 10 400 Google hits; Levocetirizine is an important step in the development of antihistamines. It's a fairly new substance. If it doesn't merit an article of its own, merge with cetirizine or something. Wipe 12:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable antihistimine. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 14:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wipe. 209.106.0.250 15:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a massive expansion takes place very soon. I don't think one sentence articles are useful in the majority of cases, and we don't really lose anything by deleting them. --Xcali 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How big would a "massive expansion" be? Either an article is one sentence long or it isn't. Right now this one isn't since I rewrote it. Wipe 19:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll take that one. Keep for now. --Xcali 21:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable drug. Capitalistroadster 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — notable. — RJH 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable pharmaceutical. JamesBurns 06:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Jill Pike[edit]

A co-host of a local talkshow. This must have been written by a great fan. Delete even though Jill Pike is a ravishing goddess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, we all know that the world could use more ravishing goddesses, but delete anyway. --Scimitar 16:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. If only all of us ravishing goddesses could have our own pages... ;) --Etacar11 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 13:58 (UTC)

Inner mucosa[edit]

This article is redundant. Foreskin already covers the topic.

• Keep, Foreskin doesn't even mention the word. Kappa 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes it does. See the very first line: "In humans, the foreskin, a part of the penis, is a double-folded tube of skin and mucous membrane" - Jakew 15:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • None of that says "Inner mucosa" or explains what it means. Kappa 16:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written article about a piece of anatomy which is not covered in this detail elsewhere. Pburka 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable anatomy. Also, nomination is presently unsigned, and thus, presently invalid. Xoloz 04:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

Sheeth[edit]

Delete - Vanity page. Hardly anything on Google. In any case, badly written and POV MyNameIsClare talk 12:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. Nothing in allmusic. --Etacar11 23:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete and then redirect → Lap dance --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 01:52 (UTC)

Lap Dancer[edit]

Lap Dancer is a solo noise project originally from America, but currently operating out of Ibaraki,Japan. Uh-huh. Ibaraki is also spelled Ibaragi; Google gives as the total number of hits for the string "lap dancer" together with either "ibaraki" or "ibaragi": zero. Unverifiable. Some more googling around for "lap dancer" together with such buzzphrases as "solo noise project" (which I think means "guy with a laptop") takes us here, which tells us that "Lap Dancer is the solo project of Jamie Grefe" and also seems to say that he has a grand total of zero albums so far. Doesn't appear to follow Notability and Music Guidelines; delete. -- Hoary 13:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Delete and then recreate as a redirect to lapdance. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• No vote The Myspace link isn't 100% clear on whether he has releases or not. He has music available for download through a Brazilian label, so that would suggest a release. With the move by many indie groups to Internet distribution of music, the actual release of a CD is no longer IMO an indicator of notability. That said, if kept the article should be renamed Lap Dancer (band) and the actual phrase lap dance be redirected to Lap dance. 23skidoo 18:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then create the obvious redirect. humblefool® 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Lege[edit]

Well, google tells me that lege and "Irish slang" gets 2 hits, which seem unconnected, and as far as I can tell this is either someone's private term or in very limited usage. Also there is some question as to whether it is even encyclopedic. Delete Scimitar 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's all true, I tells ya. Leave it be.
  • Previous comment by User:193.120.108.76 - Special:Contributions/193.120.108.76
  • 193.120.108.76, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. If you want to write dictionary articles about slang words (or even non-slang words) then (as long as you can provide proper quotations to demonstrate the widespread use of the word) you are welcome at the dictionary. This is the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 15:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Dictionary definition, even if true. Delete. Morwen - Talk 13:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's apparently a Latin word, a Romanian word, a Norwegian word, a Danish word, and a common abbreviation for "legislature" — all good fodder for Wiktionary:lege. There doesn't appear to be a person/place/concept/event/thing by this name to rewrite about. Delete. Uncle G 15:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary anyone? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary already has it, in better shape than this, and had it before Wikipedia did. I refer you to the interwiki links given above. ☺ Uncle G 23:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)