Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 10

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 redirect to Celtic polytheism. Duplicates of appropriate articles need not be put through vfd. Having satisfied myself that the content was virtually identical, I have merged what little was unique to this article, and redirected it. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Druidic polytheism

Duplication of Celtic polytheism. bainer (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the whole thing is basically a mirror. I'm saying redirect for this one -mysekurity 06:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into redirect. I don't see why this should even be on VFD anymore, somebody just do it.Cookiecaper 06:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would do it if I was allowed to by whatever the VfD policies are. Perhaps an admin or someone knowledgable with the policies could order that it be redirected now instead of keeping it in this VfD. DarthVader 10:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as above. -- Natalinasmpf 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berangan

This is a sentence and a half about a housing development in Malaysia. Google searches produce only real-estate, government, or other generic address-related sites. There does not appear to be anything notable about this particular neighborhood of houses. Tobycat 06:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not only is it nn, it also uses a peacock term--definately deletable. -mysekurity 06:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability established. --TheMidnighters 06:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. I feel this actually might be notable though (ie. just like Ang Mo Kio is), but sadly, the author didn't decide to clarify. -- Natalinasmpf 16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or replace with content about the Berangan tree[8]. Pburka 18:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.A.R.T

• The article itself says that this is little-known band.

I looked for references online and could not find them, and a little-known band is probably not encyclopedic. --Mysidia 06:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I pondered putting a speedy delete on it, but hesitated --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vanity, thy name is garage band. Delete, speedy if possible. More nonsense regarding this, uh, group is coming in. - Lucky 6.9 06:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. Klonimus 06:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, standard band vanity. --TheMidnighters 06:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' nn, vanity, the usual "flying under the radar" -YEAH RIGHT! -mysekurity 16:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. When the first line says they are little known... --Etacar11 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This anon is now writing attack pages and removing the notices. - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 02:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Tau Delta : Delta Beta Chapter

Vanity frat cruft. Klonimus 06:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn/vanity frat cruft. 48 google results for "Delta tau delta" "Delta beta chapter" --TheMidnighters 07:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Save - This article is a valid representation of the history of Carnegie Mellon University and the Greater Pittsburgh Area. 68.234.136.220
• Save - This article represents the Delta Beta chapter of Delta Tau Delta and defines its main characteristics in a manner that follows the same tone with comic relief. BTW what the hell does the fact that 48 google results have to do with anything, its a search engine. 67.171.66.35
• Delete. One chapter of one frat. Non-notable. Gamaliel 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I agree with mr. nameless 68.234.136.220 there in that it represents part of Carnegie Mellon history, but it is just a frat, and a non-notable one at that, so it should be deleted -mysekurity 17:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information into Delta Tau Delta or Carnegie Mellon University, as appropriate; redirect link to Delta Tau Delta. Individual chapters of fraternities are not inherently notable (otherwise mine would have an article by now). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 21:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn chapter. Case not helped by the fact that I smell meatpuppets or similar owing to their manner of declaring their vote, and not signing them correctly. -Splash 22:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Save I smell computer nerds who use words like meatpuppets and cruft. Sean 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote actually by 68.234.136.220, who already voted above.

• Delete, not notable and second half of article suggests hoax. Dcarrano 23:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual chapters of frats are almost never notable, and this article does not provide any evidence that it is an exception. Seems like an attack page. — Gwalla | Talk 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, boo hoo. - Thatdog 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn frat vanity. --Etacar11 02:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe a member from one fraternity is trying to make another frat look bad. Cruft. Non-notable. Yawn. —Tokek 04:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable frat cruft. JamesBurns 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete frat chapters. No redirect, since neither the University nor the National Frat is more clearly relevant. Xoloz 08:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. And the lack of familiarity with those who use the term "save" rather than "keep" seems to be evident of sockpuppetry. -- Natalinasmpf 12:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many fraternities can be notable and encylopedic, but this one is a Non-notable fraternity.--GrandCru 04:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Local chapter. I smell college Greeks who think "it is very important to build your social skills while you are at college almost as important as your academic skills!" I had 8 years of grading that junk. It's utterly predictable. Deletion, however, is on the grounds that this is a local instance of a national organization. It could conceivably be itemized as a line in the article on the national organization, but not as a paragraph. Geogre 13:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. local frat chapter non-notable carmeld1 03:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Save It may only be a local chapter but this chapter has participated in one of the Pittsburgh's biggest philanthrapy projects many years running, they deserve recognition for their hard work as well as keeping a social scene at Carnegie Mellon (THERE IS NO SOCIAL SCENE THERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SCHOOL IS WORKING TO KILL IT). Plus you guys all care way too much about this online encyclopedia its not that intense of a thing that 100 people have to vote on one article. you all need to get a life vote from 67.171.66.35, who vandalized this discussion on the 10th

• So you think insulting us will cause us to change our mind? Wow, you must be a frat boy. Gamaliel 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever. Yes in the name of a clean and efficient online encyclopedia, this artical should be deleted. However, look at yourselves you're arguing over this. We're from Carnegie Mellon, if you really make believe that we're some sort of muscle headed beer drinking frat retards you're kidding yourselves. Wake up, you live in your cyber worlds and we tried to contribute in our own quirky way. Our fraternity has the best of both worlds, a bunch of smart kids who get laid and make more money than the majority of you losers living with your parents.

• If your life is so idyllic, why keep coming back here? If we're such losers, why do you feel the need to brag in an attempt to impress us? Gamaliel 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lurve

Part dicdef (WP:WINAD), part gibberish, unless anyone can tell me who the "Stisters" are. Delete per either criterion. --Dmcdevit 06:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree with above. (Creator's only two other edits are blankings)--TheMidnighters 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's just a colloquialism for love. A redirect does not seem appropriate. Delete. Uncle G 13:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm in agreement with those above. It doesn't quite nesessitate a transwiki to wiktionary, and it has no place here, so it must go, I believe. -mysekurity 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apparent neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensical neologism: "When Lurve is said, it is usually in all capital letters". Purlese. -Splash 22:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable colloquialism. -- Natalinasmpf 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete non-notable neologism/colloquialism. Unworthy of a place on Wikipedia.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Best Inc.

Unconvinced that this company is in any way notable. Difficult to google, but "Personal Best Inc"+Nutritional+consulting+"New York" yields about 1800 hits - almost all of them web directories. And The Article Is All Written With Every Word Capitalised, which si really annoying. Thankfully there are only 15 words in it. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - it doesn't appear notable, and it had many results, but none of them notable. Oz Garcia doesn't appear to be notable either, and probably should be deleted as well.... -mysekurity 17:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad. "Personal Best Inc." (Note Speech Marks) Gets Only 499 Google Hits, So Even If It Was All Of Them, It Would Still Be Non-Notable. Irritating, Isn't It?-Splash 22:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ampere (band)

Delete marked for speedy, but not sure if it qualifies yet (although it probably should). Isn't noted at Allmusic, no notability established, so probably standard nn band vanity. Could be proven wrong though. Speedy if it qualifies of course. TheMidnighters 06:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN band vanity. Also, is screamo like emo but with screaming? Leithp 08:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Since notability has now been established. Leithp 07:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn vanity, etc. and yes, scremo is emo music but they scream a lot and junk. The mere fact that this article is only one sentence and is pretty bad as-is, leads me to believe it should be vaporized -mysekurity 17:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bassist is a former member of Orchid (band) and band is signed to Ebullition Records satisfying WP:MUSIC. I will add this info the article. This is a good reason to vote against Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. Pburka 18:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Orchid (band) extremely notable? That's what the guideline requires. And being signed to a majour independent label doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, releasing two or more albums does, according to the article they only have one release, and it's an EP. However, they do pretty well by Google and would appear noted (however slightly) in the genre. Vote changed from Delete to Weak Keep. --TheMidnighters 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, signed to a major label and notable member is good enough for me. Kappa 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of the weakest kind. Might be just barely notable. --Etacar11 02:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough. JamesBurns 08:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka. Yes, this is an excellent reason to vote against CSD 3-C. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC per Kappa. Radiant_>|< 14:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Commment Just to clarify once more, this band does not meet WP:MUSIC. That doesn't imply that it shouldn't be kept, just that it shouldn't be kept for that reason. Orchid was notable (apparently), but not extremely so, meaning inclusion of the bassist (whose name is nowhere to be found despite numerous claims that he's notable) does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, nor does releasing one EP on a notable label. --TheMidnighters 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable per Kappa. WP:MUSIC is a poor policy, and should not be referred to. Almafeta 21:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup, it's notable but needs to get to a higher quality, MajorLeagueSoccerFreakSevenSevenSeven
• Keep. While not extremely notable, an effort was made to make it notable. The band in question is signed and has released material of a sort. There is a strong chance they will gradually become more notable in the future. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 18:06, 18 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goldlined Success

Delete - It's actually nonsense but might not have qualified at first glance. Even if you don't deem it nonsense: nn band vanity, no Allmusic page, no notability established, 8 google hits. All in all something that should be deleted. TheMidnighters 06:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, band vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete band vanity. It's funny, you would expect that the "the greatest band to ever grace the airwaves" would have more than 4 google hits to their name. Leithp 09:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete typical vanity and nn. Plus they just had to use a peacock term, and, as Leithp said, they've only got 4 hits, so not much truth in their claim. Gone it is -mysekurity 17:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I listened to this band, they are not so great. Seriously, their last ten albums were mediocre and they are only milking the system now just because of their incredible ability to make marketable pop tunes. It's about time we dethrone Goldlined Success! Alex 20:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity, doubtful claims. --Etacar11 02:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Teleperformance

• Delete Advert for a nonnotable corporation. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur--coblin 08:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising. And gah, you tagged it before I did. -- Natalinasmpf 09:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Google returns 59,800 results, and says its the 2nd largest call outsourcing...thingy.... so it could be notable, but I doubt anyone's heard of it beyond their small borders. My mind's telling me delete, so i wrote that -mysekurity 17:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Number and size of clients makes it notable. That makes this a verified stub. Almafeta 21:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How come a company that operates in 36 countries in the Americas, Asia and Europe is not notable? - Nabla 03:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid stub on a large company. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Gallery of Atari 2600 screenshots and Gallery of Atari 5200 screenshots. Eliot 15:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atari 2600/Screenshots and Atari 5200/Screenshots

Wikipedia is neither a repository of images nor a file storage area. As such, both of these should be deleted. I think the images themselves can all be put on IfD in conjunction with this, but I'm not sure. --Dmcdevit 09:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. My view is that these images and the screenshot pages are relevant to the articles. If the images are deleted by IfD, then it will be necessary to delete these pages. DarthVader 09:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insert relevant images into appropriate articles, not make articles themselves about them. The images aren't works of art, so they don't necessarily need an actual article on them. -- Natalinasmpf 09:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless, and untranswikiable to Commons. (And why these two in particular? What of Commodore VIC-20 Games Screenshots, Gallery of Atari 7800 screenshots, Gallery of ColecoVision screenshots, Gallery of Intellivision screenshots, Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots, Gallery of Sega Genesis screenshots, Gallery of Sega Master System screenshots and Gallery of Super Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots?) --Cryptic (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But that would warrant it at a nother title. Having it as a subdivision of an actual article is inappropriate. -- Natalinasmpf 09:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about those. The only reason I came across these is because someone wrongly tagged them for transwiki to Commons, even though they are fair use. Let me quote our policy page: "[Wikipedia is not] Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context [...] Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted." To me, that says it all. --Dmcdevit 10:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or make into a category for the images. Either way the concept is fine as it stands. As I see it this is like a commons page except it can have fair use images the commons can't. gren 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to admit a younger version of myself yelped in delight at this. However it is non-encyclopedic. IMissTheOneButtonJoystick 11:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the other articles mentioned could also be nominated for VfD. Noise attracts noise, and drives out signal. IMissTheOneButtonJoystick

• Keep (but move to Gallery of Atari 2600 screenshots and Gallery of Atari 5200 screenshots for consistency). The quote from the "Wikipedia is not..." policy page actually defends this article: this is not a "collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles", these images clearly "are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles" (emphasis mine), the vast majority of these images are being used in articles on the games in question, the rest hopefully will be. —Stormie 12:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no legitimate reason for deletion that I can see jamesgibbon 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Darth Vader makes a good point, plus it's just a sub-page. Let IfD handle the images case by case. As they are now, they are still worthy of being used... (If I'm looking for screenshots on google or the like, I'm going to find them here, it's usable) -mysekurity 17:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While they cannot stand alone, those two pages complement their respective articles. I would say merge with the articles about the two systems, but the pages themselves really shouldn't have that many images on them. You (Talk) 22:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge the Breakout image into its respective article (it has none ATM), but purge the rest. I doubt very highly that anyone is going to stumble across this article using Wikipedia search, and the screenshots provide little information not already presented in the articles, which already have screenshots anyway. Fernando Rizo 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (more reasoning for my vote) These screenshots show how the graphics for the systems evolved as the systems aged and also are samples of what kind of graphics the systems could produce. You (Talk) 22:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Stormie. Xoloz 08:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move per Stormie. Almafeta 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep 'per stormie Yuckfoo 22:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 06:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Bulletin

Delete. Non-notable, POV, advertising and vanity. If anything the name is totally inappropriate as a lot of sites are named "virus bulletins". Natalinasmpf 09:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm in agreement with the nominator. Plus the Peacock term just sticks out, (obvious advertising of a nn magazine--vandalism) -mysekurity 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Impossible to Google, so also unverifiable without sources. -Splash 22:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that the tone was inappropriate, but I fixed that. The magazine is certainly notable in the anti-virus world: it is well-known, they organize conferences [9], they have a well known certification program [10], etc. Easily verifiable. Sietse 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sietse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected]

Non Notable. Merge with Hijackthis Redwolf24 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advertising/promo. JamesBurns 08:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redwolf24 09:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, non-verifiable. -- Natalinasmpf 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then delete. Seeaxid 09:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (crossed out by Redwolf24. Less than 100 edits.) 100 edits isn't a general rule; it's up to the closing admin to decide. -- Essjay · Talk[reply]
• Delete This is useless. ike9898 12:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Essjay · Talk 14:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete could be spam harvester, so I don't think merging it would help. Redirect, then if the user wants, it can be added to Hijackthis -mysekurity 17:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. Rhobite 05:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy del. link spam, should have just been listed as speedy. ∞Who?¿? 01:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't have been listed as speedy, as there were no links to make it link spam, but Delete all the same. — Asbestos | Talk 13:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist architecture

Non-notable, original research, hopelessly POV. Furthermore, it doesn't define "futurist architecture", and I'm not sure it's even a word. Google reveals only 1,170 edits, poor for an architectural movement. [11] If anything, I am not aware the post-modernist movement has had a successor yet. * Delete. Natalinasmpf 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - omg, don't tell me post-modernism still reigns. Kind of like Queen Victoria? --Mothperson 15:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redwolf24 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No disrespect, but maybe y'all should actually read a few of the Googled references. This article is a poorly written substub, but it's referring a legitimate part of Futurism, the art movement from around the beginning of the 20th century. See here. Admittedly, they were bigger on manifestos then actual buildings, but it's certainly notable enough subject for a self-respecting encyclopedia. (Oops, sorry, forgot to sign - Calton | Talk 11:56, 10 July 2005; added 00:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Small, but exists. I do not see anything to warrant to the other two tags of dispute and original research. Enlighten me? PostModernistIdiot 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with the self-styled idiot jamesgibbon 15:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very very notable. David | Talk 15:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, obviously, though I don't blame the nominator for not recognising this. Nobody not familiar with the early twentieth century art movement of futurism and the work of architect Frank Lloyd Wright (Prairie Style) could be expected to make any sense of the text. Shows just how bad an article can be and still be worth keeping. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup/expand. Tony Sidaway said it right, but it definately needs to be improved. -mysekurity 17:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand/cleanup. Notable form of architecture but current article isn't much chop. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Will rename to Melody Love as recommended by many keep votes. --Allen3 ^talk 18:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Melody (porn star)

Does not attempt to distinguish last name, or identity. I'm not sure if it will ever become encylopedic, thus doesn't even try to establish notability. Looks POV as well. Delete. Natalinasmpf 09:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell, Delete. Uncle G 13:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of no value jamesgibbon 15:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and I agree with Uncle G. While I have not *cough* done any research on the topic, it appears that this has no place on an encyclopedia such as this one. -mysekurity 18:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Melody Love (porn star). IMDB lists 61 movies over a 7 year career. Pburka 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the sex industry assembly line. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Pburka. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pburka is a mensch for admitting to knowing that... in his honor, move to Melody Love (porn star). Dcarrano 23:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another porn "star". 61 movies over 7 years sounds like par for the course. — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a worker, not a star. 01:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC) CalJW (talk · contribs) forgot to sign
• Delete I have no objection to porn star biography articles, but there just isn't enough here. 23skidoo 02:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename Having 62 films over 7 years shows staying power. She is also listed in the IMDb database, which is frequently used to establish the validity of claims about being an actress. The type of films don't matter if they are in IMDb, do they? If it was POV then it should have been tagged as such and not brought over to VfD. Giving the article the wrong name is also not a reason to bring it to VfD. Her filmography is more extensive then many other porn actresses. The difference here is that her article is still a stub. Vegaswikian 07:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just checked IMDB. There are no results for "Melody Love", and four for just "Melody", two of which seem like they might be this person (both of whom only have a single listed credit). Which is she? — Gwalla | Talk 17:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment she is the one listed in the link in the article. Vegaswikian 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IMDB indicates some notability even if her films arent my cup of tea. JamesBurns 08:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka and IMDb. Xoloz 08:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to somewhere that is more clearly about her. Being on IMDB makes her notable, but do you know how many porn stars go by the name Melody? Almafeta 21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please she is fine Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Melody Love (porn star). Poli (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Melody Love (porn star) as suggested. Hall Monitor 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Tyrant

This article appears to have been written by one of the members of the band in question. This band is unsigned, was founded in 2003, and "has yet to record any material" (emphasis added). Most of the relatively small number of google results appear to have been created by members of the band.--Joel7687 09:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Vanity, signified by the signign at the bottom. Only 273 google hits, and that's not excluding this article. [12] and possible mirrors, so it's even less. Natalinasmpf 09:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication that this band meets WP:MUSIC. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. —Cryptic (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons above. Also, the user should learn not to sign articles, and Joe said it right, they haven't released anything, so they really have no place here -mysekurity 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am the person who submitted the article, and yes, I am a member of the band. But all the reasons posted here are valid. Sorry about not reading the rules properly. SpectrumDT 13:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Stuff about your band would be perfectly fine to put on your user page, I think. --Etacar11 16:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it OK to use the exact same page as a user subpage (like this)? SpectrumDT 19:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks fine to me, as long as it isn't categorized. (Really only articles should be categorized, I believe). If I'm wrong, someone correct me. :) --Etacar11 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category info now removed. (I put it there because it was on the Nile page, on which I based my article.) SpectrumDT 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty (porn star)

Kitty (porn star) was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star)/2005-07-10.

• Delete. Non-notable. Not every porn star should have an entry on wikipedia. There is no information here about her anyway; this is basically just an ad for her website. Her name apparently is inaccurate too so it should be renamed if it is kept but it should not be kept at all. If she is not known to the general public, or even most of the porn-watching public, she doesn't belong in wikipedia. csloat 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. --Dysepsion 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 45 films at the imdb. If she is known to a reasonable number of the porn-watching public, she belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia like wp. Kappa 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IMDB isn't based on legions of fans creating articles; most pages are created and maintained by agents to help promote their clients. As a longtime member of the "porn-watching public", I will avow that I have not only never heard of her, but have never even seen her. This article is just an ad. Kafziel 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa (OMG!) User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion has not changed since the last AFD discussion. No biographical sources are cited by the article, or were produced as a result of the prior AFD discussion. (The IMDB listing gives her date of birth and height in its biographical section. If that were all of the biographical source information required for a biography in an encyclopaedia, everyone with a passport or a driving licence would qualify.) Note that the place of birth given in this article has no source apart from the almost certainly entirely fictitious biography on the web site. People in the pornography industry are usually deliberately unverifiable by their own choice, for obvious reasons, and this person appears to be no exception. The purported biographies that accompany pornographic pictures are usually fiction, moreover. As before, delete. Uncle G 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have plenty of biographies of fictional characters. Kappa 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously this is a broader subject than just this AfD, but fictional characters are verifiable in that we know what books/movies/etc. they're in, there's often published criticism concerning them, essays about them, etc. What's kind problematic here is that there's really nothing verifiably known about this person other than that she's been filmed having sex 35 times. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but we know that she's been filmed having sex 35 times!!! (ye gads). Indeed, IMDB knows that. BD2412 T 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information though, obviously. Biographies are written on verifiable information... it's just hard to see what's going to be verifiable here other than the contents of her IMDB page, that's what I meant. I'm sure this argument has been held before though. --W.marsh 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As W.marsh points out, the fictional characters for which we have biographies have independent secondary source material available, such as third-party annotations of or commentaries on the works of fiction concerned. See the References section in Sherlock Holmes, for example. Uncle G 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of "proof" are you looking for? [13], [14] User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually wrote "independent secondary source material". Ironically, the "proof" that you've offered is proof of my point. You've hyperlinked to a list of products for sale in a catalogue that contains no biographical information whatsoever and an on-line biography every field of which apart from the birthdate, ethnicity, and hair colour is "No data" — giving as much information about this person as a driving licence or a passport, as I said. I have a passport. Do I get an article? Uncle G 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you in the IMDb? Turnstep 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • He could be, if he's willing to pay the fee for gold member access. For a few bucks, anybody can be in the IMDB. Kafziel 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to their homepage, there are 2 million people listed on IMDb. If we make an article for each of them, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Kafziel 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sounds good to me. You do the first million, then I'll do the second. :) Turnstep 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete commercial advertisement for non-notable pr0n-media product. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:44, Jan. 11, 2006
• Delete - I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a run-of-the-mill college basketball player played in 45 games over three years but had no major awards and was not a likely high-round draft pick in the NBA, we would kick his article out in a flash (that's not a hypothetical - we have done it many times). If a 21 year old girl appears in 45 videos in an industry that cranks them out in a matter of days, she's a "star" without a single shred of evidence. No awards, no critical acclaim, nothing but a list of her "body of work". Boggles my mind. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; ditto what Cyde Weys said, above. Kafziel 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What DS1953 said. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a star with no brillance.--MONGO 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DS1953 Reyk 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DS1953 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G and DS1953.
• Delete. No sign of mention that are not actor listing or her site. gren グレン ^? 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serves no purpose except advertising. CalJW 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as per Kappa --kingboyk 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Confusion between her and Kitty Jung. --kingboyk 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Uncle G, and it looks like advertising. Robin Johnson 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 45 movies for a porn star is not the same as 45 movies for a hollywood actor. Obli (Talk) 18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the IMDb in itself is not an indicator notability. -R. fiend 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa BenBurch 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cyde. Themusicking 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with DS1953, Uncle G, and Cyde Weys. Barno 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for WP:BIO ,WP:BLP, per Obli, adult entertainer can be notable, but we can't use same movie or google counts as other potentially notable people.Obina 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep please this porn star is notable too Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please, this pornstar is not notable Eusebeus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but consider moving to "Kitty Jung (porn star)" instead. Is there a seperate set of criteria being used for adult film stars? In any case, this should be notable and WP:V enough. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kitty Jung is a different porn star. Kappa 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But external links suggests she is Kitty Jung. I think you're right and the article must be wrong. --kingboyk 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. Proto t c 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. We don't waive WP:V just because the subject has a lot of sex. --Malthusian (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Haham hanuka 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not notable enough as one editor said indicates a level of notability. No work done on the article since the last AfD is not a reason to delete the article. If it was, we could flood AfD with many other articles. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. She is real, and there is information about her. Also if the article is correct, she is not American born. We know that some editors have raised a bias issue with articles of foreign subjects. Is this part of the reason there is little information available? In the end I don't see a reason to delete this article. I do see another article in need of impovement. Kappa is right on this one. Vegaswikian 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, IMO 45 film credits on IMDB generally makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per csloat. Stifle 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for verifiability difficulties. Sliggy 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a big difference between 45 film credits, and 45 video credits over a period of less than two years. Ed g2s 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The difference between appearing in 45 commercial films and 45 porno videos is that each of the 45 porno videos constitutes a starring role. Porno films do not hire extras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.128.151.131 (talk • contribs)
  • I would argue that given the necessary talent to perform in the starring role, porn stars should be compared to stuntmen rather than Tom Cruise. --Malthusian (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep porn is notable.  Grue  13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 18:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Non-British casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

I can't see a for this page. The dead (whose names will be revealed) will number around 70 - if we really need a repository for a list of them it should be on Wikisource (and there'd be no need for a separate list of Non-British casualties). The numbers injured will (1) never be known; and (2) be very likely not broken down into nationalities, rather removing the need for the rest of the article, jguk 10:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Un-needed - at best, merge. -- Natalinasmpf 10:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but respectfully --Doc (?) 12:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Astrotrain 14:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, legitimate information, but not as a separate piece jamesgibbon 15:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with other candidate for delete below, all casualties of same. Not appropriate to have a caste system of listed casualtiesSandpiper 16:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This article was created by me, since it was listed as a red link in a series of articles about the attack. This was created along the same lines as the foreign victims of the 9/11 attacks. I conquer with Jguk, we can possibly merge this with the main list of victims, and make a note to say if they were British or not. So, I ask for this article to be merged. Thanks, and sorry for wasting everyone's time here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zscout. Also, when you and Jguk conquer together, I get frightened ;). -- Jonel | Speak 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandpiper's right, and so is Doc. Delete it, but maybe wait a little while? Or at least merge it to where it's needed. -mysekurity 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First of all, who is to determine who is British and who isn't? Someone who was born abroad but has lived in Britain for many years has every right to consider himself or herself British. It's a silly, needless article. Moncrief 19:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the other candidate just down there ↓. We have so much 9/11-cruft we can spare a bit of Londonbomb-cruft too. -Splash 22:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings as per creator Zscout370's request. Dcarrano 23:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Casualty lists like these are not encyclopaedic and do not belong here. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I already merged the information to the article below, so this page can be deleted now, but gentle please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect → Lasse Virén --Allen3 ^talk 18:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Viren

Delete. Wikipedia is not a foreign dicdef. Natalinasmpf 10:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very best, this would be a redirect to virus. There is nothing here worth giving to Wiktionary, which can do better than this from a standing start. A name-disambiguation page might grow here, if we ever get anyone else with the family name other than Lasse Virén (to which Lasse Viren redirects). For now, simply Redirect to Lasse Virén. Uncle G 13:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lasse Virén as sugguested above. WP is not a foreign slang dicdef, and it doesn't belong in wiktionary; it should be redirected, as Uncle G said.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius Junius Brutus

Reason why the page should be deleted I noted the discussion page for this entry on the 22nd May with the view that it was an invention. I invited verification from the author. None has been forthcoming. I therefore conclude that whoever wrote the page has no interest in defending its legitimacy and so the page should be deleted unless, at this eleventh hour, proper verification is forthcoming. -David91 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

• Interestingly:
  • The article tells us that Tiberius Junius Brutus "was the younger son of Lucius Junius Brutus", "rebelled against his father's wishes along with his brother Titus Junius Brutus", and "aided [...] Lucius Tarquinius Superbus in attempting to reclaim the Roman throne"; that "Tiberius and Titus were captured and brought before the embryonic Senate of Rome", and "brought to trial"; and that "Lucius Brutus called for their execution, and they were beheaded".
  • The nominator, in the aforementioned talk page tells us that "LJB was killed in battle having killed his two sons", which does not contradict what the article actually says.
  • The entry for Brutus, L. Junius in L'Emprière's tells us that "His sons conspired with the Tuscan ambassador to restore the Tarquins; and when discovered, they were tried and condemned before their father, who himself attended at their execution.", and cites several sources, albeit in the almost undecipherable manner that the constraints of paper cause to be used.
  • Lucius Junius Brutus also discusses the tale of his execution of his sons.
• Even though I cannot immediately verify the name of the son, and even though the story may be an outright creation of Roman historians, this is the story as apparently related by Roman historians (albeit reported in a little more detail than reported in L'Emprière's). The major thing that worries me is that the original version of the article has the tell-tale signs of a copyright violation from a paper book. As long as that is not in fact the case, Keep, albeit possibly trimming any of the details given that are not verified either by the above or by direct reference to the histories written by Lavilius and Livy (whom the article does attribute information to). Uncle G 14:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As dearly as I love a truly good hoax, this, alas, is not one of them. The story is substantially true (Livy ii.5) and was commented on in Antiquity already. Very quickly, I also find it alluded to in passing by Claudian (IV Cons. Hon. 611) (and see the Loeb editor's note to the English translation there). I can also confirm the connection of Tiberius Brutus with the famous Brutus, both his father and the far later assassin of Caesar. I didn't check the details. Copyvio of course is another matter; I don't recognize it, if it is, but I'm not the world's best classicist. Bill 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've found the same references as Bill (hi Bill, nice to see you here). I would however suggest a tweak. This period is not documented by any contemporary sources, so by he time it was written down it was the stuff of legend. So making it clear that this is accordring to later sources and not necessarily the true story would be a good idea. Cnyborg 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, yes. Taking some time out from my little churches in Umbria.... Your tweak is a good idea, yes. Bill

• Keep, this is more-or-less verifiable. R. Leigh Merritt wrote a play "Lucius Junius Brutus; Father of his Country" in which the dissenting son of Lucius Junius Brutus is named Tiberius. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm with Bill on this one, and maybe Cnyborg. Useful for those looking for information on this topic. -mysekurity 18:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you everyone. I no longer have my reference texts and so could not verify the material. I am relieved that I was wrong and that the entry is substantially correct although some of the detail and the style does seem to lack conviction at times. -David91 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was a bit tricky, but I'll try closing this now. (Closing the first AFD debate was much easier, when there was a clear keep consensus.) On raw vote count there is not a real consensus for outright deletion, and the main objection has been that Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe that the objection is to the list of names in the article. However, the article has a lead section which describes the recovery of bodies and treatment of the wounded, material which is not really covered by the "memorial" argument. I will therefore call this a merge of the lead section only to the "casualties" section of 7 July 2005 London bombings, and redirect there. The list of names will be dropped, but I'll add the BBC News link to the main article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings/2005-07-10.

WP:NOT a memorial. Lists of victims are unencyclopedic and not generally individually notable, as per the precedant of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York (now on WP:DRV). The opening paragraphs should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings. The list of victims should be deleted. It is very sad that they died, and highly reprehensible that such an attack was made, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to memorialize them. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Friday (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there anything link this for the World Trade Centre attacks? There should be consistency across attacks. If there is not, then delete, but if there is, then keep. --LeftyG 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[15]]--FRS 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per previous AFD [[16]] which was approx 40:10 in favor of keeping; this is an informative, NPOV article FRS 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. The list of names is unencyclopedic, while the other details in this article fit well in 7 July 2005 London bombings. In the articles relating to the incidents on September 11, 2001, casualties are summarized in September 11, 2001 attacks#Fatalities. Follow precedent, and avoid unencyclopedic list-cruft, however poignant or sad the subject is. -Rebelguys2 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per What Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't WP:NOT trump AFD in any case? -R. fiend 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The narrative could be used in the article on the attack, but NOT is policy. Put a link to an external source in the article. -- goatasaur 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not see how a simple list of names is a "memorial". We are not honoring anyone here, just listing verified facts in an impartial manner. If we are not to list casualties in Wikipedia articles, the policy should say that. Right now it doesn't. Kaldari 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. does say that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about lists of casualties. It says "memorials". Whether lists of casualties are considered memorials depends mostly on their context, IMO. And I don't think in this case the context has anything to do with "honoring" anyone, thus I don't see this being a memorial. Of course as long as the policy is ambigiously worded, it will solely be a matter of opinion. Kaldari 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete little point in having a policy if we don't abide by it. could probably keep the narrative however, per Goatasaur. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a memorial. Send to Wikicities if you must. Radiant_>|< 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Do you guys consider Kent State shootings to be in violation of WP:ISNOT for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I'm just trying to get an idea here for what constitutes a "memorial". Kaldari 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kent State one is an article, which reads like a newspaper clipping. This reads like a placard at a kiosk in a memorial. Delete Ruby 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What makes an article cross that boundary? Kaldari 07:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right off the top of my head, when the article is written with an emphasis on the suffering and loss of the families, as if pandering to their grief, instead of dispassionately discussing all the facts of the incident. Ruby 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I basically agree. In the Kent State article the victims are mentioned within the text to help further explain the incident (that being said, I think the articles on the victims could be merged back in), while in this example it's just a list of names thrown together. Now there probably is some gray area between the two examples, bu tthis article just isn't in it. -R. fiend 05:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Impressive article. If wikipedia does this stuff, you don't have to know where to look. Golfcam 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. *drew 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge text into main article. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What constitutes a memorial? Kaldari 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with the list of 9/11 victims and so on. WP:ISNOT a memorial, and the list of names adds nothing to our understanding of the event itself. This looks to me lika an example of systemic bias: nobody is pressing for a list of Tsunami victims, after all. It is problematic, though, since the chances of a full list of casualties making it seem to increase as the number reduces, making it more likely that some minor incident will have a full list than would be the case for a major tragedy. In the end, we do not usually have lists of people who have no independent claim to notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 08:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CSB. Stifle 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Sad but not encyclopaedic. Also, the edit link at the top of this section seems to be screwy. Proto t c 11:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge: I'm not certain whether some of those commenting above have actually looked at the article, since it is not simply "a list of the victims", it is also a description of the process of identifying them, amongst other things. Just deleting this artice would lose important information which was split out of the main article for reasons of length. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator suggested a merge of what content is appropriate. Yes, some of the content here is good, and should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings if it's not already. Friday (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. The paragraphs on how the victims were identified and related encyclopedic content should be merged intoi another article, I think 7 July 2005 London bombings. This articel should IMO be deleted, and the actual list of casualties not included. if there is a reliable list of casualties posted elsewhere, that should probably be linked from the merged articel (as would have been needed anyway, to source this list). DES ^(talk) 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to July 2005 London bombings, deleting list of victims. The list of victims duplicates the list given at the BBC site (see first link), and is probably derived from it: I do not see that there is any encyclopedic value to the list. Note that the page as a whole is not a memorial: this page should not be deleted on that basis without giving a chance for a merge of the non-memorial information on the page. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge information to July 2005 London bombings, deleting list of victims per WP:NOT. Also note WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and the list elevates the people killed here into "encyclopedic" while something like List of civilians killed in Israeli police actions is still a redlink. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before anyone objects about GFDL, there are ways to make a D & M comply. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Ezeu 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, precedent and WP:NOT. --Aaron 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge I don't see any grieveing families here. The top of the article is almost certainly too long, and duplicates too much in other articles. I think a merge is a second best, because these lists will unbalance whatever target is chosen; but why throw away this? If the sister of one of these people becomes Prime Minister, we'll want this to link to. Septentrionalis 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the sister of one of these people becomes Prime Minister, we'll want this to link to. " Does that strike anyone else as a really bad reason to keep an article? We could use that logic on any high school student vanity page ("this person may someday be Prime Minister, we'll want this information then!"). If bombing victim Reginald Worthingham IV's sister becomes PM, we can link to the main article: "Prime Minister Victoria Worthingham's brother Reginald was killed in the 7 July 2005 London bombings." The other names won't add anything. -R. fiend 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge text into main article. --SFrank85 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but drop list. Don't just delete; it would leave a gaping hole in 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Casualties. Melchoir 10:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Informative and useful Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of names is neither informative nor useful. Melchoir 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible transwiki to Wikisource. It is sad that these people are dead, but no more encyclopaedic than a list of everybody who has ever died of cancer, or ridden a bicycle. Lord Bob 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the lead section? Shouldn't we preserve that in the main article? Melchoir 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I must object to your statement. A list of the names of people who died in a notable event is more encyclopaedic than a list of names of people who did not die in a notable event. Is it encyclopedic enough to include in Wikipedia? Depends on the circumstances (see Kent State shootings). Such rediculous equivocations are not helpful to the debate. Obviously there is a difference between this list and a list of everyone who ever died of cancer. The question is: does the difference matter enough to make it worth including in Wikipedia? Kaldari 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per deletion of previous lists of disaster victims such as List of Hillsborough disaster casualties. Qwghlm 09:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the 2005 London bombings

Transwiki to Wikiquote, jguk 10:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is well put together. And it would have to be broken up to move to WikiQuote. Plus I don't think it's totally appropriate there, either. Newsong 11:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if it stays in its current format. It shouldn't be broken up by person.--Madison Gray 13:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, exactly, are you supporting? Please read WP:GVFD#Votes for clearer and commonly understood ways of expressing your opinion about the deletion of articles. Uncle G 13:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- excellent summarisation of the responses of various people, and not all of it is quotes. Astrotrain 14:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki source material to Wikisource:7 July 2005 London bombings, and move quotes to Wikiquote, reduce those sections to a summary. But keep this page and expand with things like the royal family's visits, police investigation, possible trials and any interesting things to note, such as whether it has an effect on blood donations, racism, feelings towards ID cards, the proposed US-style security department etc etc. Joe D (t) 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No issue with Wikisource and/or Wikiquote having the same information, but this is encyclopedic and deserves to presented on our pages. If there was a way of including text from Wikisource/Wikiquote without duplication, much as we do with images, then that would be different. -- Chris j wood 16:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is really part of the main article about the incident. In the future it might be relegated to a different wiki but right now it is describing part of the events. The collection together makes it a report of reactions rather than a simple quote.Sandpiper 16:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use Joe D.'s idea. -mysekurity 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with most of the ideas expressed above. Rather than being redundant, I'll post my vote without further comment: keep. IanManka 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikiquote, but keep a few choice quotes - e.g. Queen, PM, pope, archbishop-of-canterbury, Chirac for the main article. ~~~~ 20:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Death to Wikiquote. Dmn / Դմն 21:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Joe D: Transwiki the quotes, and make this article a factual account of what actions were taken in response to the bombings. Dcarrano 23:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This was originally a section of the main article that was moved out to save space. Deletion would be a dangerous precedent for other breakout articles. Should be in the main encyclopedia, not a little known offshoot. CalJW 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per CalJW. Whig 04:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Astrotrain. Also, many of the quotes are partial and/or have no official English translation. KissL 08:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Astrotrain. This information should not be lost. William Flowers 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki, this is what Wikiquote is for, regardless of how little respect you may have for it. Collections of quotes do not belong on Wikipedia. And get rid of all those useless flag icons. ed g2s • talk 12:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flag icons allow a reader to scan the list for a particular country with relative ease, and it brightens up the list significantly. Astrotrain 17:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I think some of the less notable quotes can be removed. 62.253.128.12 12:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than just a list of quotes. As CalJW pointed out, this was originally a section of the main article that was moved out to save space. Sonic Mew 16:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep in order to avoid having the main article cluttered with this. --carlb 17:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikiquote and merge more notable responses back into main article. Kaldari 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki as per Joe D. --nixie 09:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have done a little work to make this less quote-centric. I still think many or most of the quotes shouls be removed, but it should be clear that there is enough to say about other responses to make this page worthwhile. Joe D (t) 09:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Chris j wood.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 10:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per CalJW. And I like the new organization of this article. CanadianCaesar 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable list. Do not move to wikiquote. Break-out articles ought to be kept in the main encyclopedia. Klonimus 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a break-out article and any debate about deletion should be postponed until things have settled down a bit. Carcharoth 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikiquote. MathiasRav 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dejvid 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC) but a lot of the international quotes are not notable and could be transwikiedDejvid 10:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. violet/riga (t) 10:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a piece which reflects the zeitgeist as well as recording the individual quotes. As such it add to the overall knowledge of the subject and deserves a place in an encyclopedia. Unbehagen 16:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, educational, interesting, and informative. 24 at 15:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aeonfalls

A MUD in closed beta, to be released "sometime in 2005". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Cryptic (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aaron Brenneman 12:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, premature vanity. If the game is released and achieves notability, then an article will be appropriate. —Stormie 12:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Stormie's right. No notability yet. If it becomes notable, I encourage those interested to write about it, but for now, not worthy. -mysekurity 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep as rewritten. Eliot 16:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Foley

Nice biography, but Foley did not seem notable enough to merit an article. Or have I set the bar too high...? --Mysidia 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and speedy. Way too high A very important leader of the radical Australian Aboriginal community. The vFD is a little like suggesting a VFD on Malcolm X. --Porturology 11:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the radical Australian Aboriginal Community, I cannot find any articles about such a community on the Wikipedia, and its significance is not really explained. --Mysidia 11:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australian aborigines are the indigenous people of Australia. In the Eastern states (of Australia) they prefer to be called by a number of names of which two of the most common are 'Koori' and Murri. They make up 2% of the population and through their dispossesion and discrimination, both blatant and subtle, are an underclass of Australian society (stop me if this is getting difficult). One of the great political questions of Australia is the treatment of the Koori. There are many views on this; recently a party called One Nation attracted some support by calling for a stop of government policies aimed to help aborigines. Gary Foley, who has >500 hits on Google is a prominent Koori who has a more radical approach to the questions of reconciliation, compensation for the stolen generation, government support etc. He was one of a group of tertiary educated Kooris who became politically active and received public notice from the late 60s onwards.--Porturology 11:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great.. explain some of this more clearly in the article and keep --Mysidia 12:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I thought it was too well written and is in fact a copy vio--Porturology 12:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Revise so as not to be a copyvio. If what Porturology is saying is correct, then this is notable. However, in its current state, it is both illegal and not clearly notable. -mysekurity 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Replace previous version with Porturology's statements. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Notable aboriginal leader. Notable aboriginal leader see [17] but I will rewrite article as Gary FoleyCapitalistroadster 03:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Have written Gary Foley article. Given that the article under discussion is a copyvio, I would propose having this as a redirect to that article once the copyvio process has run its course. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Great Article on Gary Foley. The original author of Gary foley has removed the VFD and written a 3 line stub . I am not sure of the protocol but IMO this should be wiped and the page become a redirect--Porturology 12:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the one by capitalistroadster it is really good Yuckfoo 23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I posted original article as I thought it was important to include Gary Foley on Wikipedia(above reasons explain why well enough) I did copy & paste it from another article(in fact the first google link re same). I was unaware of how copyright works in relation to Wikipedia. I did not intend to take any credit for the bio, just start a thread on Gary Foley that hopefully would be updated changed etc. User:Khanada

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red sands

Another MUD not yet open to the public. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Cryptic (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aaron Brenneman 12:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, premature vanity. If the game is released and achieves notability, then an article will be appropriate. —Stormie 12:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, again in agreement with Stormie. nn as-is, might be if it achieves something, then come back and tell us about it, -mysekurity 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, WP:NOT, etc per Cryptic -Harmil 18:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 08:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -JCarriker 18:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

American West

Please delete this article. I am the one who wrote it. I spent several weeks researching the material and organizing it to come up with a barebones outline of an article. I fully intended to expand it but health problems intervened. I never once considered it a controversial subject but have since been accused of bad faith in its creation, my efforts belittled, and I have been lectured rather than asked for sources. In addition the page seems to have become somewhat of a magnet for those pursuing an opinionated rather than a scholarly approach to the subject. I would therefore ask that it be deleted. CPret 11:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a vote going on at Talk:American West, that was leaning towards turing the page into a redirect when this Vfd was posted. -JCarriker 17:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• The result of the above vote on Talk:American West was to redirect American West to Western United States. -JCarriker 01:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Sorry, but just because you created it does not allow you to have the authority to delete it as well. We try not to own our articles. Reasonable article that elaborates about a cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a geographical one. If anything, it has to be fixed, not deleted. -- Natalinasmpf 11:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - check the talk page as well. -max rspct 15:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as a redirect. CPret created the page from a redirect to U.S. West in October, making a duplicate article. The material has now been merged at Western United States. Consensus oin a survey on Talk:American West is for making it back into a redirect. While I regret CPret's decesion to leave his reasons for Vfding the page are not legitimate. -JCarriker 15:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. (BTW, where did that ginormous image in the VfD tag come from? It's not being used in a template anywhere.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see one on my settings at his time. What does it look like? -JCarriker 16:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Delete_Icon.png. It was added to the VfD template for a short time by User:Denelson83 but was quickly changed back. The notice on American West was subst'd in, so the image should still be there... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see you mean the tag on the article. Thanks. -JCarriker 16:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect to Western United States (merge any remaining worthwhile duplicate material). Probably there is no reason to have two articles. If there is—say, one with a more cultural focus—"American West" is not a good title for that more cultural article, it should follow the "Culture of..." pattern. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why would you nominate this for deletion? Redwolf24 18:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems fine to me..? -mysekurity 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Clearly there is a desire for this to become a redirect, and merge work has already been done. per JCarriker -Harmil 18:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Do not redirect. My reasons are on the archived talk page but here's a recap: The American West is the nearly universal name for this region in both academic works and the popular press—that's what most people will be looking for. The American Old West is not a region but a historical era occurring in the American West from about the Civil War through the 1890s. Most of the history of the American West occurred before and after those 30-40 years and continues to this day. Also, to imply, as the Western United States article does, that Hawaii is culturally and historically part of the American West and states like Texas through the Dakotas are not, is simply wrong. And I think there is plenty of evidence to back that up. Also, only with great difficulty can the category system for the American West article which has been built up over time by several contributors be transferred to the Western United States because the articles are defining two different regions using different criteria. I would redirect Western United States to Geography of the Western United States and dab that page. DialUp 19:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just some notes: Texas and the Dakotas are include in the Western United States article, it's just noted that they are often consider part of the South and Midwest respectfully as well, and thus aren't always include in the West. Also the Geography of the Western United States, does not include Texas and the Dakotas at present. According to Naming conventions adopted by WikiProject U.S. regions, the article should be located at Western United States, which is where the original U.S. West article was moved; all other regions with diretions in their names are located at -ern United States. -JCarriker 19:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this article should be included in the history of the American West. The modern West does NOT include states such as Texas. Not only is geography a distinction but culture and politics as well. In response to DailUp, yes, Hawaii is part of the MODERN West and culturally too. Hawaii has similar legislation, outlooks and demographics to other Western states. Texas is nothing at all like any modern Western states, if you include it in the present West I am prepared to NPOV for original research. Yes, historically Texas WAS part of the West, not anymore. Here are some reasons why: US Census does not include Texas, polls indicate major differences in cultural opinion between Texas and the majority of thr West, ie 48% of southerners against same-sex unions vs. 28% of westerners, Texas restricts the sale of sex toys (there is absolutely nothing like this in any modern western state, in fact Nevada allows prostitution), Texas had a ban on interracial marriage at the time of the 1967 Supreme Court ruling striking it down, no Western state had such a law. Texas TODAY is part of the South, plain and simple. Using your line of thinking we would have to include West Virginia in the American West, when in reality, yes, it was considered Western in the past but not today. Globeism 20:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uvaduck 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have fixed the map and I hope you will agree. The current American West article has major flaws, for example in the past the Great Lakes region was considered Western: Northwest Territory and West Virginia. Globeism 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; just because an article attracts POV pushers is no reason to delete. Kaibabsquirrel 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uppland 07:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't redirect; name is right. Frank101 04:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article.--LavonS

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

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

The result of the debate was

I have speedily deleted this page. Stormie 12:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jazborocketman

Non-notable vanty. Should be deleted and userfied... Gblaz 11:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richview Collegiate Institute

school of dubious significance Joel7687 11:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on basis of one alumnus who is leader of HM's loyal opposition in Canada. Dunc|☺ 12:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. - SimonP 16:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, improves coverage of education in Etobicoke, and the background of Mr Stephen Harper. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 18:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak cleanup Google says it's real, but less than 500 refs... iffy at best, but no harm in cleaning it up and keeping it.
• Cleanup and expand. I agree with the guy above me ^^ (mr. annonymous) in that there's nothing wrong with keeping it, it just needs to be cleaned up to meet a higher standard and blah blah blah. -mysekurity 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — if vote is to delete, merge into Toronto District School Board — RJH 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Bicycle. --Carnildo 21:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
• Keep, precedent is that schools are notable. My condolences for producing Mr. Harper. Dcarrano 23:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable of course. CalJW 02:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if only because of Stephen Harper. Xoloz 09:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've cleaned and expanded a little. DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa and DoubleBlue. Unfocused 17:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please doubleblue is right Yuckfoo 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. To me, all school articles look basicly the same, but like Wikipedia says, they're not going to go away. ·Zhatt· 22:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle as per Carnildo. —RaD Man (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article could well become interesting and notable with some tender loving research. -Joshuapaquin 03:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge to Toronto District School Board

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furshampoo

The only thing this article gets right is that Fursuits should be washed by hand, and not be put in a washing machine. Everything else is pure nonsense. As the google test obviously shows, there is no such thing as "Furshampoo", and I'm not sure if the article is just an act of trolling.. --Conti|✉ 13:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I personally use this. I'm sorry that you were looking to use it personally and were unable to find it.
• I don't know why you can't find it. Here are links (the first proves furry community relations and the others are where to find and buy it): [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] It originated in France so it may use a French name. Chunitaku 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, yeah... a link to a furry sex story where the word "shampoo" is used and four links to shampoo for real animals don't prove anything. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. JimRaynor 14:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is also not a junkyard (Jni) -mysekurity 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that this is a sockpuppet of Chunitaku. He came back after a week absence to do a few minor edits and to vote here. He has also voted on another VfD on which Chunitaku voted. And looking at their contributions, they never edited at the same time, although they edited at the same day when they both voted on the VfDs. --Conti|✉ 22:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • He also accused me of stalking when I listed his userpage at redirects for deletion, something that is patently untrue. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with this user. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I humbly ask that ContiE take the following into consideration....

Then (1) Android79 (text search: 01DTALKEMAIL), (2) Mysekurity, (3) Harmil, (4) Dcarrano, (5) Almafeta are all one person's sockpuppets. I have numbered them to make it easier to type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Richfield_Senior_High_School: 1, 2, 4, 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/I_Felta_Thi: 1, 2, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/John_Daker: 1, 2, 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/American_West: 1, 2, 3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Fat_People_on_Television: 1, 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dinosaurs:_A_Creationist%27s_Faulty_View.: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Joseph_E._Duncan_III: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Greater_Vancouver_Bridges: 1, 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/KarlScherersGreatestHits: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Semi-Christian_metal_bands: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_songs_that_begin_with_non-music: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/The_Magic_Dudes: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cardboardia: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Fucked_Company: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/David_tunney: 1, 2, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/911_horoscope: 1, 3, 4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Victor_augusto_nieto_righetti: 1, 2. I've also noticed Etacar11 in many of them, too.

I stopped at the end of the last 4 days. I hope you will listen to me, Conti E. JimRaynor 15:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As for my part in the accusation, I've only ever heard of Android79 around here, and that's because we're both part of WP:PAC. Accusing the rest of being sockuppets because you found they had sometimes voted in acordance with Android79 is really reaching... this silliness should stop now. Almafeta 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Voting on the same VfD as another person does not make me suspicious yet. It only did in combination with the other points I said, which you for some reason just ignored. Oh, and thanks to suddenly vote the opposite of every VfD I voted in. --Conti|✉ 18:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I guess I shouldn't feed the trolls, but here's evidence to the contrary: vote opposite Mysekurity and Harmil, vote opposite Almafeta, vote opposite Dcarrano, vote opposite Etacar11. If I'm a sockpuppet, I'm not a very good one. Please stop with the silly accusations. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, likely hoax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete goonn, possible hoax -Harmil 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Fur Expert 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Sockpuppet who hopes that people will always vote the opposite of what obvious sockpuppets vote. --Conti|✉ 18:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Sorry sockpuppet, I'm voting against you on this. -mysekurity 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete anything and everything to do with furries! SchmuckyTheCat 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't resist voting with a sockpuppet. Still needs to be strangled slowly and publicly, however. As for my reasoning: WP:NOT a furball. -Splash 22:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 23:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn at best, probably hoax. --Etacar11 02:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only because in trying to figure out if it's real or not, I discovered a [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furshampoo page about it here]. I just think that somewhere wikipedia should dispell the statements on that other wiki. But if not, then let's delete our furry article, too, and send everyone to that site for [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furry their furry article]. Well, that's my only reasoning. I think someone should prove it a hoax if it is instead of speculating or I'll be wondering forever. SnowConeYellow 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote on Talk:Furry fandom, encyclopedia dramatica can't be taken seriously, so this is more or less the proof that the article is a hoax. Which means that User:Chunitaku is nothing more than bored troll. --Conti|✉ 16:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified, evidence of trolling from ED. Almafeta 21:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with fursuit, shampoo, or Care of living organisms. The person who started this page for deletion said, "The only thing this article gets right is that Fursuits should be washed by hand, and not be put in a washing machine." I don't know how I should vote on this since am unknowledable on the subject. According to fursuit, the suits sound handmade from living ingredients (once living) so , well what does everyone clean their fursuit with? Drycleaning won't work, too? Handwash? Shampoo or soap or another cleaner? Are fursuits colorfast? ChoobWriter 14:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for your illumination, fursuits aren't made with once-living ingredients. They're made with synthetic fur, or rarely, latex or fabric. Almafeta 17:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fursuits can be washed or cleaned in a variety of ways, but there is no special "Furshampoo". Contrary to popular belief, it's not always impossible to put fursuits into a washing machine; if you use a low temperature and put it on the "wool" setting, you should be OK most of the time, even though hand-washing is still better, of course. Laundry detergents or shampoo (no matter whether human or pet shampoo) should probably not be used, but Woollite can be; additionally, many people will use Febreze on their fursuits (although that is only a short-term solution when you can't wash a suit right away, of course). In any case, you should NEVER put a fursuit into a dryer, as the heat will damage the fur fibers; instead, gently wring it out and then hang it and let it dry. Hope this helps, in case you ever want to get a fursuit. ^_~ Oh, and BTW, as far as colour fastness is concerned, that really depends on the fur used. Regular fur that's bought from a store is probably safe in this regard, but if you dye yourself or use airbrush to put accents on the suit, then you probably shouldn't count on it. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extremely non-notable at best, likely a hoax. carmeld1 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no such thing as "Furshampoo", unless you're referring to pet shampoo that you can buy in pet stores (but which shouldn't be used on artificial fur). This is a hoax. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nonsense, no hits on Google for Furshampoo. The closest I could find is Plush Cleaner, like Bubble Gund -- RainR 23:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero Google hits is a pretty strong case for non-notablity, even if it weren't a hoax to begin with. Loganberry (Talk) 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Nova ELC

Not notable bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 13:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. Decius 13:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim to notability for minor business. -Harmil 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and not enough to keep. Out it goes -mysekurity 18:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanisation

POV, original research, personal essay - I've asked for citations but they have not been forthcoming. Topic may deserve an article, but this is not it --Doc (?) 13:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (potentially hopelessly) POV, vague term, nn theory, original research -Harmil 18:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete use of first person (in addition to above stated reasons), thus: gone -mysekurity 19:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People are everywhere

Probably a candidate for speedy, but more transparency is better. Imdb for the director Alex Loris and for the title come up empty as does google for the title + director. Aaron Brenneman 13:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. —Cleared as filed. 18:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Aaron Brenneman -Harmil 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV ("stupid") and weird capitalization.... -mysekurity 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete really. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted after information merge. FCYTravis 06:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantynopolitańczykowianeczka

Foreign dictionary reference, "longest word in Polish". Aaron Brenneman 13:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly the reverse of the way that this information should be presented in an encyclopaedia, since it requires the reader to already know the information in order to even find it. Rename to Polish words with uncommon properties in order to parallel English words with uncommon properties. Uncle G 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename--Witkacy 14:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with some other article as per Uncle G. On its own, it's not noteworthy (for English WP at least, and only because it's supposedly the longest word in Polish, is it likely noteworthy in pl:WP). Tomer ^TALK 15:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As is, there is no way to verify this potentially original research, though it is listed as part of a famous tongue twister on wikiquote. -Harmil 18:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - foreign dicdef, but maybe it deserves to be in some long word list or the "polish words with uncommon properties", as stated above. -mysekurity 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've expanded the article to duplicate the style of English words with uncommon properties. The article is now a {{lang-stub}} ready to be renamed if that is the consensus. Uncle G 00:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 08:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Uncle G. Xoloz 09:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but merge info to Polish_language#Vocabulary - Nabla 04:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, boldly, did it... Nabla 04:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. I move to speed up the VfD (regardless of the fact that I have no doubt that my motion will not be taken up, especially since it's now well-past the relevant period for a speedy.  :-p )... Tomer ^TALK 09:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Horizon

Delete - standard nn band vanity. TheMidnighters 14:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Misty Horizon is still a very new band. They have not even played anywhere", nn, vanity -Harmil 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Less than a week old, and they only play birthday parties. Pburka 18:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "They have not even played anywhere", as such, it's, as TheMidnighters sugguested, "standard nn band vanity". Agreed. -mysekurity 19:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity, yes. They are starting early here. --Etacar11 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emehleugh

Delete - vanity. TheMidnighters 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete goonn, vanity -Harmil 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - typical nn vanity. Out it goes -mysekurity 19:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CleerSteel

Appears to be a hoax. No google hits, and no patents of the given numbers appear to exist. 24.156.86.181 15:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it now. A thread on Allspark.com, (http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=76240&st=20#) has the person who created it admitting it's a hoax. -awa64
• Delete External statements are not verifiable, however I think we can safely vote delete based on: a patent number search shows up no valid patents for those numbers and Midaco does not claim any such invention on their site. -Harmil 18:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, good research, guys. Safe to be deleted, I guess. -mysekurity 19:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD✉ 21:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Port Hope Simpson

Nothing but spam links to blogspot pages. No factual information about the place.--Alsocal 15:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oit's a copyvio from [23] #Dunc|☺ 16:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup copyvio should be deleted, and then page re-created in reference to real place details are available -Harmil 18:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup as sugguested by Harmil. -mysekurity 19:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prevette Landscaping

Delete nn or vanity. A private landscaping firm. TheMidnighters 16:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nn, 3 google results. [24] Jaxl 17:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad, nn, vanity. Article claims non-notability -Harmil 17:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanity, spam, the works. In agreement with Harmil. -mysekurity 19:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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