Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 16:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

bring back the couch

mind-bogglingly non-notable seglea 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of notable in the form of attempts to increase pagerank (500+ results). The domain for this "campaign" was created on July 18th though. A USA Today columnist reporting on blogs mentions the site(the cache may change without notice), but this is still not popular enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Daily Show MicroFeet 01:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Daily Show Pburka 01:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Google of "Bring back the couch"+"The Daily Show" gets only 40 unique hits. There's not enough info to even make a footnote, and I don't see how this could change. --A D Monroe III 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable.
- {Unsigned comment by User:Themindset. -- Grev -- Talk 04:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC))
Delete. Far too early to merit inclusion. -- Grev -- Talk 04:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete : NN --Ragib 06:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No merge. Page rank boosting, and an Internet boost. Geogre 11:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but it does not diminish the worthiness of the information itself. Kurt Weber 20:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems likely the author just made it up. Superiority 12:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just silly and pointless to have campaigns about these kind of things. --Several Times 14:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fansite. Dcarrano 15:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Briangotts (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 19:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Daily Show: While I agree it is horrendously non-notable, I find it slightly amusing. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, per A D Monroe III's Google search. --Idont Havaname 00:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. John Stewart mentioned the blog on his show just a couple of days ago. I've seen it referenced on MediaBistro, Wonkette, Lindsayism, Slate, and Entertainment Weekly . In any case, it'll become clearer in a couple of days how notable this becomes, but it isn't a hoax. --Arcadian 00:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fansite. JamesBurns 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's not notable to me. IINAG 18:33, 23 July 2005 (utc)
Merge into The Daily Show and redirect Not worthy of an article in its own right, but definitely belongs in the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 20:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This doesn't need its own article, but it is notable enough for a paragraph on the Daily Show page. A redirect would be appropriate. Binadot 22:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Jon Stewart mentions the couch on the show. A few lines from one or two episodes, and a website about it, are not remotely notable. Not to mention that there is so many funnier things on the show than this. Sabine's Sunbird 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Pagrashtak 06:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On second thought, it really is horribly non-notable. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 16:04, 25 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. Scimitar ^parley 16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crans-Montana

Notability not established, presently reads like an advertisement. --Alan Au 00:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Major ski resorts are notable (e.g. Whistler-Blackcomb) and this one get 631,000 google hits. Pburka 01:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable. Themindset 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Several Times 14:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Briangotts (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hopefully someone familar with the resort can expand on it. Hansonc 22:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Pburka. ^…Mar ka ci 2005-07-23 T 00:33:18 Z
Speedy keep. This town in Switzerland is famous as the site of the 1988 World Championship in Alpine Skiing. Martg76 07:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One sentence that simply states what it is and where it is. hardly "reads like an advertisement." Kurt Weber 21:08, 23 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 (14k, 9m, 1d). Scimitar ^parley 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Together Now (The Beatles)

Not notable song. Mr Bound 00:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This song was from Yellow Submarine. Allmusic.com has an article on the song [1] but it was never released as a single and/or is not a particularly notable album track so merge what is usable with Yellow Submarine. I have rewritten the article and change my vote to Keep given its role in the film. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Beatles song. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, songs by the Beatles are notable, and I've heard this one. Gazpacho 01:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keee very much notable. Themindset 03:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but the song should have been deleted before the album was released) Fg2 03:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Yellow Submarine. There's no reason to have a separate article on a song unless and until there is better content than Bom bom bom bompa bom . —Wahoofive (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ONLY if completely rewritten and with copyvio lyrics removed. 23skidoo 05:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right at the moment there's nothing worth keeping - the useful information already exists on the Yellow Submarine article. I don't think it was released as the a-side of a single in any major market, although I think there was a book published listing all The Beatles tracks by the same name in the mid 1970s, which is just about the only separate fact I can think of to justify an article existing separately from the album. Average Earthman 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, that's a merge vote, by the way. Average Earthman 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It's notable enough just for being a Beatles song. I rewrote it a little to make it less . . . bad. Bubamara 08:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the little that's not already in Yellow Submarine to that article. No, Virginia, not every song is worth an article. We've had a practice since 2002 at least of having articles only for songs that are truly outstandingly remarkable. Being a #1 hit is one criterion. Being a song that influenced everyone else (e.g. "Great Gig in the Sky" wasn't a #1 hit of any sort, but everyone knows it, and musicians have been darkly envious and wistful about imitating it since) is another. The Beatles are huge, but that doesn't mean that "Doctor Robert" or "And Your Bird Can Sing" would be worth an article. Neither does it mean that "All Together Now" is, either. Geogre 11:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yellow Submarine per Geogre. Dcarrano 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, consider me amazed to see this here jamesgibbon 17:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yellow Submarine per Geogre. Nandesuka 18:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yellow Submarine. Why is a song notable just because it's by The Beatles? --Stevefarrell 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yellow Submarine. Answering previous question: The policy about Beatles songs should be similar to that of Beethoven or Mozart, given their massive and undeniable contribution to the history of music. If there's no problem with String Quartet No. 5 (Beethoven) being included in Wikipedia, then the same courtesy can and should be extended to most Beatles songs. Note that I say most Beatles songs. This song here is certainly non-notable, and the only courtesy necessary is a redirect to the Yellow Submarine album, which can sufficiently cover this song. DiceDiceBaby 21:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (forgot to log in)...[reply]
- Comment Fair point. There are certainly many 'stories behind the song' in the case of Beatles' output that can be interesting and encyclopedic. This definitely isn't one of them, though. Not sure about comparing the Beatles to Beethoven, but that's probably just me. --Stevefarrell 23:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gamaliel 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been making articles for every Beatles song we can. Redwolf24 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Carnildo 23:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yellow Submarine. JamesBurns 03:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm bewildered. Why on earth would anyone consider this a deletion candidate? Grutness...wha? 05:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any song by a notable band is itself notable...especially if the band was something other than a "one-hit wonder". The amount of information is too much to merge, and as this is an encyclopedia, it's better to keep something that shouldn't be here than to get rid of something that should.
Keep. This is definitely notable. Binadot 22:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' All together now !!!, all beatles songs are notable. Ditto for elv1s Klonimus 07:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not to nitpick or anything, guys, but stealing text wholesale from this copyrighted article doesn't exactly improve Wikipedia's reputation. Nandesuka 05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't contain anything from there anymore. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Hedley 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lawson (artiste)

Delete non notable aspiring artiste. Google search of "Robert George Lwanga Lawson" returned 1 result which just listed his name among a long list of graduates. TheMidnighters 00:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I normally say something like "We wish him luck, but he is not well known at this time," but "artiste?" He is not now in need of a biography. Geogre 11:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn artiste vanity. --Etacar11 23:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:47, 23 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 (13k, 11m). Scimitar ^parley 17:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Sion

Should be either merged with another page or shortened. Not notable enough to be single standing. 138.130.214.13 07:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have been merged. All three of them. Hunger, Pain & Betrayal as one. 50% plus have agreed to this, so i went through with it and merged the articles. I did not know there was a different policy in place for merging articles than deleting articles. It is done now.

Unsigned comment by User:138.130.215.115. jni 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Um, no one at all agreed to what you just did. Nor does it appear that your merging is done. The present article doesn't even explain why the three of them have been put together in one article, nor are the "lordly" epithets you've added even explained. All you've done is cut and paste the three complete, independent articles into one under what appears to be a wholly arbitrary and unsearchable title ("The Three Dark Lords of the Sith ~ Hunger, Pain & Betrayal"). How did that fix things? Postdlf 08:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia requests that you do not copy/past things from one article to another. -- Psiedit

User 138.130.214.13 - Actually, I got that advice from the Wikipedia merge page, and incase you can't see, there is a clear cut majority of users wanting the article merged rather than kept the way it is.

Strong Keep as per everything I've said in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Darth Nihilus. Nufy8 16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and worth for a standalone article --Neigel von Teighen 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, informing and good info.---Obi-WanKenobi-2005---
Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Why do both of the KOTOR II's Sith lords have to have VFDs. With out them it wouldnt be "The Sith Lords" plural. User:Psi edit
Please do not nominate articles for deletion, 138.130.214.13, if you do not actually want any articles deleted. If you wish to merge articles, please follow the instructions for doing so, and use the tags provided. Deletion forms no part of the process of either article merger or article cleanup. Uncle G 01:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the anon user's motives are suspect, considering how listing Star Wars characters for deletion is all that he does on here, but nonetheless this should probably be merged into both the article on the game and List of minor Sith characters, and redirected to the latter. It's a character in one video game; until it appears in more Star Wars media (or more pervasive media like a cartoon or movie), it's a minor character. That the game gave this character voluminous backstory doesn't make it more notable, and the article doesn't even establish how important this character is to the game—what role does he play in what the player experiences? Someone should rewrite the content so that it's actually from the perspective that this is a video game character, and that every portrayal of him is derived from that game. Any unfamiliar reader will have no idea how this character is encountered by the game player or how his "biography" is revealed to the player in the context of the game. Articles should not be written as if this encyclopedia existed in the Star Wars universe, and simply adding the fact that he's a fictional Star Wars character isn't enough. Postdlf 01:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And btw, who actually created this character? Do committees write up the "biographies"? Is it a single plotwriter per game? This is the most important kind of information for an encyclopedia article about a fictional character. Postdlf 01:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very important character. Revolución 02:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You are kidding, right? --Maru 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't think I have anything to add to the reasoning given by Postdlf. I don't think anything needs to be added to it. The Literate Engineer 02:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just how does having excellent articles about obscure topics hurt wikipedia? Themindset 03:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Postdlf. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable major villain. - Sikon 10:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: A "major character" and a "major villain" in a single game. It is not needed as a stand alone, as nothing can refer to it except a single game. Geogre 11:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Then merge Darth Traya, Darth Nihilus, Darth Revan, Darth Malak and the Force knows whom, they are all major villains who appear in a single game each. Many less notable characters have their own articles, and merging of this article will change nothing except set up a bad precedent. - Sikon 16:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good God, those are some long articles. I'm shocked a game player has time to actually accomplish anything in the game if he's spending so much time reading backstory. Right now, none of those articles are written with the proper presentation and context appropriate to a video game character—what do they actually do in the game? Does the player actually encounter these characters, or just learn about them? Postdlf 08:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It explains their actions in the game quite well, actually. It just doesn't always say "this is what happens in the game at this point," because frankly, that would read more like a strategy guide than an encyclopedia. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they couldn't stand to have a little user interaction detailed in their articles, but to say that because it isn't written correctly by some people's standards then the knowledge it imparts should be limited, isn't doing it, or Wikipedia justice. Nufy8 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is entirely written as if Sion's story is an absolute narrative that a player passively observes and cannot affect. "He would later duel with the Exile on Korriban, and defeat him, but the Exile would escape." I only learned from reading another article (not this one) that the "Exile" is the player character. So does the quoted sentence mean that the player has no choice but to duel with Sion on Korriban and will inevitably escape no matter what he does? It doesn't say "if the player survives past level 3..." or "if the player decides to go to Korriban, he will be attacked by..." And does that sentence mean that the player is incapable of defeating him, no matter what? Why? It doesn't say "the game designers made Sion impossible to defeat," it just states that the player is defeated. For all a reader of the article knows, it's just because no one who wrote the article was good enough to defeat Sion at that point in the game. Yet somehow the player is destined to escape; does Sion always refrain from delivering a fatal blow? What if the player decides to remain there until one of them dies? Is the player swept away to safety against his will? The entire article is written like this ("the Exile was forced to use his powers of persuasion to turn Sion against his own beliefs"), without any acknowledgement that a real human player interacts with this character and becomes involved with the story, which is instead described as if it were merely a self-contained narrative. The entire article is nonencyclopedic fancruft writing, written simply to satisfy fans who want to know the complete fictional history of the fictional Star Wars universe, rather than to portray facts about how a fictional character was created, how the fictional work portrays him and his relationship to it, how he is experienced/encountered by the consumer/audience, and what that audience thinks about him. The article needs more than just a couple style tweaks; it needs a complete rewrite. Postdlf 18:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The player has no choice on Korriban. He must duel, and must lose.
He must go to Korriban, or never finish the game. Needless to say, it is stupid to preface every statement with "And if the player decides to keep playing and completing the game, he will..."
Yes. Sion always refrains from a fatal blow. No dialogue option will cause Sion to kill the Exile on Korriban, as part of the story, for obvious out-of-game reasons. The ingame player is not swept away against his will, but the player outside of the game is, as the Exile escapes in a cinema with no dialogue options which will change anything.
You don't seem to understand, Post. The article describes what is canonical. The canon rules for SW state that plot events for games are canon, branching plots have one specific unique singular end-branch which is canonical, and that's it. The minutiae of the actual game implementation are not canon- including game mechanics and possible plots like you endlessly harp upon. Sion does not need a "Rewrite", it needs expansion. Go ahead, add audience reaction, go ask the producers who wrote in Sion, what were they thinking, what early versions of Sion were there, and how did they differ, etc. But don't call the article unencyclopedic (or, if you do, then go start several thousand vfds to cleanse Wikipedia of all SW 'fancruft'), or use fictional as an epithet. It incorporates what is available, sourceable and reliable. --Maru 19:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That should be described and explained.
It should at least be prefaced by "When the player makes it to Korriban;" otherwise, it sounds like a player has no volition over that outcome.
This should be described and explained, and the parts of the game that the player in fact passively watches ("the Exile escapes in a cinema") should be distinctly separated from the parts that the player actively participates in. And what the player actually sees should be separated from that which he is merely told about.
What you don't understand is this is not the Official Canon Encyclopedia of Star Wars. The article needs a rewrite because it just relates a story abstracted from the source from which it is derived, without any sense of how the media actually constructed the story. And yes, there are a lot of Star Wars articles that need similarly serious cleanup. This particular article should focus on describing what the player sees him do in the game, what he does to the player, what the player does to him, and what the player is told about him and how. Considering how he's a bloody video game character, one would think that these would be the most fundamental things to set forth. Then a separate section on how this portrayal of the character fits into Star Wars canon may be appropriate, but that certainly shouldn't be the overriding perspective. No, "fictional" is not an epithet; I've written quite a few articles about fictional subjects myself. But the article should not itself become fiction; it should write about fiction by describing works of fiction, and write about subjects of fiction by describing exactly how the works portray them. Postdlf 06:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Postdlf. Dcarrano 15:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above.Robert A West 15:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect, as has been done with many minor Star Wars characters. -R. fiend 15:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is doubleplusunnotable. And yes, I would also merge Revan, Malak, and all the other little baby Darths too. Even though I liked KOTOR. Nandesuka 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above DES 18:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable SW character.--Kross 20:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - thorough and well written article. A bit crufty, and a merge would not hurt, but there are better cases where merges are really necessary. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge all of these single game Darths, as per User:Postdlf. JamesBurns 03:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, typical fancruft. Martg76 07:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep decent article and there is so much fan stuff on here already, so I don't see a good reason to single this article out for deletion. Salsb 15:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable character. Jon Hart 22:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, informative and a fun read. All you party poopers please don't delete. It just needs a little tweaking on the facts.

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Hedley 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ground Baptist Church

not an objective article; based on personal opinion and promoting a particular church 203.166.5.68 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert. Gazpacho 02:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delte unless someone does some serious serious rewriting. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. No content. Bubamara 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, glad you enjoy your church but, no sign it has encyclopedic relevance. Dcarrano 15:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Almafeta 16:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Briangotts (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV non-notable. —Sesel wa 19:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dcarrano. It only gets 199 Google hits ("Higher Ground Baptist Church" + TN) (church name + Tennessee gets 198). Doesn't seem to have national notability... *sigh* if only the same still applied to schools.... --Idont Havaname 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV advert nn church. JamesBurns 03:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hedley 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied.

Popularity of Adolf Hitler

Lauding of Hitler's character without mention of an opposing viewpoint. Seems extremely one-sided. I expect to attract flack from this nomination but will stand by it. Delete unless rewritten. Mr Bound 01:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is Nazi vandalism, and as such have speedy-deleted it. However, the vandal seems to be recreating the page, so I deleted it, recreated it, and protected it. Neutrality^talk 01:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a Nazi, I am not even of European race, and you have no right to either delete the article or delete my earlier comment on this very page. You have no right to police Wikipedia when contributors have not done any wrong. And is it possible AT ALL that some people in the world could admire Hitler without being labelled "nazi" or pushed out and told "you must not express how you feel because we don't like it" ?? --Paul Chiu

Just a quick note. Whether uyou are European or not has nothing to do with nazism (sp?). (added after closing) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Although I can't read what was nominated, delete as a POV fork. NPOV info about viewpoints can be added to Neo-Nazism or Adolf Hitler. Gazpacho 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a proactive Keep Deleted vote for when this inevitably ends up at VfU.
DELETE AND KEEP DELETING EdwinHJ | Talk 17:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted.

Adolf Hitler's popularity

Not NPOV and should be in Adolf Hitler.--MicroFeet 01:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a clone of another page on Vfd.
Delete. Gazpacho 02:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any other recreations. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lotus

Non-notable film production company, founded in 2004! Delete.Joel7687 01:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Then send to Cleanup. Almafeta 02:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Their two cited films produce a total of 4 unique Google hits, apparently all from the "production company" itself. Good luck to you guys; come back when your films sell. --A D Monroe III 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time. Note that the founder and principal force is Nathan Iwaszko, recently seen on the votes for deletion page here. Bubamara 08:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. There's thausands of small film companies like this one. Article is advertising too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per A D Monroe III. Dcarrano 15:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nothing in IMDB on these films. NN vanity/ad. --Etacar11 23:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 03:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tone is a bit inappropriate and it might be able to use a touch of NPOVing, but the subject itself is worthwhile. Kurt Weber 21:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Should not have been listed on VFD, is just an exlink Manning 04:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Given name etymology

Delete no content, just a link to Wiktionary. Revolución 02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link". --A D Monroe III 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (even after discounting anon votes). Scimitar ^parley 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Battle

Keep Comeon. There's entries for many stupid things here on wikipedia. Pat battle isn't one of them. Keep the entry!!. -Rob Yoot ☯ 21:39, 2005 July 26 (EST)
Keep Everything in the article is accurate and true, some of those voting to delete haven't even read enough to realize Pat is woman. Please do not delete this. -Paul Couture ☯ 21:23, 2005 July 23 (EST)
Keep I think the Pat battle section contributes a lot to wikipedia. SHe is famous in our area. Please do not delete this. Note: I vandalized the vote by accidnet. sorry please delete my IP. Update: I delted my IP if that is Okay with you guys. Anyways Pat battle is a very popular person in the NY area and I can't see the harm of it being on Wikipedia?
- Note:The above is an unsigned vote from 24.62.**.** who vandalized several votes. NYTVGuy 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. 44 Google hits. No claim to notablilty in article, other than he's on TV and has a funny name. --A D Monroe III 03:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep This needs a wickedly major clean up. The Opie and Anthony radio program is national, so perhaps some Opie and Anthony fan, assuming they have the IQ to work a computer, get on the internet, and find Wikipedia would want to try and figure out who this Pat Battle is. FunkyChicken! 03:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Change vote to Keep as it was cleaned up a majorly and due to the fact that she won an Emmy. FunkyChicken! 05:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if notable in NYC and environs. Kappa 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article into something coherent and Wikipedia-like, categorized it and stubbed it. This will give those radio listeners who don't know who she is context, and TV viewers throughout the Americas who watch WNBC some biographical information which has the potential to be added to later. NYTVGuy 04:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The edit by NYTVGuy looks good. Further expansion would, of course, look even better. Aerion//talk 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not the same when it was started and has improved greatly. I have crossed paths with Pat a few times professionally and she is one of the best reporters out there by covering her beat very well. Plus she is a very nice person and has great on-air skills, as evidenced recently when she was hounded by some Opie and Anthony fans while doing a stand-up live shot in New Jersey. She is one of the better anchors and reporters in the entire NYC/NJ area and she got an Emmy this year! Now off to add some stuff to the article! UncleFloyd 04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning a New York Emmy makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of Emmy winners who are non-notable. Should Wikipedia be filled with info on the sports guy from Bumblesnort, Montana and the name of his dog? DiceDiceBaby 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is not in Bumblesnort, Montana, she is in New York which is the biggest televison market in the country. Her station is also seen in many places outside of New York, including Latin America, the Carribean, and in places in the US there is no NBC affiliate. Plus she is a person referenced on a national radio show, so that means she has more notablity than ths sports guy from Bumblesnort. NYTVGuy 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any and all biographies on Emmy Award winners. Hall Monitor 18:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline notable at best - 44 Google hits is scraping it. JamesBurns 03:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I seemed to have gotten around 75 to 125 relevant Google hits, not including a couple of pages that were in Chinese, using various search permutations. NYTVGuy 05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just on the wrong side of notability. Indrian 15:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phoinix

Not at all notable or encyclopedic, and has little to no possibility for expansion. Saying "It is also what people in Brooklyn call a city in Arizona." is just silly. Delete. Andre (talk) 02:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 193 unique Google hits, which is low for something that only lives as a free download on the web. It might be nice and all, but I can find nothing that might ever become an article. --A D Monroe III 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. See Gnuboy, or Wzonka-Lad for 2 random examples of how this could become an article. I removed the silly bit about Brooklyn. Bubamara 09:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see anything here, really. -R. fiend 15:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and neutral. Can't find any reason to delete under our current deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Phoenix as possible misspelling. Radiant_>|< 19:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You can't delete and redirect--it isn't possible to redirect from nothing. Phoinix is an alternative spelling (or rather, an alternative roman orthography) of phoenix, and is used in that form, for instance, in the Alexander trilogy of Mary Renault. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. You can delete it, then create a new redirect in its place. ~~~~ 21:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would destroy the article history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 24 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 (no merge). Scimitar ^parley 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zedraedi

This entry is completely incorrect. The correct entry is Zentradi. Epolk 02:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're both wrong... Isn't it Zentraedi? Almafeta 02:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate article. Merge to Zentradi (which goes over the various spellings, which appears to be the cause of this duplicate), or if no one figures out what to merge, then just Delete. (BTW, I added missing {{vfd}} to page.) --A D Monroe III 03:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Zentradi. Dcarrano 15:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
REDIRECT, do not Merge The article itself is an introduction to Macross/Robotech, written badly, summarizing the events at the beginning of the saga. 132.205.44.43 15:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If you can't even spell it... Nandesuka 19:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zentradi. JamesBurns 03:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why VfD this when you can Merge or Redirect? CanadianCaesar 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zentradi Romanization is tricky, but Zentradi is the accepted form Makenji-san 19:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was keep (7k,1d). Scimitar ^parley 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Historical Society

Delete non-notable, substub, doesn't establish notability. Revolución 02:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Encyclopedic and notable. From the Lost Cause of the Confederacy article: "The term Lost Cause first appeared as the title of the 1866 book on the Confederacy by historian Edward A. Pollard." However, it was due to the formation of the Southern Historical Society in 1869 that Lieut. Gen. Jubal Early in the 1870s established the Lost Cause as a cultural and literary phenomenon that lasted for decades.

The Southern Historical Society was founded by Major General Dabney Herndon Maury and not "Jubal Early" as I proved. Please look in Mark Boatner's _Civil War_Dictionary_, or somewhere, for the proof as opposed to any belief. --Maury 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaibabsquirrel 02:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as per Kaibabsquirrel. Notable organisation for presenting the Confederacy point of view. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as per those above. FunkyChicken! 05:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kaibabsquirrel. RJFJR 13:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I tend to be a deletionist, but this is a definite keep DiceDiceBaby 15:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable organisation. JamesBurns 03:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Kaibabsquirrel. Salsb 22:18, 23 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 merge and redirect (5m, 1k, 1d). Scimitar ^parley 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade Teams

I've looked at WP:FICT and think this is a candidate for deletion as not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable fiction. Kappa 03:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe this is the criteria as stated in WP:FICT. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this information is already in the main Beyblade article, and adding the rest would only amount to a few sentences. Merge and redirect to Beyblade per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 04:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Beyblade. Bubamara 09:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. Dcarrano 15:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. DES 18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Beyblade. JamesBurns 03:56, 23 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/merge CDC (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hryb

Non-notable outside the xBox community. Denni ☯ 02:36, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Delete unless there evidence of some other achievement.--nixie 06:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with XBox Live and redirect. This could have been done without a VfD listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep no less notable than Bruno Bonnell who helped create Atari. He isn't well known even inside the gaming industry. Considering over two million people count on his product, I think that's fairly noteworthy by itself.66.191.177.59 07:40, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 16:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Calculated Risk

Non-notable gaming clan. Gazpacho 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gaming clans. --nixie 06:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Bubamara 09:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nixie. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - This should've been speedied a long time ago. Hedley 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameya Velingker

Vanity page. Non-notable outside the high school math competition community (if it can be called a "community"). Aerion//talk 02:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could be speedied per A7. --Dmcdevit·t 05:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Preferably speedy. Teen nerd vanity. FunkyChicken! 06:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Though this is the nicest deletable vanity page I've ever seen. Bubamara 09:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it's speediable, he made a believable claim to notability, but I don't believe winning that contest is notable enough for an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- He did make a claim to notability, and a very impressive claim at that. His notability is such that I had heard of him before seeing this article, and there is very little dispute that the USAMO is the most prestigious American high school math competition. However, I wouldn't call its fame widespread (I get questioned all the time when I wear my "I survived the USAMO" t-shirt, usually by people wanting to know what the USAMO is, immediately followed by people wanting to know why I would ever wear such a shirt). So I don't think that placing top 12 once is enough to establish the level of notability required for a Wikipedia article. Maybe four times is enough, like Tiankai Liu or Reid Barton. Aerion//talk 15:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn teen vanity. JamesBurns 03:57, 23 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 (unanimous). Scimitar ^parley 17:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CD copying software

The first part is just a rephrase/dicdef, the rest can be covered in CD copy protection. Gazpacho 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like the best option in this case. Aerion//talk 04:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CD copy protection. --Ragib 06:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gomco

Band vanity. See also A Thousand Years, Greg Pearson, G. Pearson coming soon. Brighterorange 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user name for these contributions (Pearsong) would seem to give it away as vanity. Aerion//talk 04:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 15:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. The JPS 15:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 03:58, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 16:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

A Thousand Years

Band vanity. Brighterorange 03:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment also redirects Athousandyears and A thousand years, should this go. Brighterorange 03:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this album was noticed by anyone of any importance. Given the technology available nowadays, you can produce an album in your back room, so merely having something available as an album isn't notable. A google search reveals that this 'Horizon Recordings' was set up by the artist himself - so his own album, 'recording studio' and record label. I wonder if the creator of these articles left off this fact deliberately? Same vote for the rest of these connected pages. Average Earthman 08:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, very non-notable album. Dcarrano 15:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. The JPS 15:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Millennium ~~~~ 21:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's non notable musical vanity. IINAG 19:56, July 25, 2005 (GMT)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 16:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horizon Recordings

Record label vanity. Brighterorange 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vast majority of the relatively few Google hits refer to different stuff; no indication at all that this label is notable. Dcarrano 15:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. Promotion. The JPS 15:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn label vanity. --Etacar11 23:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn label vanity. JamesBurns 03:59, 23 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 userfy and delete. The content has been userfied, and article deleted. Joyous (talk) 16:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

G. Pearson

Vanity. Should probably userfy to User:Pearsong Brighterorange 03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, Pearsong (talk · contribs) has made significant and welcome contributions . Dunc|☺ 12:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (correction: it seems quite a lot of it is vanity, but he has made a couple of edits to U2 albums Dunc|☺ 13:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Userfy & Delete The JPS 15:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Dcarrano 15:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy/Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:59, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 16:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Pearson

Vanity. G. Pearson is slightly longer and would probably be a better choice for userfication (at User:Pearsong). Brighterorange 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 15:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:59, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 16:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horizon Sound

More recording vanity. Brighterorange 03:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 04:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication these albums were notable, much less where they were recorded. Dcarrano 15:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, I dare say few studios are. --Etacar11 23:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected (hey, a new term!) since the content would only ever possibly be a fork of the content already at Japanese writing system. Garrett^Talk 14:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese alphabet

Information about the japanese character sets (I'm uncertain if calling them alphabets is correct) belongs to a broader article about the japanese language. The title is inadequate and the descriptions of katakana and kanji are incorrect. Fbergo 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japanese writing system] Fg2 03:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Fg2. There's nothing here that needs to be merged. What's incorrect about those descriptions? They're incomplete, but relatively accurate. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 04:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect without merging per Fg2. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Android79: katakana is used for emphasis and onomatopoeic sounds, not just for foreign names. The (e.g. your name) is discriminatory and inaccurate: if you are japanese, your name is most likely not written in katakana, and wikipedia should be written for all. And kanji represent ideas; Kanji, either alone or in groups, form entire words. I agree with the proposed redirection by Fg2. Fbergo 13:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. I've never studied Kanji, so that didn't jump out at me. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 13:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 merge & redirect

Science (Kieron Harvey)

Not notable brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 as is the case with the other contestants. On his own, Science isn't yet notable enough, but he will be if he wins so an article can be written then. 23skidoo 05:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 until more can be written about him than "he is a contestant," or possibly "he won Big Brother..." Keeping until the end of the series is pointless without encyclopaedic content. Even winning isn't deserving of a solo article. See Brian Dowling. The JPS 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per other BB6 contestants. There is a chance people will look them up on their own. David | Talk 10:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother UK series 6. Dcarrano 15:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. JamesBurns 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them except Derek Laud who was a known political figure before becoming a contestant and I imagine will be again afterwards. There is nothing notable about any of the rest. Mrsteviec 11:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited this page to return to NPOV. What is left can easily be merged in to the main BB6 article. Mrsteviec 18:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother UK series 6. Nevica 19:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say merge and redirect. I've added the info to Big Brother UK series 6 so we only need to redirect-ise this page. --Celestianpower ^talk 19:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place on Talk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to be redirect, I have been bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (except Derek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge & redirect

Craig Coates

Not Notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 until more can be written about him than "he is a contestant," or possibly "he won Big Brother..." Keeping until the end of the series is pointless without encyclopaedic content. If he does go on to do something notable that is not covered in the BB6 article, then he can have his own artcile. The JPS 10:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother UK series 6. Dcarrano 15:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. JamesBurns 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them except Derek Laud who was a known political figure before becoming a contestant and I imagine will be again afterwards. There is nothing notable about any of the rest. Mrsteviec 11:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and merge. Unencylopædic and biased. IINAG
Keep as this person is known by almost everyone in the UK.
Keep & Update - The Time Killer

There was already a discussion taking place on Talk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to be redirect, I have been bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (except Derek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge & redirect

Anthony Hutton

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 until more can be written about him than "he is a contestant," or possibly "he won Big Borther..." Keeping until the end of the series is pointless without encyclopaedic content. The JPS 09:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother UK series 6. Dcarrano 15:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. JamesBurns 04:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them except Derek Laud who was a known political figure before becoming a contestant and I imagine will be again afterwards. There is nothing notable about any of the rest. Mrsteviec 11:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and merge. As with most of the other BB contestant summaries, this truly is biased and unencylopaedic, as well as being not very notable. IINAG
Keep -- and Update, as he will probably win! -- The Time Killer

There was already a discussion taking place on Talk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to be redirect, I have been bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (except Derek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worm-Hole rotating ring

The page is written by a crank and describes something that is not only nonexistent, but has no basis in reality. It is solely a creation of the crank.

Delete absent a citation in science fiction. Gazpacho 03:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any sort of credibility. Aerion//talk 04:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure speculation. Appears to have no scientific value. Lacks citations. ManoaChild 06:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite my past edits to clean it up and put in a skeptical perspective, I totally agree. Spacebased Worm hole gate was a replicate without the content I added, and I changed it into a redirect. If this page goes, that redirect should too. --FreelanceWizard 10:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke137 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no scientific value. To even say "original research" is stretching it. --Etacar11 23:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 15:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkins Media Holdings, LLC

Not notable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have a very weak Internet presence, which is to say none at all (the single Google hit is unrelated). A cursory search reveals nothing even related to this company. While this doesn't necessarily mean anything, it does reinforce the notion that the company is non-notable. Aerion//talk 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Gazpacho 04:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. Dcarrano 15:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You people are NON-NOTABLE: delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete !!! That is all you know. Does that make you feel strong? Are we superior yet?

Unsigned comment by anon 66.30.99.56, the author of the article at issue. Aerion//talk 17:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're all quite non-notable, which is why we don't have Wikipedia articles about ourselves. If it makes you feel better, I'll use a different word, like "destroy." (I think I like that better anyway. Destroy all vanity articles!) Aerion//talk 17:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 04:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my previous statements- I understand that you are doing the best that you can to adhere to the standards that Wikipedia has set. I also know that this project would be a massive mess of abstract data if those policies were not in place, and strictly enforced.

What I believe should be taken into consideration though, is that the Internet does not record enough information that is due a notable status. My uncle (Herbert Wilkins) is clearly notable. But because of his low profile, and insider status, not much has been released in "publicity" structure.

My reasons for initiating inclusions to Wikipedia are simply to create an "educational presence" for members of my family that have not been noted by other "educational" mediums. My background is also "notable" in that I have had special relationships with historical figures in the finance and music industries.

My personal intention is to administer to this information, and help with the massive linking work that is associated with it. What I am asking is the time to do so, and an open perspective to what is deemed as notable, and historical. William H. Wilkins III- 07.22.05- 1:24 pm/est historical. William H. Wilkins III- 07.22.05- 1:24 pm/est

Do you have any proof of this company's holdings being notable or famous? The founders? The current owner? Wikipedia is not for creating a presence, on;ly reporting on existing presences. The fact the that you claim to have "special relationships" with "historical figures" doesn't help. names might.
My vote's delete, if you couldn't tell. humblefool ® 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A lot of people have associations with famous people. A certain roadie may have toured with The Rolling Stones or U2. Someone may be a PA (personal assistant) to a Hollywood celeb. Or someone may have been Bill Gates' kindergarden teacher. These associations still don't make them notable in any way, unless they've managed some accomplishments of their own. --Madchester 22:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity/ad/promotion. --Etacar11 23:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HEAR ME MY FELLOW NOBLES!

Shall my humble and simplified modification to a standard dictionary description withstand the cold, steely, knives of thy honored Senate?? William H. Wilkins III- 07.26.05- 11:25 pm/est

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 16:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Agita

Dicdef of a colloquialism. WP:WINAD. I see no potential growth here. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 03:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 15:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:04, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 17:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ratiocination

Dictionary definition. WP:WINAD. No potential for growth. Already at Wiktionary. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 03:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete dicdef. Gazpacho 04:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 15:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:04, 23 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 (3k, 1d). Scimitar ^parley 17:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Langendreer-Alter Bahnhof

Reason why the page should be deleted Fenice 11:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC): An article on the old train station of a city in Germany.

Keep, we have lots of train stations, and if it's old then it's historic. But where is that in the article? Gazpacho 04:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It actually seems to be a district of the city having taken part of its name from an old train station. Keep either way. Uppland 05:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 08:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was keep (unanimous). Scimitar ^parley 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language delay

This was never put in the log. --Dmcdevit·t 03:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up by adding appropriate content and removing extraneous material. Vote to keep.RToes 22:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clarify the distinction from speech delay. I can't make sense of it. Gazpacho 04:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Googling reveals it to be a legitimate term. I never heard it before, but then language acquisition isn't my area of linguistics. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nandesuka 19:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been seriously cleaned up since it was nominated. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:16, 25 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 at a new title, redirect this title to Animaniacs (by my count: 5k, 1d, 6r). Scimitar ^parley 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs!

Transferred here from Speedy. Content value is questioned - a plot summary of individual cartoon episode. Title is clearly inappropriate - this actually refers to the cartoon series Tiny Toons. Manning 04:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This debate should also dictate the fate of Bad_Stitch and Kixx. The latter have been removed from Speedy but should share the fate of this article. Manning 04:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about the TV show Animaniacs Gazpacho

Gazpacho - correct: this refers to the show "Tiny Toons", not Animaniacs!. Manning 04:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, but redirect to Animaniacs. Gazpacho 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpacho - do you mean redirect to Tiny Toons? Manning 04:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

~~I agree with Gazpacho, redirect to Animaniacs. If somebody types in "Animaniacs!" they are looking for Animaniacs, not Tiny Toon Adventures. --Metropolitan90 04:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)~~

My meaning was that this article has nothing to do with Animaniacs!. As I stated in the heading above, the title is also clearly inappropriate. Cheers Manning 05:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but rename it so that the title is actually accurate. There are plenty of individual episode articles and I don't see any reason to treat this any differently. But it definitely needs retitling. 23skidoo 05:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Causes way too much confusion with the much better and later WB series Animaniacs, which I thought that this VFD was about initially. Have "Animaniacs!" redirect to the page where I can read about Yakko, Wakko, and Dot! And those are the facts! FunkyChicken! 06:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Animaniacs per Metropolitan90. Dcarrano 16:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename as per 23skidoo. Meelar (talk) 16:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Animaniacs. --Calton | Talk 00:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Animaniacs per Metropolitan90. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animaniacs. JamesBurns 04:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Looniversity Daze and delete. There is apparently a Tiny Toons episode called "Animaniacs!" but this article is not about it - it is about "Looniversity Daze", which already has an article. HollyAm 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC) Based onMetropolitan90's comment below, I'm changing my vote to Keep, but would also support a rename to something like Animaniacs! (Tiny Toons episode) to avoid confusion with the Animaniacs series, and/or a disambiguation statement at the top. HollyAm 06:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be darned ... the article under VFD is actually a description of the Tiny Toon Adventures episode titled "Animaniacs!", not the episode titled "Looniversity Daze" which the first paragraph of the article references. See the Big Cartoon Database. No vote. --Metropolitan90 03:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Move or Merge - why is this on VfD? This would have been easily fixed without having to resort to voting for deletion. -Acjelen 03:27, 25 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. Joyous (talk) 17:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lars Ryen Mill

Vanity page. --Several Times 13:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity. Non-notable. The JPS 15:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sooooooo... he's a network guy. Delete. Dcarrano 16:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn management consultant. Meelar (talk) 16:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Bryant

Vanity, best I can figure is that this person may be someone who posts on Encyclopedia Titanica message boards MechBrowman 04:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. Recognized by whom? for doing what? Gazpacho 04:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 92 Google hits, 91 of which are from the message board mentioned above. Just another message board poster... delete. Dcarrano 16:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatant vanity. --Carnildo 23:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:06, 23 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 (6k, 2m, 1d). Scimitar ^parley 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Get You

Regardless of the song's notability, this article isn't very informative. Delete Gazpacho 04:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beatles B-side. If there was info on which track it was the B-side for,you could merge it with an article on the A-side but we don't have that information. Comment Looking at the All Music Guide entry for this song [[2]], this song was the B-side of "She Loves You" and appeared on the Anthology 1 and Complete BBC Sessions and was frequently played in their live shows. Delete or merge with "She Loves You" if article doesn't improve - I would welcome feedback if others feel that Beatles B-sides are notable or whether merging as a section of our "She Loves You" article is a better option. Capitalistroadster 06:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to B sides specifically, excluding the double-A sided singles? Uncle G 11:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The records indicate that this was a B-side to "She Loves You" and didn't appear on a studio album although it was played live in concert and in appearances in the BBC. Capitalistroadster 13:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Although if it was the B-side to She Loves You then a mention there would be ok (even throw in a redirect if you like). Certainly doesn't deserve an article on its own. -R. fiend 16:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote. While it's certainly been expanded, it's now one of those articles that takes alot of words to say very little. It's still a pretty minor song, really, with little to be said about it. Hell, I've been a Beatles fan for years and I can't recall it (then again I don't like the early Beatles nearly as much as the later Beatles). -R. fiend 15:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to She Loves You. Dcarrano 16:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, tremendous and notable song in its own right. If it survives, I'll add some information - it really could be a decent short article. jamesgibbon 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have created a section on "I'll Get You" in the She Loves You article so redirect to that article.~~ Keep Grutness's rewrite but failing that merge with "She Loves You".Capitalistroadster 01:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete B-sides aren't inherently notable and a sub-stub certainly doesnt establish why it would be notable. JamesBurns 04:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and I have now thoroughly (re-)written the article. See if it's up to your standards now (and songs originally intended to be Beatles singles are worth articles! hell, every Beatles song is worth an article!) Grutness...wha? 06:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Dcarrano (sorry grutness) Renata3 09:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's time to accept that every Beatles song deserves its own article. Merging with She Loves You is inadequate as the song also appears on Past Masters, Volume One and elsewhere. Flowerparty 12:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If My Bologna survived a VFD nomination, then certainly any song by the Beatles is a keeper. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was keep (6k, 1d). Scimitar ^parley 18:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Paul

This doesn't require an encyclopediac entry rail 04:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um...according to the article, "Mr. Paul was declared among the best managers in the world by Business Week in 2004. He was also named by Time and CNN amongst the 25 most influential business persons in the world." (Verified--see [3]). Smells like a copyvio, but I can't find it. Keep for now. Meelar (talk) 16:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Doesn't really need an encyclopediac entry. But I would still say a weak keep considering the kind of infuential person he is. Fitful 17:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it needs to be made NPOV. Stirling Newberry 19:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable businessperson. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete looks like a copyvio. JamesBurns 04:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and list on Wikipedia:Copyright problems if you can verify that it is a copyvio. (We don't delete on mere suspicion, that would be silly). The subject of the article is notable enough for Wikipedia beyond question. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:21, 23 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. Various merge options were discussed but these can be dealt with outside this decision on whether to delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vampire's Assistant

This seems to be a work of fiction. Nothing showed up in Google to indicate plagiarism Cnwb 04:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be a plot summary of a book. I am unfamiliar with the series, and I have no idea how notable it is. This article's fate should be inextricably tied to that of Cirque Du Freak. Aerion//talk 05:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge in light of comments below. There's really no need for such a detailed plot summary, although a high-level summary would be useful. Aerion//talk 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: related articles can be found at Jerichoholic's contributions page. All the articles on Darren Shan books should share the same fate. Aerion//talk 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as to the fact that the summary I gave of The Vampire's Assistant and Cirque Du Freak exceed in detail and words from that of [4], I don't see how I could have plagarized or copyrighted. There are several articles out there on the books, but I guarantee that my article was written in my own words. I also sincerely doubt that there are as detailed articles on the books on other websites. Jerichoholic

Nobody's accusing you of plagiarism. In fact, the original poster said that there is no apparent copyright violation. Aerion//talk 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I do not understand why it is an issue. Jerichoholic

The original issue was that, to the original poster, the article appeared to be an original work of fiction. Some further research indicated that the article is in fact a very detailed plot summary of a published work. While plot summaries are nice (although they should be tagged with spoiler warnings), there is a limit to how much detail is really necessary. Those editors who have voted for a "smerge" or something similar are those who feel that the level of detail you have given is somewhat excessive. ... On an unrelated note, you should log in. Aerion//talk 02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was extremely unnecessary for me to log in, for I don't see anything different. Why does it matter if I used detail? Who are you to judge? Does it really matter? And, I would've tagged a spoiler warning and put other parts in the pages about the books, but you people gave me no chance, really. Jerichoholic

Comment: Part of the Darren Shan series. I only read the first 3 books but it appears to be quite notable and popular with it's audience. Books have been translated into several languages.
Condense liberally and Merge into Darren Shan. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 12:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Smerge to Darren Shan. Dcarrano 16:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Condense and Merge into Cirque Du Freak, the series. Keep Darren Shan biographical. -- Norvy (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other countries, such as the UK and Ireland, the series is known as "The Saga of Darren Shan." If you were to use a page for all the books, I would suggest changing the name to the original series name, other than Cirque Du Freak. Jerichoholic

Keep and cleanup. I'd say the article should be kept, but the whole thing would need to be rewriten and have just he main points included and a few more details about the series they belong to. I wouldn't think it would benefit anything to have the summary included on the Darren Shan page and I think we should have separate pages for all 12 books (if they don't alrwady exist). The books all seem to be gaining in popularity now and I've seen many books shops with significant displays for them. Evil Eye 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge, together with Cirque Du Freak, into The Saga of Darren Shan. If that title is not acceptable, try splitting the current Darren Shan article into Darren Shan (writer) (which should probably be a REDIRECT to Darren O'Shaughnessey anyway, and merging all the various individual books into Darren Shan. HTH HAND—Phil | Talk 08:54, August 4, 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 (4k, 2m). Scimitar ^parley 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Du Freak

This goes along with the VfD on The Vampire's Assistant. Aerion//talk 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Part of the Derren Shan series. I only read the first 3 books but it appears to be quite notable and popular with it's audience. Books have been translated into several languages.
Condense liberally and Merge into Darren Shan. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 12:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Smerge to Darren Shan. Dcarrano 16:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Very notable book series. Darren Shan is starting another series, and it would be helpful to keep them separate from each other and his bio page. That said, this page should discuss the entire series, not summarize the plot of book 1. -- Norvy (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. With 12 published books in the series, I am sure people would research it, specifically here. It just needs some cleaning up. --Evmore 20:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a notable book series. --Badlydrawnjeff 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! as it was just noted in U.S. News July 25, 2005 issue -- Randy2063 18:55, 25 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. Joyous (talk) 17:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Buddha's Witnesses

This appears to be made-up history. No google hits for "Buddha's Witnesses", "Buddah's Witnesses" or "Klaus van der Dam", except for Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in Rick Fields' How the Swans Came to the Lake. - Nat Kraus e 04:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's some kind of joke, though not a keeper. --Several Times 14:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Buddhists have been memorising the scriptures and going from door to door for 2,500 years. Shantavira 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 16:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, whatever. It'd been in "Orphaned Articles" for over a year, I figured I'd make it a bit more visible. Oops. Delete, then.DS 18:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless existence and notability are established (which I think is unlikely). —Sesel wa 19:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --ZappaZ 02:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; looks like a joke to me. IINAG 22:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move to BJAODN Xaa 02:56, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 17:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tollari

Neologism. Can't find documentation of it anywhere on google, even its external link doesn't seem to work for me. Even if it were truethough, it's a dicdef, and WP:WINAD. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 04:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - hoax. AlbertR 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was unanimous keep. Scimitar ^parley 18:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman To

Appears to be a Honk Kong martial arts actor. Is in IMDB, however, no presence in english-speaking countries as of yet. humblefool ® 04:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So then why does that make it not notable? Are you saying that actors who don't act in English movies are inherently less notable than English-speaking ones? I don't find the argument convincing. --Dmcdevit·t 05:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Infernal Affairs is released in the UK and the US 60.234.144.135 05:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A bit difficult to google, but +"Chapman To" +film +"hong kong" gives about 6,400 hits. And that's without googling him in Chinese. Clearly notable. Keep. Uppland 05:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the Hong Kong Film Awards twice in the last three years. [5] This implies that he is well-known in the Hong Kong film industry. Keep. --Metropolitan90 06:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, expand and cleanup. Notable actor. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your colleagues at Chinese wikipedia have devoted an article to him without inciting any deletionist controversy.--Defrosted 08:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Infernal Affairs is being remade in Hollywood 132.205.44.43 15:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eah, eah, eah, don't all you guys bite my head off at once. The fellow seemed nn at the time - I was wrong. humblefool ® 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FYI, he's not martially trained at all. All his movie 'roles' are like JaJa Bing... comically shallow, because of his success of 'Silly Keung' in Infernal Affairs; he's also a co-host of a once-popular radio talk show. Also, his recent marriage is his second.

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 17:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cripes

WP:WINAD. A slang dicdef, already in Wiktionary. I don't see a potential at all here. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 05:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete dicdef without potential. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 16:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:11, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 17:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kline

Delete unless notability convincingly asserted. -- Zantastik talk 18:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Garrett^Talk 00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tung Street

It appears to be a personal page to advertise an external website that provides no meaningful content on this "landmark". – Mipadi July 3, 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Speedy per A#7. --Dmcdevit·t 05:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete --malathion talk 15:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, basically just a link. Dcarrano 16:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted, vanity. Garrett^Talk 00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bentley

Julian Bentley (Born June 11th, 1988) - A Canadian actor, dancer, runner. Julian Bentley's life is filled with intrigue, danger and romance. Those who have come in contact with this mysterious man usually leave their brief encounter puzzled by the entire meeting...He attends Yale Secondary School in Abbotsford BC Sorry, Julian. come back when you've at least graduated university. Calton | Talk 05:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete under new guidelines to make sure it is a brief encounter. No evidence presented as notability as runner, actor or dancer.Capitalistroadster 06:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy, whatever's appropriate; article not worth a can of tuna. Bill 10:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - vanity. -Joshuapaquin 11:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Joyous (talk) 17:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jarred walton

Not notable. TheCoffee 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several good articles linked from the page; writes for a major web site. What else is required to be a journalist? User:Jarredwalton

The above unsigned vote is from the subject of the article. TheCoffee 06:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under new criterion or kick it over to a user page. Silence, sockpuppets! - Lucky 6.9 06:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the "new criterion" are or what qualifies for journalist. I have moved the content to my user page, however, so if writing articles that millions have read is not sufficient to be a journalist, go ahead and delete. Besides, I didn't capitalize my last name on the page name. --Jarred Walton
- The article does assert notability of a sort, so I don't think this qualifies for CSD A7. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
"Read by millions"? Permit me to doubt. Delete. --Calton | Talk 08:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - notability of subject not established. Barnabypage 15:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, writing for a website doesn't do it for me; even if the website were notable (haven't checked into it so can't say), the question is, is this individual notable? Write a book or something. Dcarrano 16:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, not notable. See also Kristopher Kubicki. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anandtech and keep the redirect. This kind of merge can be done easily and takes much less collective effort than a VfD; it also has the advantage of retaining verifiable information relevant to the article merged into. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:24, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 17:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kristopher Kubicki

Not notable. TheCoffee 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Keep. Reputable author with noteable sources; Google search on Kristopher + Kubicki reveals 3400 hits, google search on kris + kubicki yields several hundred more. HackJandy
- A more meaningful pair of search results: "kris kubicki" yields 54 unique hits, and "kristopher kubicki" yields 63. For comparison, searches for my name in this manner yield 22 unique results, and I've never published anything on the web besides a blog that nobody but my family reads. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 12:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A journalist is journalist, right? User:Jarredwalton

Note: The above unsigned votes are from the creator of the article. TheCoffee 06:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true, though I did perform a slight edit of the article. The original author is Kristopher Kubicki. (--Jarred Walton)
- Incorrect. I am not Kris Kubicki. HackJandy 16:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- But the article says you work with him, so hardly a third party affirmation. Average Earthman 08:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 16:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable/vanity. --Ragib 07:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, self-professed vanity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I am not Kris Kubicki. Not self-professed. HackJandy 16:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if his website were notable (no clue whether it is or not), there's no sign that he is individually notable. Dcarrano 16:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- AnandTech is indeed a notable website for computer hardware enthusiasts. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Sun Microsystems seems to vouch for the author link Anandtech has it's own wikipedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.104.251 (talk • contribs)
Keep. and expand. He also discovered an important vulnerability in xlreader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.104.251 (talk • contribs)

Second edit.

Keep This was the Beo-tch who raided all those xboxs.. His cunning intelect and suave demeaner demands attention, as well as his unique perspective of life. To delete a soul of this magnatude would be nothing less than ignorance, not to mention a crime against humanity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.210.113 (talk • contribs)

Second edit.

Delete as per comments above. Gamaliel 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kristopher is a high-level contributor to the Anandtech website and has done much work in the online community of web journalists/reviewers. He recruited myself along with several others into this business. Dave_graham

Third edit.

Keep . Microsoft reveals 2,235 entries 212.36.15.14 17:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it reveals 184. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - No you are incorrect. That is 184 PAGES. Page 19 of 184 results containing "kristopher kubicki" (0.13 seconds) 144.118.196.165 20:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's the case, then where's the link to get to the other 165 pages of results? This is just like getting to the end of the line on Google's search. Microsoft merely phrases this bit of info on its search page awkwardly. There are 184 results. 18 pages of 10 results each plus 1 page of 4 results equals 184. If there were 184 pages of results, that would indicate that there are around 1,840 results, not 2,235. The 2,235 figure is an estimate. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kris has done a lot of good work and will likely become more famous than he already is. Then again, maybe we need a Jonathan Rockway page too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrockway (talk • contribs)
Delete. Non-notable and the "support hosiery" isn't helping. - Lucky 6.9 20:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kris has done a lot of good work and and his knowledege is well above his peers. I could even say that he will be better than. He's well known in the Computer World @ UIC and in many unversities.He's an editor in Anandtech, among the various things he does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.245.183 (talk • contribs)

Delete And block these sock puppet voters. --malathion talk 21:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The socks have convinced me. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. The socks, the socks! --Etacar11 23:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, and sockpuppet limit has been reached. --Calton | Talk 00:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Vanity, non-notable, defended by obnoxious sock puppets, etc. Binadot 22:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Sockpuppet limit reached and exceeded. --Scimitar ^parley 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy/delete. Joyous (talk) 17:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Descontrol

User:Descontrol created this article, on an alleged professional wrestling career. The only support for this is two geocities websites. "The Rabid Luchador," his alleged wrestling name, receives 0 google hits. I call b.s. on it. ~~Delete~~jglc | t | c 05:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. This is what you get when you make VfD entries in the early AM. I meant a vote of userfy all along. jglc | t | c 13:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Luchador + wrestler returns 4 google hits by the way. —Tokek 05:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense I would like to say that I am indeed a legit professional wrestler. I wrestle in the southeast reigion and am on many federation's websites. Both linked sites have photos of myself wrestling. —Descontrol 06:07, 22 July 2005

comment My first impression was that you indeed are legit. However that doesn't automatically mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia. —Tokek 16:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is content that would be more appropriate on User:Descontrol's user page, rather than in the article namespace. Scott5114 09:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, aspiring wrestlers are not notable. Dcarrano 16:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABC D✉ 23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schwartzman

Delete again! This article was recreated again! And this time someone give us her phone number please! FunkyChicken! 16:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as last time. Flowerparty ^talk 17:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 17:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Garrett^Talk 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schwartzman

Not notable and unencylopedic. Entire article consist of the following: "Rachel Schwartzman is an incredibly hot Jewish-American woman." If we were to fill the Wikipedia with articles incredibly hot Jewish-American women things would be crazy! Frühstücksdienst 05:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should be changed to speedy deletion Athf1234 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preferably speedy. And I think I knew a Rachel Schwartzman, and she was hot. . . FunkyChicken! 05:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Though if someone has her phone number... --Calton | Talk 08:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under new criteria. There is nothing in the article indicating notability. Capitalistroadster 08:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

St Brown's University

Presumably a hoax. Uppland 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's secretive, we can't verify it now, can we? Might exist in some third rate work of fiction, I suppose, but this appears to be the connected alleged band vanity BODMAS. That's the band that's alleged, not the vanity. Average Earthman 08:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that a rewrite might be in order. I looked around. But I have not been able to verify the existence of any institute of tertiary education, fictional or real, by this name. Brown University is not named after a saint, moreover. Delete. Uncle G 11:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax, or too secret for us to know. --Etacar11 00:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Located brief references in the following texts: The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality by Julie A. Reuben (in my UoC Press edition it's page 174) also frequent nods to St. Brown's in The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman (when you consider the alleged Freemason connection these should become fairly obvious)~~User:Moi~~ 04:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC) (This vote actually by 82.47.19.163 (talk · contribs))[reply]
- A search of the Newman text on Amazon.com finds no such reference to this University. --Etacar11 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And this IP vandalized two other pages after coming here. --Etacar11 00:18, 26 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. Joyous (talk) 17:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horcruxe

This is a mispelling of Horcrux. The improperly spelled article contains little to no information (and nothing that isn't already in the properly spelled page). At the very best, if left undeleted, it might serve as a redirect for a common (?) mispelling. I should probably add for Harry Potter fans who see this that the page contains a moderate unmarked spoiler for the sixth book. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 06:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Horcrux. TheCoffee 07:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Horcrux, there is nothing in this article that isn't already in the Horcrux article. Cyclone49 07:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Horcrux. Dcarrano 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Horcrux. Seano1 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Horcrux. --Phoenix Hacker 02:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paranoid administrator

Appears to be entirely POV original research — it appeared in whole cloth in a single edit. The Google test shows ~750 articles with the term paranoid administrator, but virtually all of them use the term as a standard English adjective-noun combination (e.g., "...a paranoid administrator..."), not as a compound noun. The external links do not serve as references for this term — they instead all point at ways to get around a "paranoid administrator". Full disclosure: I am a professional system administrator and would consider the tactics mentioned in the article "amateurish", not "paranoid". N.B.: this might be a case of WP:Bite; this appears to be the first substantive edit by Bob2000 (talk · contribs).

TreyHarris 06:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please hastily proceed to deletion then! But this is a case of the bites indeed. I did look up and read lengthy instructions on what not to post before deciding to put this definition, and found no trace of "original research" as a no-no. Prior to submitting a new article, there isn't much warning about that except on WP:NOT. May I suggest that "soapbox" is not a well-understood term in the meaning with which it is used?

I agree with the original research label, but not with the POV label. As a professional computer & networking security expert, it appears to me that the patterns described in the article are certainly well-spread and based on observation--even if "paranoid" may not exactly be the right term to sum it up. I grant you that this article is far from perfect, but professional systems administrators like you would certainly have been able to amend it. I think there is room for a consensus to build around this concept.

While I understand and respect that Wikipedia's opinion is different on this matter, for me an enclopedia's role, as was the Encyclopédie, is not only to bring consensual knowledge, but also to publish original works of reason. I'm a bit disappointed.

--User:Bob2000

I think you've hit on one of the exact problems that led to WP:NOR. I think it's POV. You don't. But you coined the term the article is about, so how can anyone but you make the call? Maybe giving you control of the article's content is an okay situation — until you go away for awhile, and then the article goes stale, or somebody else comes along and claims that they invented the term "paranoid administrator" and they know what it means.... Please don't take this personally: if others can't do the same research you can, then it's not something that can make a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone can point you at a wiki for original works. --TreyHarris 16:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I understand the rationale behind the rule. Bob2000 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First seemed to be a candidate for BJAODN, but turned to be mere original research. - Sikon 10:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 16:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, neither much original nor really research. I would call it drivel. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless Robertbrockway 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Big Bonanza Silver Day

Some annual sale on a shopping TV channel. Advertising. Uppland 06:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. -Feydey 11:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed. [[User:Yondir|Yondir^Talk]] 13:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to QVC. Dcarrano 16:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, gives encyclopaedic information. Tells of historic day in United States and Nevada history. Page still in progress.
Delete. Advertising. --Carnildo 23:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article shows historical infomation, therefore not being an advertisement.
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ad for Home Shopping network... enough said.Gateman1997 18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't read this page and your vote should not count. It is on QVC, not Home Shopping Network. How do you make a proper vote if you don't read the article? Denim&Co. 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - QVC IS a Home Shopping Network. And this article is still an ad for it.Gateman1997 00:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One might consider that this is a "television show" (or a "special") on the QVC channel, and that television shows are notable and encyclopedic. However, in its current state it is advertising, and reads like it. I'm not sure that anyone (besides those with a ve$ted intere$t in the program) would go to the trouble to rewrite this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, not worth merging or re-writing. Also, since QVC already has their own entry on Wikipedia and all they DO on QVC is constantly sell stuff, special "sales days" are not notable in any way. Xaa 00:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (unsuitable use of user page) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denim&Co.

User page used for advertising. User has edited Big Bonanza Silver Day and is presumably identical to User:69.172.243.1 who created that page. Both have also edited QVC. Uppland 06:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not what a userpage is for. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a userpage should be unique to the user, and changed only by the user. Would you like your Swedish links taken away? Denim&Co.
- You are welcome to nominate my userpage for deletion. Do you think you will be able to convince anyone I am abusing the space by filling it with advertising? Uppland 05:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. --Carnildo 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what does a user's profile matter to you? Tell me. Denim&Co.
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a little worried about the extent of notability of subject of the user's edits. But that's not what I'm here for. This is a userpage, for Pete's sake. Let's not waste our time here. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 10:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - used for free advertising - Skysmith 09:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this is a userpage, not an ad space.Gateman1997 00:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally however I am against messing with userpages as they are the user's business. However this user has been contibuting nothing but ads. Gateman1997 00:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for the correct way to handle user behavior disputes. Gazpacho 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there were a dispute that might be helpful ;)Gateman1997 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, we don't discipline users by removing their user pages. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. Gazpacho
  - Who is diciplining? The consensus so far has been "keep".Gateman1997 21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I misread the vote. My comments were intended for people who have voted delete, and the nominator. Gazpacho
Keep, VfD has traditionally allowed users broad discretion over their own pages. Gazpacho 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. At least there is no ambiguity where this person's agenda is concerned. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Eclipsed 09:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It's advertising, and as such, I don't feel it belongs in the wikipedia. On the other hand, it is his user page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Though it may be an advert, users have discretion over the content of their pages. If someone has any issue, that should go to Wikipedia:Request for comment, not a VfD. --Ragib 02:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Advertising. --OntarioQuizzer 05:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of novels

This list would be useless and nearly endless. Mysid (talk) 07:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There are also massive Lists of songs, which I also think should be deleted, but that's another vote... TheCoffee 07:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of songs is, unlike this article, a list of lists. Notice the plural in the title. Uncle G 11:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Do people even bother to read What Wikipedia Is Not before they start these lists? Clearly, this is a violation of Indiscriminate Collection of Information.2: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. The Literate Engineer 08:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Literate Engineer. I like lists, but not when they are unformatted and not capitalized. For such large groups, a category is better. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Like Category:Novels ? ☺ Uncle G 11:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless (and inaccurate - several non-novels listed) Barnabypage 15:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category is sufficient. Dcarrano 16:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Illegible and virtually useless. Not to mention it could be argued that the "article" displays POV in its definition of what a novel is (i.e. "The Odyssey"). 23skidoo 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and comment: does this also spell the end for list of albums? Flowerparty 18:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, No, because like the Lists of songs article, it is a list of lists, and therefore maintainable. Cyclone49 07:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It links to other lists, but essentially it's a comprehensive list of theoretically all albums, listed by performer (cf. Category:Albums by artist). See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums where current policy is that when an album page is created that page must be added to the list. Flowerparty 10:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible. —Sesel wa 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect → Category:Novels. ^…Mar ka ci 2005-07-23 T 00:45:37 Z
Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 04:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huge, impossible to maintain, rather pointless Cyclone49 07:09, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 17:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Remenants

Band vanity. Page creator's username is "Remenant", and this is his only edit. TheCoffee 07:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC) All songs written and performed by "The Remenants" are copyright © 2005 and remain the property of "The Remenants"[reply]

Delete as vanity. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm. Dcarrano 16:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn band vanity from a band that can't spell, either. --Idont Havaname 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:16, 23 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 merge to Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa Eliot 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Alejandra Andrade

Delete 20 deaths this year? not to be disrespectful to the dead, but this particluar one doesn't seem that notable. Perhaps she should be included in a main article about the killings?
Merge and redirect to the article about the organisation, Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa, which gets about 7,820 Google hits. Uppland 10:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per User:Uppland. JamesBurns 04:17, 23 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. Eugene van der Pijll 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lims

Advertising? Manik Raina 11:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laboratory Information Management Software --Alan Au 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Alan Au. Dcarrano 16:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it Search LIMS and you will find this page. Intead of deletion I add the LIMS content and linked the entry to other LIMS sources. Heinz H. Freier

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germanic-speaking cultures surnames

Listed on speedy - moved here. Could use a little cleanup and work. -SV|t 17:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Strong Keep) --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 10:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This nomination was never put in the logs, and I'm doing so now. I'm going to register a delete vote and here's why. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not encyclopedic. It is also likely to never end. It strikes me as particularly similar to list of dog names, which was deleted per this vfd. --Dmcdevit·t 08:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that was plagued by fake names like "Footfootfoot," these are real German-language surnames, which have actual heritage. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Writing an article about heritage is much different from a list of surnames with no context whose only relatedness is existing in the same language. --Dmcdevit·t 07:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the actual heritage can be potentially found in the articles that link from this list -newkai | talk | contribs 10:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete Verily, I say to thee, "Thy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of thine information," and pursuant unto that I specify to thee, "Thine Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." Behold! For more I have to say to thee, for it is written that the Wikipedia is neither for the genealogical entries nor the phonebook entries. And from the bowels of wikihell did erupt a plague, and it was called listcruft and such was this. Germanic surnames are exactly like all other surnames in that putting together a list of them and calling that an article is absolutely absurd. The Literate Engineer 08:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable and arbitrary. Uppland 09:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's reference. If List of North American area codes can be kept, then I don't see why this can't. -newkai | talk | contribs 12:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I'll vote "delete" on that as well. Wikipedia is not a phone book. --Dmcdevit·t 19:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Then nominate it! -newkai | talk | contribs 00:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but rename to List of German-language surnames or something else, identifying this as German-specific (which in fact it is). Could use cleanup, and perhaps a redefinition to "List of common German-language surnames." -- Visviva 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of common German-language surnames as per Visviva, since that is objectively definable thru government data and such. A simple list of "German names", OTOH, is subjective and arbitrary, an inappropriate classification. Dcarrano 16:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

(Move) If to delete, I think that move to List of common German-language surnames or List of German-language surnames is best way. (confused English, sorry) --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 03:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of common German-language surnames. JamesBurns 04:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as above. Extremely useful list. Martg76 08:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Visviva.--Defrosted 09:25, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 17:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Tarin

Vanity page-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. --KFP 13:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: does not recite notability so Speedy per new vanity policy. - Gblaz 14:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy it. --Etacar11 00:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London slang

If this is London slang at all, it's not anything I've heard, in 20 years of living in London. Maybe this is the slang of some tiny group of clubbers; maybe it's nonsense. In any case, a proper article on slang in London would be far more detailed than this, as it would need to describe all the different kinds of slang prevalent in different London ethnic and socioeconomic groups, as well as subcultures. Delete or rewrite from scratch. -- Karada 08:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Direct quote from WP:WWIN: "[Wikipedia is not]: A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep." Exactly. --Dmcdevit·t 08:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - this stuff belongs in wiktionary, if anywhere, though they're probably not going to take it in this format -- Francs2000 | Talk 08:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I said on the discussion page: many of the words are defined quite adequately in the average dictionary; this sounds like a particular subculture's slang (see Gina Yashere on the Lenny Henry show) rather than "London" slang. Brequinda 08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete although I actually suspect a copyvio. David | Talk 12:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see below.[reply]

Delete I live in London and know very few of these words. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit. Dcarrano 17:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this isn't anything I recognise and includes none of the slang I've heard Londoners use. Vashti 19:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete questionable whether London slang varies significantly from general British slang, but if there is a legitimate article on this subject then this isn't it. PatGallacher 23:41, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons provided above. Binadot 22:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All subsequent votes are associated with the cleaned up version of the article, which has significantly altered its content. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the current version is fine. Secretlondon 08:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VfD~=cleanup. Grue 16:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest keep possible good rewrite. Grue 09:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in london. Its nonsense. "Peckish", and "Snog" are slang terms nationally not only in london, and "queue" isn't a slang term whatsoever. ~~~~ 21:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article was entirely rewritten. Keep new version. It's now linguistics, so anyone who opposed on Wiktionary grounds should really revisit the article. It is not duplicate material, and it is not a list of slang terms anymore. Geogre 03:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the rewritten version, and sorry, I still vote to delete. Its starting point is still BA's guide to London slang, there is not a great deal apart from that. Some of the words are general British slang. London is a large multi-cultural city, you'll be hard pressed to find many words that are common across not London but not elsewhere. BA were producing an advertising campaign aimed at an American audience, not a serious exercise in linguistics. PatGallacher 10:43, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
Change of vote to keep following rewrite. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote, to keep and improve new version. Needs a clearer distinction between general British slang and specifically London slang, but the rewrite is now a good, and improving, article. -- Karada 22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good rewriting work. David | Talk 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into British slang or United Kingdom slang.Rich Farmbrough 11:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into British slang or Delete, I personally don't see how any of these words mentioned on the article are slang, since when is "loo" or "lift" slang? These are just words used in the United Kingdom instead of "toilet" and "elevator". The article is mostly nonsense, needs a cleanup and also at the same time seems like a huge promotion for a British Airways campaign I've never even heard of. — Wackymacs 19:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The point being that what is being sold/promoted abroad as London slang isn't at all. Londoners know this - the advert isn't aimed at us so we are not exposed to the misinformation. Secretlondon 12:44, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 17:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lumchan

Delete. This is some private joke and is Not Notable. Bubamara 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --KFP 13:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An anime fan's nickname?? Someone's license plate?? Oh my goddess! Dcarrano 17:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical non-notable fan neologism, evidently used in reference to Urusei Yatsura. Binadot 22:48, 23 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 rewritten article. Joyous (talk) 17:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yed

~~It's orange! This is a neologism/hoax. A Google search only shows mirrors. I mean, even the article says "is in common usage, but is of unknown origin." Classic neologism, delete.~~ What happened to the... Oh! Keep all Uncle Gs (do we have any more?) --Dmcdevit·t 08:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It was certainly unverifiable. (It wasn't actually orange, by the way. It was a "The driver calls the colour amber but the traffic police call it red." concept.) I've mercilessly excised the content that cited no sources. Keep, so that those coming to Wikipedia thinking that Yed is a colour can find out what it really is. Uncle G 12:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep since User:Uncle G fixed it to be a real article. Brighterorange 18:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Begging the question: grue (color) and Bleen's fates? Keep, that's a good refactor by everyone's favorite Uncle. humblefool ® 18:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done Uncle G for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. (BTW: In Detroit, that color is known as "pink", ie. not quite red). --Carnildo 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wakkipedia

This was marked as speedy, but is not a candidate. Instead I propose the normal, slow, lingering, deletion (think about Chinese water torture before voting) for this article about non-notable website. jni 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. - Sikon 10:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got two relevant Google hits and the "site" is nothing more than a main page. That's why I voted speedy. I still think it should be speedied under the new vanity rule, but delete one way or another. - Lucky 6.9 16:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got 0 Google hits, but anyway, between that, no Alexa, no actual content on page, and info in article that it was recently started up... I think it's rather safe to say delete, non-notable website. Dcarrano 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 04:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Parodies lots of issues | leave me a message 23:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Zetterstrom

Notability not sufficiently established, probably vanity. Likely a new user; insists on removing VfD tag but has been gently warned against doing so on his/her talk page. --Alan Au 08:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Vanity? A curate's egg 09:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His home page gives a rather detailed account of his achievements. While he seems like a hard-working young man, so far I don't think they qualify him for encyclopedic status, I'm afraid. / Alarm 11:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't userfy since no username... delete, not yet notable journalist/academic. Dcarrano 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Garrett^Talk 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Shiel

Orphaned article, no notability established, probable vanity -- Ferkelparade π 08:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Shiel is a well-known individual and a nice man. Leave him alone, Viking-boy. (unsigned comment by User:220.248.121.81)
Delete - zero google hits -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established. Thue | talk 10:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:CSD A7 DES 18:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A borderline speedy under the new rules, but throwing the word "writer" in there is kind of a claim of notability. -R. fiend 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically all of us Wikipedians are also writer/editors. Can we get articles too? (joke :) Manning 22:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Manning 22:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Joyous (talk) 17:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Aelred Doyle

Vanity, no notability established -- Ferkelparade π 09:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Aelred Doyle" gets four google hits -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not say why he is notable. Thue | talk 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article does not explain what he has written and 4 Google hits indicate that his work is not widely known. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable claim to notability. Dcarrano 17:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Do those 4 hits even have anything to do with this person? Doesn't look like it. --Etacar11 00:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:22, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 17:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ross Sands

Probably not notable; google hits, few of which seem relevant. Thue | talk 10:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. google hits for harrogate hornets reveals that it is a junior sports team. Not notable. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blu Aardvark. Dcarrano 17:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity and gratuitious non-use of the shift key. --Etacar11 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by, um, me! According to the new criteria, vanity cruft like this gets shot on sight. Garrett^Talk 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Pitts

Some marketing guy, not notable. Only references are now defunct page on geocities [6]. The anon user also added him to July 22 births. Feydey 11:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Joyous (talk) 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Garlic dude

Advertising. Article basically amounts to "here's how cute the doll is, come buy it!". Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Just an advert Robinh 11:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Also NN. --KFP 12:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad, spam. And for what it's worth, it's not even cute: [7] Eek. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising as above. --Several Times 14:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. --Etacar11 00:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but could have been speedied, I bet. Obvious spam. Binadot 22:49, 23 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

JAXASS

delete. Not notable. There is nothing called JAXASS except for a newly posted blog entry. This article is a way of gaining acceptance for a newly coined term. Wikipedia is no place for original research and personal opinions. — (Nomination made by Sleepyhead81.)
- comment I'm going to guess you don't believe that jaxass.org exists either. --Sleepnomore
- comment Updated vote reason --Sleepyhead81 07:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is something called JAXASS and its being defined as we speak. Just because you don't like the naming of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. THe domain names have been registered and a call for opinions is being devised. --Sleepnomore
- delete. No, there is no widespread support of this term you have coined for yourself. Wikipedia is not a place to express your views or attract visitors to your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a blog. Please use your blog to express your own views. And please create an account instead of posting anonymously. --Sleepyhead81 11:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC) — (Duplicate vote.)[reply]
keep There is no "widespread" support for AJAX either in the scope of the industry. AJAX was coined by Garrett for himself, so that invalidates your second argument. This is not simply "my" view, this is a view that has been expressed by many in the industry. JAXASS has been created out of the animosity of those supporters for REAL innovation with this technology instead of simply renaming the former technology something else. The current JAXASS call for opinions describes client-side support for standard messaging and WSE-n. I did create my own account and haven't posted anonymously. Just because you don't like this idea, or you have some affinity for AJAX doesn't mean that you should be able to squash information about opposing technologies. Your affinity to AJAX is proved by your own blog title "ASP, XML, AJAX, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, DOM. Marketing. 24SevenOffice", and several blog posts: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and the list goes on: [14] Your opinion on this matter doesn't qualify you to make decisions on what opposing technologies are allowed to exist in wikipedia, and which do not. You are free to blog about how much you hate JAXASS, but that doesn't negate its existence. --Sleepnomore — (Duplicate vote.)
- So if I am against Ajax and make up a new acronym on my blog it should be added to wikipedia? That is the key argument here. If JAXASS is added then every guy can coine these little acronyms and theories and have them added to Wikipedia. Please read [What wikipedia is not]. — (Sleepyhead81 forgot to sign.)
  - Comment Not unless it culminates into a real technology. I have three very influential Microsoft MVP's who have joined me in creating the initial call for opinions on JAXASS to replace AJAX. The difference between simply coming up with an acronym and coming up with an acronym for a competing technology is completely different. In the same line of argument, if I'm against Ruby, and I can make the argument that it doesn't have widespread support, should I just go around making calls for deletion of any wikipedia article discussing Ruby? There was no widespread support for the Betamax videocassette, but you can find information about it on Wikipedia, and its a product none the less. This is not the forum for you to voice your opinion on a technology by deleting every bit of information you find on it. --Sleepnomore
delete, is nonsense. Burschik 12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there were many topics that were nonsense in their day but were later shown to be gosple truth [Galileo] is one such example I've commented on below. The world being round was yet another such example.
  - As hoary and worn out example as it is irrelevant - Skysmith 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Its hardly irrelevant in context of Mr Burschik's comment that it's nonsense to him. Valid analogies often do sound worn out -- mostly to those who are on the receiving end of the incontrovertible truth for which they cannot argue against.
      - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for breaking news or for dissemination of emerging new truths. It is not Wired's "memes on the rise" section. It is an encyclopedia. As such, it a vehicle for presenting generally accepted facts. Articles on controversial or disputed topics are accepted when there is a substantial body of people that accept them. We would not have accepted an article on the Copernican world system when it was first proposed. Only when it became clear that there was widespread belief in the Copernican world system, then the existence of this belief would then be an encyclopedic fact, to be reported neutrally along with the more-accepted Ptolemaic system. In any case, comparing JAXASS with Galileo seems a little... immodest. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        comment While I don't purport JAXASS to be a meme on the rise, I would point out that your argument falls flat when comparing against other topics such as Crazy Frog. Someone else also pointed out that Time Cube has its own topic. This is far from receiving widespread belief. Alternatively, I point you to Branch Davidian which has no widespread beliefs, but still retains its status in wikipedia. Instead, it has a warning stating that its neutrality is disputed. This seems to lean much more toward a neutral point of view than to simply delete the topic based on the bias of several AJAX-zealots and sockpuppets who were asked to defend AJAX against the competing specification presented with JAXASS. Your insistence on what is immodest is a matter of opinion. JAXASS is not an emerging truth as the technologies surrounding JAXASS have been available since 1998. If you consider a 7-year old technology to be emerging, you are mistaken.
delete, or merge into AJAX as alternatives. Especially since "JAXASS was created as a direct antagonist" to AJAX. Mmmbeer 13:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An "initial call for opinions" does not equate to widespread acceptance. The difference between this and Betamax is that Betamax, though never widely used, has existed for years. This JAXASS, however, is being "defined as we speak". --Several Times 14:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research defended by sockpuppets. Dunc|☺ 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep There were no sockpuppets harmed in the making of these edits. (this comment by User:65.23.106.77)
- comment Widespread acceptance has never been a good critieria to be against anything. Extermination of the chrisitians and jews was not widely accepted -- particularly by the christians and jews, but that didn't make the holocaust not exist. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Delete Not yet notable and the article is pure POV to the point of being a soapbox. "techno-weenie?" NOT encyclopedic! Whether AJAX should be listed is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a forum for hashing out standards or conducting software holy-wars. Robert A West 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- comment see my comments below concerning being encyclopedic. The standard is not being hashed out here. Its being hashed out between several individuals at www.jaxass.org. This isn't a holy-war either and I resent your use of that term in light of today's political climate. People lose their lives in holy-wars. Apple and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Sun and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Just because its contested does not call for its removal and exile.

From the author's page: "Obviously the specification is yet to be written". vapour-concept. Delete DJ Clayworth 15:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you show me the manuals for JavaOS? hmm, no? What about the software specifications for [Singularity (operating system)]? no? Not having a specification means nothing in context of being encyclopedic about technology.
Delete Not yet an established concept. Not yet worthy of an encyclopedia article. Gregmg 16:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, non-existent (except as vaporware, and an attack page. Defender is also abusing the VfD system, link spamming related pages and posting highly POV commments re this page. --Icelight 16:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, vaporware, attack page. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- comment please see my comments about vaporware below.
Delete So what if someone put a name to it. AJAX is much more friendlier of a name than XMLHTTP (bleh). AJAX is something that people are actually using. If anything, put this as a footnote to AJAX because that's all it is. — (Unsigned comment by 24.167.224.238; user's 1st edit.)
keep What does the above comment have to do with the merrits of this article? You may agree with the naming of AJAX instead of XMLHTTP, but that doesn't negate the existence of JAXASS. — (duplicate vote)
Strong delete, neologism/original research plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 17:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
keep, this is no more neologic than any other acronym when it was originally created. SNMP, SMTP, AJAX, BASIC, COBOL, HTTP, HTML, XML, XAML, AWK, SED, and the list goes on. These were all new at one point and are noteworthy. — (Yet another duplicate vote by Sleepnomore.)
keep So something being vaporware is a cause for deletion? We need to delete all of these , and many more then too: Windows Vista WinFS Project Xanadu Duke Nukem Forever Phantom Gaming System. Simply because something is still in development does not mean it deserves deletion.— (duplicate vote)
Delete. "JAXASS is currently in infancy and its specifications are yet to be released." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is precisely the kind of article at which that policy is directed. When it has been released and a good case can be made for its importance and its notability, we can consider an article on it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting projects, however worthy, that are "in infancy." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep The request to delete this article does not lean toward a neutral point of view. Deleting this article would be strictly one-sided -- favoring AJAXians. I'm willing to concede that this article can use some cleanup and will continue to maintain this article as the project rolls forward. I'm also willing to remove links to this topic from AJAX until such time as adoption is more widespread. While the acronym for this project is somewhat farcical, the concepts behind this technology far outweighs that of AJAX and other similar projects/technologies that have undisputed mention on Wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by [[User:65.23.106.77|65.23.106.77)
We're not voting delete because of objections to the term, or of the name of the article, or of the technology itself, or of you as an editor. We're voting delete because we find that the technology is not suited for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being a term and technology that is not of widespread use or knowledge. That being said, I vote delete as well. Scott5114 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, please don't vote more than once - comments added after your original vote should start with Comment. Scott5114 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sincerest appologies. I am new to the voting concept. I have since gone back and re-read the voting guidelines. Thanks for pointing my mistake out, however. I took the lead from Sleepyhead who voted twice, so I assumed this was the way to respond. It is my fault for assuming anything.
commentI understand the apprehension at the existence of this topic in the encyclopedia. Several arguments revolve around the technology being vaporware or in its infancy. Those issues have been addressed by pointing out other vaporware topics listed in wikipedia. Others have argued that the idea isn't widespread enough to exist in the online encyclopedia. I argue once again that other projects such as JavaOS and Singularity (operating_system) exist on Wikipedia that aren't widespread because it doesn't exist. One could argue that while JavaOS is vaporware, the Java language is not. Or that while the C# operating system doesn't exist, it's technological foundations do. Is that not the case with JAXASS? The technical foundations exist, but the concept is still being developed -- just as many other wikipedia-listed topics are. This topic is being hotly contested, in my opinion by a COS (call-for-sockpuppets). Its also being slightly contested because its a direct competitor of AJAX which is obviously well-liked by those of you voting for deletion. While I can sympathize with your plight, the widespread propaganda flair-up of one technology does not negate the need for clarification of another.
keep The request to delete this is silly. This is a really cool concept and am looking forward to working with it. I know more than a few other Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals other than myself that are very excited about this and it definitely should be kept
delete This is one guy with an ax to grind trying to use Wikipedia as his platform.
- comment Just because something came into existence for reasons you disapprove of does not mean it shouldn't exist. One could argue that the word nigger appears in the encyclopedia because someone has an axe to grid with a race. You could make the argument that Hitler appears here because one guy was very anti-semetic -- having an axe to grind with Jews. Java itself came from one guys hatred of a conglomeration of of tools.

"Patrick Naughton, an engineer at Sun, had become increasingly frustrated with the state of Sun's C++ and C APIs and tools."

Having an axe to grind doesn't disqualify something from its useful place on Wikipedia.

All of you are reaching at this point. No one has made a valid, unemotional case for deletion of this topic. At best, you can now join me in editing this topic to match the current state of the technology and help me maintain the topic as it grows in popularity.

Delete. Not encyclopedic. --ZappaZ 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment The term encyclopedic keeps popping up, so lets define that from [15]

Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic

Variant(s): also en·cy·clo·pae·dic /-'pE-dik/

Function: adjective

of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : COMPREHENSIVE <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>

How can you suggest comprehensive coverage without inclusion of terms so consequential to the industry. 50 years from now, when someone looks back at wikipedia, how can they get the full picture without inclusion of this term?

Alternatively, lets define encyclopedic from the very system we are debating on:

Encyclopedia - An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written [compendium] of [knowledge].

compendium - A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system.

knowledge - Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.

Based on this, your own definition of encyclopedia claims to be comprehensive - containing the full body of knowledge. And by knowledge, we are to include something such as JAXASS, which, in isolation is of lesser value in your opinion.

This is no different than the work of [Galileo]. This is a hotly contested and widely controversial topic. Many refuse to have it published as it goes against the core of what you believe in -- despite having truth and backhand support from many true technological intellectuals. And now you hold a 5-day inquisition where I'm forced to try to defend myself simply because I published a truth that you don't care to hear. As cardinals in the inquisition, you would have been threatening [Galileo] with torture until he begged for forgiveness and recanted his findings.

You state this isn't encyclopedic, but I say wikipedia isn't encyclopedic without [JAXASS] as a topic that will continue to expand in the next few months and years to come.

delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox specifically states that Wikipedia articles are not for "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words." I believe this should in itself be enough support for deletion, with no further discussion, but so much more support can be found at What wikipedia is not

comment And the fact that AJAX was defined a month after being posted on a blog, and before widespread adoption of the word was in place doesn't bother you? There was no hot contestation of that term as it was placed on wikipedia. The original idea wasn't posted on wikipedia. The original idea was conceived locally between several technology professionals, manifested on my blog, and only then brought to the forefront in [wikipedia]. I'm not proposing a new solution here, the solution is already proposed on my blog. This topic is here, just as any other piece of knowledge, to make wikipedia comprehensive. Also, we are not defining terms here. This topic details the information known about an existing technology. --Sleepnomore

comment why even discuss this, this article arguably falls under Criteria for Speedy Deletion: it's short and insulting. Just look at the first external link: AJAX = FRAUD. This goes beyond insulting, its defamatory and possibly grounds for legal action. If the author wants to leave himself open to that on his own blog, that's his own business, but, without looking at the specific criteria, it seems to me that exposing a third party to such risk should be grounds for not just deleting the article, but banning the user
- comment how about you not post that anonymously? I do post this on my own blog and I would dare anyone to find some grounds to file suit against me for posting about a project that was concieved in response to the term AJAX. Anyone can be sued for anything. That's both a good and bad concept of many legal systems. I could sue wikipedia for censorship and harrasment based on this very topic, and I believe many of the points I've made give those charges good grounding. I wont do it. I'd prefer to just show how assinine many of you are by proving you wrong over the next few months. Based on that, sure, I could be sued too, but that doesn't give it grounds and that isn't a reason for deletion from wikipedia.
  - comment censorship and harassment?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    - comment Actually, if I had intended that as a threat, I can see how you would consider that to be troll bait, but it was used in contrast to your actualized trollbaiting -- stating that I should be sued and banned for simply making a topic based on the new technology JAXASS. Your accusation of troll baiting, therefor doesn't fit me. HOwever, what does fit you is the term Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Noting that your IP address hasn't posted on any topics other than this or/or vandalism of another page (AJAX).--Sleepnomore
      - comment If I'm trollbait, how come I reeled YOU in, considering how you read way too much into my posts. I don't think you should be sued, but I think you are unnecessarily putting yourself into a position where you could be. Your accusation of sock puppeteering is hard to support, considering I haven't used an alternate identity to vote twice on this page: rather, it is to protect myself against possible reprisal by you. You've never threatened such agaisnt anybody, but you seem that unstable to me. On the other hand, your accusation of page vandalism is entirely baseless but not entirely unexpected, and, in my opinion, is yet something else to consider when wikipedia considers not only removing your inane article, but also banning you, which may well follow. Friendly advice dude: you are NOT going to win.
        comment Fair enough. I wish you luck, but if I "don't win", neither does the community that won't be able to find information out about JAXASS from wikipedia. In that aspect, you are right, I don't win, and neither does anyone else if this topic is deleted.
Delete Google returns only 11 hits for JAXASS ajax. Recreate the article if the term ever becomes popular. Rrreese 00:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Time Cube has better proof of its existence than JAXASS does. Take your petty battles to Usenet.
- comment Which, of course, has its own wikipedia topic (Time Cube)
Delete - irrelevant, definitely original "research", POV advocacy or marketing, sockpuppets, not to mention unnecessary hyberbolic comments - Skysmith 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notion exists; the ideas, although vague, at least have the right to exist. I'd suggest to return and reconsider it in a year or two. --Vlad Patryshev 21:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The right to exist does not imply the right to have an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Nobody is entitled to use Wikipedia as a launching pad for their ideas. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Clearly this article should be deleted.

"Wikipedia is not a democracy". All issues brought up by those voting to delete have been addressed with comments and are invalid reasons for deletion. Several topics of similar circumstances exist without contestation on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead81 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Clearly this topic should remain. --Sleepnomore
comment. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but "The votes are a means to gauge consensus", and the consensus is indisputably and overwhelmingly for deletion. Especially considering that you are incorrect in asserting that "all issues....have been addressed". For instance, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". In order to assure a neutral point of view, in my opinion you would have to significantly rewrite the article. Bear in mind, this just seems to be the one objection you haven't attempted to refute. You've addressed most of the other objections, but obviously not to anybody's satisfaction but your own. I don't even think you'd find consensus for a rewrite, but that might be one compromise approach you could pursue.
- comment. This from the same guy who vandalized the page and then tried to put it back as he found it? A neutral point of view is definitely possible with this topic should we start discussing the changes rather than deleting information simply because you like another technology better. I said it before (see below) and I'll say it again, I'm willing to come up with a neutral solution that better suits the needs of those around, but I'm not willing to concede that deletion is the appropriate response to this topic. --Sleepnomore
  - comment. NPOV has to do with articles themselves. You don't like what I have to say, so you attack me. It's a microcosm of your whole JAXASS concept. Can we expect a Wikipedia article from you about every single thing you dislike? Where does it stop?
    - comment I haven't attacked anyone or what they have to say. This article isn't JUST about my not liking AJAX. The fact that this is how the technology started was important to the article about the technology so I included it. Due to criticism from this procedure, I've parred that aspect of the technology down on the page. And, no, I don't expect you to see an article about everyone's opinion -- that's what blogs and rant pages are for. However, when that criticism becomes a competing technology, it is noteworthy. --Sleepnomore
      - comment To me it seems like you are trying real hard to seem reasonable and say the right things, but your actions contradict your words. Your tendency for insisting on having the last word, for instance, to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV, try as you might.
        comment I make no appologies for defending the topic, nor for stating what needs to be said when false accusations are made. If that requires me to respond to every comment provided in this delete request, so be it.--Sleepnomore
        comment Case in point. Nobody's making "accusations". This, and your sweeping characterization of same as "false" continue to demonstrate your seeming inability to adopt NPOV
        comment The very nature of attaching possessive pronouns to negative connotation with myself, rather than the article, acting as the anticedent is accusatory by its very definition. If you believed otherwise, your second observation in the foregoing comment would not have been necessary. I have no objection to the accusations provided they are accompanied with outright claim and admittance so long as my recriminations are also indulged. Backhanded aggression doesn't help your argument, however. You continue to make my point that this process, at least for this topic, is close if not spot-on absurd. I can defend the merrits of the topic all day, but remarks such as, "to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV" continue to lean towards clarvoyance which is definitely out of my area of expertise. If we could get this discussion away from your psychological assessments about my future behavior, and back to the topic at hand, I think you'll find that I'm extremely reasonable with regard to how the article is prsented. I've already made some modification based on comments here. While I can promise nothing about personality disorders you attribute to me, I will be more than happy to continue the pattern of effective and constructive modification in regards to the article. --Sleepnomore

Please take this back-and-forth somewhere else, such as user talk pages. This discussion is for the article, not for disputes between users. android 79 03:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

comment. Actually it's been kind of fascinating to see the one and only proponent of this article "in action" as it were.

comment Please add comments at the end of the article. This vote for deletion is for the entire article - not specific items in the article. --Sleepyhead81 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment much like the deletion for your companies advertisement was called for deletion but failed for whatever reason. Clearly you lost that vote 3 to 0 but the article . I'm replacing my comment at the top so its clearly visible to the administrator and replacing the comment type as rewrite --Sleepnomore

Keep Is there even one valid argument against it? It's every bit as valid as so many other items here, I honestly can't believe that deleting it is being debated this hotly. -- Vote by user 24.214.184.231
- comment Unfortunately this is yet another time you are wrong. This was not a vote by me
  - comment. Funny how that user also added a link to your blog as well. The user was: [16]. --Sleepyhead81 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Which if your ever-so astute mind would pay attention, I speedily removed. If you look at the talk page for JAXASS, you'll see why. You continue to be wrong and grasp at straws. You've reverted to playing a guess-who's-who game rather than debate your ideas for deleting this topic. You still fail to make a valid point. I would also point out that before I even started this topic on wikipedia, I looked up AJAX and saw someone placed an external link to my blog before I decided to post my own article about the topic. While I didn't add that blog post to the links section initially, I later returned and modified this entry so it looked cleaner. If you'll note in the AJAX history since my AJAX=FRAUD blog came out, there have been several posts to that page that made the same argument I did. Such as "ajax is not a new approach"-[User:12.33.211.29], "what this link said" -[User:219.95.215.178], "Definitelly not new to us, we have used in various interactive tasks including server-push (experimental implementation of publisher subscribe)." - [User:63.166.226.84], etc. I suppose you would attribute all of those to me as well. But once again, you'd be wrong. I find it funny that you are even acting in this capacity to ask that a topic be deleted when you have overzealously used Wikipedia as your own advertising platform -- adding links to 247 office everywhere that you possibly could. Wikipedia is not your personal opportunity to put up ads for your company. Sleepnomore 00:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
comment I can't see there has been a rewrite of the article. Only minor changes has been done. Besides, this vote for deletion is regarding whether 'JAXASS' should be included in wikipedia or not. --Sleepyhead81 15:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obviously no community support for this. One person using wikipedia to try to gain legitimacy for a non-notable idea. Vote by User 80.58.11.107.
- comment so far, I've managed to gain the support of at least 4 people with myself. - Sleepnomore
delete Honestly you can't expect to be taken seriously with that offensive name jaxass...85.101.166.181 18:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't expect anything other than to create a technology. Its up to you to take the name for what its worth. If it makes you sleep any better, one of the most well-feared/respected remote adimiinstration products was named Back Orifice and it had a very offensive name and logo. Sleepnomore 22:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - comment Respected? You sound like a hacker. A trojan horse may deserve an article just as a disease does. Is your product in that category? On second thought, I don't wanna mess with you now that my IP is exposed.
comment. Can someone please make a decision on this vote? Sleepnomore is not only advocating his point of view but has now began repetitive vandalism of this page by adding his comment at the top of the page. New comments go at the end of the article. --Sleepyhead81 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it should exist. Mark it with a "Current Events" tag. Edit it yourself if you feel that a biased POV is being introduced. Perhaps this article and other articles like AJAX need to be merged into an article about the ongoing development of this sort of software (I don't know what term to use, and I don't care, because VFD pages are about the merits of the article as an encyclopia entry, not the viability of the subject matter of the article). If we delete this article, what happens when a user out there in the world comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, which he or she encountered in some other context? Users are developing a reasonable expectation of finding reliable information about a wide range of topics here. When no article exists for a topic, they end up disappointed. We should seek not to disappoint. I say keep this article, but bring it up to standard. Deleting is so permanent. If you wonder what my credentials are to support this opinion, I have a BA in History and am an U.S. Army officer engaged in the defense of freedom (location immaterial) that makes it possible for projects like Wikipedia to exist. I would like to see some of the delete proponents state their bona fides so that we can evaluate how much weight to give their opinion on this structure-of-the-Wikipedia discussion (as compared to the propensity to discuss the relative merits of JAXASS, JAVA, et.al.). And lets remember to assume good faith --Mddake 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite I've modified the contents of this article over the past few days. I've removed several of the objectionable items and added additional material. Sleepnomore 17:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- comment Since adding this comment Sleepyhead81 has vandalized it four times (see history). He has removed this comment and changed the text of it in all cases. Furthermore, my article was completely wiped by him and it had to be restored by someone else. This has gotten out of hand. This article deserves to stay and the VfD needs to be removed immediately. Sleepnomore 21:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - comment. You can make comments and state your view - but please do not lie. I have never wiped out the JAXASS article. This vote for deletion page follows the talk page guidelines which specifically says: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made.". So your comment should go at the bottom of this page. Please do not move it to the top as it is against the guidelines. --Sleepyhead81 07:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment - I'm no more lying about your wiping the page than you are lying about other contributors. My page was wiped twice by an anonymous IP. I can speculate it was you just the same as you can openly speculate that the other "keep" comments are my sockpuppets. In the spirit of NPOV, I'll keep my comment down here although I highly disagree with your agressive edits. In the future, if you have a problem with my wiki-behavior, I suggest you use my talk page and 'REQUEST' that I change the behavior, citing wikipedia policy with links. Sleepnomore 08:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      - comment***** Hey Jaxass - yeah YOU. I deleted your bs page, knowing that it would get automatically restored instantaneously because this IP address is banned from deleting. You accusing someone else is just par for the course. You have proven yourself not only to be unwilling to listen to reason, but also to be unable to recognize it. You are obviously on a crusade and to not delete YOUR article (yes, yours, and only yours) is to let wikipedia go to the dogs, so to speak.
Strong Delete - it's a software project whose offical website doesn't even provide a way to download the code - this is not notable. Come back when you have 1000 users. JesseW 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - AJAX itself was created a month after Garrett "coined the term". It wasn't notable, it didn't have 1000 users (at least not calling it AJAX), and didn't have a download. Once again, a swing and a miss at a real reason to delete this entry. Sleepnomore 13:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - comment*** "swing and a miss", condescending and POV
Delete. Self-promotion, premature. --Michael Snow 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Original research. Self-promotion. --213.179.58.29 08:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (again). Eugene van der Pijll 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport cricket club (again)

Previous vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club. Votes 11-7 in favour of deleting. Its author (Jimmyb (talk · contribs) aka 62.252.192.9 (talk · contribs) (though I think the latter is a shared IP)) even recognised its utter non-importance and even requested that it should be deleted [17], and was clearly just arsing around with it anyway. [18]. If that isn't consensus, though I don't know what is. (This I think has a quite a lot to do with the fact that I vote on the merits of school articles rather than automatically voting keep).

To clarify: This is a small cricket club, which there are thousands like throughout the country. We lack depth on the subject; we have articles on each of the County Championship sides, but the Minor counties (the next level down) are just listed - and only Cambridgeshire has an article. It sits like a thorn in category:English cricket right next to the MCC!. It gets 110 Google hits, none of which reveals a website. Dunc|☺ 12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you think "11-7" is consensus, you obviously don't know what it is. Kappa 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to see a reference to it, and it should be at Stockport Cricket Club - but it passes the (admittedly very low) WP notability threshold. As far as lack of website is concerned - if you have a look at List of current first-class cricket teams you'll see that many major clubs lack a website, jguk 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But no cricket club without a website has an article... It is also different for Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Indies where use of the Web for such things is far less. Incidentally, this article is never going to be verifiable, simply because there is no possible reference. smoddy 13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already gone through VFD, too early for renomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel I need to explain the structure of English cricket. At the top level, there is the County Championship. This is equivilent to the Premiership. There are 18 counties. In addition, there is a minor counties championship, perhaps equivilent to football's lower professional leagues. Very few players in minor counties cricket are professional. Then, below that, is league cricket. These are Saturday afternoon cricketers. This is where Stockport is. Now, there is no promotion between these levels. Therefore, Stockport cricket club can never become any more notable than they are today. I understand that the previous keep was on account of people not really understanding quite how insignificant this club is... smoddy 13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand perfectly well, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover clubs like this. This should not have been renominated. CalJW 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I undeleted it because 11-7 is not consensus for anything, and the original poster has no right to ask for it to be automatically deleted if other people have also edited the article. I have no opinion on whether this should be allowed so soon after the first vfd debate, or on the article itself. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: with "club members who died in both World Wars", it must at least be nearly a century old, which possibly speaks in its favour. Uppland 13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Most cricket clubs in the country are that age. My town club was founded some time in the 1860s, yet Monmouth Cricket Club is red. smoddy 13:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Wikipedia has hardly started crawling yet. It will have much more depth in 10 years time. CalJW 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps WP will evolve into an indiscriminate collection of information, but it isn't there yet. Consider (1) that many places that have such clubs are stubs, and (2) we have a single article on a minor county. Look at the number of cricket clubs in Greater Manchester only. Now further consider that at the next level down, the top club league in Lancashire is the Lancashire League. I can't find which league Stockport are in, but it's below this. Starting from the bottom and working up isn't a very clever approach to writing articles. Revisit this issue in 10 years perhaps, but not now. Dunc|☺ 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was not under the impression that Wikipedia as a whole used any specific "approach to writing articles". Nor do I believe that arguments such as "there are more notable things without articles" is a valid reason to delete any article. The correct response would be to write an article for the more important cricket clubs if cricket clubs interest you, and leave the valid stub be either way. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, equivalent to a not particularly notable local business. Dcarrano 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete seems to be of at best local notability. DES 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. Nandesuka 19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps vanity from a Mr. M. Short? Not notable. -R. fiend 20:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stockport. The information is somewhat useful, I feel, but it does feel a bit odd sitting on its own. Sam Vimes 22:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Stockport. --Calton | Talk 00:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, both for the reason cited at the previous VfD and for the reason that there was a previous VfD not so long ago. -- Jonel | Speak 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe your original reasoning was "cricket clubs are inherently notable", though it would be interesting to see you justify and elaborate on that comment. The previous vfd ended in "no consensus". Dunc|☺ 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony has pointed out the verifiability of such clubs. It is trivial to make the articles NPOV. Uppland has noted that the clubs typically have a great deal of longevity, including the one in question. If those qualities are not enough to create an assumption of noteworthiness that must be overcome in order for me to agree with deletion, I don't know what qualities would be. Also, if people went through and re-nominated every article that finished VfD as "no consensus" (or worse, deleted the article anyway as you did with this one), VfD would be an even more aggravating place to spend time than it is now. I hope you're not really suggesting that articles be nominated time after time until they reach consensus. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. If our cricket coverage lacks depth, we will achieve that depth by writing more cricket club articles, not deleting the few that we have. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, about half-notable clubs. This article can never be verified, because no sources exist. The club will never become even remotely notable. This isn't just a "lower division" club. This is a "right down the bottom of the scale" club. Improving our cricket coverage will never, I repeat, never, encompass this sort of article. [[smoddy]] 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a cricket club. It's simply incorrect to say that it isn't possible to write a verifiable article. Cheshire Cricket Board lists the club's name and a contact name and address, and gives match summaries involving the club's teams. It isn't a prestigious county club but it's active in local league. If someone wants to write about it, I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed it does appear to be in Cheshire rather than Lancs. However I count about 56 clubs in Chesh. plus 12 unafilliated clubs. There are 53 traditional counties in England and Wales, so we're saying that you've just requested about 3000 rather mundane and difficult to verify articles, whilst bearing in mind that Cheshire County Cricket Club itself doesn't have one yet. Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whether Cheshire County Cricket Club has an article or not is irrelevant. When someone wants to write an article about it, an article would be written. Just because no one has yet isn't a good reason to delete other articles. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're discussing whether to delete this article, not whether a further 3,000 articles should be written. If someone wants to write a verifiable article about a small cricket club, I personally have no problem with that. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local sports clubs generally aren't notable. R adiant_>|< 19:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Squash 08:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Scientific knowledge in the Quran

Listed for a speedy as "very controversial and lack of reliable references". Well, first of all we're not here to be politically correct, and second of all it refers to three sources. And so, barring any other easy method, I'm Vfding it. Enjoy. :) Garrett^Talk 12:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 of the sources are not necessarily reliable (and the Bucaille book is very controversial - even though I found it a great read and agreed with many points in it). In any case, I can live with a vfd. I created this article very recently, but I am doubting that it is worthy of article status (yet); my intention was to create a comprehensive article on Islam and science (does such an article, with a different name of course, already exist?) and possibly include some of the contents in the scientific knowledge in the Quran article in that one. That's really why I want to delete this article. --Mpatel 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I quote the Wikipaedia itself, anent the Library of Alexandria:

The legend of Caliph Omar's destruction of the library provides the classical example of a dilemma: Omar is reported to have said that if the books of the library did not contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were useless and should be destroyed; if the books did contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were superfluous and should be destroyed.
Need more be said ?
Delete the entire 'paedia --Simon Cursitor 14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the usual self-justification of religious beliefs through analogy. I've seen similar arguments applied to the Bible. Non-encyclopedic. — RJH 15:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her. Dunc|☺ 19:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, the topic should be discussed somewhere, but this title is POV, and this isn't an article yet. - Mustafaa 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, unencyclopedic, unreferenced, potential minefield of controversy. Binadot 22:51, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 18:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Talk means trouble

Apparent band vanity; 37 google hits from even fewer different websites. Joel7687 12:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 17:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:25, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 18:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tori Thompson

Vanity. smoddy 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, non-notable singer. delete. jglc | t | c 13:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of TV appearances but neither she or her sister are notable enough yet for an article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 13:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete admittedly, 2 TV appearances is a bit better than most of our kiddie-vanity articles can claim, but being on American Juniors (an American Idol spinoff) is little better than being a game-show contestant, notabiliy-wise. If she keeps auditioning maybe she'll have a legit article someday, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. Dcarrano 17:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I prefer a low bar on notability. She won American Juniors (a reality show that averaged nearly 12m viewers) and formed a group, that is enough for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:45, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 18:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Adam poluzzi

Vanity. smoddy 13:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN Vanity (The only contribution from the creator of this article is this one piece) A curate's egg 13:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity Robert A West 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an aspiring actor. Dcarrano 17:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn actor vanity. --Etacar11 00:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:26, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 18:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

`===Denim & Co ., Denim & Co.=== See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Denim&Co. and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big Bonanza Silver Day. (If by any chance the brand would deserve an article, it needs to be rewritten anyway.) Uppland 14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly an advertisement.Robert A West 15:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Thue | talk 21:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert seglea 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, states what the line is but not how to get it Denim&Co. 08:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ad for Home Shopping Net...Gateman1997 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state, unless someone else can write about this clothing brand from a neutral POV. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT (already merged). -Splash 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty joke

~~This is a dicdef at best. An extensive list of jokes or examples make make the article longer and more controversial, but not any more encyclopedic.~~ Gblaz 14:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC). I still feel that a more proper title for such an article might be something more like "off-color humor", but I agree that the recent edits show that the article does have potential. So I would now consider this a Weak Keep assuming the expansion continues. Gblaz 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I honestly feel as though there's room to expand this, including discussing the history of "blue" or "off-colour" comedy. Dolemite, Richard Pryor, Andrew Dice Clay, and other "dirty" comedians could be referenced, and the concept of an anti-joke discussed in brief. jglc | t | c 14:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I voted to delete List of dirty jokes, but I can envision an article that discusses the psychology and sociology of off-color humor, and I have to believe there are peer-reviewed articles on that subject. If no one takes it up for six months or so, we can always reconsider.Robert A West 15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I agree with above comments. — RJH 15:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Definite potential for encylopedic article. Capitalistroadster 15:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Gblaz's comment, I'm taking the initiative to merge dirty joke with off-color humor (leaving the content of dirty joke intact until the VfD is concluded), and making blue humor, off-colour humour (and other spelling variants thereof) redirects. If anyone strongly disagrees with this, could you please reply here or on my user talk page? jglc | t | c 19:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great solution that takes everyones comments into account. Gblaz 20:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - I second that remark. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and delist - it looks like the nomination's been withdrawn. --Idont Havaname 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all of them, as per User:jasonglchu. JamesBurns 04:28, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 18:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

ICFPS

I suspect this is a vanity page. The original author was anonymous and appears to be the same as the author, and the only page that links here is his page. I'd also say it could be nonnotable. Jdavidb 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the official website this is still in very early release, and can hardly be widely-used yet. When the software becomes notable, someone can write a better article. Robert A West 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable software. Google gives only 20 hits. -Harmil 16:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of euphemisms

Although I have edited this article, and although nearly all the edits made have been in good faith, I am of the opinion that it cannot be upgraded to a good-quality article. Specifically, this article has the following inherent problems.

Wikipedia is not a collection of lists: This is, perforce, a list, and can never be made much else. The list can never be exhaustive, nor really more than randomly selective.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: To the extent that this topic is notable, it should contain instances of first or notable use and/or other information suitable to a dictionary.

Information should be verifiable: nearly all the information in these lists (my edtis included) are unsourced. To the extent that the information can be verified from common experience, it is not notable.

A huge number of the entries have been, and remain a soapbox, causing POV problems. The difficulty is that the distinction between euphemism and jargon is inherently subjective, rendering this topic inherently POV.

Accordingly, I believe that deletion is the best solution, but I would be happy to be proven wrong and see a proposal for turning this into an encyclopedic article or an appropriate transwiki. Robert A West 14:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful for non-native speakers. - Dv 14:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Please remember to sign ('''~~~~''') your comments, otherwise, your vote may not be counted. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OH REALLY? - Dv 14:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I wasn't going to nominate it, but I saw the same problems. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list can and will go on forever if it is allowed to stay; UrbanDictionary isn't exactly a small site in its own right. Some of these euphemisms could serve as fine Wikitionary entries, but most are disposable and some aren't even euphemisms at all. This page does not serve as a source of reference. --Several Times 14:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by Several Times' rationale --malathion talk 15:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Several Times -Harmil 16:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary, "idiom guide", etc. Dcarrano 17:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete by Several Times' rationale. Additionally, it is hard to distinguish between euphemism and dysphemism and many of the examples on the list are more the latter, such as those labeled crude. However, I think expanded examples in the original article are warranted, as would expanded examples on the dysphemism page be.--Janezy 22:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several hundred euphemisms for "to die" alone, and the euphemism treadmill says that the number will keep growing forever. --Carnildo 23:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable, potential source of edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Euphemism is getting quite long even without a long list of examples, and besides, this list is interesting! --Idont Havaname 00:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 04:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikibooks ~~~~ 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOT ➥the Epopt 14:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Split — into more specific and easily maintainable articles (not merely lists), and cite sources; Archaic religious euphemisms in the English language, Common euphemisms for sexual intercourse in 20th century American English, Euphemisms for bodily functions in 18th century British English, etc. --Corvun 19:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- If someone wishes to do one or more of those, they can start from scratch as easily as from this list. I have added a note on Talk:Euphemism, which should serve as sufficient impetus. Robert A West 14:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 19:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism and War

This page is very simply not Wiki material, I think. It reads like a paragraph or so of semi-original research and isn't on a encyclopedia subject. I suppose if you really wanted to be charitable you could call it a dicdef. Endersdouble 14:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the topic is covered under Terrorism.Robert A West 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Robert A West. The aricle feels like a violation of WP:POINT (i.e. a fork of an existing page, created to make a POV point). -Harmil 16:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state terrorism, original research/unencyclopedic essay and the argument it's making is already represented there. Dcarrano 17:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No transwiki. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of dirty jokes

Unencyclopedic.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a list, unsourcable, and most aren't even good dirty jokes.Robert A West 15:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki any salvagable humor to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Joke_book — RJH 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if there are any good ones (I'm at work and probably shouldn't check) and delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contributors are free to submit there jokes elsewhere, but this is not something which requires archiving on WB. Wikibooks isn't "the worst of Wikipedia". -Harmil 16:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not all of them are even dirty jokes. Dunc|☺ 20:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with User:Duncharris. JamesBurns 04:29, 23 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 redirected content. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Y Combinator

Not-notable and advertising - Dv 14:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Google shows 104 results for Y Combinator +"venture capital", plus this article is indeed slanted toward advertisement. --Several Times 14:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable Incognito 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two of the more notable folks connected to the history of the Internet have started a V.C. firm. That alone is notable. The rest is simply a description of the company. I would remove the hipster programmer quote and expand a bit where possible, though. -Harmil 16:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Fixed point combinator, since the Y combinator is an important and famous (to us lambda calculus nerds) example of one. Brighterorange 17:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on notability of people involved. Gazpacho 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Note that I am the original creator of the article in question.) I'm sorry if the page seems to read like advertising; I have no connection with the company. I created the page because of the notability of Paul Graham and Robert Tappan Morris, two of the founders of the company. --Schoen 05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Y combinator/Y Combinator redirect question: Note that Y combinator is already (properly) a redirect to Fixed point combinator -- it has the correct capitalization for a Wikipedia article about the combinator itself, whereas Y Combinator has the correct capitalization for an article about the company. There is also disambiguation text at the top to refer people to the Fixed point combinator article. There are currently no inaccurate links to the article about the company. I would also be perfectly happy with a move to Y Combinator (company) if disambiguation appears to be an issue. --Schoen 05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I would argue that they are notable only because sites like Slashdot keep talking about them. The way I see it is:

Graham wrote two books on the programming language Lisp and created a store (in lisp) which he subsequently sold to Yahoo! (I believe they then switched to another application written in C, giving the reason that they couldn't find enough experienced Lisp programmers, but I'm unable to find references). He writes rants, but nobody in the industry or academia seems to take take them seriously (Lisp, or rather Scheme, is usually used only to teach programming. Most of the research is done with typed functional languages like ML and Haskell, and most of the "real work" is done with established imperative languages). He says that he will create a language called Arc and it will be the best thing ever, but he has yet to produce anything.

Morris accidentally created the first internet virus, and later became a small-time academic.

I don't see how these two people make an apparently vapor-ware company notable. - Dv 07:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The company isn't vaporware, it's currently running 10 startups.

Morris is not famous merely because of Slashdot fandom. He is frequently cited (and not just for the worm) in computer security circles. Gazpacho 01:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AaronSw 03:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note AaronSw works for a startup funded by Y Combinator, so is an interested party.
Strong Delete Hosterweis (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not advertising, no matter who added it Adamn 10:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ads JacksonBrown 10:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable. Indrian 16:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Interesting project, but there are lots of interesting projects. Article comes off as an advert.
Delete. Notability not established. Current content is an ad. Nabla 22:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Adams Continuum

I don't agree that every fansite should have an entry in Wikipedia; this strikes me as advertising. There's no good reason why the DAC should be singled out for having its own entry. JohnDBuell | Talk 14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe 600-odd registered users does not qualify as notable, even under the most liberal interpretation.Robert A West 15:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claim to notability cannot be confirmed. To the contrary, "most popular" is dubious given that Alexa ranks it 208,000 vs www.douglasadams.com at 83,000. -Harmil 16:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As noted in the Talk:Douglas Adams Continuum page, the "official" douglasadams.com site, maintained by the company Adams helped establish in the 1990s, isn't updated much anymore, nor does it have an active forum, and hasn't since Adams died. Perhaps if ANYTHING were to be merged back into Douglas Adams it would be the info on the various fan sites from that talk page, presented in a way so as not to appear like site advertising. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable fansite per above. It's got its link in Douglas Adams, which is good enough. Dcarrano 17:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cynergi Fleet

Delete Non-notable RPG. Google reports exactly 2 non repeated hits for "Cynergi Fleet" [19], with the other 2500 being repeats on the same forum, which is now a dead link. Unless notability can be shown, this sshould go. Icelight 15:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT 1.4.2, No Self-Promotion. The Literate Engineer 06:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Elvis preston king

I think it's vanity. May be a hoax. smoddy 15:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity at the very least. Possibly a widely coordinated hoax. See the many, many pages which have apparently been authored (vandalized?) by the same author. -Harmil 18:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says this fellow is a scam artist, tricking people into calling 809 phone numbers to take money from them. Someone publishing a vanity article wouldn't reveal that about themselves. It's useful information - just needs a rewrite. 72.12.200.21 15:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decryption matrix

There does not appear to be a notable concept by this name, as far as I can gather. The term is used a few times on pages indexed by Google, but they nearly all mean a different thing to what is described here. The only place is [20], but I would suggest their assertion that "a decryption matrix [is] a common device in codebreaking" is an error. There would seem to be no evidence of this concept outside that page, and I've never come across it in the literature. There was a previous VfD to keep, but that was based on the belief that this was a genuine concept, which would appear not to be the case. — Matt Crypto 16:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete ~~This is a placeholder vote.~~ I'm going to research the topic when I get home tonight. I'll let you know what I come up with, and expand the article as/if needed -Harmil 16:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at the local tech bookstore and abused their resources in order to peruse the most authoritative books I could find. I'd already leafed through Applied Cryptography at work, of course, but it doesn't deal with attacks against crypto except from the standpoint of assuring the security of a given algorithm. So, I paged through 4 or 5 of the books that were more of the accademic sort and less of the "teach yourself how to use a crypto library in 10 seconds". I'm crypto-savvy, but no expert, so it's possble that I missed something, but I found no references in the index or ToC to this term. I paged through the sections that looked most promissing in one or two of the texts as well. Unless someone can come up with a sound definition that actually parses well, I'm all for deleting. -Harmil 21:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be real. --Carnildo 23:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and cleanup~~. The definition is wrong (a matrix of the form described is sometimes used in cryptanalysis but this is not termed the decryption matrix). However this is a real term used in decryption, specifically with respect to the Hill cipher, a family of cryptographic algorithms based on invertible matrices. K. Gopalakrishnan, Associate Professor of Computer Science at East Carolina University, set an exam in which students are required to compute the decryption matrix of a hill cipher [21]. This document is based on an original produced by Ross Moore of McQuarie University and Nikos Drakos of University of Leeds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you would normally use the term "decryption matrix" in the context of the Hill cipher, but that's not what this article is discussing at all. You could, I suppose, write a new article from scratch that defines a decryption matrix with respect to the Hill cipher, but it's not a particularly special or separate concept from the Hill cipher itself, and wouldn't ever be much of an article. — Matt Crypto 18:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Changed vote: delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the definition is entirely bogus. A new article could be written on the real definition, but this article is flatly wrong - it's like having the banana entry tell you that bananas are a type of mammal. Xaa 03:56, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 18:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

You know you have no life when

Non-encyclopedic. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to a subpage on BJAODN. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Content already at Wikipedia:Wikipediholics so delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it, I didn't realize there was a formal page for that stuff Cunado19 16:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Adds nothing that's not in WP:WHT Flowerparty 16:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN I did this, then forgot to list the page on VfD. Sorry. smoddy 17:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't BJAODN your own creations! It's in the rules or something. Plus, I have a condition to add: *When you try and be witty on VfD. humblefool® 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was nae my article! I BJAODN'ed it, then forgot to VfD it. Sorry... [[smoddy]] 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not funny enough for BJAODN Cyclone49 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dump into BJAODN (as has already been done) or make into an article about "You know you have no live or are too addicted to [insert item name here] when..." jokes. ~GMH 07:18, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Failure to comply

Band with no records. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Harmil 16:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has been redirected to User:Brines. What now? --Etacar11 00:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:32, 23 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 need to list - user page only -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Almafeta/Furry/Archive1

The current Furry article has been moved to Furry Fandom and vandalized by Encyclopedia Dramaticans. I created Furry/Archive1 because I needed a copy of the original article to go into a bibliography of a book I am publishing. However, five minutes after the archive was created, User:Francs2000 moved it to my userspace, and deleted the redirect. Well, I can't exactly put a page in my own userspace in the bibliography... Almafeta 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you can't archive in main namespace either. The only thing I can suggest is to reference an older version of the article, but this will result in a very long internet address. As the creator of this archive you can request for it to be deleted: it doesn't have to go through this lengthy process as you are the only person who has edited the main content of the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Psychord

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC test for notability. Admits that he hasn't had anything released, has no other claims. Icelight 17:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. ^…Mar ka ci 2005-07-23 T 00:49:57 Z
Delete nn dj vanity. --Etacar11 00:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn dj vanity. JamesBurns 04:32, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 21:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Red's Eats

Delete. Wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Fingers-of-Pyrex. --Several Times 17:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam sounds yummy, though. --Etacar11 00:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:33, 23 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. Tally: Keep: ~~Assdl~~, ~~Firespeaker~~, IJzeren Jan, ~~Elemtilas~~, ~~BenctPhilipJonsson~~, Oldak Quill, ~~SamuelRiv~~. Delete: Ishwar, Angr, ~~Dhasenan~~, JamesBurns, ~~Dewrad~~, Mikkalai, Pne, Wile E. Heresiarch, Prosfilaes, Mustafaa, Trilobite, Muke Tever, Jim Henry, Almafeta. Not counting users with fewer than 100 edits, there are 2 keep and 12 delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aingeljã

Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – ishwar (speak) 17:30, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn conlang. JamesBurns 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are other articles about "not so notable" conlangs in Wikipedia. Examples: Breathanach, Brithenig, DiLingo, Enochian, Fyksland, Talossan language, Verdurian language, Wenedyk. If you delete this article, it'll be unfair. Assdl 12:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an art gallery. The other articles on conlangs may not be appropriate either. I am not singling you out for any reason — I merely noticed that you added Aingeljã numbers to the numbers article. Maybe there is a conlang wiki somewhere where you can display your art. Thank you. – ishwar (speak) 15:07, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Delete. While I am a conlanger and support efforts to make conlanging more widely known, Wikipedia is not the place for this content. Instead, individual conlangs should be documented in personal sites and linked to from Wikipedia. (I also assert that articles such as The Scream should be combined with the articles related to their creators, unless the artist in question is sufficiently prolific to make it difficult to find information in that format.)

I think The Scream is a prime example of why we shouldn't combine them with the author; you don't need to know who painted The Scream to be familiar with the painting, and there are many reinterpretations of the painting that stand independent of the original artist. You can be interested in The Scream without caring about Edward Munch. --Prosfilaes 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is a nice conlang, it's also non-notable. Dewrad 16:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that if someone would like information on a conlang, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to start. -Firespeaker 18:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not particularly notable, even as conlangs go. -- pne 18:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Prosfilaes 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aingeljã is an excellent conlang with an excellent web presence. I dó think, however, that Wikipedia is not the place to accomodate its entire grammar. IMO the article should be a short description of the language, not an outline of its grammar. But all in all, I don't think a VfD is warranted on that base. --IJzeren Jan 23:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the article is OK here, as it only shows a summary of the summary of the summary of the Grammar of Aingeljã. Anyone who finds it interesting can learn more at the official website. However, in order to guarantee that it isn't deleted, I can rewrite the contents of the article, if the majority of Wikipedians votes so. But I think that, as far as this conlang exists today and anybody can study it or read about it somewhere else, there's no reason to delete it here. I'm an enthusiastic Wikipedian user and I'd be completely disappointed with Wikipedia if this article, and those about other artistic conlangs, were deleted. Don't get confused about an auxilanguage like Esperanto, which tries to help the communication between people, and an artlang, which is a personal work of art, modest and humble after all. Please keep the article. Assdl 14:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form. Though I disagree with the terminology "professional" v. "amateur" (I really don't think Syldavian counts as a professional conlang, as it's merely part of a corpus of literature), there is quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. -- Specific to the query below, "I really don't understand why you don't like my article about Aingeljã" I don't think the problem has to do with style or contents of the article itself. The problem is that the Wikipedia isn't the appropriate location for the article. A conlang related Wiki would be more appropriate, and that article could easily by linked to from Artistic language. Elemtilas

As pieces of art, they deserve articles in the same situation as any other pieces of art. There's no reason to not include an article just because it's a conlang. --Prosfilaes 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not against this in principle. My position isn't really that this conlang or that does not deserve an article, the question is really whether it warrants an article. Wikipedia describes itself as striving to offer the internet public what they could otherwise get in a paper encyclopedia but is also kept up to the minute. Generally speaking, authoritative encyclopedias don't cover fictional worlds and similar works of art (unless they are famous). It can (and should) certainly cover the art of conlanging or conculturing; I think it's quite sufficient, given the purpose and scope of the project, to link to an external article about a conlang or conculture. Elemtilas

But that's a lousy description of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia offers the public a depth and richness that no paper encyclopedia reaches. Krypto is an article that no general paper encyclopedia could afford to spend the paper on, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. We have the space and the power to be far more comprehensive than a paper encyclopedia and we historically have been far more comprehensive than a paper encyclopedia. --Prosfilaes 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy as that description may be, it is condensed from the article Wikipedia! If we can and should afford to keep around articles on Captain Kirk or Krypto, then by all means we should keep articles on Aingelja and Wenedyk. Elemtilas

Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages. Elemtilas
Delete, non-notable. - Mustafaa 11:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for all of you who have complained about the extension and detail of the text, I've reduced considerably the article. I hope you'll like it more now. But if you still think it's a perfect candidate to deletion, please let me know what else I should change in order to keep it in Wikipedia. Thanks. Assdl 14:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable conlang. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. :( —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 01:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 16:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read through the deletion policy in its entirety, and with the shortened article length I think there's no question that this has a place here. SamuelRiv 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A spiffy language with a well-done webpage, but not notable enough for Wikipedia: no evidence of its being influential on other conlangs, or having any speakers besides the author, or indeed any strong fans. (Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs, rather than arguing about what constitutes notability every time...? Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point. Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy?) --Jim Henry | Talk 04:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Closest to notable is being 118 among top 100 languages in Langmaker. But dammit, I don't like this; the way the site is set up means it's a damn good work. A conlang policy would need to have some way of protecting pages like this one. Almafeta 05:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I do not entirely agree with all your notability criteria, but I have to admit that you made an excellent beginning. Furthermore, I agree: Aingeljã's website is one of the best of its kind, but what I find an even more astonishing achievement is the 116 p. long grammar, written in the language itself! Even when the objective criteria don't make a language notable, there should also be the possibility for an "I know when when I feel it" kind of exception. --IJzeren Jan 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from talk page

copied from User talk:Ish_ishwar:

About Aingeljã

Hi, I really don't understand why you don't like my article about Aingeljã). This is an artistic personal constructed language, there is already a category in this Wikipedia about this kind of languages. This is a very short summary of the Grammar, which can be read thoroughly in the external links. In fact, I can't really understand why there are already articles about Breathanach, Brithenig, DiLingo, Enochian, Fyksland, Talossan language, Verdurian language, Wenedyk and many others, and there can't be an article about Aingelja.

I wait for instructions about what I should change in the article style, but I repeat that I can't understand your reaction.

Greetings,

Assdl 12:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not article style, it is the notability of the topic. mikka (t) 18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in archaeology

I listed a couple of the pages individually but I don't have the time or inclination to do them all. This sort of sub-listing of yearly events is totally unnecessary, especially considering the fact that a very small number of 'events' are actually listed. I would recommend of the deletion of this list and, at the very list, a redirect of all of the 'years in archaeology' articles to the article of the corresponding year. For example 1707 in archaeology could be redirected to 1707. -Soltak 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly contrived category with no relevant information. More an exercise in building a template than anything else. Any relevant events should be listed in their corresponding years. --Corto 15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I remember when we had many such stubby and redlink heavy "years in" articles, many of which have grown considerably., but apparently we havn't had many editors interested in the history of archaeology yet. It's a valid topic with much room for expansion. If it is decided to delete this, I strongly reccomend consolodating the existing information somewhere, perhaps into an article entitled "Chronology of archaeology" or something similar, and then redirect existing articles there. If no one cares to consolodate, I'd say leaving our current stublets is mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to consolidating the information into something such as "Important Dates in Archaeology." -Soltak 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Consolidate. As suggested above, an article on "Important Dates in Archaeology" might be best for now. If that grows over time, it could be subdivided in some fashion, i.e. region of the world, cultures, or centuries......WBardwin 18:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order: Perhaps you mean "Consolidate and then delete"? If one deletes the information first, I don't see that there would be anything to consolidate. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course -- but the history function allows us to do it either way! WBardwin 06:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into List of years in science and it's children articles like 1707 in science. It is a project that never got off the ground. Penfold started it in March 2004 and it hasn't really developed at all since then. Besides, there is no reason that the archeology content needs to be segregated out from the other science content like this. Tobycat 06:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me. -Soltak 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do what Tobycat said. :) Superm401 | Talk 17:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with relevant year in science until such time that there is an editor to create lengthier articles on years in archaeology. Note to admin: this applies to both votes below. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tobycat and create list of archaeological events (if something similar doesn't already exist). As it stands this list provides a horrific way of navigating through a very small amount of information. Even if we were to separate these events by date it might be more sensible to do it by decade or even century. Flowerparty 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, although it sounds like a merge with science, at least for the time being, may be in order. Just wanted to point out there are MANY more year in archaeology articles in this series[22]. Niteowlneils 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. - SimonP 21:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Tobycat reason, and/or create a single List of archaeological events. It really IS a horrible way to navigate through a pathetically small amount of actual information. --Calton | Talk 06:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete after you take any useful info and put it in say general science category. Archeology is not that big and imprtant field.Renata3 06:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

really? What is your definition of big and important? It is to me. WBardwin 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treating archaeology as solely a science is to open a big old taxonomic can of worms and merging it with those articles would not be acceptable to me. The field does not entirely constitute a true science as, for example, experiments/excavtions are not reproducable, once a site has been dug and interpreted it can't be re-dug and re-interpreted by someone else. Expanding List of years in archaeology would be a demanding task but it could happen slowly if those of us who are writing archaeology articles remember to copy paste paras into the relevant year article. Keep. adamsan 10:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separation of lists by subject is essential to prevent them becoming flabby to the point of uselessness. Calsicol 16:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good to me. It will grow. linas 21:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, once the individual year articles are more complete. Uppland 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Archaeology is worth plotting by year, and will fill in eventually. JDoorjam 19:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1952 in archaeology

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1952. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1952 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, nothing there. Delete --Corto 15:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just added something else, and I'm sure much more could be added with a bit of research. A valid topic with room to expand. Infrogmation (talk • contribs) -- 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 1952 in science, which already has a section for archaeology. -R. fiend 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep. Merging isn't sensible: archaeology isn't science. Why not have this article? Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm sure interesting things happened in the world of archaeology in 1952. This page might come in useful for some archaeologist of archaeology. Whyever delete it just because there aren't many events in it yet? A valid topic with room to expand indeed. Where else would one find a list of archaeological events of 1952? Give me a week or so and I'll dig out an archaeology journal from the 1950s and expand the article. If we do merge, and people like me add tons of stuff to it, someone will suggest splitting again. So why merge? Robinh 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeology isn't science? I'm really interested in understanding why you think that. I took a course in archaeology in college and it sure felt like science to me. -Soltak 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those that don't feel Archaeology is a science I would direct his or her attention to Archaeology and Archaeological science. -Soltak 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Infrogmation and Robinh (though I'd say archaeology _is_ science). ^…Mar ka ci 2005-07-23 T 01:00:20 Z
Keep, article has potential. Archaeology is not a science in that it does not fully conform to the scientific method. It does contain scientific elements though, hence the separate page on archaeological science. adamsan 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of an obviously valuable series. Calsicol 16:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps Merge or Create New Article, agree with Soltak. History of archaeology is an encyclopedia article. Important Dates in Archaeology is something that might make a good article, possibly by merging all these year-by-year lists together into a new article. An Endless List Of Archeological Achievements Categorized in Separate Articles By Each Year in History is not an encyclopedia article, it's an incredibly unweildy index. Xaa 20:21, 28 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1707 in archaeology

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains only one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1707. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1707 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stubby, but a valid topic capable of expansion. -- Infrogmation 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One event in a year's archaeology does not justify a list of that year's archaeological events. (Although I'm looking forward to seeing what's in store in 1708 in archaeology.) Flowerparty 18:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the List of years in archaeology, it seems that the 1700s were mediocre for the activity, so merge all "17?? in archaeology" articles into one article, Archaelolgy in the 1700s. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with 1707 in science. -R. fiend 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. There was a shedload of antiquarian activity in the eighteenth century that can be added. adamsan 11:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a clearly valuable series. Calsicol 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it is expanded from more than one item, it's pretty useless. jg325 *talk* 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps Merge or Create New Article, agree with Soltak. History of archaeology is an encyclopedia article. Important Dates in Archaeology is something that might make a good article, possibly by merging all these year-by-year lists together into a new article. An Endless List Of Archeological Achievements Categorized in Separate Articles By Each Year in History is not an encyclopedia article, it's an incredibly unweildy index. Xaa 20:21, 28 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. Joyous (talk) 21:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Stageline

Promotion for a product line by same company [23]. Maybe some rough editing could do something of it. Feydey 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article is primarily composed of useless jargon and is fundamentally promotional in nature. Even extensive editing would only yield a more thickly veiled product advertisement. This page ought to be deleted. Yablohimself 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure sounds like an add. Vegaswikian 00:47, 25 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Homeirah

I could likely claim speedy for little or no content, but I was kinda hoping that someone here would enlighten me as to who this is. All I'm getting on google is some link farms. Delete as the content is too minimal to even expand apon. humblefool ® 18:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sub-stub for a nn singer. JamesBurns 04:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Otto Olson

Delete: not notable, not encyclopedic; only 3 Google hits. Johanus 18:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:36, 23 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spill canvas

Non-notable band. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move → The Spill Canvas. Google thinks they're notable. Two albums to their name. I fixed the page up a bit. ^…Mar ka ci 2005-07-23 T 01:22:06 Z
Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 04:36, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 21:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Socialist Occult Facism

Probably a Hoax, certianly PoV. No sources cited; a sub-stub. Does not quite qualify for a speedy, however. DES 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean apart from the fact that they can't even spell fascism? -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a delete by the way. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eighter way, "Occult Fascism" has hits fom google (with S), but nothing connected with Socialist. Hoax, Delete. -Feydey 19:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a rant, though just what is being ranted about is less than clear. --Trovatore 01:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! 00:52, July 28, 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. Joyous (talk) 21:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Shock

Biography, not notable The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to the best of my ability to determine, she seems to be someone who posts many comments about her particular obsession on bulletin boards around the web. She may be intelligent, witty, and loads of fun at a party, but I don't see that Wikipedia should have articles about such lives, unless we want an entire category devoted to USENET flamers of the late 1990s. Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Stirling Newberry 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being non-notable, the tragic misspelling of "Katamari Damacy" and/or "Katamari Damashi" has tainted the Matrix. Delete with extreme prejudice. Nandesuka 19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is pretty much the most arrogant vote for deletion I have ever seen. She didn't write the article anyway. You should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Unsigned comment by anon IP 132.239.153.57, author of the article according to his comment here --Nandesuka 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Sorry. It is my first wiki entry ever. I misunderstood.24.165.29.82 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doggone it, I put a speedy delete on this thing and the anon reverted it. Now, it's here. I have had it with these GameFAQs entries. I still say speedy delete under the new rules. - Lucky 6.9 20:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Thatdog 21:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I misunderstood the standards of "notability" needed to have a wiki article. I was only writing it because I thought a lot of people would like to know about her. Apologies. I feel the entire deletion process was fairly heavy-handed. 24.165.29.82 21:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary. It's simply necessary to have a certain amount of general notability regarding the subject of an article. - Lucky 6.9 22:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Etacar11 01:05, 23 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hexa do

It's a version of Sudoku that hasn't been verified by anyone yet. User is seeking validation via Wikipedia. Delete Francs2000 | Talk 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No hits in a Google search on "hexa do" sudoku. Chuck 19:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:37, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 21:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Curved spacetime

This article is sloppy, incomplete, and inaccurate. It's content is better covered in the general relativity article, to which I suggest this article be redirected (as noted in my vote below). --EMS | Talk 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to general relativity --EMS | Talk 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Gazpacho 19:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, and I'd like to give a reminder that editors can perform such redirects at will, without coming to VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt that this was a more considerate way of doing this than just yanking it outright. I gather the you all would prefer that I be bold about this. --EMS | Talk 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, and I agree with EMS that taking a vote is wise. Several frequent contributors are passionately devoted to the "General relativity" category and we need to be careful that we don't work at cross-purposes.---CH (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to general relativity Xaa 03:47, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 21:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

AttentionTrust

Notability not established. Possible vanity. Note that according to the external link provided, they have no members! "AttentionTrust" only gets 3 Google hits. [24] Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Response: We are currently hosting the founding conference. The site will be up in the next few hours. If you would prefer us to hold back on this entry until then, we can comply. Thanks.(Unsigned response by 69.120.235.87 (talk · contribs))

Delete, vanity. If you're the ones founding this organization you shouldn't be the ones listing on Wikipedia. Wait till you've gotten media coverage, then someone unaffiliated with your group will add it if it's notable enough. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like self-promotion from another misguided person that believes a Wikipedia article begets notability, when it's really the other way around. "Attention Trust" doesn't seem to find anything relevant either. Niteowlneils 19:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would seem to me that if you just had the founding conference several hours ago, you can't possibly be worthy of an encyclopedia article yet. Aerion//talk 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 04:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete premature. It strikes me that the notion of Attention Trust and the advocacy that goes with it is being formulated now, and there is a better way to attract attention to AttentionTrust. Later, it may be appropriate to tie into any Wikipedia treatment of social arrangements and protocols for internet-participating communities. Orcmid 16:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably means well, but anybody can put up a website with this kind of empty sloganeering on it. Please come back when you have some record of accomplishment. --Michael Snow 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete premature. When AttentionTrust has adoption and a following it would be apropriate for someone else to establish a wikipeida entry. Cori.schlegel 11:27, 29 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. Joyous (talk) 21:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Suitwanker

I didn't nominate this article, it was nominated by some anon. However, he didn't create the vfd2 or vfd3 entries, so I'm doing that now. Also, I reformatted some of the votes already placed. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Against. It should be noted as a colloquial/slang term and cleaned up. But I don't see why delete it. --69.158.34.74 19:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For. While I think it nicely describes the parasitical technological ignorati it seems redundant given 'suit' (or more simply 'wanker') and is redundant. (Comment by 80.4.224.6 (talk · contribs))
Keep. For. This is a cool term I heard about while reading Slashdot. It deserves a place in an encyclopedia. 63.201.91.87 07:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup Cleanup. It is not synonymous with another word. "Suit" means any executive. While "wanker" is literally "one who masturbates", its common usage describes an idle, lazy, or parasitic person. "Parasuit" might be a cleaner term. Lheal 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC). (User's first edit to Wikipedia)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits for it as one word, and only 2 for "Suit wanker". Niteowlneils 19:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if common usage is establish, this is no more than a dicdef. DES 19:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Against. (or maybe For? Am I doing this right, newbies?) Neologism, evidentally. -R. fiend
Speedy delete as attack page. --Idont Havaname 23:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nice Easy And Tight

Non-notable vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:39, 23 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. Suggestions to merge to Unification Church. Joyous (talk) 01:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

BCworld

A web forum for young people from a particular religion. From the sounds of the description, it's not particularly notable. Francs2000 | Talk 19:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

s>Delete. Cleanup and merge to Unification Church. Non-notable forum, unverifiable information. -Willmcw ~~19:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)~~ 21:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable for inclusion as a forum. jglc | t | c 19:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyojung (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2005
Delete nn forum. JamesBurns 04:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unification Church. -- RHaworth 04:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unification Church. Redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - The Time Killer

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Connor-Davis

Non-notable. Google "Liam O Connor Davis" says 186, but shows only 3 [25], and no webpage referenced has an Alexa rank of less than 5 million. -- Grev -- Talk 19:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paula Throckmorton-Zakaria

Being related to a famous person is not enough to be notable enough for one article. Only 79 Google hits [26] Normally, a merge would be alright here, except that the little information there is is already in Fareed Zakaria Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity microstub. --Etacar11 01:14, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 21:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ñor

Been transwikied, now needs deletion. humblefool ® 19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 04:41, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 21:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dan ellis

Non-notable web cartoonist, probably self-promotion. The article itself sums it up pretty well: "He is not very well known on the internet, only gathering a few fans, but he hopes to be one day." Niteowlneils 19:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, establishes non-notability. Gazpacho 19:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn cartoonist. JamesBurns 04:41, 23 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. There is no consensus to retain the content, so I have not merged it. It is available from the history if anyone wants it. -Splash 02:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of subatomic particles

Duplicates the existing list of particles and is a much less mature version of it. The creator has been given ample time to move what worthwile text is there. (See the talk page.) It is time to Merge/Redirect this page to list of particles --EMS | Talk 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Gazpacho 19:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Pavel Vozenilek 23:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Lord of the Pens

Web comic with 14 google hits. Gazpacho 19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn comic. JamesBurns 04:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear

del nonnotable expression, with verifiability problems. What is salvageable (and verifiable), may be moved into Victor Hargreaves (if one existed indeed). mikka (t) 19:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used when people see something out of the ordinary or strange. I personally see it used when events don't quite go to the speaker's advantage. "I'm afraid you've broken your leg." "Oh dear." I don't live in the North West of England, but I do live near it, and I have not heard it used for that purpose. This borders on dic-def anyway, so delete. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - More dictionary then encyclopedic. - Chairboy 19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Garrett^Talk 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hye Sung Gehring and Sungis

The page is obvious vanity: lines such as "He became well known through xanga, myspace, BCworld, and other forum sites." and links to various xanga sites and myspace profiles don't help. This should be a speedy ~~userfy~~. jglc | t | c 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:Angr below, Speedy delete. jglc | t | c 19:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Sungis. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 19:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User has IMHO forfeited his right to userfy this page by removing VFD and Speedy labels and creating a sockpuppet. Just speedy delete both articles. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Sungis. Craigy (talk) 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
UserfyDelete. I'd already begun to VfD this when another user suggestd speedy-delete, becuase it is apersonal page with not serious claim to notability. It's been re-recreated at least once. -Willmcw 19:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Sungis is a repeat post of the article. jglc | t | c 19:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expletive. We have full-blown vandalous activity by this user. He has removed several VfD tags multiple times, created sockpuppet User:Hyojung from User:Sungis and seems intent on continuing this behaviour. jglc | t | c 19:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page (in the extreme I may add) --Richhil 19:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe speedily (I tagged it for speedy once already when it was just his photo, but I see it was recreated) maybe block user. -R. fiend 20:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Joyous (talk) 22:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Clotheshorse

Transwikied, now it comes here. humblefool ® 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, and not a very accurate one either -Buuneko 09:59, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 22:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Fatass

No assertion of notability in the article and after a quick search I can only find 1 album release that doesn't seem to be widely ditributed at all. That being said, delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the above grounds. IINAG 22:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, content has been merged with Dairy Crest -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral City (cheese)

Delete Cathedral City is a brand name for a cheddar cheese, see http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/opb/cheese/cathedralcity.shtml

Despite its manufacturer's hype, there are many many brands of cheddar, and this particular brand has no particular reason to be included and described as a "type" of cheese. Its not. If there was more content on this page, or some prospect of there being so, it might be a more reasonable entry.Francis Davey 20:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake with the listing for deletion process. Hopefully some kind person will help me out. For a dyslexic person it was almost impossible to follow the process. Francis Davey 20:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you did alright to me. Don't worry it gets easier after the 3rd or 4th one. Anyway, if it's just a brand name then delete. Too many consumer products in wikipedia already. -R. fiend 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Flowerparty 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable (due to high market penetration & history) British brand name from a very large public company. Suggest it is expanded. Jasoncart 22:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Its only 9% of the cheddar market http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=143815 does that really merit inclusion? I thought it was a fairly recent brand of any significance. Certainly doesn't have the fame of (say) "Gold" and "Country Life" other brands of the same country. Any evidence on the history? Francis Davey 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep yes it is a brand name but it is very notable in the UK. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Seems like this is a brand that could easly be include in Dairy Crest's article. I would also support changing the Cathedral City redirect to a DAB so that the merged information can be found. If the article seemed like it could have been expanded I would gladly have voted keep. Vegaswikian 00:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dairy Crest with redirect to a disambiguation, per Vegaswikian. Aecis 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea. -Splash 02:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner Construct Zero

Original research. These constructs have no google presence outside of http://www.markjoyner.name and don't seem to be well-known DJ Clayworth 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. Thue | talk 20:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original researchspam. --Idont Havaname 23:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. JamesBurns 04:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VSPAN

transwikied, listed here. humblefool ® 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term refers to a feature of a Cisco Systems product. Not encyclopedic. Buuneko 10:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cacat

This article is, um, cacat. humblefool ® 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete foreign dicdef. Almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef at best. Gblaz 15:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Garrett^Talk 01:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzat Gabriel

Non-notable, google search finds no hits. Article does not seem to indicate any notability, just a biography of sorts Gblaz 20:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is actually a speedy delete after the recent policy change. Done. Thue | talk 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article was also blanked by the creator; that could/should be interpreted as a request for deletion, and coming from the author that also makes the article a speedy. Thue | talk 20:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Garrett^Talk 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy charrison

Based on the current article I would say that this guy is not notable. Thue | talk 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Thue Athf1234 20:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under WP:CSD A7. DES 20:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea. -Splash 02:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner

Vanity. smoddy 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see also Mark Joyner Constructs, Mark Joyner Construct Zero, Spread the Meme[reply]

Delete, smells of self-promotion. I have just tagged a number of related articles for vfd. Mark Joyner main claim to fame according to the article, his ability to promote MindControlMarketing.com, only gets 914 google hits, which is not much for a term which should be notable for having been artificially hyped on the internet. Thue | talk 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI Just updated to remove reference to mindcontrolmarketing.com

which incidentally ranked #1 on Amazon due to pure Internet Promotion, the book was largely promoted by email (which isn't spiderable by Google) Note: the book reached #1 in 24 hours of launch and succeeded in knocking Rudolf Giuliani off the #1 spot (who incidentally was promoting his book, 'Leadership' every half hour on CNN. There are 36,000 hits on google referencing "Mark Joyner" Even J Conrad Levinson (the grandfather of Guerilla Marketing said this: "Mark Joyner is an Internet Marketing Genius. He is the best. No question." PS I added this name space Davejohnson 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks very much like an ad... and if your book goes to #1 on any major site, it will definitely get more Google hits than that. --Idont Havaname 23:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Idont Havaname - in that case, what is the Wiki entry advertising? :)

take a look at these Google results for this specific search term mindcontrolmarketing.com amazon #1 it's pretty conclusive. like I said, the book was cleverly promoted using email, which doesn't get spidered by google. I can understand why you find this hard to believe, getting a #1 at amazon the way he did, and without spending money on advertising is exactily the reason Conrad J Levinson (Author: Guerrilla marketing cites Mark as an Internet marketing genius, and that is exactly the reason why I believe he deserves his place here on Wikipedia Davejohnson 01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete The book is now 47,586 on Amazon and being discounted. That is probably <1,000 sales. It is very difficult to believe it was ever No #1. This is unverifiable vanity--Porturology 06:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author may want to read Wikipedia:Autobiography to understand why this is being received so negatively. Thue | talk 06:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might be persuaded otherwise if Mr ~~Joyner~~ sorry Johnson could give us the date that his book went to number one, and the total number of copies sold. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the dates, but if anyone's interested in validating these facts, you could try googling this Mark Joyner Internet you'll find over 121,000 references to him, I'm sure there will be some entries with details of his best seller, dates volume etc. I don't know the figures, I mearly read the book. Davejohnson 22:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS.. Interestingly the legendary british football manager Terry Venables only has 26,600 google hits when searching analogously Name + Field ie Terry Venables Football Davejohnson 22:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if would only be classed as vanity if I were him -which I'm not, but I admit I'm probably a little more fanatical about this guy than most :) Davejohnson 22:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is Mark Joyner, the topic of this entry. Allow me to comment on a few things. 1. Mr. Johnson, I'm flattered and appreciative of your support. If you could provide a link to your site or some other way of identifying yourself it might be helpful to folks who are suspicious that you may be me posting under a pseudonym for the purpose of self-promotion. 2. Amazon best-sellers. First, whether or not I wrote a book that was a #1 best-seller may not be the best gauge of the worthiness of my entry here. Next, the number of Google references is certainly not a valid metric for determining whether or not a book was ever once a #1 best-seller (nor is it's current rank). However, if you wish to verify that it was a #1 best-seller I suggest checking with Amazon. It was a very well-publicized campaign and there are many a witness to the fact that it beat out Rudy's book (if only for two days). What was important was that it was all done with grass-roots marketing. The fact that Amazon just pre-ordered 3,000 copies of my upcoming book might give you an indication of the faith they have in my marketing abilities. 3. Self-promotion. While I would love to have references to my books in here, what's really important to me is that Dave mentioned the Mark Joyner Constructs. If nothing but that project were mentioned here I would be delighted. The intent of that project is to change the world consciousness in a way that prevent humanity's self-destruction - a far more important topic than my books about sales and marketing, and far more interesting than dissecting the facts. I do hope those ideas remain here. 4. Accuracy. As the topic of the post I can vouch that what Dave has said is true. Again, for the Amazon case I'd recommend contacting them directly. I'm not sure if they maintain an archive of the past best-seller lists (it's updated every hour), but that would be the best objective 3rd party to settle the matter. -- Thanks again, Dave for your support regardless of the outcome. I hope I can see hanging out in my community. [Mark Joyner]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 22:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sept (slang)

A (self-proclaimed) neologism, that "originated in 2001". I've never heard of it, and I can't find any evidence of its existence on Google. It was hard to do a search for it, because of abreviations for September, so I searched for the "related phrase," "septed fool." That picked up no hits at all, so I very much doubt the rest of the article as well. Not notable, and in any case a dicdef, so delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete The article says that "the term is new and relatively obscure". Ta da! Say no more. DES 20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fake, and dictdef even if it ain't. Tempshill 22:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. --Idont Havaname 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need a word for this concept, but not a Wikipedia entry. Ppe42 05:25, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete how about Krunk? Rich Farmbrough 22:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, Sept (slang) was that clique of V:tM players in high school... Almafeta 01:09, 24 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. Joyous (talk) 22:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kermit syndrome

NN unreal dicdef. smoddy 20:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evedence of wide use, dicdef at best DES 20:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I echo DESiegel. Tempshill 22:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated seglea 23:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vise-Grip

obvious advertising copy Robinh 20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete.

Comment I was going to suggest redirecting to Vise grip but not only don't we have an article on that, we don't have one on Vise. RA time!—Wahoofive (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rewrite. A Vise-Grip is a common tool that deserves an article. --goethean ॐ 21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per goethean. I'm not sure about whether or not we should rename it to vise grip; Google favors Vise-Grip, but that's the Irwin brand only; it seems to be vise grip in more general uses. --Idont Havaname 23:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite into an article about vice grips. CranialNerves 13:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Crystal objective

Delete - I believe that this is a further waste of useful cyberspace!
DeleTe - the comment below me doesn't make sense. this information is classified anyway!

Vanity. I think the chances of anything to do with a British boys' school and its boys' dersires would have to end with Emba Watso, wouldn't it? [[smoddy]] 20:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Patent nonsense. Robinh 20:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How endlessly repetitive all these things are! Highschoolers of the world unite!! Give us something really worthy of BJAODN!!! Bill 20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, bad fiction. Tempshill 22:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, what is this, lol. Architos 22:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! Why delete, it's not harming anyone is it? :-P

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 22:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of Foreign Ministry contact details

Wikipedia is not a directory or phonebook. In fact, articles "shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc." This is not an encyclopdia article. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unmaintainable list, wikipedia is not a directory. JamesBurns 04:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBurns --Ian Pitchford 15:26, 23 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.

New AfD

This article was deleted before, someone re-created it, I am re-submitting for AfD for commercial spam. Delete spam -- Tawker 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mannatech

Obvious commercial advertising Robinh 20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company, probable advert. Tempshill 22:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 02:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Project shining light

Project started in July 2005. Not yet notable, less than 10 google hits. Thue | talk 20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You said it, Thue. Thanks for the listing. --Idont Havaname 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and autobiographical. BTW, I wonder if I might mildly suggest a look at PaulReilly's Special:Contributions/PaulReilly other edits; in particular his decision to turn an article title redirected by a VfD into an article once again. (Also can't help noticing that the original VfD'ed article made rather a deal of the philosophy being first mentioned on "The Paul Show"....) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 28 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 ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea not me. -Splash 02:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the Meme

Not notable, 125 google hits for "Spread the Meme" License Model. Thue | talk 21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert, and thank you Thue for tracking down and eliminating these adverts. Tempshill 22:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad/spam, brought to you by... Mark Joyner, who's also getting deleted! --Idont Havaname 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 23 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. Joyous (talk) 22:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Technology Driven Consumer Health Services

Reads like essay and ad. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does. Delete, advert or weird original research. Tempshill 22:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was RESULT delete seglea 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner Constructs

see also Mark Joyner, Mark Joyner Construct Zero, Spread the Meme Not a notable term, original research, 4 google hits. Thue | talk 21:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tempshill 22:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, original research, and might be copyvio if it wasn't posted by Mark Joyner himself. See also: Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. --Idont Havaname 23:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn original research. JamesBurns 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and self-promotion. DJ Clayworth 13:22, 25 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 transwiki to wikisource and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Resolutions on Iran-Iraq war

Source text, rather than an article about the resolutions and their (non-)effectiveness, which would have encyclopedic merit. Only referenced from two articles. Propose transwiki Content moved to WikiSource, article can be deleted. - choster 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource, and change the reference in Iran-Iraq War.-Poli (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
keep.--Zereshk 22:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. And you don't need to put it up on VfD to transwiki, there's tags for such purposes. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, instructions implied a VfD was required. - choster 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource. JamesBurns 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the material to Wikisource. - choster 15:59, 25 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. Joyous (talk) 22:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Virginia Beach Collision

Fantasy football teams are not notable. [[smoddy]] 21:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tempshill 22:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fantasy football as a sport is not notable. Garrett^Talk 23:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fantasycruft. JamesBurns 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Feydey 09:06, 23 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. CDC (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mudder

This doesn't really belong in a encyclopedia Bobbis 21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,If this doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia, then neither does MUD, GNS Theory or anything that defines anything about roleplaying games. I vote it stays. -- Anonymous

Delete, This doesn't really belong in a encyclopedia Bobbis 21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly, unencyclopedic. Tempshill 22:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any non-silly content could go in MUD anyway seglea 23:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not warrant its own article. Atari2600tim 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, childish unencyclopedic. Robotmannick 02:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redir to MUD. User also created Mudders Eclipsed 17:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, and supported by sockpuppets. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 12:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sock puppetry of Locke more or less proves it should go.

Above vote by 66.161.20.231

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ETAG

What is this? Google turns up nothing related to extraterrestrials called "ETAG". Nightwatch 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax/unverifiable. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeep

Eeeep is unsourced and non-encyclopecic, and I don't see how it can ever be an encyclopecic article. Delete

Delete, original research. Tempshill 22:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense seglea 23:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eeeep!, what is this doing here? Could never be more than a dicdef. Oh and that's a Delete, just so you know. :) Garrett^Talk 23:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Abalos

Vanity page. Tempshill 22:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:50, 23 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 CDC (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gualen

Not in correct language Hansonc 22:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This ought to be a Speedy. It is a definition of a purported slang word meaning "French kiss", but I've never run across it, although then again I'm not a native speaker of Spanish. If not Speedy, then Delete at any rate. Bill 22:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:50, 23 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 Pimple CDC (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackheads

propose delete or move to wikibooks. Jshadias 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pimple. Pburka 23:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pimple. JamesBurns 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN Xaa 02:38, 29 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. CDC (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows rg

Um, it's, um, just a flash movie game thing. Flash jokes are funny, yes, but not encyclopedic. Garrett^Talk 23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, unencyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is doubtlessly unencyclopediactic, I confess, but so are many other things in Wikipedia (ex. the JibJab article includes blurbs on many of their minor hits in addition to the obviously encyclopediactic "This Land")

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sally jacks

138 Googles eh Sally? She's real, but terribly non-notable. The article is sweet though. :) Garrett^Talk 23:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Sally Jacks. I've done a bit of research and cleaned up the article. I think that her membership in a Eurovision winning group is sufficient notability. Pburka 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our Bucks Fizz (band) doesn't mention her. Allmusic.com shows the members of Bucks Fizz not mentioning any person called Sally Jacks see [27] There are severe verifiability problems that she is a member of Bucks Fizz. If she wasn't, then she doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The h2g2 (hosted by the BBC) indicates that she was a member. Apparently she also fronts a band named New Emotion. Pburka 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Sally Jacks was in the second lineup of Bucks Fizz, not the first. JamesBurns 04:54, 23 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 all. CDC (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clickpink.com, Clickpink, Click pink

Vain adcruftvana. Recommend crushing by elephant or llama. Garrett^Talk 23:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added two more, tempted to speedy them all as adspam flooding. Garrett^Talk 00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Llama's dont crush, they only spit :) JamesBurns 04:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already placed a speedy tag on it before you placed it here. Oh well, delete this page, and the various others. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've just had a talking-to about ad speedying, so, um, no I'm afraid. Garrett^Talk 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I will rm the speedy notice. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity/spam. --DNicholls 02:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, and the site doesn't even exist properly either. ~~~~ 22:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fast!! - The Time Killer

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. CDC (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Miandad and Mahrukh Ibrahim

Was marked for speedy deletion but I moved it here for VFD to get second opinions: The son and daughter-in-law of Pakistani cricket captain Javed Miandad do not seem notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Delete. Miandad is important. His family likely is not. - Lucky 6.9 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, non notables. JamesBurns 04:59, 23 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 merge/redirect. not much to merge, really. CDC (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Hummel

Useless page about a character of The Rock.Maybe some of the content can be moved to the movie´s page.See also Cmdr.Anderson. nomination by Igordebraga (talk · contribs). Please sign all posts with ~~~~. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Igordebraga(I forgot to vote)
Merge what ever is not there into The Rock (movie). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. not much to merge. CDC (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cmdr. Anderson

Useless page about a character of The Rock

Merge whatever isn't mentioned in to The Rock (movie). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete (I forgot to vote...) Igordebraga 22:27, 23 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 already merged to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter CDC (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Macnair

Minor Harry Potter character, merge to List of characters in the Harry Potter books or ome simialr list page, or simply delete DES 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this VFD wasn't listed properly, I am fixing it up. That being said, merge. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Richards

This is a vanity page. This person is not a notable artist, neither locally, regionally or nationally. This stub has been linked to the New Haven listing to gain notoriety and has been unjustly been listed under "notable new haveners." This stub is autobiographical, being posted by the subject of the article. This article is purely used to promote the artist and the movement of "stuckism," which deserves an article.

Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vanity page. Richards is a well-known artist and filmmaker both within the New Haven community, as well as within the East Village underground scene and the London art scene. His work has been shown in different galleries in the US, UK and Europe, including a UK national gallery, the Walker. He's had a film in a major film festival, the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival in 2003. All of this information can be verified easily by Googling his name. It seems to me that this James Burns has some sort of personal issue with Mr. Richards and is dealing with it in this way.

Keep not a vanity page. Adam Malec 11:31 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This guy was featured in a Stuckist show at Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. He's a prominent Stuckist--the term comes from an insult by Tracy Emin, who told her then-boyfriend that he was still "stuck" in figurative work and painting as opposed to her more conceptual work. The boyfriend, Billy Childish, went on to found the art movement. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as per agreement below. Garrett^Talk 01:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Foulstar

Says she's got an internet community, but unless there's some typos I can't find it. Also refers to a male in a wiccen and I thought those were female-only. I assume it's a hoax. Garrett^Talk 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on that, i have known many male Wiccans. However thre seems no evidence of notability for what sounds like a nice person, so Delete if not speedy under WP:CSD A7. DES 00:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. --Idont Havaname 00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure she fit in that which is why I brought it here (that, and "other" reasons). Will keep this in mind for the future. Garrett^Talk 01:21, 23 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 keep. CDC (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wario Land (Virtual Boy)

non-notable game from what the article itself says was an unsuccessful game system. DES 00:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the system may have been unsuccesful, it is notable. As for the game itself, Wario is a notable Nintendo character, and this game could be considered part of the series. It does appear to need some cleanup, however. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nintendocruft. JamesBurns 05:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Cruft' is not a deletion criteria. Sonic Mew | talk to me 11:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't see a good reason for deleting this article. --Cloveious 05:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The game system was not successful, but it was a notable (well-known) failure, including titles like this one. --Mysidia 05:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs some work, but as Wario is a highly notable character, I see no reason to delete it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 11:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Partly notable due to its lack of success. -- Norvy (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a VB game puts it in a pretty freaking select crowd. Almafeta 01:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would you propose to delete the article about the Ford Edsel on the grounds that it was unsuccessful? The commercial failure of both products makes them more notable, not less. --Pagrashtak 23:32, 24 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. CDC (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.player

seems to be one of many mendia player applicacations for Windows. Is this really notable enough to justify an article? DES 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not indicate notability. Gazpacho 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless article can show notability (which might require at least one complete sentence). --Pagrashtak 06:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velveteens

They don't seem to be/have been notable, even an another group with the same name has released 2 albums and is in AMG [28] feydey 23:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why they can't be included. They released two albums (info added to page), played shows as far away from W&M as at least DC. Would it be a fair compromise if I made a page for the other band?

Matter of fact, I'm trying to figure out if that second album (Art of Compromise) was infact the W&M Velveteens or the OH Velveteens. Please don't delete until I've gotten to the bottom of this. Rbeas 24 July 2005

OK PROOF. Art of Compromise was the W&M Group, not the OH group: I followed the above link to the OH group, and found that the AoC album was attributed to them. Read the OH bio here: http://music.channel.aol.com/artist/main.adp?tab=bio&artistid=199715 Now, read the W&M bio here: http://www.scp.org/e-mail/2000/No_024.html

Now, read the album credits on the AoC album here: http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,1132306,00.html

The credits go to members of the W&M band, NOT the OH band. I have also listened to previews of each song at the AllMusic site, and the style matches the Viva album (which I own). Definitely not the "acoustic pop" of the OH group. A further article on the W&M Group: http://www.fcnp.com/issues/0/028/story04.htm Rbeas 24 July 2005

Delete — From what I've read of them, they just appear to be a minor backup band who never had a hit song and played ska: something of a minor musical trend related to reggae. While I enjoy reggae, this band just doesn't appear notable. — RJH 16:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I think that they were a well-known group in their area (tri-state / capital / Williamsburg / etc.) in their time. — --Rbeas 00:29, 25 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.