Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dashboard Effect

edit

Neologism for lucid dreaming sleep paralysis. I couldn't find any relevant google hits. —Cryptic (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did they use the term "dashboard effect" for it? --DavidConrad 03:39, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Transfer Protocol

edit

I'M pretty sure this is a joke. I originally put a speedy tag on this, but I'm going to list it here instead, on the very small chance that there actually is something called BTP!--Shanel 00:12, September 3, 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. JeremyA (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kotl

edit

non-notable. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanel (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn forumcruft. Alexa rank is 3,600,000th or so which is very low for a website around since 2001. They say "first" site; I can't find a subsequent more notable one elsewhere. -Splash 00:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've definitely heard of this clan because I think I remember playing with an KOTL clan member on AOE2 years ago, yet they're not notable on a Wiki-level. UniReb 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—not notable

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  • Delete - Completely unworthy of a Wiki article. 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-An online gaming clan does NOT belong in a self-respecting encyclopedia. --Gpyoung talk 16:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very good article...LOL.
  • Keep - Online video games are as much of a sport as football, soccer, or baseball and therefore are noteworthy in any respectable encyclopedia. The article is informative in the respect of historical accuracy of an online sporting team.
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Catzrthecoolest 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forumcruft. Nandesuka 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as we are not a web guide. The picture needs to go, too. Joyous (talk) 22:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly familiar with the correct way to go about this, but I just recently found this article, and am ashamed and embarassed by it. I am KOTL_AdMiRaL and I obviously take my online image WAY too seriously). I'm the founder of the clan, and a full-time college student in Virginia. This is not the type of site for gaming clans, and this article should be deleted. How do I go about this? Thanks.
    • Don't worry, given the debate above it will deleted in due course. These debates usually last about 5 days, after which an admin will come along and delete it. -Splash 14:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah...quite a debate going on here.
  • My name is LeGenD Sultan and I am offended by this article. Please remove it before I make a wiki arrest on KOTL_AdMiRaL.
  • Delete - We've seen the idiotic responses (see LeGeNd Sultan's remark) this article has generated, they're a non-notable clan, its patent nonsense, and also violates "What Wikipedia is Not" policy.--Knucmo2 00:30, 9 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tythreck

edit

Vanity page JLaTondre 00:31, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomaso Mitzek

edit

Possible Hoax. No googles on this name. I put a verify tag on the talkm page yesterday. User:Budgiekiller did further checking (see talk:Thomaso Mitzek) and ran into more unverifiable material. This should either be verified or deleted. RJFJR 00:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as User:RJFJR alludes to, not one element of the entry is verifiable. Budgiekiller 07:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Rhyddfrydol 09:20, 3 September (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, therefore keep moink 07:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R.a.G.e

edit

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable" is a justification; "NN" is an common abbrev. Okay, nom text was ultra-terse, but that's not a reason to keep the article. --A D Monroe III 19:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it to be a reason to vote against the nomination, though. If ComCat were to relist it with proper justification I wouldn't vote against it on that basis. Bryan 05:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A defunct e-zine which was active only for three years. Not notable, delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this encyclopedia is not made from trees Yuckfoo 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article openly admits to being short lived and having a small following: non-notable, delete. -Splash 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, as a sidebar, the author included this text at the bottom of the article which I feel is very anti-wiki- "This article has not been finished. Any additional information regarding R.a.G.e, including any origional articles are welcomed." Any comments? I have removed it for the time being. --Gpyoung talk 16:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have tagged it unreferenced. Not citing sources is not a sufficient cause for deletion; I often vote to delete unreferenced things because I worry they are hoaxes, but here I find no cause to think it's a hoax. Sdedeo 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 19:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An e-zine from 1992 is definitely notable. But this article definitely needs sources. Sdedeo 21:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
    • Delete, the contention that something is notable because it was on the Internet 13 years ago is specious. Please provide some documentation that its very existence = notability. Zoe 22:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hi Zoe. Thirteen years ago the internet was small, restricted mainly to official academic and government users and nothing like it is today. For the same reason that early artifacts of print culture are important, e-zines from the early era of the internet are too. I hope this helps. Sdedeo 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So far I've only been able to find one reference from an old BBS called "NATTNAPPRAREN". By the time this zine was being published I had far removed myself from the HP scene, but Sdedeo makes a very convincing argument why this should be kept. History is important and bytes are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. I put the tag "unsourced" on the article, and someone very quickly and helpfully put a link to the first issue of the e-zine. I checked it out, and the release date for rage turns out to be 1995. Furthermore, I was unable to find any later issues, and google (including google USENET) was unable to find anything about "Ruthless Anarchists Getting Even". IMO, 1995 is getting a bit late to be inherently notable. However, my residual affection for the subject matter means I cannot bring myself to vote as I should. Sdedeo 22:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wikipedia is not paper, we dont have drive space constraints and if we'll keep made up pokemon characters, write 600+ words on a character mention only in passing in a harry potter novel, I see no reason this cant be kept. early h/p/a/v scene mags and such tended to be quite underground and as such wouldnt necessarily be spread all over the internet. 1995 makes this a post BBS cusp zine, may not be all over the net due to lack of spreading? I'm interested enough to want to know more.  ALKIVAR™  23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A.D. Monroe III Nandesuka 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting historical article. Crypticfirefly 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hacker history is notable. A single-issue ezine is not. / Peter Isotalo 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Roodog2k (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, but add the information to list of zines. --Jacqui M Schedler 05:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not provide/establish significance of subject (ie: was it published / mentioned in any notable magazine OR what impact does it have on other ezine OR any ezine derived from R.a.G.e). Historical article is not sufficient unless it provides insight as to why it is interesting. --Hurricane111 05:54, 10 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Del Gado

edit

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TCS Victory

edit

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totay

edit

NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mahon's Englishcut.com

edit

NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. JeremyA (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicol paone

edit

NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs Legends Board

edit

Looks fairly crufty. Karmafist 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--LosGunD 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)written by 68.78.101.30, user's only edit. Karmafist 23:45, 3 September 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dziga Vertov Group

edit

I kept placing speedy on this russian_english/spam nonsense but it kept getting vandalized by anominus users out of the speedy Its still Spam/Nonsense should be speedy and I hope this Dont get vandalized niether Speedy--Aranda56 01:09, 3 September 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, no consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poche

edit

Non Notable It is a normal beach and i dont really think it should merged with San Clemente California nither cause it is so non-notable and the article also said it wasnt even popular and it had been wating to be merged since July Delete not even merge --Aranda56 01:26, 3 September 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 --Tony SidawayTalk 09:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Booth

edit

Keep. This is not a vanity page; my first film was not self-released, it was distributed through Final Cut Films (a company I happen to own, but nonetheless it is a proper production/distribution company). I own the intellectual copyright to the biography and posted it on IMDb as well as Wikipedia. If you like, I could amend the biography so it's different from the one on IMDb. More information on Final Cut Films' website, [3], and IMDb. Richardbooth

No evidence of notability. Request for evidence of notability had no response except the removal of the potentialvanity template. There are 20,000 Google results but as far as I can tell, none of the first 60 results refer to this person. Joe D (t) 01:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Edited to add: Page was written by Richardbooth (talk · contribs).[reply]
It's a copy of his bio on imdb, both of which were probably submitted by the same person, but imdb claims copyright on everything on their pages, so we can't have it here. I have listed it on copyright problems as appropriate. Zoe 22:16, September 3, 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. All delete votes were hedged somewhat on the understanding of non-notability, and Hurricane111's excellent research establishes that the subject is marginably notable. If there is a dispute on this it should be the subject of AfD on the article resulting from this discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francys Johnson

edit

possible vanity - perhaps should be userfied. --WCFrancis 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure he's notable; delete unless more notability is provided/clarified. Nowhere to userfy to, as the only contributor is an anon. Meelar (talk) 01:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, there is no assertion of notability here (stating a profession doesn't count), so this is an A7 speedy. His page at the Uni [4] is blank, so he almost certainly fails the WP:PROF test and would fail the WP:PRIEST test if we had one. -Splash 17:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His website should be here instead. Notability is established by being chair of a conference discussion on National Conference on Black Studies [5]. Also, subject has served in the executive board (as regional director) on NBLSA (National Black Law Student Association) [6]. However, article should be rewritten for NPOV. --Hurricane111 06:23, 10 September 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 with a suggestion to merge. -- Joolz 20:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of New Castle, Indiana

edit

List of Mayors in a town of less than 20,000 people.Delete--Aranda56 02:20, 3 September 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. No consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brigance

edit

Oooo...tricky! Albert Brigance is probably non-notable in terms of an encyclopaedic entry, although it migh be interesting. The website link in this article is to a site selling the 'Brigance System', which makes it vfd advertising. Eddie.willers 02:27, 3 September 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 21:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skyseifera

edit

vanity. WCFrancis 02:34, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Croke

edit

A non-notable Australian undergrad who wants to be Prime Minister some day. A borderline speedy candidate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Have suggested a redirect to the new article at conclusion of the CV process.-Splash 20:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaneur

edit

dicdef ♥purplefeltangel 03:11, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funnybef

edit

Does not come close to WP:MUSIC: "they recorded two demo tapes", "the band never was signed to a record deal and did not open for any major musical acts", "there was a lack of professional recognition", "it was college that would ultimately dissolve the band". Delete DavidConrad 03:25, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French tattoo

edit

Yet another non-notable/made up article about a sex act. I blame the internet for all this. 2 google hits, neither relevant. Meelar (talk) 03:27, September 3, 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble burning

edit

Vanity game activity. Not encyclopedia material. Verifiability is in question. --WCFrancis 03:32, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asquantabism

edit

Being a hoax isn't a valid criterion for "speedy delete", which is why this is here. DS 03:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete Has this has been erroneously place in the deletion category? -- SPBrown 08:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC) This vote actually by User:82.195.99.23. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC) *Don't Delete I don't know but it's a very interesting theory --K_Paul 08:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC) This vote actually by User:82.195.99.23. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is no hoax man

But I don't think this should be deleted - it's still a worthy entry.

This unsigned entry from creator User:82.195.99.23 continues to state he wants article to remain with no verification of the shifting claims in the article. Neither Andrew Peach nor book named in early version were found on Amazon. As for Google: "Your search - Asquantabism - did not match any documents." --WCFrancis 17:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. Unless you provide some evidence that some philosopher actually proposed this theory (as opposed to you just making it up), I am going to maintain that it is a hoax/patent nonsense (which Google is unable to find) and a possible BJAODN candidate. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

err.(ahem)....just because you don't understand it doesn't make it nonsense.

Yet another unsigned comment from User:82.195.99.23 with no attempt to provide verification. Where is any evidence that this is not something you made up?--WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's real easy to sign and date your comments/edits. Just type four tildes, "~~~~--", like this: WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

test 82.195.99.23 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine. delete it 82.195.99.23 00:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up so easily. I have read about asquantabism before. :-) 195.96.144.45 00:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I can't argue cos they are effectively right... I read "Asquantabism for Dogs" and touched upon it briefly as a philo module at Uni, but i can't find it on Amazon nor Google anywhere... 82.195.99.23 03:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 21:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe guillotin

edit

And the hoaxes just keep coming. Again, nicely detailed, and again, not one goddamn shred of evidence, and again, so full of telltale flaws that it's not even funny. DS 03:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's actually a copyvio from [8] but with the name "Francois Roulin" changed to "Joe Guillotin", which is weird because the page it rips off appears to be written by a J. Guillotin. At the bottom of that page it says "© 2003 Guillotine (All rights reserved)". Oh, and on the AfD template it says "do not blank this page", and guess what I just did? So sue me. But at least it gave me the opportunity to google "unusually large and misshapen genitalia". Delete --DavidConrad 04:07, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Chand

edit

This person is not notable at all. Nothing links here. He started it as a vanity page. This should be a no-brainer. MrVoluntarist 03:53, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carl DeSouza

edit

Im not sure if this is A7 but still not notable vanity Strong Delete--Aranda56 04:05, 3 September 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 Jpgordon. -Splash 21:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto's Mexican Food

edit

Not notable, Ad ,And the worst type of it a negative ad,Nasty AlsoStrong Delete --Aranda56 04:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 21:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incendiary Pig

edit

Delete As far as I can tell, this is a joke article (note the smiley in the comment of the first history entry). The only reference I have been able to find to them is as a unit type in the computer game Rome: Total War. Caerwine 04:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, there really was such a thing. As memory serves, it was used by the Mongols once, at least, along with incendiary cats (sad to say). The Mongols started a siege of a city, and demanded all the pigs and cats from the city. The city folk complied in hopes of getting the Mongols to leave. Instead, the Mongols tarred and set fire to the pigs as described, and tied burning material to the cats' tails. The poor panicked animals ran for home, and the city was burned down. I'd put this all in the article, but I don't have a reference to cite. Let's keep the article and see if someone comes up with something. --A D Monroe III 19:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources provided, in which case keep. Sdedeo 21:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I once worked on a computer system for the Saudi Arabian Ministry of the Interior (their state police). One of the programs involved keeping track of a list of things which the Saudis considered crimes. I noticed a listing for "arson using an animal". I asked one of the Saudis working with us what this meant, and he said that it's a common crime in Saudi Arabia to tie a donkey to a cart, load the cart up with hay, set fire to the hay, and whip the donkey into your neighbor's fields. (Another crime was "whitearm", but I never did get an explanation for what that meant.) Zoe 22:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure there is some off-hand reference to this in some old chronicle, but only when that reference has been found should it be included. In Military history of the Roman Empire, where it belongs. / Peter Isotalo 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Well, it is in a video game [9]. Roodog2k (talk) 20:35, 7 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krunq

edit

Likely Hoax only 64 results for Krunq in Google and most are unrelated.Im supriced it went More a month without being at least nominated for deletion. Strong Delete --Aranda56 04:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe a hoax. but certainly a dictdef. Karol 08:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because Crunk, also spelled Krunk, means crazy & drunk. So it is unlikely that an identical word means sober. -- Reinyday, 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Remarkably, it has 44 Google hits. These appear to be related to someone with that surname, however. Since WP:ISNOT a genealogy any more than it is a dictionary, it can be deleted on either or both counts. -Splash 17:16, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loser rock

edit

This article was created months ago, and no one has found it worthy of expanding. I personally have never heard of 'Loser rock' and dont beleive that this stub can be expanded significantly.Steve 04:55, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jark Family

edit

Delete This article had for over two months a notice asking anyone to explain why the Jarks are notable, no one has. Caerwine 05:01, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Mark Gempeler

edit

Not notable Just A Normal judge who precided over a Not So Big trial Delete--Aranda56 05:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Interesting. Are all judges de facto notable? I think probably not unless they have presided over a particularly notable case(s) or done something that otherwise establishes their notability. The case would have to be on the way to the O.J. Simpson scale I think. Not knowing my sport very well, and Google not offering anything obvious regarding the importance of the trial, I'll notvote delete-with-persuadability. -Splash 17:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable judge. Judges are no more notable inherently than doctors or priests. -- BD2412 talk 20:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Next: college professors. -- Kjkolb 06:10, September 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 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Hill

edit

Tagged for speedy, but it's not a candidate. No vote. Flowerparty 05:10, 3 September 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. — JIP | Talk 10:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jibble

edit

Likely Hoax and if its not Wikipedia is not a place for people to put slang terms Delete --Aranda56 05:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete an article about a word which confesses to the word have no meaning (or, more accurately, having all meanings)! WINAD and we don't do neologisms either. -Splash 17:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. Google turns out many hits on the word Jibble - thus it is highly probable that Jibble is an interesting word to define. However, the definition of a word is more in the area of dictionary then encyclopedia. --Hurricane111 06:28, 10 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D. R. Rockwell

edit

Despite the article title, this is about a novel written by Rockwell. It reads like a book review or press release, and a Google test finds all of 2 hits for "The Adventures of Five City Girls". Clearly non-notable, apart from any other considerations. Eric119 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advert and/or vanity. Marskell 11:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither book nor author appears to be in Amazon.com. NN, vanity. MCB 19:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Could somebody explain to me why, all of a sudden, we're getting all of these articles by newbies with pre-created headers for External links, etc.? Is somebody following a boilerplate for article creation that I don't know about? Zoe 22:29, September 3, 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. -Splash 21:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Power

edit

vanity. Not important for Wikipedia. Hurricane111 05:29, 3 September 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Dublin Crew

edit

Vanity/non-notable Hurricane111 05:38, 3 September 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 now a redirect. -- RHaworth 10:12:31, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Yellow dog Updater

edit

I created this document without noticing already one exists Yellow Dog Updater Modified robmv 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles created in error may be marked for speedy deletion by the original creator as long as no other editors have contributed to them. This will save you the time of sending it to Articles for Deletion! Thatdog 06:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact you should not even have marked it for speedy - just made a redirect. -- RHaworth 10:12:31, 2005-09-03 (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. JeremyA (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Nomura

edit

An interesting and entertaining page, but about a nonentity. I did a speedy, but creator objects, so AfD. jimfbleak 06:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is this page any less notable than "List of Star Trek Enterprise Episodes" or "Elvish Languages"? At least Mr. Nomura is a real person!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. JeremyA (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No sex just dancing

edit

Vanity/Non-notable. Come up empty in goggle and AllMusic search Hurricane111 06:11, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IT Conversations

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not going to userfy despite the comments, since the page has been blanked. That was by an anon IP, who is unlikely to have come across the page randomly: it was probably the article's author. If they want it back, they can let me know. -Splash 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BrianandTammy.com

edit

Personal webpage advertisement. Should be moved to user land instead. Hurricane111 06:39, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Misc. Overview

edit

Posting VfD from Aug 11. The nomination page has gone missing, perhaps it was never created? Not useful collection of unrelated chess position images, each of which is already in Category:Chess unused images. Quale 07:20, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepless Dream

edit

Smells like band vanity. No allmusic entry; I couldn't find any relevant google hits; Alexa rank for their site (a .net) is 4,845,428. —Cryptic (talk) 07:53, 3 September 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 to Walking like an Egyptian. -Splash 21:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tutting

edit

I myself wikified the page a bit, but doubt this is widely known as tutting, since I can't find any info anywhere. Karol 08:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - As the The Bangles said in Walk Like an Egyptian "they do the sand dance don't you know". But seriously, I don't see any use of the word "tutting" in Google, that's related to dance. --rob 11:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • See "tutting" in this guide to dance. It's real terminology for this form of movement, but the people who employ it apparently haven't read our article on walking like an Egyptian, otherwise they'd know that this particular style of dancing dates from at least the 1930s, and is not a mere 15 years old as this article implies. We should assist such people in learning the somewhat longer history of this dance form with a Merge (although there is almost nothing here that isn't already in the better article). Uncle G 20:12:27, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks for this as I wouldn't have thought about walking like an Egyptian :) One thing makes the tutting page different - the connection to King Tut! Is this relevant at all? If not, then maybe a simple redirection will work? Karol 20:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • No it isn't, because that doesn't actually make "tutting" different at all. Follow King Tut to see what it redirects to, and then read walking like an Egyptian again. Uncle G 21:22:12, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
        • You're right. Karol 07:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and re-direct to walking like an Egyptian per Uncle G. --rob 07:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tutting is a dance-style--a subset of popping, which is a west coast "funk style"--that began to be referred to as such in the 1980s. Here is a google reference: http://www.google.com/search?hs=fZd&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=tutting+wiggles&btnG=Search Your research is clearly very lacking in this area, I recommend you stop messing with it.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadien Eillert

edit

Page reads "Bernadien Eillert is the girlfriend of Arjen Robben. He is an Dutch footballplayer."; no assertion of independent notability. --Alan Au 09:06, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Softpress Freeway

edit

Commercial advert for Non notable product. jmd 09:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE BOTH. -Splash 21:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flashing Red Man and Alfred Lam

edit

Band vanity, consisting mostly of unverifiable, forward-looking statements. --MarkSweep✍ 09:43, 3 September 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 -- Joolz 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veritee ® Wellness

edit

Advertisement. This is an exact copy of Veritee, which I've also put on AFD. Mysid (talk) 09:50, September 3, 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. -Splash 21:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth shape debate

edit

Delete. Flat Earth absolutely has this covered. There is no debate and we shouldn't suggest there is. This was a good faith start-up but really it comes very close to nonsense. The arguments for a round Earth are laughably sparse here. No Eratosthenes, no Magellan, no mention of ships on the horizon, constellations changing or other intuitive tests. Marskell 09:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the constellations are mentioned, Megellan didn't prove the earth is round (his path is possible on the flat earth model) and the tests are mentioned. If you want more detail, add it. Just for the record, I don't believe in a flat earth, but your arguments in no way justify purging the page, but rather at most merging. MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather reassuring to know that you don't believe in a flat earth, but perhaps non-belief is the problem. Hypothetically, perhaps a case could be made for a flat-earth - it is certainly a great test case for logic and epistomology. But there is no 'debate'. Who is actually debating this? Where? With whom? --Doc (?) 17:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for recognizing the epistemological problems involved in ruling out a flat earth. Many people say "obviously it's false. Anyone can just build a rocket ship and see." (And again, no, I don't think flat-earthers are right.) To answer your questions in the order they were asked, 1) members of the Flat Earth Society and various fundamentalist Christians; 2) on various internet forums; 3) pretty much anyone else, especially creationists.
  • Wow, this gave me a whole new perspective - I like the bit about the 'moon rock' conspiracy. Can I add something I learned on my alien abduction that rather supports this theory? No? Well, then delete --Doc (?) 10:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for merging, not deleting. MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where should people learn about the arguments flat-earthers use? MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Maybe I should explain somewhere why Magellan's voyage doesn't prove a round earth. Oh wait, I already did. Thanks for reading the full page before voting. MrVoluntarist 17:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I didn't read it fully. I can't see it changing my vote, though... you know, it being mentioned twice on this page suggests that it might, just might be classed as "an argument used in the debate". (How exactly would sailing around the earth be explicable by flatness, but walking around wouldn't, anyhow?). And "for #3" is just unbelievably silly. Yes, we all claim the Earth is round because we want to disprove Scripture. Shimgray 17:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Greeks had it nailed before Scripture was even written. Marskell 18:30, 5 September 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 -- Joolz 20:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cory Elementary School

edit

Elementary school; importance not established. TimPope 10:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony seemed to be arguing that I shouldn't care about articles if they are not on topics of interest to me, because if they don't interest me I'll never see them and therefore they don't affect me. I'm saying, well, copyvios and inaccurate articles and POV and hoaxes do affect me even if they are on topics on which I would never consult WIkipedia. Therefore, I say, yes, I do have some interest in the quality of Wikipedia as a whole.
Now, let's take this to the next step. Should really low-quality articles ever be deleted, simply because they are of low quality? This is tough, because we all recognize that Wikipedia articles are improved over time. But not at the same rate. There's no harm in a low-quality article about Beethoven, or Buddy Holly, or Wisconsin, because a lot of people know something about these topics and they will get improved quickly. On the other hand, very few people know much about Heathcote Elementary School. If the first person to write about it write a good-quality stub, good. If not, it may be months or years before anybody gets around to writing one—and it will likely be an independent event, i.e. the new article will probably not have "grown" from the old one.
Let's suppose that, for some reason, there is a class of topic that is attracting the contribution of large numbers of low-quality articles. If they are being contributed faster than they are being improved, yes, that's a problem.
There are no absolutes here. School articles are less of a problem than they used to be, because there are more serious, experienced editors working on them than there used to be.
People can't believe the Wikipedia process actually works. Well, it does work—but not automatically and not without conditions. One of the conditions is that there really be "many eyes." The problem with "non-notable" topics is that they attract few eyes.
At some point, articles are deletable if they are about something that is too non-notable. As you'd expect, not everyone draws the line at the same place. And, as you'd expect, at the borderline, there is great contention. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I think I can respond to that. I think the point is precisely this: that school articles are generally of such high quality, or can be made so, that deletion of a school article is actually quite a rare and surprising event. For nearly 276 school article deletion nominations, we've only had 37 school article deletions--less than 15% of those listed.
    • So is the problem that most school stubs created are rubbish? Well no, I don't think that claim can be defended either. Here is a log I have just created linking to every school article created on Wikipedia in the past three or four days: Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New. There are some duds in there, but I'd happily take on most of them and pilot them through a AfD with a very high confidence of keeping the result.
    • Okay, is the problem that most school stubs aren't being improved, and there are too few eyes? I think one has to adopt a very blinkered approach to article production to support this hypothesis. Firstly, I think it's highly likely that Wikipedia or some successor project is likely to maintain this knowledge base in some publicly editable form for many decades. Secondly, only articles that people want to edit ever get created. There is no evidence that some mechanical script, like the one that created all those articles about tiny blips on the US census map, is at work here.
    • But finally I just don't buy the thesis. Schools are public institutions, so there is plenty of verifiable information about them. There is no reason to support the hypothesis that lack of eyes will be a problem. Any reasonably well educated, reasonably bright person can look at any school article and determine whether the statements in the article are adequately sourced and neutral. There is no problem with school articles that cannot be solved by the normal process of editing. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three questions. 1) Is it possible that there could be a class of article that attracts a rate of creation of articles of low quality and has a very low rate of article review and improvement—so that, at any given time, the average article quality was very low? 2) Would such a hypothetical class of article be a problem for Wikipedia? 3) Are school articles an instance of such a class? Obviously your answer to #3 is "no." But what about 1 and 2? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't buy 1 and 2, really. I think it's an interesting hypothesis but I don't find a lot of articles that are likely to be a problem for Wikipedia. A low rate of improvement is absolutely of no concern here; there is no deadline. I've got some concrete examples, too. Of the sixteen school articles created since midnight, UTC, I'd say three or four need cleanup, but the others are already pretty good stubs. Not bad going for their first day. Older schools get more edits and I think they tend to fare better at AfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is not toilet paper, either. --Carnildo 07:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney talk 10:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with an article called "Elementary schools in California" or "California elementary schools" which would list the schools and mention any notable information concerning specific ones. That way the knowledge is included in Wikipedia but in the most compact, kilobit-economical way. --wayland 11:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a school. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a non-notable elementary school. / Peter Isotalo 19:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It accepts 430 students each year and has had its picture taken. 129.215.194.205 19:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Pilatus 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN elementary school. Keep all secondary schools Roodog2k (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somehow K-2 seems to be a pushing the limits a bit. Vegaswikian 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools don't need to be notable any more than small towns, population 10. Unfocused 05:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely nn school. Dottore So 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools. --Idont Havaname 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant to education in San Jose, California; especially important for its Hispanic community. Nice picture too. --Vsion 23:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the grass is green today... so keep.  ALKIVAR™  05:26, 11 September 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 --Aranda56 06:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Harmonicats

edit

It's just a huge list of songs, with no formatting. Possibly self-promotion 83.70.40.193 10:10, 3 September 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 but move to non-nude pornography. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Nude Pornography

edit

Even if article is improved, it would just be subset of pornography. It seems to have been created as an excuse to toss in an external link, since removed. rob 10:30, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Hanrahan

edit

Delete. NN. I don't know if there is a consensus on this but I don't think news anchors make the cut unless they have an obvious national profile or were involved in a notable way in some event. Marskell 11:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, well-known entertainment figure with an audience far more than 5,000 people, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5000 test is for authors, editors and photographers (i.e., people producing original work). He is none of these. The (admittedly vague) line dealing with this entry is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers" and, again, I don't think a local news anchor qualifies. Marskell 12:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A news anchor does "perform" in a sense. Also, according to entry this guy is a CBS anchor for Miami-- news anchor for a major network in a city of some 375,000 people. I'd be willing to guess that his name is mentioned in CBS' advertising and the local gossip columnists report when he goes out to dinner. Crypticfirefly
  • Delete. Non-notable, of local regional interest only. Local TV news anchors change jobs frequently are and almost always completely interchangeable with no essential differences to distinguish any of them. Generally of no encyclopedic interest until they get jobs with national networks and reach beyond regional audiences. Quale 21:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major market anchors are notable to far more than 5,000 people, as Kappa noted. And in my experience, major market evening news anchors do not change frequently and are heavily promoted by their stations. -- DS1953 22:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:Bio. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Crypticfirefly. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:00, 8 September 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. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Eighth Sea

edit

Non-notable bandity, Google test returns 451 hits, none relating to the band. [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 11:36, 3 September 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 -- Joolz 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chase (school)

edit

A school-stub that lists nothing but the place the school serves. No attempt made to establish notability Pilatus 11:52, 3 September 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 -- Joolz 20:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ByeByeEstateAgents

edit

Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 11:59, September 3, 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. -Splash 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful abortion

edit

User 24.17.46.62 (talk · contribs) added the {{vfd}} tag to this article earlier today. I'm just completing the nomination, so no vote. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, I'll vote keep in light of the debate below. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 11:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If the term can be referenced with more than just one source I do think its notable. Marskell 13:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a neologism in a single journal article isn't notable. Dunc|☺ 14:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism unencylopedic and uninformative.--Tznkai 15:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google indicates this appears to have been the topic of court case in Georgia, US and may have caused a bit of a stir. I'll leave it to legal-eagles and locals to determine whether this was just a media flap in a locality or a case of some significance. If kept, sourced and cleaned, it might be best off with a merge to abortion. -Splash 18:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; a legal term of definite interest and at least some currency. More sources, as always, are better. Sdedeo 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It seems to be a legal term in the state of Texas. See http://www.tcdla.com/leg/docs/78th_review.pdf - note it's a .pdf file. Zoe 22:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the counterpart to wrongful birth. There have been numerous abortions due to equivocal triple test results that lead to the termination of a healthy foetus. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete. If it is a legal term, then an entry/re-direct for such a term would indeed be appropiate and welcome. However, as this page is now, it is a highly POV entry, based on one, from what I understand, not very well-known source with an uncommon definition/interpretation of the term. I'll try to go over it later to see if there is something salvagable, but I think that I know too little on the subject and term to produce anything worth keeping. --kissekatt 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to be a legal term, so this article must be expanded, cited, ect...Voice of All(MTG) 07:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is indeed a legal concept. The mirror image of wrongful birth/wrongful life. There are only few notable academic sources because the legal discussion is relatively new. But it is not merely a neologism. Please do not let laymen determine the worth of professional terms. 132.74.99.84 13:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Add some references and links to other articles. This is a Community Portal Wikify article. --Banana04131 18:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've really re-written the article. I think this is a default to keep but we'll need an admin. --Banana04131 20:17, 11 September 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. -Splash 21:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guitargeek.com

edit

Spam for a site with an Alexa rank of 109,619. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper balslev

edit

Okay, this one is tricky. Balslev is the founder of CasaSwap.com, which I'm not sure is notable enough for a Wiki article. If his company is, he is; if it's not, he's not. I think it was Lucullan who said that that he'd rather have people ask "why isn't there a statue of him?" instead of "why is there a statue of him?" Alexa rankings for CasaSwap aren't terribly impressive, but Google hits for "casaswap" minus "site:casaswap.com" make me wonder if I'm missing something. Anyone? (and of course, I should have moved it to Balslev first, but oh well)DS 14:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Abdul Qadeer Khan has already been applied. -Splash 21:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Kahn

edit

is the same as Abdul Qadeer Khan Aleichem 08:31, 10 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 handled as copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 15:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Motadinyane

edit

VfD tag added by User:Tejastheory but VfD not completed; adding it now. keep. JYolkowski // talk 14:17, 3 September 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 -- Joolz 20:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant-abulous

edit

obscure neologism NeilN 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to be a growing term, and tracked from another Wiki entry --GLH 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)GLH[reply]

  • Comment Google returns 13 hits for the term. Still obscure. --NeilN 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google returned 13 hits, and found another 100+ on the two sources listed and other anime-based chats. --Zyber
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Splash 21:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redline (band)

edit

if $NotableBandA breaks up, and $NotableBandB breaks up, and members from both groups join together to form $NewBand, but $NewBand falls apart before ever producing an album, is $NewBand notable? DS 14:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:MUSIC, $NewBand is notable if it "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". In this case, I've never heard of $NotableBandA (The Watchmen) (thus calling into question whether it's extremely notable), and $NotableBandB (Headstones) doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Merge and redirect as appropriate. --Metropolitan90 15:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC) or $NotableBandB (The Headstones) either. Abstain due to new information from Pburka. --Metropolitan90 01:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure they do. It's at The Headstones, and both previous bands are extremely notable in Canadian alt-rock. Redline seems to get a reasonable number of google hits, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and vote weak keep, or merge and redirect. Not quite sure where to merge to, though. Pburka 15:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • When reading bios on band members, do they leave the failed band attempts out? Of course not. (It's something else again if the person was never in a notable band to begin with.) Weak Keep based on this philosophy and WP:MUSIC. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:10, 8 September 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. Although a copyvio, that process was never begum whilst this one has now ended so this time AfD takes precedence. -Splash 21:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Grika

edit

Vanity page - main author is the guy's son, the text coming straight from the Herb Grika website he runs. Excessive CV anyway for someone not terribly notable - only about 100 Google hits for "Herb Grika". Tearlach 14:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Herb Grika website. Dlyons493 18:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guy seems to be not entirely unimportant. At the same time the article reads very much like a CV rather than an encylopedia article. Unless it gets changed radically I would say it's a vanity page and vote for it to be deleted. Jezze 20:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure vanity, I'll put my own CV up later if this stays... Budgiekiller 12:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for multiple reasons already listed above, all valid. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:10, 8 September 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 -- Joolz 20:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goths In Sunshine

edit

And the hoaxes just keep on coming. Dionne Warwick and John Lydon together? I don't think so. Just to check, though, I googled for warwick + lydon + "goths in sunshine" and got absolutely 0 hits. DS 14:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 21:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holosophic Society

edit

reads like an ad NeilN 14:49, 3 September 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. -Splash 21:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ cuntfinger

edit

Stunningly, not a hoax (and believe me, this was a bitch to google for), but he's only got one genuine mention on Google, which leads me to wonder if he's truly as notable as the article claims. Any Ukrainians out there who can say one way or the other? DS 15:05, 3 September 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 to Hitler in popular culture. -Splash 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler (South Park)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agothaya Server

edit

non notable Raistlin 19:00, 22 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. -Splash 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Positive

edit

Band vanity. Coffee 08:11, 12 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, so keep. Whilst I intensely dislike the partitioning of votes, having looked at the contribs for the registered users in that section, they are all discounted as are the redlinked users in the other section again, after examining their contribs. Given the apparent bad-faith of the nominator, and the fact that after discounting the raw numerology is just below 2/3 (I get 6d-4k), this is a no consensus. -Splash 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Government Simulation

edit
Despite the large number of votes, this never appears to have been added to a main VfD page, so listing now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable Game, Advertisement Frank 00:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

(Please note: The nominator contributed only to the VFD debate over US Government Simulator, his user page, and this VFD.)

Votes from registered users

edit
  • Keep Formatting and information can be fixed over time. AGS is the most significant forum-based American political simulation on the Internet and deserves its place on Wikipedia. USGovSim -- imho -- is also significant enough and I think anybody who wants a war over something this stupid should (personal attack removed) stop wasting oxygen. Incidentally, here's the official AGS position on the matter, FWIW -- http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=ags&showtopic=58721jj_frap
  • Keep. While the community seems rather small, it is growing at a good pace, I fully agree with.erm..whoever made " It's an informative article about an informative game " etc etc. - Mrdie
  • Speedy Keep and censure the users from usgovism trying to abuse WikiPedia to sort out their own petty rivalries. WikiPedia is under no obligation to be "fair", and especially not to be "balanced". One game/site/whatever being notable does not automagically make its competitors notable. WikiPedia is not a venue for advertising. Entries document existing notable whatsits, they don't make them notable through advertisement. To say that "if x gets an article, you're being unfair to y" displays a stunning ignorance of WikiPedia and its aims, and to throw a tantrum as y'all have done shows not just ignorance but immaturity too. --fuddlemark 17:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic article about an online political forum simulating aspects of government, not just an advert for an online game as stated above. Alf 23:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this is notable and if a more authoritative nomination were made, I would vote to delete. This nomination is clearly bad faith, however, and for that the usgovsim people should be permanently censured and sent to their rooms for throwing a pathetic and childish tantrum. Dottore So 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The history of AGS ought to be allowed on Wiki. Govsims are an expanding form of online gameplay and sims such as AGS, USGovsim, USSS, and TWS are just the beginning. And if there is any question about who I am or why I'm calling for a Speedy Keep, I am *THE* Admin of USGovsim. A couple overzealous players may be out to harm AGS (and have been rightly ostracized for their spamming) but I have found AGS to be a very reputable game worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and strongly believe that any discussion about deletion is in bad taste. thrasherssyn3443 11:39 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 06:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment AGS is probably the largest government simulation on the net and as far as government simulations go, it is probably the most important one out there right now. It has made significant contributions and advances as far as Sims go and it has influenced several other government sims. I'm not voting on this one way or the other. If people want to vote it off because it's non-notable, then I don't have much of a problem with that even if I think they are incorrect in their assessment. What irritates me, however, is that the attempt to delete was initiated by (apparently) an anonymous source, who hasn't contributed to Wikipedia at all other than for this article and the government simulation article. It leads me to believe that this is all nothing more than an attempt to carry out a grudge. I won't really shed any tears if this article is deleted, though. It seems it's more trouble than its worth with all the trolls coming in. But I will say I strongly disagree with Carnadillo. His standards are a bit absurd. It's not clear how ANY simulation could maintain 50,000 members. That doesn't mean that all net simulations are not notable. Government sims with over 200 members are considered very large by their relative standards and within the simming community, a Sim with 200-500 members would be very well known. I would say notable Sims of the past include NGS2, AOL Senate Sim, and Senate Sim. Jakob Huneycutt 12:30, 08 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its nice to have a page on it.

Votes from IP addresses, very new users, and unsigned votes

edit
  • DELETE If USG is up for deletion, than so should AGS. Fair's fair after-all. We want to keep wikipedia fair and balanced, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.131.105 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 August 2005
  • Delete If USGovSim is up for deletion and is considered a "Non-Notable Game", AGS should certainly be deleted with it. Either delete both or keep both.Eric3446
  • Delete It's poorly formatted and uninformative.msrpotus
  • Keep. Members of another, smaller simulation are trying to start a flame war. Several of these individuals have discussed the plan here. This is a serious, though sadly typical, breach of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.196.120 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 August 2005
  • Keep. This is an immature attempt by several members of a smaller simulation trying to 'declare war' on AGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobschmidt (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 August 2005
  • Keep. It's an informative article about an informative game. Regardless of what's going on at any other sites, AGS is now a community, and deserves to be defined as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.93.177 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 18 August 2005
  • DELETE: Non notable site. This is just a glorified ad. Furthermore, AGS already is mentioned in "government simulation", which is appropriate. It deserves a mention as a kind of simulation, but does not warrant a full page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.181.35 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 August 2005
  • Keep. While 500 members may not meet the vaunted "Carnildo Standard", the number is significant in that it is arguably the largest online government sim communities of all those mentioned. It is short-sighted and asinine to set arbitrary limits on size and popularity. Doing so is to say that polka great Frankie Yankovic is "non-notable" because he was never as big as Elvis. Context matters, people. (Disclosure: I am involved in this sim, but have been involved in Wikipedia (sans login) significantly longer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcarlson33 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 August 2005
  • Delete It's nothing more than an advertisement, and it certainly doesn't merit its own unique entry..mrzippy13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.194.77 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 21 August 2005

Discussion

edit
  • Comment: I have no problem letting AGS have a wikipedia page. I DO have a problem with the nonsense and double standards going on with trying to have USG's page deleted. Especially when those voting for deletion are random people who have no right no pass judgment about a subject they know nothing about.

--John Joffey, Founder of USGovsim and current Co-Admin

  • Comment: This is simply not a flame war. All we would like is for our article to be able to be on Wikipedia. We did not expect a full out frontal assault from AGS in an effort to remove the article. We only want Wikipedia to be fair. Either keep both or delete both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.55.215 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 August 2005
  • Comment: There is no evidence to support these specious claims of "frontal assault from AGS"; in fact, the evidence that does exist suggests the opposite. AGS administrators have said on their forums that they encourage members to join other sims, and have even posted a link to the simulation in their web links. The announcement is here. Wikipedia should not be a playground for petty revenge based on imaginary, non-existent "frontal assaults." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.196.120 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 August 2005
  • Comment: Once again AGS should be allowed to keep their page. All the Admins of USG agree on this. We are however, miffed, that there is a huge deletion attempt going on against our page, brought on by ignorant people with nothing better to do. I implore Wikipedia Mods to end both the deletion attempt here, and against the USG page.

--John Joffey

  • Comment. This is a bad faith VfD. If not for that I would vote delete as non-not

able. --Al 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this cool page! The sim deserves it. This page is NOT and advertisement, and the o

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Wilderness. -Splash 21:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor

edit

dicdef already present at Wiktionary. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:24:47, 2005-09-03 (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 COPYVIO. With no comments, I'll start the CV process now. -Splash 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidhazy

edit

This appears to be a vanity page. No substantial comments as to achievements of user except his position (University professor). No additions except creation and request for cleanup six months ago. Text may simply be a marker to allow the link to self-promoting home page. Suggest deletion.

Copyvio from [13] Dlyons493 18:48, 3 September 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. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyonesblog

edit

advertising. BrainyBroad 00:16, August 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. -Splash 21:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian indoor-rules quidditch

edit

VfD tag added by User:Squeed but nomination not completed. Merge with Mac Hall or keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:31, 3 September 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. -Splash 22:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Inn

edit

non-notable NeilN 15:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability is established. Pburka 17:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete I would say that this article has notability. Though it may be limited, the restaraunt does serve several highly unique dishes, and it would ot be considered a vanity article, considering that I live in Florida and have never had a job at a restaurant. User:misterknowall 14:59, 3 September 2005
  • Delete, the mind boggles at the thought that a hamburger with mayonnaise is "unusual". Zoe 22:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. Merely serving unique dishes is not a sign of a restaurant's notability; I would recommend that the author locate some evidence that this is a famous or important restaurant and include that evidence in the article. --Metropolitan90 01:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Make my vote a delete due to no evidence of notability being provided. --Metropolitan90 07:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete all dinercruft. But is it notable? Roodog2k (talk) 20:47, 7 September 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 into Babson. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babson E-Tower

edit

There are several "towers" at Babson College. This one is no more special than the others. A "tower" isn't actually a physical structure, like a building, as the stub would suggest. At Babson, this simply means that students share a block of rooms. There are towers for cooking, outdoors, entrepreneurship and so on. There does not need to be an article for "E-Tower". --Prescott

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baten Kaitos DS

edit

Vaporware. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Hamster Sandwich 00:15, 12 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. -Splash 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baumhardt, Nick

edit

vanity with an attempt at notability. Google search for relevant terms garnered 2 hits. i would speedy except there is a small attempt at notability. that said, Delete -- Bubbachuck 16:39, 12 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, so keep. -Splash 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Rotor

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bit meddler

edit

Vanity page. --Several Times 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -asx- 03:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Firsfron 23:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is a notable and well known artist in his Genre, perhaps one of the best known, however, this article needs to be seriously improved Drdisque 08:26, 28 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, so keep. -Splash 22:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp

edit

Unless Ted Bundy stayed there or they invented a new kind of doughnut I can't see the reason for keeping this article.--Hooperbloob 06:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp is a major contributor to the arts community of the Great Lakes. Many, many orchaestra musicians trace their early training to this well-funded, well-regarded regional arts center. In essence, they have invented the fine arts camp for highly talented middle school and high school artists.

Wmjuntunen 19:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then perhaps listing those orchestra musicians in the same way that has been done for actors in Neighborhood Playhouse would be a good start. That would give it scope beyond the Great Lakes region.--Hooperbloob 20:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Hooperbloob ! I'll see what I can do. Wmjuntunen 03:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a prior BLFAC camper, I have a personal bias towards keeping this Wiki entry (it's not like this listing is some violation of the Wikipedia terms or anything). Truthfully, while I would agree with Wmjuntunen that BLFAC has had a significant impact on current musical talents, that is not the only reason it should be kept. The BLFAC instrument museum, in and of itself, is one of the few of its kind anywhere in the world, with both historical and reproductions of early musical devices. Additionally, BLFAC holds several contests each year such as the Falcone Euphonium Competition, as well as their annual Jazz Fest, contributing to the world's appreciation of music. Lastly, BLFAC, while in a no-name town in Michigan, has an impact well beyond the Great Lake region. Campers from not only all over the United States but also the world attend one of their sessions on music, theatre, piano, dance and art each summer. In most artistic circles, BLFAC is second only to Interlochen, which not only is also in Michigan, but is the world's premier artistic venue for high school age students.--Jigordon 21:53, 20 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 KEEP WITH POSSIBLE MERGE. moink 06:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Booger

edit
  • Merge with mucus. Booger is not the proper scientific name-I agree it should be merged with Mucus.
  • Merge with mucus. Booger is not the scientific name for dried nasal mucus. booger is slang. This article if it is to exist should be under a scientific name 64.12.116.71 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but choose between snot and booger. I personally prefer snot, but since it disambiguates here, whatever. While I do not support merging, I do support changing the name to a more scientific term. ~GMH 07:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Such as "nasal mucus"?...Just a possibility.~GMH 06:35, 26 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. -Splash 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett thompson

edit

Probably should be deleted. The search "brett thompson" comptia on google returned four results, and a search without 'comptia' gives unrelated results. His position in CompTIA seems fairly minor. Unfortunately, this individual doesn't seem to be notable enough. Paul 17:31, 9 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 KEEP. -Splash 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brownie points

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bcrowell 03:56, 20 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. -Splash 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly fields

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. The first four comments, including the nomination, are made by very new or anon editors, and I'm inclined to discount them. The final editor has enough contribs and things, but this is their only edit in Wikipedia: space and is also discounted. Among those who remain, there is no desire to retain the article outright, and certainly no consensus that it should be merged and no further support for keeping (with a weakly reasoned comment anyway). With the 'opposition' divided, I'm going to call a consensus to delete. -Splash 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho hose beast

edit

:It appears this was never actually listed - no vote --Doc (?) 16:12, 3 September 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. Apart from the author and David Gerard, the outright 'keeps' are not included, being rants from anons (with sometimes forged signatures). David Gerard conditions his comment on acceptable references — the references do not appear to have sated the critics. What remains is consensus to delete. -Splash 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Freedom Watch

edit

Webpage with Alexa ranking of 862,598. Alexa description: Church of Scientology effort to expose religious intolerance, especially--but not exclusively--that directed against Scientology. The information shows a strong bias and is presented without any source. There is nowhere indicated who is responsible for the site. Site is not noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Irmgard 17:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Speedy No context, exists solely for external link. Could probably be made into a real article but isn't one at present. Dlyons493 18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Irmgard's statement is inaccurate. The information on RFW is presented with sources such as court records, police records, etc. Check out their page on Rick Ross. Who is responsible for the site is irrelevant, but if it is a concern: WHOIS reveal who is responsible. Site is a notable critic of the critics of Scientology Note: RFW is more notable than Barbara Schwarz which is also up for deletion and currently looking like a keep. :) signs of Wikipedia's sytemic bias... --AI 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC) AI (talk · contribs) is the article's author.[reply]
      • I agree with user AI. Wikipedia can't allow rather unsupported articles and sources but the other side not allowing the RFW who backs most of its claims up with official documents as information source or reference! Part of User:VIVALDI ROCKS!'s second edit.
  • Keep, but please include information as to the actual nature of RFW (i.e., a front group founded by Scientology to harass critics.) Sdedeo 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Delete per Modemac below. Sdedeo 18:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok but make sure you attribute any claims. I doubt you have any proof that it was founded "to harass critics." The site itself claims to expose critics, of course the critics do not like this and claim "harassment." --AI 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid I am going to have to vote Delete on this one. Despite AI's claims that he wants "contribution from all POVs and NPOVs" his actual editing shows that he wants it to be his own view and no one else's. Since when was it acceptable Wikipedia practice to revert three times, asking for attribution and then refusing to accept it once you get it, and then placing all the attributed material you don't want under a header stating "Claims by [[USERNAME]]" in the article? If AI is going to defend what he erroneously sees as his article with these unacceptable tactics, then we are better off having no article on this subject -- rather than one claimed by this editor as his private soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion is not the solution to a failure to resolve disputes --AI 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • AI, I agree that VfD is not the place to resolve NPOV disputes, but I have looked at your edits, and it is pretty clear that you are behaving very poorly. Antaeus needs to supply sources (online or off) for the various statements in the article that you are trying to delete. But right now, it appears that you (AI) are behaving very disruptively. Sdedeo 03:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources were supplied for all of them except the claim that RFW is a Scientology group -- a source for which was given in this very AfD. After that, AI changed his story; instead of wanting contributions from POVs other than his own to be sourced, he wanted them to not "look like propaganda to me" -- i.e., he does not want all POVs to contribute after all, he only wants information favorable to RFW to go in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole article could be summarized as a notable mention under Scientology versus The Internet. The site does not contain much more than smear bios about Scn critics, and the article is turning into an edit war. Make the whole subject into one paragraph or so, and move it where it fits better. Marbahlarbs 06:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of notability. Deserves a mention at some scientology article, but not an article for itself. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only noteworthy thing about this Web site is that it is a Scientology propaganda page full of unsubstantiated, undocumented claims designed to smear critics of Scientology in a slanderous and arguably libelous manner. The site is not newsworthy (only mentioned at all in Scientology press releases), and the group has done nothing except harass critics of Scientology. This is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, as it is already amply covered in the Scientology controversy section (under "Dead Agenting"). It is in the same category as an article created by a company trying to advertise their own product: biased, irreversible POV, and nothing more than hot air. --Modemac 12:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Religious Freedom Watch is just one of a long series of bogus groups used as fronts for Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. (Earlier ones included the Scientology Parishioners League and the Foundation for Religious Tolerance.) According to Tory Christman, the now ex-Scientologist who worked with him on a previous front group, Joel Phillips is clueless and is NOT the real person behind RFW; he's just a cutout. RFW deserves at most a few sentences in an article on Scientology dead agent campaigns. This article should go. --Touretzky 14:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The RFW site was created mainly for internal consumption by Scientologists. Its impact on the larger world is nil. A wikipedia entry should not have more substantial content than the subect of its article, which limits the practical size of this entry to to or three lines.

--Vreejack 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Informative website supported by many official references. Who cares who put it up as long as the references can be checked within courts, agencies, Usenet and other archives. Can't see the alleged harassment. Seems critics of Scientology are no saints and they dislike publication about it. SAINT 19:13, 5 September 2005 This is SAINT (talk · contribs)'s only edit.

Signature added manually by --Irmgard 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • ABSOLUTELY KEEP This website contains many official documents, and many of their articles are better documented than most Wikipedia articles. See yourself:

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham2.html Not accepting anything provided by Scientologists reminds of how the German Nazis did not accept anything provided by the Jews. What has religion to do with writing on Wikipedia? Apparently, these people who attack Scientology are not as good and innocent as they want to be viewed, and there is no reason why their true characters should be not portrayed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia accepts as information sources Usenet articles that could have been fabricated by anyone. Why not accepting a website that backs most of its claims up with official court and archive records? Note also that the anti-religious extremists never sued the RFW. If it would be true what Dave Touretzky claims, how come he did not sue them? He has money. There are even two attorneys portrayed as anti-religious extremists and the site is all over the Internet. I am sure they would represent their anti-religious extremist collegagues for free, if anyone of them would have a case. The problem is that Dave Touretzky and his friends are an anti-free speech advocates. They remove any critical data about themselves when they can. I had at least five websites with true and supporting information about Dave Touretzky on the Internet. I was informed that he goes after them and threaten to sue the ISP if they don't take the critic down, and the ISP don't want to be involved in legal actions, give in and remove the websites. Fine free world we live in. There is no free speech and that the RFW websites is bullied from Wikipedia is also a sign of no free speech. User Vivaldi rocks!

As with User:SAINT, User:VIVALDI ROCKS! has appeared from out of nowhere to comment on this article, and on two other articles related to Scientology critics that have seen disputes between User:AI and other Wikipedians. See VIVALDI ROCKS! edit history. --Modemac 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm also tempted to invoke Godwin's Law.)[reply]
Godwin's foolish philosophy works to protect Holocaust revisionists and other Nazis who try to keep their work undercover. I say shine a bright light on them and trash this obsolete Godwin's law. It is slightly similar to the "law" about monkeys at typewriters who will eventually write an entire ENCYCLOPEDIA. --AI 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who they are, their vote should be welcome unless you have proof they are sock puppets of someone else who has already voted. --AI 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And on what basis would you propose that they be welcome to "vote" with their first or their third edit? Their "votes" are pretty much vapor since they cannot show any sign of commitment to Wikipedia or any sign of attained experience in the goals and practices of Wikipedia. Now, if they had any significant point of view to contribute to the conversation, it would certainly be taken into account. However, they don't seem to have much to say besides stuff that isn't relevant and stuff that we seem to have read before... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be said against the links to Judaism, Catholic Church, Christianity, etc. - but on the other hand that's not enough for an encyclopedia entry. BTW it's not necessarily so, that critics of Scientology want to suppress this site by every means - on the contrary. The critical site Operation Clambake (whose author also has a page on religious freedom watch) links to it on its frontpage as an excellent example for the way Scientology communicates.I am personally convinced this site does more harm to Scientology than to anyone else - but that's no reason either to put it into an encyclopedia. Mention in Scientology vs. Intranet, that's ok --Irmgard 21:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RFW is a hate site using the weak US libel laws to smear scientology critics around the world. I am myself a victim of this site, as are several of my friends. Even a "balanced" article about this site would be honoring it. Tilman 16:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[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. -Splash 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ

edit
Strangely, never seems to have been listed despite the votes - no vote --Doc (?) 16:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really worth mentioning in the article. It lists 2 people and tells us that homeless guys like to say they're jesus. delete and merge Frenchman113 18:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - article is minutes old, give it a chance. Very interesting and legit topic. Renata3 18:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- If I had a quarter for every whacko and/or homeless person who thought they were Jesus, I'd be a millionaire. Totally irrelevant. Karmafist 01:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please take notice that the homeless reference has been removed, even though it is an important aspect of society. There are other people added to the list as well. Please read the updated article before making judgement. --Eduard Gherkin 05:26:07, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Keep Firstly, I already see no less than 8 people there. Secondly, claiming to be the Christ is obviously a very notable personality trait. Rama 21:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a category as suggested by Habap on the talk page. Also break down into subcategories based on who claimed what; for example, Haile Selassie not only didn't claim it, he actually denied the Rastas' claim. Tualha (Talk) 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It's an important subject, plus it's quirky, interesting, and relevant. It should definitely stay. Keep it an article though — this topic needs accompanying paragraphs to provide background and further explanation. Swingbeaver 00h40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is definitely a list that can be added to
  • Speedy Delete This can't possibly turn into anything other than a "I don't believe in Jesus" thread, which is just par for the trolls--I-2-d2 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or merge with the 'list of people who have claimed to be God', that CATV whacko that South Park lampoons should be on the list.--Gorgonzilla 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it is quite an interesting topic that can be added to, and I just don't see any religious bias in it. Croat Canuck 22:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I began and wrote the majority of this article and I wish to make my case. This is not an article against Jesus Christ or Christians. It is plain to see this due to the fact that it is written in a non-biased fashion (neither for nor against Christ and Christianity). This article was put up for deletion when it was only a few minutes old and when it had only two people and a small comment about the homeless. (The homeless comment is true if one were to ask the majority of city-dwellers, but I took it out of the article because it is not Wikiworthy) It is blatantly obvious that the article has been expanded and improved. It has even been added to by authors other than myself, thus verifying that others take an interest in this notable and odd personality trait. It is true that the article can be improved (and therefore one must "be bold" to update it) but the original reason for having this page put up for deletion is no longer applicable. It is my opinion that it should remain its own article. This is a very specific aspect of people who claim to be deities. Perhaps in List of self-proclaimed deities there could be a link to this page. It is a very thought provoking subject. One must ask, "Why choose Jesus out of all other people? Why do murderous people such as Charles Manson or Luc Jouret claim to be Christ (who said "blessed are the peacemakers")? What is it about Jesus Christ that causes so many people to think that they are his reincarnation? How does a murderous person ever come to associate themselves with Jesus?" (Such were the thoughts through which this article came to fruition.) I shall summarize what I have said: this is a thought-provoking article that can be added to (and has been added to already) and the original reason why it should be deleted is now obsolete. Eduard Gherkin 23:32:27, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Merge --Alterego 03:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable phenomenon, although I think the list should be restricted to situations where: a) the person was, in fact, notable; OR b) where the person making the claim attracted actual followers who purported to believe the claim. -- BD2412 talk 18:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to a more accurate title, i.e. "List of people who claim to be the messiah" --Kennyisinvisible 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. MCB 19:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of messiah claimants. -HX 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge (prefer to keep, but a well-done merge might make it look better). -Sean Curtin 22:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm sure many millions of people (notable or non-notable) in the world claims to be Jesus Christ, nevertheless those who are already deceased. UniReb 23:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic list, verifiable. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klonimus (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2005
  • Merge with List of messiah claimants, since many of these did not specifically claim to the JC. Possible link to Jerusalem syndrome - Skysmith 11:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep as above, but don't there is no good reason to delete this. SchmuckyTheCat 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but article should talk about notable cases through history. --MacRusgail 14:39, 7 September 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. -Splash 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational radiation of atom

edit

There are oodles of fundamental errors and misunderstadnings. The potential is wrong, inner electrons screen the potential. There are no terms for spin-orbit coupling, no fine/hyperfine structure of any kind. These are approx 10^40 greater in magnitude than any effect from gravitation. And the whole thing is presented non-relativistically, which is wrong for high-Z, and generally misleading. In its current form, I think the article is beyond repair. linas 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, of course. linas 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. --Ghirlandajo 16:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. It may not be obvious to everyone from what Linas wrote above, but the other corrections being "10^40 greater in magnitude" means that this is undetectable in the sense that you could never find a particular penny in a billion billion billion copies of the U.S. National Debt. We don't have the technology, we won't have the technology for countless centuries, and it's not important anyway. There is no visible effect, and no deep knowledge to be gained from this idea--we don't need an article on this. -- SCZenz 16:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with SCZenz; this is insignificant and the physics is incomplete. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. My first impression was to delete since the effect is so small, but I am reluctant to take drastic action before somebody checks the reference, which suggests that it is published in the proceedings of a conference which seems to be serious. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've seen, and read, similar conference proceedings which are of equal stature, containing "proofs" that special relativity is wrong, etc. so I don't consider publication alone to be a reasonable standard. And even if the conference presentation was by Ed Witten, this article fails to convey what's meaningful & interesting. (Its even mis-titled; as there is no discussion of gravitational radiation.) linas 18:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Pjacobi points out on Talk:Gravitational radiation of atom, the last sentence is wrong and the rest is irrelevant. Gravitational radiation is a relativistic phenomenon, so you cannot discuss it without discussing relativity (please tell me if I'm wrong; I'm not a physicist). The author's website it at http://www.webfinder.ru/vm/ (in Russian) and the same text as Gravitational radiation of atom can be found at http://www.webfinder.ru/vm/abstract1.html . His resume is, uhm, unconventional for people visiting GR conferences. I'm now even more curious on the reference. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if possible to improve and contextualise. Reference is valid - see [15] but that alone doesn't make it notable. Dlyons493 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one mentioning in a conference proceedings isn't enough to establish relevance. No V V Mikheev to be found on the preprint servers. And of course the effect is incredibly small, even smaller than calculated in the article, as that calculation is all wrong. --Pjacobi 19:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Karol 07:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)Keep or merge with gravitational radiation. The page needs massive reformatting and wikification. It's also inexact (plain wrong is maybe too harsh?) in a few places and the calculations are questionable, and relativistic effects are neglected. All this, however, still doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, I believe, since it describes an actual physical effect, albeit unimaginably small (we have articles on many physical phenomenon that we can't really measure or which are only hypothetical). Lack of references also is not a reason for deletion is it? Therefore we should let it stay, put up the appropriate warnings, and wait for improvement. An alternative would be to merge with gravitational radiation. Maybe I'm missing something or wrong, though? Karol 20:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Strongly disagree with merge. The article doesn't describe radiation, it describes corrections to hydrogen energy levels. Also, look at the comment from the anon who created the article--it implies that he is the person cited. Doesn't that make it original research...? -- SCZenz 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this being an "actual physical effect" doesn't make it notable. Nor does appearing once in a conference somewhere. Does every paper published by every physicist (even the ones with tenure and funding at universities) get a wikipedia article? Nope, and it shouldn't. Can you explain what might possibly make this notable? -- SCZenz 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where can I see this comment? Yes, the article does not describe radiation per se, but it should, at leasts that is what the name of the page suggests. Karol 21:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this being an "actual physical effect" doesn't make it notable. Nor does appearing once in a conference somewhere. Does every paper published by every physicist (even the ones with tenure and funding at universities) get a wikipedia article? Nope, and it shouldn't. Can you explain what might possibly make this notable? -- SCZenz 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of any argument. You are probably right, it is NN. Karol 21:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete; highly speculative and non-notable. The bar for having something in a conference proceedings is extremely low. It is not an "actual physical effect", it is a "contentious, non-notable speculation". Sdedeo 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since gravity is pretty much irrelevant on atomic and subatomic scale, the article has no use. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other delete voters. Quale 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the arguments the other delete voters had madeSalsb
  • strong delete as crude nonsense (kind of like an article describing the phlogiston theory as an established theory in the chemistry pages) CH (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landover mall

edit

old nom never listed -now fixed - no vote --Doc (?) 16:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE mall is unimportant. unsigned by User:WillC
  • DELETE not notable G Clark
  • Keep factually correct (in general, needs cleanup), used by hundreds of thousands of people in its prime. Defunct malls are an interesting aspect of Americana dml 22:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, so now not only do we have to keep articles about every building in every country, but we're also the junkyard repository for ex-buildings too? Delete. Nandesuka
    • No vote, but: while an everyday mall is non-notable, a mall which still exists but has been closed for decades may be notable for being just that. This isn't an ex-building, it's still there, unoccupied. — mendel ☎ 17:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Landover, Maryland. Keeping is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 6 September 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 to LOL (Internet slang). The nominator hints at a merge, too. -Splash 22:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh a little

edit

Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary, besides we have Internet slang#L. --Mysidia (talk) 16:56, 3 September 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. -Splash 22:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like, Totally!

edit

No listed by nominator - fixed now --Doc (?) 17:13, 3 September 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. -Splash 22:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dallaway

edit

Appears to be vanity and advertising all in one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 3 September 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 FOUR. -Splash 22:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third rebellion

edit

Band vanity. And what would band vanity be without member vanity (Austin Post and Trevor Meiste) and even band blog vanity (One Man Rebellion)? Delete the whole "yet to release any albums or music" lot. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:02:56, 2005-09-03 (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. -Splash 22:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs of Walter Bruce

edit

Again, this seems not to have been listed (except as part of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adam Beck - no vote--Doc (?) 18:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an ad and a bit of vanity, as well --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the VFD tag was blanked three times by 70.146.54.128 (talk · contribs). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTOON

edit

Advertisement for not-notable-enough website/software. (Alexa rank 2million+). From the talk page "I am the KToon director project and i am interested in to clarify that Toonka Films is really interested in to promoting the KToon Website." Of course, Wikipedia is not the place for such promotion. Brighterorange 18:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertisement Dlyons493 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advert. --MCB 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cleaned it up, and removed the cut & pasted content. This is a real open source project, and is quite impressive already. (also, Alexa is an IE plugin. It isn't relevant to a Unix software project) -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ 08:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • changing my vote to weak keep based on the rewrite, which no longer sounds like advertising. I'm still skeptical about the notability, though; for instance its Freshmeat ranking is very very low. —brighterorange (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know of any other OpenSource animation software (minue gimp-gap) and it is notable enough to have its own gentoo ebuild. keep
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Zoe. -Splash 22:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squodge mcdodge

edit
For a prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Squodge mcdodge.

Non notable NeilN 18:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. It was deleted just yesterday as a result of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Squodge mcdodge and almost immediately recreated. Zoe 22:59, September 3, 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. -Splash 22:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maiorino

edit

Listing nomination from Aug 7th by anon - --Doc (?) 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is nothing but an article about a doctor. There is no need for every individual doctor or person to be in an encyclopedia (unsigned by User:63.167.255.204)
  • Delete not an A7 - as last paras seem to imply he is a mystic crime-fighting superhero, but looks like bs nonetheless--Doc (?) 18:57, 3 September 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. No consensus to delete, even discounting the numerous rather fishy anons. I'm particularly swayed by the contributions of experienced hands such as Mgm (despite his abstention), and JYolkowski. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Casric

edit
  • Keep Brilliant dj/producer, should be a keep. Big Pusher of prog, one of the few true prog djs that havent sold out to electro.
  • KeepStumbled across this wiki from the progressive house wiki, i must say he has been one of the best up and coming djs around and i expect a high dj magazine placing for him this year. I disagree with the speedy as he has released music under different names and been featured on national radio.

I don't think this is a valid speedy. The article includes a audiography, numerous magazine appearances and a regular radio spot. That should be a valid claim at notability. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 19:03, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I created this as he is my favourite dj and resident at one of my favourite clubs, sorry if thats not allowed but he is a popular dj and producer, ive heard his remixes played on the pete tong show on www.bbc.co.uk/radio1 and on Galaxys specialist shows, i thought it was fitting to create this page. *edit* this is also the first time i have made a wiki and did not realise that deleting the text at the top meant removing the mark... after initially creating the page i took a look at some other dj pages and used the format used on those. --82.36.170.215

.... Where does it say that? ... Andy Mabbett the name of the song is 1979


  • Keep and clean up if notability can be proved. Need some sources for claims, google not very conclusive. I don't agree that the history of the article is enough basis for deleting its current content. akaDruid 10:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. The article is now unrelated to that which was nominated. -Splash 22:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Petroleum Technology Office

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Claims to give information on the topic: "Global Information". Seems to be advertising a company. Written in 1st person, so non-encyclopediac. Contact details at bottom of the page suggest a greater possibility of promoting a product or company. Google does a good translation if anyone needs one (German to English). -- FireFox 20:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This VfD still seems to be live, so I will add my delete to that of FireFox. Physchim62 01:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

German. Looks like spam to me, but I can't tell. -- Creidieki 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... Difficult one, contains some info but contains contact info, so who knows...FireFox 13:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Taken another look at this one. The article seems to be advertising a product or system and is written in the first person. FireFox 20:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently undergoing a VfD proccess. --Sn0wflake 02:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect if it is translated into English. The National Petroleum Technology Office is/was a real U.S. Gov't agency under the Department of Energy; its name has since been changed to the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil. I'm all for deleting government departments, but so long as they exist, many of them will warrant WP articles. Paul 21:31, 4 September 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. -Splash 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada State Route 401

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No One cares about a small road in nevada. Just wastes time And Space (unsigned by User:Aranda56)

In fact it's a state-maintained access spur from Interstate 80 to Rye Patch National Park. I'd say the park is the more relevant thing here. Pilatus 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a national park, it's a state recreation area. --Calton | Talk 04:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Then what the fuck is wrong with merging with an article about the park? --SPUI (talk) 04:30, 4 September 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. Entirely unrelated article has been written in place. -Splash 23:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Night service

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:20, 3 September 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. Those gave the option put delete first, so I presume they're happy with this course of action. -Splash 23:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 2600

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable as with 3200. This one is even shorter and even less notable -Towel401 20:25, 13 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. android79 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 3110

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 19:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A completely worthless uninformative stub about a phone hardly anyone has even heard of -Towel401 20:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on similar product Dlyons493 19:37, 3 September 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. android79 16:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6110

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a stub/article on every single Nokia phone? Nokia has a phone archive with the specifications of every phone they ever made. Perhaps these articles contain a few worthless factoids about these phones, cant there be a Nokia phone's factoid page or something? In my opinion this article is completely worthless and not notable. Maybe this should be merged with other Nokia phone articles as there usually isnt an awful lot to say about them. -Towel401 20:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on similar product Dlyons493 19:38, 3 September 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. -Splash 23:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Wright

edit

This stub has devolved into an online stalk by user Lokifer. The writer in question is NOT famous, but the amount of research carried out in an attempt to smear him is phenomenal. There's a LOT of POV problems, as well as a lot of talk such as "claims to have graduated from the University of Arizona" -- submit for deletion. Carnifax 19:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There was an article on this guy in the Washington Post.[16] The claims of fraud are very likely true, particularly with regard to his military service, and in that sense he could be considered notable. — RJH 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Micah Wright is (or was; I don't know if anyone will hire him again) a notable fiction writer. That his fiction included his resumé is... unfortunate; however, I don't see any reason not to keep. Also, Stormwatch: Team Achilles fuckin' rocked, man. DS 20:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only POV problem I can see is that silly "claims to have graduated". I was skeptical at first, but indeed, I find after googling around that Wright seems to have been a liar of great proportions. Sdedeo 21:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, but watch for stalkercruft. -Sean Curtin 22:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Stalkercruft"??? -- llywrch 00:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a known comic book writer, antiwar "activist" (I've been told that the label activist doesn't apply to him) and military imposter (ala Douglas R. Stringfellow and Wes Cooley, except Cooley served in the military). I was accused of making up the information by Carnifax, so I gave more detail with links, some are actual transcripts. Since providing the information, Carnifax has asked for this to be deleted and removed all information that he originally asked for.Lokifer 07:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Of course Lokifer the stalker would vote to keep the page... how else would he continue to smear this guy? There are FAR more famous comic book writers who aren't represented in Wikipedia,
    • interruption - just because "more famous writers aren't represented in Wikipedia" is no reason to delete this writer. Rather, it's a reason to add entries for those other writers. DS 17:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (vote continues) and this guy's resume-padding, however offensive, isn't particularly notable. Moreover, Lokifer continues to pepper the stub with unattributed claims like 'he lied about being nominated for an Emmy' when the guy has explained how and when his work was nominated. Moreover, the claims of having participated in 'covert activities' aren't backed up by Lokifer's source material... the closest one gets is the Reporter using the words covert activities and not in a direct quote from the subject. The new inclusion of the usage of Photoshop to rework the posters isn't substantiated and runs counter to the guy's own statements about how he accomplishes his 'art' or whatever. Lokifer constantly expands the guy's crimes -- one university is mentioned in his links, but he expands that to 'universities.' He does the same thing where he finds a single quote where the guy lashed out against someone using his false military service as a soapbox, but then expands that to 'people' without substantiation. The page he links to clearly shows that the guy apologized to this Parrot person for doing so as well. Lokifer further expands the smear campagin by blasting an artist's conference as an 'anti-war-forum' when looking at the site, it was clearly a symposium of anti-war artists lecturing about technique and format to students who were there in for an artistic conference, not an anti-war rally. Lokifer complains that the guy posted a false bio on his webpage and then complains that it's since been deleted... would he be happier if the lies were still there? Lastly, to point out more semi-truths, it appears that this comicbook Stormwatch Team Achilles was cancelled well before this guy's revelations... all DC did was not publish the final issue... AND the guy clearly has published his second book of posters. It's pretty clear that Lokifer has spent a great deal of time stalking down this guy's lies and foibles online, but it's not clear that this guy's two-year-run of resume-padding is worth an entry in Wikipedia, especially not if it's going to be filled with so much politically-motivated personal bias and half-truths. Carnifax 20:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Micah (oops, I mean Carnifax), correct any errors that you see, but don't delete them. The problem with tracking down most of the information about Micah Wright is that hard facts cannot be found, usually because Micah Wright deleted most of his posts in his forum and enough place online that he was quoted at now no longer existed. There's also the damning interview at KPFK on "Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman that was available for download on his website that's no longer available. What's so damning about the interview? He embellished so much about his fake military career (most of which I have included). Elsewhere (but included in the article with links) Micah has said, "(He has seen) a lot of nastiness in South and Central America during G.H.W. Bush's regime," and he has said, "After four years spent invading other countries as an Airborne Ranger in the U.S. Army." Besides Panama, what other "invasions" of Central and South American countries was the USA publically engaged in between 1987 and 1991? There are none, so they must be secret covert operations. I've been able to find two universities that Micah spoke at: USC and New School University. At both he spoke out against the war and he was an attractive speaker for the issue since he was claiming to be an ex-ranger. Now if you want to include nice things that he has done, please add them. I'd like to see what charities he has established or other equally good deeds from this man. However, since he built his whole persona on being an anti-war ex-Army Ranger, I see nothing wrong pointing out just how engrained and far reaching the lies went by using HIS OWN WORDS.Lokifer 21:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you didn't see my comments above, criticizing his lies. My only point is that he's hardly famous and not worth an expansive entry in Wikipedia, much less an obviously politically inspired smear job full of POV and unsupported indictments. Your interpretations aside, Micah Wright never mentions 'covert activity' in any of the articles you cite. Referencing an interview which you can only vaguely 'remember' as 'damning' isn't quite the same a citing FACTS about what he said. You're also conflating quotes from two different interviews to concoct a charge against him: that he claims he "saw ugliness throughout Central and South America" during GHW Bush's administrations isn't the same as participating in covert activities... we all saw America Imperialism at work all throughout the Reagan/Bush years. Add that to the fact that the US Army (including Rangers, which he was pretending to have been) invaded Somalia in the same period of time, and I think you're stretching it to state that "invading countries" means that he categorically claimed to have been involved in 'covert activities.' It's a loaded POV accusation which you've jerry-rigged together by Frankensteining disparate quotes. Moreover, you make the same sins of exaggeration you're accusing him of when you say he told 'people' to shut up, rather than one person. Then again, maybe this is just the kind of grammar and logic problems which afflict all of your postings about this guy: 'gave a fuzzy photographs" being a prime example. Again, it's a borderline vanity page, and the current revision is so full of POV that it's next to useless. If he's forever banned from comic books and his career as an author is finished, then what's the point of pretending he's famous? As for what charities he's established or what good works he's accomplished, I have no idea... I haven't extensively stalked him online, unlike some... all I've done is read your version of his life and looked at the 'proof' you think you've compiled.Carnifax 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just have a few things to say because this is a discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted. One, Micah never mentioned Somilia or Iraq, but specified that he was in Central and South America when he was "invading countries". Two, you claim that I have too much of a POV, but your use of the term "American Imperalism" is hardly non-POV and I think it clouds your judgement on my entries in the article. Three, the line about the "fuzzy photograph" is not something I made up on a whim; it is a quote from Dan Simon, publisher of Wright's book, that can be found in an article by Publishers Weekly, a credible source methinks, with a link provided to that article. Four, if you think too much is being made of his story about being a ranger, please give a more rounded biography on him. Five, if Kathy Change and Martin Hewitt meets the criteria of having a article on Wikipedia, surely a nationally published author and artist with credits attached to comic books, cartoons and videogames who falsely claimed to be an army ranger while speaking out against a war meets the criteria. Sure, he's no Jack Kirby or Wally Wood or Jack Vance or Dalton Trumbo or Alan Moore or Sam Rolfe (which reminds me, I need to start an article on him), but ask the average person who any of those guys are and you get blank stares too. Does this negate the fact that any of these people should have articles because they are not well known (aka famous or infamous) enough? Lokifer 01:53, 5 September 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. -Splash 23:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omnial

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable pretender to be an international auxiliary language. — Carlos Th (talk) 17:12, 24 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 MERGE to Minor Hogwarts teachers. -Splash 23:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkie Twycross

edit

Wholly unimportant character in the Harry Potter series. It is very unlikely that this article could ever be expanded. Lachatdelarue (talk) 20:14, 3 September 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. Not much useful debate, but no point in relisting because it's obvious that it'll be soundly deleted, probably with an infestation of socks. -Splash 23:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vortendum

edit

As far as I can tell, this is just a personal website. Joyous (talk) 16:26, September 3, 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. -Splash 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Walton

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 20:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not often that I put things up for deletion, but, looking through the recent changes, this article caught my eye. Does this referee deserve an article? I have checked the internet, and, despite being in refereeing for such a long time, he has only ever officiated over very few top-flight games; the BBC lists 16 Premiership games, but perhaps that was only from one season. Nonetheless, I can find nothing remarkable about his life, or any controversial or important decision that he has made; so, I do not really see why this guy deserves an article above any other run-of-the-mill FA referee. If there are compelling reasons, I would love to know (although I am not much of a football fan;) but I cannot see what is notable about him, other than his being a select referee. That should take up a line, not a whole page. IINAG 23:33, 24th August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--referees aren't inherently notable (indeed, if they do their jobs well, they don't get noticed at all). Meelar (talk) 23:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to convince that he was worth an article, & only 1 link to this article. (I guess Meelar is wrong: look at all of those famous referees at Referee (football)!) -- llywrch 00:13, 4 September 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. -Splash 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piasetzki & Nenniger LLP

edit

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a boutique firm of only 5 lawyers and does not seem to have done anything particularly notable. It advertises its work in the case of FWS Joint Sports Claimants v. Border Broadcasters Inc. which isn't a very notable case in and of itself. Moreover, their website misleadingly refer to it as a Supreme Court case when in fact it was denied leave to appeal, so I'm very suspicious. --PullUpYourSocks 21:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Expand on FWS Joint Sports Claimants Not vanity focuses more on FWS Joint Sports Claimants
    • Shouldn't be judged on size only whether they are of encyclopidic value
    • Don't see misleadingly refers to it as a supreme court case, only where they appeared as Counsel(Google).
    • Expand on the FWS Joint Sports Claimants and how they relate to Bill C-60

--J2000ca 06:09, 15 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. -Splash 23:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Pub

edit

Forum with 6 members, 21 posts, but a whopping 53 subforums. Delete nn forum vanity from the people who brought you the above Third rebellion. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:36:10, 2005-09-03 (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. -Splash 23:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey technique

edit

Non-verifiable. I think. I didn't have any luck googling for it, and no other citations have been forthcoming. Bunchofgrapes 20:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Preferred provider organization. -Splash 23:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prudent buyer

edit

(listing orphan VfD) but I'll vote delete too - substub for a generic term for a health insurance product - I can't see any useful redirect. --Doc (?) 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Toll House Inn. There is next to none consensus here, but one thing everyone agrees on is that the current contents shouldn't be kept. Therefore a "no consensus - default to keep" result would be out of place. — JIP | Talk 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Toll House

edit

Not notable and not an article Irmgard 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT. -Splash 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Chamber

edit

(Completing non) Sonic-cruft and near nonsense delete --Doc (?) 21:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should have though of that - delete and redirect --Doc (?) 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really nonsense, and I can verify that it exists. But levels are not notable, so you may as well do the redirect above. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:24, September 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollsonly

edit

NN, advertisement Hurricane111 21:35, 3 September 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 moink 07:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blah forum

edit

Non-notable website. This link is Broken 21:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BrokenSegue. Alexa rank of intermediate redirect is about 28,500, for link in article there is no traffic data at all. Their actual forum is hosted along with many others: any notable forum would look after itself. -Splash 22:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor forum of a school is eminently non-notable. --Icelight 20:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete good grief, nn. Is this some awful revenge of the "all the schools of the world project"?---CH (talk) 03:25, 12 September 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. I don't see the value in relisting this one. -Splash 23:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Glentract

edit

Non-notable fan fiction, Google hits point to nothing except a fan's user name on a forum. Nufy8 21:39, 3 September 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. -Splash 23:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews Free School

edit

It's a secondary ("high") school, albiet a very old and fairly successful one (golden beacon, etc). No vote. r3m0t talk 21:36, September 3, 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. -Splash 23:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latent Pending Theory

edit

Possible hoax. Google gets no hits. Article lists Cristiano Paes as the theory's creator, but when this person is put in Google, only a Canadian athlete appears to come up. Cristiano Paes is also up for deletion. GinaDana 21:57, 3 September 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. -Splash 23:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Paes

edit

Non-notable, or a hoax. When this person is put in Google, only a Canadian athlete appears to come up. The theory the article lists him as creating, Latent Pending Theory, has no hits on Google and is also up for deletion. GinaDana 22:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google Scholar doesn't find him either. Looks content-free. Dlyons493 23:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I already speedied this guy once. Zoe 05:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the citation index Web of science doesn't seem to know him either, seems non-notable. Salsb 15:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete calling it a hoax is almost too nice a term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The Institute of Physics in Sao Paulo does exist, but there is no "complexity fluids group" (although "turbulence" is listed as one area of research pursued at this institute) and I can find no mention of Paes in their faculty list.---CH (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep, with possible merge with pseudoscience moink 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial science

edit

Delete as I am unwilling to redirect this anywhere, and it's current content and likely any future content is rather mystical stuff between OR and POV. Obviously no redirect to science, and it doesn't claim to be protoscience or pseudoscience either, so no redirect to those nor to any of the hoaxes. I'm not sure the term has been "traditionally" used for anything. -Splash 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand As the first contributor of this article I find it odd that within minutes of beginning to sketch out it scope someone "helps" the process by suggesting the page be deleted. There is a certain body of writing on the construction of the term "controversial science," and the term itself is used a great deal by people with and without an overt POV. But that does in no way make the term itself controversial. I suggest to allow the article to develop and after a time come to a determination of whether or not it needs a redirect, and if so, to what other article. People familiar with this topic are likely to deem it anything BUT "mystical." Haiduc 22:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Tend to agree with Splash re traditional use, but there's an article there I feel. Reich is one of many possible examples. Kuhnian revolutions might balso be relevant. Dlyons493 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any useful content into pseudoscience (all of the examples discussed in the article are actually pseudoscience), then redirect. There is no particular reason to have an entry to describe the concept of science that is merely controversial, anymore than we should have an entry to describe that concept of a, e.g., "controversial legal decision" or "controversial book". (The article does talk a little bit at the end about how science is labelled "controversial" when it is not, for political reasons, but this is just a rhetorical device.) Sdedeo 23:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an article about "examples of controversial science," which may or may not belong under pseudoscience, but about the term "Controversial science" itself, and its evolution and dynamics.Haiduc 00:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it stands, the article doesn't really persuade me that the term exists in the sense that it is discussed in, say, academic circles. Rather, it's just a somewhat blanket phrase dealing with any kind of science that someone disagreed with — and that's just about the entire field! -Splash 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is an exploratory article in a still-embryonic stage. I think that an argument can be made that this term has a life of its own, aside from what it describes, and that it is per se a worthy object of analysis. I may be proven wrong in the end but I do not think that a preemptory challenge to its exitence is either timely or useful at this moment. As it stands the argument may not persuade me either, but as material accumulates, and as others hopefuly contribute, a viable discourse may take shape. What's your rush? You tagged it literally minutes after I began to write.Haiduc 00:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. An "exploratory" article sounds a lot to me like original research. It reads like a slightly-POV first draft of pseudoscience.--Prosfilaes 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what the article describes is more properly called pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 07:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this article seem to cover pseudoscience, but with less neutrality, which is already covered well 15:29, September 5, 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. Would normally relist, but this is good enough for an A1 speedy to me. -Splash 23:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ké

edit

Substub gives far too little context or information; not notable as per WP:MUSIC as far as I can determine through Google. Has advertising appearance. NicholasTurnbull 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No notablility established. I couldn't find anything on this artist. — RJH 19:11, 4 September 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, has been validly transwikied. -Splash 23:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calabash noodle soup (hulu mian)

edit

Completing nomination unfinished since April. Meantime it's been transwikied to Wikibooks. Since that's happened, delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:36, 3 September 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. -Splash 23:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catharton electronica

edit

Non-notable webforums with 400+ members. DS 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy delete", please. I'm the webmaster of the Catharton Electronica site and I was shocked to see it submitted to Wikipedia. One of our members was a little over-zealous and created the article without my knowledge. Small sites shouldn't be articles on Wikipedia because otherwise Wikipedia would be overrun by spam. You can confirm my webmaster status on CE's off-topic forum, I've posted saying I want this article removed. --Krisse 04:38, 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. -Splash 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)

edit

Nothing notable that I can see. --Hooperbloob 06:40, 14 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 00:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maths worksheets

edit

Delete - barely even a dictionary definition. The article appears to be primarily promoting a web site. Ben Finn 22:42, 3 September 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. moink 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido DVD

edit

Delete just a website what rents DVDs. Alexa rank is about 1,900,000th. -Splash 22:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Car accident moink 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fender bender

edit

Tagged speedy as "Dicdef", but there's not a speedy for those without a AFD-and-transwiki first. This is such a well known term, surely it can go somewhere? -Splash 22:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I did this, someone had either speedied it or an irate vandal moved it to its current location. -Splash 22:47, 3 September 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. -Splash 23:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Street, New Haven

edit

Delete restaurant-not mentioned in New Haven G Clark 11:21, 2005 August 13 (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. We have a close situation here (4 delete, 1 merge, 1 redirect), the entire content of the article is ""Chi-Chi" is a character from Scarface played by Angel Salazar. He is the short guy in the gang." Now, the Scarface itself is a disambiguation page, and so merging and redirecting would need to be to one of the actual movie articles, Scarface (1932 film) or Scarface (1983 film). Unfortunately, the article here does not say which one the character appears in. There is very little content here, and it is not easy to merge this with either of those articles anyway. With no good bearing of where or how to merge this, I will call this a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Chi (Scarface)

edit

One character in the movie -- more Wiki brah clean up. Paul Klenk 06:21, 28 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 KEEP. -Splash 23:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher_Lee_Meng_Soon

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Would relist, only it's verging on patent nonsense and if it isn't that it's plainly a joke. -Splash 23:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rausonid

edit

Completing nomination - no vote --Doc (?) 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rausonid (Dinosuar spelled backwards) seems to have been wholly invented for this article, I suspect by a friend of Lisa Huff. At best it's new fiction. 68.20.140.7 1 July 2005 12:48 (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. -Splash 23:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club SpongeBob

edit
  • Delete: An episode of a cartoon show is too trivial for a proper enclopedia article. Rintrah 06:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't agree with the statement above. Hugh Jass 02:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When deleted Re-direct to the main SpongeBob page. The Time Killer
  • This nomination was malformatted and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Keep or merge somewhere, episodes of TV shows are suitable. JYolkowski // talk 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--there's precedent for individual TV show episodes. Meelar (talk) 23:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but only because it makes no sense to delete one episode without deleting all episodes and completely rewriting the main article. Personally, it makes no sense to me to include this detail about a single episode of a cartoon in an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper. -- DS1953 01:04, September 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 DELETE. -Splash 23:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinner

edit

Alexa rank of 3,616,089, non-notable. Delete--Shanel 23:01, September 3, 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. -Splash 23:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gag on my Cock

edit

(Completing nom) nn pornsite (it has an alexa rating of 4,100 - but since 90% of those above it will be porn that does not say much - I din't even bother using Google) --Doc (?) 23:51, 3 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_3&oldid=1234127451"