< August 26	August 28 >

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mi casa es su casa[edit]

Non-notable GinaDana 00:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with above.Delete. Eddie.willers 00:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto. Delete. --PatadyBag 00:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Al 01:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn --TimPope 09:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn student film. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• cancelación NN Roodog2k 13:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons above IINAG 18:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Mi deleta es su deleta.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia no es su casa, por lo que no puede ser mía (translates as Wikipedia is not your house, so it can't be mine.). Delete --Titoxd 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable. Elfguy 01:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 04:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ral315 17:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Random happenings[edit]

Non-notable GinaDana 00:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Al 01:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn student film. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Paul Klenk 11:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whats the deal with all the student films lately? Roodog2k 13:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Elfguy 01:23, 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 REDIRECT to Commission, with the reduser vote discounted. -Splash 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10 percenter[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang - which this article says the term is Eddie.willers 00:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to a point- if the slang has any kind of cultural impact or is widely-spread enough that it is part of the vernacular, it deserves an article. In this case, however, it is at best obscure profession-specific jargon, and as such doesn't deserve its own page. Delete. --PatadyBag 00:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Commission. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This term isn't all that obscure - it's used in lots of contexts including the track (racetrack) where it refers to someone who will cash your winning ticket for you to avoid tax withholding. But there probably is not much more that can be said about this to take it beyond dicdef so this page should be merged and redirected to Commission or Agent. -EDM 03:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This would make good gay slang. I think I'll invent a new term based on it. Keep. Voyager640 17:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See for example, the terms at http://www.queerbychoice.com/samesex.html ... perhaps we have a new term on our hands here. Voyager640 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to comission. In advertising, it's 15% -- should we have a 15 percenter article as well? Sdedeo 20:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Robchurch -- MicahMN | μ 00:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge Elfguy 01:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 proper capitalization). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Addicted to bass[edit]

It's a pop single by whom, exactly? And released when? And just who is its influence? Eddie.willers 00:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't know much about the song itself, but I remember it was pretty popular when it came out, and as such I believe meets the notability criteria for music. This article just needs a lot more info, not deletion. Raven4x4x 01:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added more information and hope to add more further. Notable song by Puretone featuring Amiel Daemion. It was #2 in the UK in 2002 and top 20 in Australia in 1998. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, hit single. Kappa 02:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Subject is a notable single. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have expanded the song further explaining its record of chart success, the history and its nomination for awards in Australian music awards. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 07:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment After the conclusion of the vote, should be moved to Addicted to Bass. Capitalistroadster 07:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Cap'. Alf 09:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the article is very informative after Cr's changes. The song was a huge hit over here, and got considerable airplay. IINAG 18:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Paul Klenk
• Keep enough info for an article Elfguy 01:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move to Addicted to Bass (it's a song title, therefore does not fall under the ægis of Wikipedia's "sentence style capitalization" rule)... I am, after all, Addicted to Bass... Tomer ^TALK 02:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Move → Addicted to Bass as per Tomer. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-28 T 03:17:08 Z

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete executed by User:User:MacGyverMagic. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bezza[edit]

Delete it is an article about a real(?) person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject Grcampbell 00:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a non-notable biography and vanity. Al 01:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, non-notable, et cetera. Quicksandish 02:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - qualifies as a speedy under CSD #7. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy tagged Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:03, 27 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 Could use a cleanup. --18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Amy Yip[edit]

Weak Delete not particularly notable except in niche-market, no biographical or career info. given other than link to imdb (duh!). Eddie.willers 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep Poorly written content is not a reason to delete an otherwise entirely notable actor. She passes all the standards for inclusion. Dottore So 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. Al 01:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral Most well known in HK for her boobs and having little acting skills other than being cast as a bimbo or lust symbol in comedies. Whether that's notable is open to speculation. 165.21.154.112 01:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, I guess you think we should delete Pamela Anderson??? Roodog2k 13:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:BIO and expand. WP:BIO specifies that biographies of living people who are "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more" are worthy of inclusion. Ms Yip meets this criteria. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - to my mind, anyone listed on IMDB is almost certainly notable. This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She seems notable enough in Hong Kong films. Hong Kong is not a niche market.--Prosfilaes 02:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it was a niche-market. It wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I tend to be an inclusionist, but enough of a niche market may cross the line into not-notable. If someone stared in a series of movies that had their debue and final performances in the UNLV audioturium, that would be a valid reason for deletion.--Prosfilaes 18:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not everyone in IMDB is notable, but the ones with numerous speaking/named roles and credited ones are as opposed to the "woman on bus" or the non-speaking "bag-lady" in the background for example. Her credits seem to include little of such non-notable roles. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• I require a photo to be added to the article to decide what I think about it. Just kidding. This one's a clear keep. Nandesuka 12:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her lack of acting talent is fine by me. Alf 12:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Duh... Roodog2k 13:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, even I've heard of her, and I'm British. However, somebody needs to explain why she has "become a target of koing in films". What is koing? Is it rude? I'd certainly like to target my own koing at Amy Yip, indeed I may have done so in the past, and I don't care who reads this. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Yipster was well known in HK film circles out of proportion to her actual body of work, or something like that... Fire Star 20:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup it seems notable but needs some more stuff added. Elfguy 01:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article expanded and cleaned up. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup. Frederick Dannen wrote a lot about her in Hong Kong Babylon...time permitting, I'll take up the task.--Toquinha 21:46, 1 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 [1]. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos washing machines[edit]

Weak delete I'm sure there's something of relevance or interest in there but where? Eddie.willers 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense/drivel. --Blackcap | talk 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • O.K., I just did some checking and found that this article was completely plagarised from here. "Chaos washing machines" gets a mere 67 results on Google (singular "Chaos washing machine" gets 63), the first two links being WP's. I had thought it was nonsense, and I was wrong. But it is pretty nn, and also copyvio. --Blackcap | talk 02:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is probably the original source: http://www.ama.edu.ph/research/amacc_e-journal_f/the_butterfly.htm . However I can't believe you would describe it as "non-notable". Kappa 02:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Well, maybe I'm not thinking of something... but still, it seems like a largely ridiculous article to me, anyway, and that feeling is only exacerbated by finding so few Google hits and that it's plagiarised (suggesting that there isn't enough material out there to write an article about it). It's somewhat interesting, but not very notable (IMHO). --Blackcap | talk 16:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm surprised you would say it's non-notable, because it's both a big thing (a new product from a large company) and distinct from other things of its type (by having a "gimmick"). It's creative and has a large audience, and so it seems highly notable. Kappa 19:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this. But there probably is an article to be written about the relationship between science and advertising.Zeimusu | Talk page 01:14, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
• Keep, Vfd is not cleanup, maybe someone could provide a reason for deletion that has some basis in policy? Kappa 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to keep if copyvio is rewritten. Kappa
• Delete, or, at best, merge non-copyvio stuff into Chaos theory#Popular conceptions. --Calton | Talk 09:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Leaning towards a merge with Washing machine. I don't think these appliances are really notable in their own right, but they do represent an interesting development in Washing Machine Drivel (WMD). -- Visviva 09:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, Visviva: Is your vote "merge," or are you still thinking about it? --Blackcap | talk 16:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Note that Goldstar is half of Lucky Goldstar, now known as LG. -- Visviva 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RE-Merge back to Chaos Theory This article was a subsection in the Chaos Theory article, and was removed because it was marketing hooey. I think we should remerge it back to Chaos theory, under a new heading, like Chaos Theory in Popular Culture... or something....
• Delete if it was removed from Chaos theory for being a marketing hooey, it should simply get deleted. Groeck 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk
  • Comment Do you have a reason for your vote? --Blackcap | talk 20:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic. Elfguy 01:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup and Merge into Positioning (marketing) as an example thereof as that article currently has none and could use several. Caerwine 03:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure I understand why you think it ought to go into Positioning (marketing) of all the places it could go. Some people think that this constitutes a valid article in and of its own right, so I don't think that if it belongs anywhere it should be as an example in an article about marketing. You can't just have a few paragraphs on a washing machine in the midst of a business article, so that would completely eliminate anything you want to say about CWM apart from the marketing sector. It seems to me that it would be much more fit (if the vote is to keep or merge it) to either leave it as its own article with a link from chaos theory, or merge it with aforesaid chaos theory. --Blackcap | talk 16:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Response Because as far as I can tell, the whole CWM concept is primarily an attempt to create a new market segment within the market for washing machines to make use of the buzz that surrounded chaos theory in the early 1990s. If there's anything out there that indicates that this was more than just marketing buzz, then it might warrant a separate article, but if so, why ain't it in the article already. Caerwine 20:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • O.K. Thanks for clarifying that. --Blackcap | talk 20:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cencered comic[edit]

Vanity page (and badly written). Eddie.willers 01:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one part of a non-notable blog. Delete. Al 01:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hasn't been around long enough to be notable. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons above IINAG 18:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Steve Casburn 21:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not interesting, badly written. Brequinda 10:37, 31 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matlab problems[edit]

POV, the article itself is well enough written, but a page on the problems of MATLAB cannot be neutral.Zeimusu | Talk page 01:06, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

• Delete I already merged it with MATLAB Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  That means it must be Kept. Gazpacho 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not quite understand your logic Gazpacho... Manik Raina 15:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Would be quite okay if merged with Matlab, which is done, so this page can be deleted Manik Raina 15:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If a merge has taken place, the only allowable "deletion" is actually to redirect to Matlab so that the history is preserved. ESkog 20:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is simply not true and I wish people would stop repeating this myth. There is a perfectly straightforward procedure for merging histories, available to any sysop, that allows a GFDL-compliant "merge and delete" to be performed. It is discouraged only because it is laborious. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Astrology Prince Astrology book[edit]

An article about a book which...does not exist?! No ISBN, No publisher. and online bookshops do not have anything with this title. 202.156.2.74 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge with Little Astrology Prince (which I think itself is only a "weak keep.") "Little Astrology Prince" does have a pop-up-ad-laden website with a number of online divination tools (http://www.astprince.com/) and apparently (per a review found here http://www.wicce.com/roth14.html) has published a rather ugly Tarot deck. Even if this person is sufficiently notable, I can't imagine this book is notable enough for its own entry. Crypticfirefly 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the debate over deletion that is ongoing at Little Astrology Prince. No-one can assess his notability. Both these should be removed. Dottore So 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This book was a bestseller. This is verifiable from other sources. — Instantnood 06:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote (for now) - there's a lot of noise on this from Google - but most seems to be mirrors, dictionary stuff and dead ends. Could be small-time vanity publication, it doesn't look like a 'best seller'. Would Instantnood like to share these 'other sources' with us? --Doc (?) 11:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without even an ISBN, it's not a book. Nandesuka 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wee Starry Dude, while I had no objections to him (and I won't make the same comment again, GraemeL) this is a no go. Little chance of it being expanded and better place in his article. Nostradalfus 12:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The ISBN of this book is ISBN 9629070618, details at cp1897.com.hk and astprince.com. This page mentioned the popularlity of this book, and for how long it's a bestseller. This article describes this person and the a book series he writes that published yearly. — Instantnood 17:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC) (modified 18:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC))
• Delete If it was a bestseller, Amazon should know about it. Groeck 18:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it's appropriate to expect Amazon would tell which non-English-language book is/was the bestseller in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 18:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Instandhood, that is excellent, I say we upload the cover of the nice green one (called Happiness) and maybe even the Saint-Exupéry look alike and merge to Little Starry Dude, making that page much better. Also note this and The Little Prince for possible disambiguation. Alf 20:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If keep is not sucessful, then merge with Little Astrology Prince. — Instantnood 08:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maths debate[edit]

No google hits for "World Maths debate".... what is this? I don't know enough about the subject.... so I'm not going to vote for now... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Patent nonsense --jmd 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, last part shows it to be a hoax/nonsense. Gazpacho 01:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete joke. -- (drini|☕) 01:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That Wayne King guy must be quite the cunning linguist to be such a good maths debater. Delete. Move to BJAODN. Al 01:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Old joke. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:29, 27 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 Copyvio. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LPA, Inc.[edit]

Advertisement. Can a landscaping/interior design firm be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? Definitely not NPOV. Al 01:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio double-copyvio. tagged Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just a corporate brochure as it stands and should be tagged for copyvio (although one assumes that this is corporate shilling). It is hard to assess the notability of this outfit because its name is an acronym for things like local planning authority or land planning authority which push up the google numbers. Precise hits on 'lpa, inc' suggest it is fairly prominent. Dottore So 01:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --tranquileye 00:42:47, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Padraic Stevens[edit]

Delete I'm from this part of the world. It's nonsense. --PhilipO 01:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Hoax. Padraig Stevens is actually a member of the Saw Doctors, per Google. Edit: redirect per Rob Church. Quicksandish 02:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Padraig Stevens as a mis-spelling of that person's name. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Either a hoax or a misspelling, and in the latter case it is wrong. Groeck 04:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as anagram of Passive nerd act. Paul Klenk 10:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I failed to find the relevant facts. Is anyone has any clue? --Bhadani 12:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Padraig Stevens as mispelling. Alf 13:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I apologise for my bluntness, but, come on! This is not even a convincing hoax. Yes, there is such a person as Padraig Stevens. But this guy is not him. Padraig Stevens is a Saw Doctor. How could a member of the Saw Doctors, a hugely popular band in Ireland (and fairly popular in the ex-patriate community over here) still be playing after apparently committing so many murders? How could this (hoaxed) person who hates the Saw doctors actually be a part of them? I very frequently read the Irish newspapers, and, believe me, if there were a serial killer slaughtering fans of the Saw Doctors, it would be huge news. In any circumstance, a serial killer would be on the front pages for more than a week, specifically if it were such an interesting case such as 'this one.' There would also be huge documentation online of it. Take it from me, there have not been many mass murderers in Ireland; if this guy were amongst them, he would be incredibly notable. But there is no such killer. I don't see why you should redirect this to Padraig Stevens. Sure, there should be a Padraig Stevens page, perhaps, but one about the Saw Doctors member. Making one out of this hoax is utter stupidity. IINAG 18:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. --tranquileye 00:43:30, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shit-Storm[edit]

Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 01:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of other pages regarding comedy groups and people. (Unsigned comment by 67.86.9.248 on 02:17, 27 August 2005 UTC)
  • Question: Does this group have any media coverage or other evidence of a reasonably large audience? Kappa 02:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those pages cover notable groups, that is, groups or individuals who have some claim to national fame. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity Page Guidelines: Lack of fame shouldn't be a reason for a delete.
• Keep As a regular at the UCB theater, I can vouch for the fact that SS is a group worthy of an article. They have regular fans and are accomplished actors.
  • Unfortunately personal attestations won't go very far, especially from new users. Wikipedia needs nice verifiable evidence. Kappa 02:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's spelled shit-storm, but it's pronounced vanity page. Delete Dottore So 03:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads to much like vanity, "wave of popularity" "rave reviews." If it were re-started with different style I could accept notability. Marskell 12:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry guys. Come back later. Delete. Nandesuka 12:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, link supported advertising, unless anyone wants it "Userfied". Alf 13:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: link sponsored advertising? i don't see any.

*weak keep What is the threshold of notability for comedy troupes? Do they have to be nationally fameous?Roodog2k 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete Based on what I saw on CurrentTV, and this apparent attempt to pad the votes by a number of anon users, agreed that its NN and I hereby change my vote. Roodog2k 17:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever that threshold may be, I can't imagine that its being met by a totally unreferenced article with the only external links being to the subject's own website and the theatre where the subject performs. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator Manik Raina 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. Fire Star 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as of yet non-notable group. Sdedeo 21:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollderella when factual and verifiable become the only criteria for inclusion, someone will let you know and then your votes will be welcome indeed. Admin, please ignore this vote; it's tendentious. Dottore So 07:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dottore So, your comment that "factual and verifiable" is not sufficient for inclusion is correct and relevant. I don't think your other comments are and I wish you'd consider editing them out. If you do so, please remove this comment at the same time. A vote is a vote, and actual VfD votes define our de facto policy, which policy pages codify. Trollderella cast his vote and gave a reason. I think it's a bad reason but that doesn't matter. I think it is way out of line to suggest that the acting sysop ignore a valid vote Sysops are supposed to judge consensus, not pass judgement on the rationale given by voters. By pointing out that the reason he gives is invalid, you may hope to influence him or other voters (or minimize the influence of his vote on other voters) but you shouldn't try to influence the acting sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity, self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was watching some show on Current, the TV Channel invented by Al Gore, and they were featuring this Billy Hot Chocolate guy. Shit-storm did not feature much in the show. My vote stands as above. :) Roodog2k 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as informative. Unsigned vote by User:24.215.231.69 13:48, August 29, 2005

• Keep as informative, especially in light of contributions maqde from Shit-Storm member Eric Appel as writer for The Andy Milonakis Show; this page shows background.(UTC) Unsigned vote by User:24.195.25.159 16:09, August 29, 2005

• KeepShit-Storm!

• Delete self promotion.

• Delete Self agrandizing vanity. User:Capplebee

• Keep Looking at the history of the entry, I don't think this is just self-promo.Bjones

• KeepShit-Storm!

keep them

• Keep it. This is informative.
• Delete vanity. nonsense.

• Keep A legitimate and respected improv group, keep this. User:Mattmoses

• Delete I've seen them perform several times. They are neither legitimate nor respected except by the few of their more loyal audience members who still believe improv which "breaks the rules" is innovative or important. They're barely worthy of their ultimately meager following let alone of their inclusion in Wikipedia, which they admit on another webpage (http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/showthread.php?t=38587) began as a joke for the sake of both vanity and self-promotion.User:BJH

• Keep BJH sounds like sour grapes. It still is helpful and interesting.

• Delete BJH is basically correct. And the previous voter doesn't know what "sour grapes" means. 216.27.44.254

KEEP: Shit Storm is good, and worthy of this entry. delete: guilty as charged

• I cant decide but one thing I am sure about is that Im going to see this handsome group shit-storm for myself at school night, hosted by Justin Purnell, on sept. 14 at the UCB theatre in New York

• Keep Why not keep them. This is history.

Keep: We may yet discover their importance.

DeleteOne time I farted and everyone blamed it on my teacher.

• Happy B-Day Billy Hot Chocolate

KEEP: Yeehaw!

• Keep They are changing the face of the improv comedy scene.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEDIATARY[edit]

Neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC) – Copied from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MEDIATARY, which now redirects here. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the tag to the page, but didn't complete the process, so I'm doing it for them. At a guess, I'd say they nominated it because it amounts to no more than a neologism. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete made up. Dottore So 03:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lol funny though Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (for the reasons already mentioned) --Mysidia (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Alf 13:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. (I originally nominated this but apparently didn't complete the process, as Rob mentioned) -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:11, 27 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EVE iPortal[edit]

Current content appears to be advertising material. Google search for "EVE iPortal" returns 5 hits, making this non-notable. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a valid unique technology. A more generic search for EVE and the company X-tier on Google does turn this up on many technology related sites and is a valid technology. One such is UMBC Agent Web. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.63.20 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2005‎ (UTC) –Comment merged here from content previously at this title[reply]
• I disagree. A more general search "EVE X-tier" turns up the technology in the same context as Microsoft, and Sun technologies. A google search returned over 8 pages of conversation, exceprts, articles on this technology. Since when do search hits dictate notability? I see no violation here and vote for it to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.63.20 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 03:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising, NN Groeck 04:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising, POV, NN. MCB 06:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per the people above. Also, as a general rule, I am suspicious of any page that has an exclamation mark on it. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:48, 27 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consociatus Insula[edit]

Brand new micronation. Not encyclopedic. Also Consociatus Insula/Constitution. RADICALBENDER★ 02:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh no not another one. Zero google hits. Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This Page is being constructed on behalf of the Goverment Presiding of the Consociatus Insula. If you have any questions about this Page, send them to The Department of Information of the Consociatus Insula Keep - Dr. James Barloutti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.146.13 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 August 2005
• LOL. The Representatove Democracy of the Consociatus Insula was founded August 1, 2005 and was deleted later that month. Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Also, apply to other BS entries from same user. Dottore So 03:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete .... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quickly. Painfully. - Lucky 6.9 03:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Treason. -EDM 03:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This country claims to be coterminous with the United States? Nonsense. Zoe 04:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a subversive anagram for Cousin's a social nut, or Cousin's anal coitus. Paul Klenk 10:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROTFLMAO! Paul, that's the funniest damned thing I've ever read on VfD. Good one!! - Lucky 6.9 21:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, made-up non-existent country = vanity.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense, might have redeemed ½ a brownie point had they chosen Advance Britannia Fair as the anthem. Alf 13:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a guillotine.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh. I could write a better constitution than that. (Come to think of it, I have; probably more encylopedic, too.) Delete, nn, fictional, vanity, nonsense, huge mess, the usual set. Shimgray 20:32, 27 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/No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TopLink[edit]

software prograom, sub-stub. no indication of notability. Delete unless expanded to show signifigance. DES ^(talk) 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, 10 year old product by huge company. Gazpacho 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded from a stub to a real article during vfd period. Dlyons493 07:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Oracle. (and leave as red-link) No content to speak of, which is not to say that it would be impossible for a good article on the subject to be written, but this is sub-stub. --Mysidia (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a merge to be completed, you need to redirect. This way the edit history is retained per GFDL. See Guide to Votes for deletion link on top of main VFD page. Merge and delete is not a valid vote, so there's no good way to get a red-link. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm all about the obscure software packages, but there is no assertion of notability here. Speedy delete. Nandesuka 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability, well apart from the blindingly obvious, Java Developer's Journal's readers voted it "Best Java Persistence Architecture" in 2003, it also won the Editor's Choice JavaWorld 2003 Award for Best Java Data Access Tool, and the 2003 Java Pro Readers Choice Award for Best Java Data Access Tool or Driver. Northrop Grumman used TopLink on a project to integrate some US DoD databases. I could go on but it's utterly ridiculous to be discussing deletion of an article on this product. In database terms it would be like not having an article on the Beatles' White Album. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is the same way I feel about the topic, but I didn't have information about the significance about it like you did. I added those awards into the article, but if you know more about TopLink then I think it would be great if you could edit in more information on why it's considered to be the #1 object-relational mapping tool. --BSTRhino 03:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Oracle. Radiant_>|< 09:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lawley[edit]

ug - nn, vanity Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. vanity, nn, and Warren Zevon fan. It is not clear if the user who created the page is simply very lost, or this an elaborate hoax/joke. Dottore So 03:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, nn Groeck 04:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under CSD A7. Also personal essay. DES ^(talk) 05:27, 27 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 Speedy delete. HappyCamper 05:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EarthTHESHIP[edit]

Your guess is as good as mine. Borderline patent nonsense. No Google hits. RADICALBENDER★ 03:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as short/no context, I guess. I would have tagged it cleanup-context first though. Gazpacho 03:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and hurry. Quicksandish 03:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• The cleanup tag was too generous. I've tagged it for a speedy. CanadianCaesar 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete his/her other contribution Indian People’s Congress as well, which gets 2 hits on Google. Dottore So 03:26, 27 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Leick[edit]

Not notable - not a single reference found on Google with name in quotes Groeck 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Is she the sister of Hudson Leick? Maybe make a Merge there, otherwise Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If she is, I don't think mearly being in the same family as someone noteable constitutes noteability. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not noteable — Kjammer ⌂ 07:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not noteable --Cje 09:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, until the episode airs and she's credited with a guest appearance on SVU. Paul Klenk 10:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, two guest appearences and no major roles of which neither can be found on IMDB or tv.com. Personally, I would have prejudice against recreation, because one guest role is not important enough for an article. (And if you look at my userpage you'll note I support articles on kid actors wherever possible.) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

*Merge and re-direct into Hudson Leick if it can be confirmed that she's her daughter (sounds like it, since the article mentions her not being as famous as her mom). --rob 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would go with rob's merge vote, but the total absence of Google hits and the fact that she is not mentioned at all in Hudson Leick's IMDB bio makes her very existence somewhat dubious to me. Will consider changing vote if a reference can be cited. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Steve Casburn 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-direct to Hudson Leick, but do not merge with article. Instead put the information in a section of Talk:Hudson Leick. A future person looking for the "daughter" will find a semi-relevant article. This is somewhat similiar to many re-directs which are for mis-spelling, fictional character names, or entirely erroneous names/terms. Also, this puts the "daughter" story in a place where more knowledgable people will see it (who can affirm or debunk it). --rob 00:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect as above, Pref delete, non notable. Shropshire Lad 19:29, 30 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Fong[edit]

• Not notable Groeck 03:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Patent nonsense and not notable. Delete. A Shortage of Chairs 03:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio of the link its mentioned - but lets not prolong its misery!!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. If one day the author can rewrite it, it may get past us. Paul Klenk 08:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. Elfguy 01:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terribly written page. Frogular 16:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameglio[edit]

Hardly notable. Found only about 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've see about 140 googles with a few minor media mentions... I'd rather see it cleaned up - but I can't speak spanish :\ Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Agree with previous poster in that I found many Google hits, but most were in Spanish, a language I cannot read. It does seem to be correct that Pietro Ameglio was a co-author of a Spanish language book on Gandhi, and his most recent appearances in the news involve trying to block the destruction of an ostensibly historic hotel building in Mexico.Crypticfirefly 03:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's a minor figure on the fringes of Mexican peace activists. His writings, such as this, are largely rehash and the google mentions are mostly on specialty sites. To the point about 140 google hits, please click to the last page and you will see that half or more represent duplicate content. Dottore So 05:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comparison, wikipediea gets 196 hits by this method. [2] Kappa 08:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's a completely fake comparison. Haven't you ever wondered how one of the world's busiest websites only has 200 non-duplicated references? The preponderance of Wiki-hosted results throws Google's duplication tagging for a loop. If you remove the wikipedia site from your search, you have 10 million different results and you don't trigger a Google duplicate tag. Here's one way to do the [search]. Per mgm, the news sites are not, in my view, notable, but I admit that is my view. [This] is fairly typical. Sur al Sur is hardly notable. And the article less so - a sort of quo-vadis on the nonviolent movement, mostly consisting of Gandhi remembered. I don't see notability, my vote to delete stands. Dottore So 17:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comparison is with google, which gets 432 "unique hits" [3] the moment. Perhaps you'd like to explain why this comparison is completely false as well? Kappa 19:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. As I said above, 'you have to remove the site itself from your search.' So go back to google and type in google and then add -google.com and see if it makes a difference. Dottore So 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, now wikipedia gets 852 [4] and google gets 511. [5]. Kappa 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have been clearer. As you may know, Google limits its returns on searches to 1000, so as it processes through the top 1000 results it filters for similar results and eliminates duplication in the displayed 1000 . What you have discovered is that searching google for "google" returns roughly 50% duplicate content on the top 1000 pageranked matches. (Excluding the site is a good way to get higher individual returns in your 1000 sample since, for high-profile sites like Google or Wikipedia, the site itself has a high pagerank score). Put in a random word ("frank", "hairdress", "kappa", whatever) and click through - you will see that most times Google returns a duplicate message before you reach the 1000 limit even if the search term has millions of results and is seemingly random. This is because there is inherent duplication in the 1000 sample that Google returns on whatever search you do. Let me sum up: "Pietro Ameglio" triggers a TOTAL of 124 results of which half are duplicated; that is a sample size of 100% Wikipedia generates millions of returns; the duplicated content on the sample you have linked to above (which is itself so small as to be unrepresentative) is a mere 15%; the overall duplication, were it possible to run a 100% sample, would probably be considerably smaller still. Your google link is also a good example. Between the time you conducted the search, and the time I clicked it, the pagerank of the top 1000 sites that mentioned Google had change significantly enough to alter the duplicated results within the sample by over 15%. For high return search terms (like Wikipedia) simply waiting an hour (or hell,maybe five minutes) between running the search can change substantially the duplication level in your 1000 sample. You surely didn't think that google only somehow triggered 511 non-duplicated entries out of tens of millions of results!? Dottore So 01:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd like to suggest you look at the quality of the links rather than the number of them that show up in Google. If the majority is from reputable news services (I didn't check), I think it can be worth keeping the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollderella please, PLEASE stop voting in VfD. I am factual (verifiably) and verifiable (factually), but can't claim an entry in an Encyclopedia. When factual and verifiable become the only criteria for inclusion, someone will let you know and then your votes will be welcome indeed. Admin, please ignore this vote; it's tendentious. Dottore So 07:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless more info and sources can be provided. Elfguy 01:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notable people tend to have a last name. Radiant_>|< 19:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • An observation-- "Ameglio" is the guy's last name.Crypticfirefly
• keep per Crypticfirefly. Incidentally this guy appears to be so notable he only has a last name. Kappa 19:27, 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. Article contents moved to new namespace: Amiya "Kani" Deb, current namespace deleted.

Amiya(Kani) Deb[edit]

Not notable. Found less than 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 10:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments only: I feel his notability should be established, as in this part of the world (Indian subcontinent) several bits of information are yet to be digitalized. --Bhadani 12:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per Bhadani. Manik Raina 15:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Bhanani. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, but if kept, RENAME this. Radiant_>|< 19:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but rename) – Mohan Bagan is a top football club in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Never heard of him, but if he is what he is claimed to be it is a definite keep Tintin 10:02, 1 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 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Purdy[edit]

Not notable Groeck 03:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep google shows a ton of media mentions about her being a double-amputee (if this is the same one - if its not it should reflect that one...) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my request to Keep and rework. You are right. I (only) looked for an actress with that name. Article should reflect her real background. Groeck 04:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the article with information collected from the internet. Groeck 06:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Groeck's rewrite - seems notable enough. Capitalistroadster 08:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Groek's rewrite. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:24, 27 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 06:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivette Corredero[edit]

Another digusting attack page that an anon won't leave as a redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series). Another non-notable game contestant who doesn't need her own article. There seems to be an agenda among the anons to make certain members of the game look as bad as possible. Zoe 04:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Groeck 04:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this garbage Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete w/ redirect. Quicksandish 04:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't this be speedied somehow? Noone would object, surely. Dottore So 05:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A6 (attack pages). DES ^(talk) 05:22, 27 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 Speedy delete HappyCamper 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angie laakso[edit]

Vanity, not notable Groeck 04:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Plus slightly advertising. Quicksandish 04:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under CSD A7. Delete nn if not speedied. DES ^(talk) 05:16, 27 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal chin[edit]

The mentioned film and the character exists, but the context seems to be made up. Groeck 04:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could use a cleanup, but the Search for Animal Chin video is pretty legendary, and worthy of a more intelligent entry than this User:OllieRagdiprice

• • ok with me (might want to rename to Search for Animal Chin, though) Groeck 04:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for Google failure and lack of context. Paul Klenk 08:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense. Isn't that a criteria for speedy deletion? --WCFrancis 21:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems nonsense. Elfguy 02:46, 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. Titoxd 03:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_L._Feinsod[edit]

non-notable filmmaker OllieRagdiprice 04:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, IMDb-proven filmmaker [6] CanadianCaesar 05:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Mysidia (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag as requiring attention. Paul Klenk
• Delete Being on IMDB does not necessarily make a filmmaker notable: there are many obscure actors, directors, etc on imdb. According to the filmmaker's own website (http://www.feinsodville.com), he has made shorts that have shown at very minor film festivals and most of his press kit consists of listings from local papers. If you look at the wording of the entry and its provenance, it seems rather obvious that this entry is a vanity piece, and I doubt highly that any Wikipedia user would be searching for more information about Mark L. Feinsod. LadyClaudius (additional comment) also, note that this filmmaker does not have distribution or representation beyond himself--another indication of nn-ability -- LC
• Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google hits for indie film sites and filmfests, no major sites at all. If not vanity, certainly no notability. Denni☯ 01:03, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Keep notable, found on various sites. Elfguy 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears indie and self-published, that's nn. Radiant_>|< 19:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity, no references for any of the claims. Quale 15:17, 31 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 Speedy delete, blanked by creator. Thue | talk 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lionhearts[edit]

nn-band. if we had a speedy criterion for bands this would surely qualify. Delete. DES ^(talk) 04:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed Groeck 06:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LOL - POV issues too Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Paul Klenk 10:06, 27 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 Speedy Delete. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jubby Laurente[edit]

nn, vanity Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as vanity with no allegations of notability. Zoe 05:48, August 27, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality in Brazil[edit]

This is simply a non verifiable personal opinion. Following this user's contributions around [7] is providing great fodder for our deletion campaign. I urge you all to do the same!TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

• Delete Agreed. Groeck 06:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Nowhither 06:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And that's all that really needs to be said. CanadianCaesar 06:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above --Mysidia (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN Kappa 07:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 08:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for sure. --Bhadani 12:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN out of all the X in Brasil/X in Brazil articles, this one's seems to be the funniest, but only in context with the other articles. Roodog2k 14:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree and it is mischievous also. --Bhadani 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dottore So 14:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Let's vote Wikibrah as the cutest vandal we've got on wikipedia. He's a borderline vandal, he knowingly adds crap here. I wonder if the admins find this cute... Manik Raina 15:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't personally find this cute. It reads like a Weekly World News article. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- DS1953 01:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic material. Elfguy 02:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course. This is just nonsense. TheMadBaron 18:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ral315 17:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd have to say that, as the evidence mounts, I now regard this as just another prank by a known vandal. No attempt at encyclopedic content, despite many attempts to assume good faith and help the perpetrator understand what that means. So the other possibility is, it's just a series of jokes and should be treated as such. Andrewa 00:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, for what little it's worth: While the quality and POV of this page is seriously sub-par, the topic is quite encyclopedic. I took an Anthropology class a year ago, a signifigant portion of which was devoted to the sexuality of Brazil, which stands in great contrast to that of the U.S., and is really quite an interesting topic worthy of inclusion. If the author could start a more neutral page (i.e. Sexuality of Brazil), I would be happy to furnish him with notes and references. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 05:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good suggestion. You don't seem to be claiming that there is any useful content here to save, and IMO there isn't, it would be much easier to start again. Perhaps there is even enough encyclopedic information available for an article on bisexuality in Brazil, but a more general article is the place to start. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is an RfC against User:Wiki brah at present precisely because of articles like this. I and several other users are simply out of patience. Andrewa sums up my feelings pretty well at this point. - Lucky 6.9 17:36, 31 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 Userfy. Rje 14:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Cataldo[edit]

nn vanity. Groeck 06:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 10:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy this is likely a userfy issue, please note Deletion policy, noting the action for innapropriate user pages. I have greeted the new user and pointed them here. Alf 13:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy else Delete as per above. Roodog2k 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. At age 16 he has appeared in a number of roles according to the article, although IMBd only lists two of them [8]. Needs to be expanded. -- DS1953 00:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (userfy fine). Not notable, and the acting projects listed at his IMDB page do not appear notable either (film has less than five votes; the other actors of the TV show have not done much of anything else). He may be an actor, but IMO not notable enough for inclusion here. HollyAm 01:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless more info and sources can be provided. Elfguy 02:49, 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 Delete. Rje 14:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Gede[edit]

nn vanity Groeck 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If she "loves working with amateurs" so much, she should start writing more articles for WP. Paul Klenk 09:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have welcomed the intitial editor (new user) and pointed them here. Alf 15:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 21:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. Barbara who? Srcrowl 05:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Benny Lim[edit]

nn vanity Groeck 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Marskell 12:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Benny Lim is 23, an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore's theatre studies department and artistic director of The Fun Stage", accoring to the following link !!There is a painting of a nude male at page top!! [9]. The intial editor IP is Singnet (Singapore Telecommunications Ltd). Vanity. Alf 21:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 21:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy (#A7). Baronet is a very minor inherited title, and being an officer is very doubtful - he could have been a sergeant for all we know. Looks like it's genealogy, WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 19:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

John Hans Makeléer[edit]

Article doesn't explain what makes this person notable. Zoe 07:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (reluctantly) due to his nobility and naval officership. He's very, very obscure, but squeaks by. His significance needs to be established, if, for any reason, to make the article interesting. I ask the author to answer this question: Are you his descendant?
• Delete This smacks suspiciously of someone's genealogy project; criteria above are too low, I think. His significance needs to be established to keep this. Dottore So 14:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 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 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Camo dudes[edit]

Arcane slang not in general use; poorly written article. Paul Klenk 07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration: Camo dudes

• Google search of "camo dude" + "area 51" yields less than ten unique sites, mostly talk forums, and none of note. This indicates a use of this term that is truly arcane – hardly wide enough to merit an article. It's singularly uncommon slang, nothing more.
• The only other link to the page is at (Area 51), added by the creator of the article himself.
• Article is short due to granularity of its subject.
• Poorly written: incorrect capitalization ("Perimeter" as a proper noun), improperly titled (plural rather than singular); and with misspellings (including the term "cammo" itself). It appears the writer doesn't even know how to spell his own word.
• Statements range from the unsubstantiated ("Some observers have been detained on public land for pointing camera equipment at the base.") to the trifling ("some of these vehicles have been seen equipped with red and blue pursuit lighting").
• The photo is captioned: "In the full version of this picture (q.v.), a "Camo Dudes" vehicle can be seen on the top of the hill", but it reveals only an unexceptional car, without pursuit lights – and no camo dudes.
• The sign in the photo reads "Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range", which is adjacent to, but not part of, Area 51.

In summary, it smacks of Area 51 chat room ephemera, and, in my opinion, is a first-rate candidate for deletion. Take a good, hard look at it. Anyone care to disagree?

• Delete – Agree with nominator's argument. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary. There's substantial discussion of them on the Area 51 page, with plentiful external links to even more discussion of them. And anyway, every source I've seen spells it "cammo" --LemonAndLime 08:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make myself clear, I'm sure that "cammo dudes" definitely exist, I just don't think they warrant a wikipedia entry on their own --LemonAndLime 10:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per everybody. Marskell 10:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Area 51 It is part of "Area 51" folklore, but not worth its own article. Roodog2k 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Area 51 --tranquileye 00:44:50, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Delete, don't bother with Merge or Redirect. Pure nonsense, poorly written. Is the author on drugs?TheDeletator 03:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mindwipe the editor with mind altering drugs from Zeta Reticuli. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Ellis of New Brunswick[edit]

Article does not explain what makes this person notable. That she's buried in a parking lot? That she may have inspired a song (though there is no substantiation for that allegation, and even that is hardly notable)? Zoe 07:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if the local lore can be more fully documented and established in an encyclopaedic way. But delete the death order/birth order type deal; it's rather unnecessary. (unsigned vote from Paul Klenk)
• Delete A grave in a parking lot might make a brief footnote in local travel guides, but it isn't really the sort of thing that gets an encyclopedia article. The main claim of notability (about the song) is totally unverified, and seems like quite a stretch at best anyway. I'd also like to note that of the three ext links in the article, two don't work (404'ed) and the last gives no real info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 14:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to New Brunswick, New Jersey or Weird NJ Roodog2k 15:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan Denni☯ 01:10, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Radiant_>|< 19:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Roodog; also, find more substantive evidence; otherwise, delete. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC) I would recommend putting the entry under one's user page. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting, but not encyclopedic. Claims lack high quality sources. Quale 15:22, 31 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jarvis Andrew Lattin[edit]

Article does not explain what makes this person notable. But it sure uses a lot of words to do it. Zoe 07:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• The content is in my namespace to protect data in case it is deleted after a vote. That is not a valid reason for deletion in itself. By that logic anyone who trys to protect information at their namespace will have their entries deleted. A careful reading of the external links used will show that I am the author there also, my name is clearly listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably a copyvio of the link it mentions anyway Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to his attachment to town history and for having places named after him, but delete all the genealogical junk, and trim it down to a modest size. Paul Klenk 09:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for Heaven's sake. The content is here at [the author's user page]. This is just an offshoot of a genealogy project; the subject is not known. Dottore So 14:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep factual and verifiable. Re write it though... Trollderella 22:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, sounds like an A7 candidate to me. "Gold prospector", "deputy sheriff" of some hamlet, and a town was named not after him but after his family. The rest is genealogy and trivia. WP:NOT comes to mind. Radiant_>|< 19:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to relationship to Lattington and Long Island. I agree with Paul Klenk; it needs to be cut down and all the extraneous junk material removed. Let him do his genealogy elsewhere. Stepp-Wulf 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Relationship is claimed to Lattington and Long Island for the family, not this individual. Radiant! pointed this out, but I guess people don't read. Well written article, but not encyclopedic. Quale 15:26, 31 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chainsaw Scene (Scarface)[edit]

Creating the VfD page for an article which had the header added but the rest of the nomination not completed. It would be an extremely bad precedent to start creating articles about individual scenes from movies, especially non-notable scenes. This is another stub created by User:Wiki brah. Zoe 07:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This subject does not merit its own page. Some of the comments about Miami are utter nonsense. Watch this user, he's posting a lot of junk. Paul Klenk 07:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC) –Comment merged here from content previously at this title[reply]
  • What is the nonsense of which you speak? And I doubt anyone would really care if what you say about me since i've never been mean to anyone on here just want to help while you have repeatedly been warned about making personal attacks on here and have even been blocked before thank youWiki brah 08:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) –Comment merged here from content previously at this title[reply]
• Delete. Thanks for finishing the nomination process, which I started but couldn't complete. See also Camo dudes. "Chi-Chi, get the yay-yo!" Paul Klenk 07:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User:Wiki brah has been creating various small stubs relating to Scarface (and even a ((scarface-stub)), currently at SFD). All of them would make more sense as part of the article on the movie. (Another of his stub templates may soon be appearing at BJAODN, BTW) Grutness...wha? 08:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any verifiable information with Scarface. Capitalistroadster 08:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that would require us to keep this title around as a redirect. Zoe 09:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirects are cheap. Kappa 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE I am firmly a mergist, and I even see that this is needs to be deleted. Roodog2k 14:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who on earth would think to look for this under such a title. Just get rid of it. Dottore So 14:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT Hey, I just realized that this is the X in Brasil/X in Brazil guy! Too bad that this isn't funny, outside the context of wikipedia anyway! Roodog2k 14:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ral315 17:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Capitalistroadster. There is some useful information in this, but the topic is far too specific (granular?) for an article. Aecis 18:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Zoe. --Cactus.man 09:57, 2 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. Rje 14:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Twenty miles to africa[edit]

Ad for a rather new band that fails google and allmusic tests. Punkmorten 08:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to its self-promotional nature. Paul Klenk 08:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn junk Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:59, 27 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 Speedy deleted by SWAdair. Rje 14:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic stereotypes[edit]

Last VfD had 60% delete - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes. Hopelessly POV, among many other issues. At best, these should be merged with their appropriate countries/ethnicities.

• Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | font color="#0033FF">@ | C} 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What a mess. Coffee 09:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but develop it further. By its nature, it depends on POV, which makes it a quirky sociological anomaly at WP. Paul Klenk 09:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality in question. 09:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC) (unsigned vote from 202.156.2.123)
• Delete. "I can't believe they kept it!", he says, shaking his head in dismay. 900% of all edits (yes, that many) have simply been anonymous users popping in and adding their favourite idiotic stereotype as their only ever edit; page is inherently POV; finally, I have a philosophical objection to pages where the vandalism and the legitimate edits cannot be told apart. --fuddlemark 10:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This has no references for anything and violates the no original bullshit policy. Uppland 10:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. "Hair smells like wet dog" heh... Roodog2k 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete fuddlemark's last reason and Uppland's reasons are compelling. Plus I'm pretty sure the U.S. isn't the only place where ethnic stereotypes, which means if this list could be formulated in a way that didn't have the aforementioned problems, it would have to cover stereotypes world-wide, at which point I believe it would run afoul of WP:NOT Sec. 1.7.2: No Lists of Loosely Associated Topics, as the only thing every ethnic stereotype in the world has in common is that it's an ethnic stereotype, and when you're talking on a global scale, I think that qualifies as a loose association. The Literate Engineer 14:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Heck, I may be just a grumpy mean Scotsman, but this seems inherently POV, unsourced, unverifiable, and an editwar waiting to happen. (PS, another grump, I don't like these organised votes - this should be a discussion aimed at concensus, not a partisan poll!) --Doc (?) 14:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly, pointless, waste of time, BS topic. Doc: grumpy, mean and Scotsman, aren't they redundant?  ;) Dottore So 15:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . POV, unverifiable, unscientific, below average IQ, smelly article. Manik Raina 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - some of the stereotypes listed here are encyclopedic, but can really only be fairly covered in the context of a proper, well-rounded article about the ethnic group in question - and I'm willing to bet that all of the encyclopedic content here already is in those articles. Breaking it out into a context-free list form like this just isn't a useful, neutral way to present this information. CDC (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible Delete. Cannot ever be NPOV and the subject isn't encyclopedic at all. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong (but not strongest possible) Keep. "Inherently POV" doesn't mean it must be deleted. Should I vfd Abortion just because it's never likely to be completely NPOV? No; doing so would be WP:POINT. Whether or not people like the subject matter of this article, it's still encyclopedic because it is an interesting sociological anomaly, and it also gives further clues about why racists hate certain kinds of people. (Save your Strongest possible delete for articles that can kill people.) --Idont Havaname (Sorry, I realized my vote was sort of violating WP:POINT in itself, so I have struck part of it. I essentially meant "Strong keep per Paul Klenk". --Idont Havaname 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep- one of the best things about Wikipedia is its ability to cover topics that wouldn't appear in a regular scholarly encyclopedia (pop culture, etc.) Like it or not, this page does represent an aspect of society that people may want to look up. Furthermore, on the issue of its inherent POV-ness, it's sort of an equal-opportunity offender, so it's not slanted against any one group in particular. --PatadyBag 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The problem with this list is not that it covers POVs, but that it is entirely POV. An article reporting on ethnic stereotypes, putting them in some kind of context and giving references, would not be a problem. As a worst-case solution, if the current garbage ends up getting kept, I suggest cleansing this page of every stereotype which does not have a citation to support its existence. Uppland 19:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree with you that the article could and should be a lot better. A lot of it is poorly organized and poorly typed almost to the point of patent nonsense; at any rate, it's far from being up to our usual standards. With your suggestion, I'm just somewhat concerned that we might run into the article becoming a collection of external links. --Idont Havaname 20:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Totally unsourced. Furthermore, potentially infinitely long, given the bar for inclusion. Fillipinos "get excited at meeting other Fillipinos"? Huh? Sdedeo 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references, many are just abject silliness if not patent nonsense. Can never pass WP:NPOV. ESkog 20:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and work on cleanup into a more useful article. It need not be completely POV; it's certainly possible to determine whether or not a meme is widely held, otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine which urban legends are notable and which aren't. And the article is quite useful for the reasons Idont havaname mentioned above. Penelope D 23:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Total claptrap
• Strong Delete This is inaccurate, biased, useless.
• Delete - unverified info, may make people mad. However, although we do have a list of ethnic slurs, but this one is POV and unverified. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As much as I hate to say it, most of these are widely pervasive and well-known stereotypes. Much of it was offensive, but it would be a very bland world if anything offensive was censored. There was enough truth (or at minimum common misconception) to merit a keep. Also agree with PatadyBag regarding Wiki as a repository for things that wouldn never make it in a traditional encyclopedia. -PlainSight 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, and it manages to offend everyone. Seriously, how far can one go? Can I just go to an ethnicity and add things about it (like one said "have sexual attraction toward goats")?Amren ^(talk) 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content. Nominator points out the first vfd, but not the second, which resulted in the article's deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cryptic - there was no mention of it on the talk page that I saw so I had no idea :). I saw it had many deleted edits... should have looked at those first... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB: when WP:CSD was changed after Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal, the criterion allowing the speedy deletion of recreated deleted content was changed to say that only substantially identical copies of deleted content can be speedied. Is the current revision a substantially identical copy? --Idont Havaname 01:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pick and choose the goofiest entries (so, wait...I'm genetically predisposed to liking grape juice?), add them to BJAODN, and delete the page. --FuriousFreddy 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ral315 17:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily Deleted as a recreation of VfD'd article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes 2. SWAdair | Talk 19:37, 29 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 with A Clockwork Orange. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yarbls[edit]

Not a dictionary Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Clockwork Orange page, and correct spelling to "yarbles." Paul Klenk 09:48, 27 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlShaya Group International[edit]

Seems like Advertizing or Vanity. — Kjammer ⌂ 09:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy spam - tagged. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Nigerian letter. Paul Klenk 09:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, probably being used to scam someone right now. Quicksandish 14:20, August 27, 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. Rje 14:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tay Ninh Accord[edit]

unverifiable secret society. --TimPope 09:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if author can provide substantial documentation. Otherwise, delete. Paul Klenk 09:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot be substantiated. If author can provide references, then it should be reconsidered. Dottore So 15:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The burden rests solely upon the article author to cite sources. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless good verifiable evidence provided prior to expiration of PfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 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 Delete. Rje 14:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Division day[edit]

Vanity page of non notable band JoanneB 09:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably a copyvio of http://www.divisionday.com/BIO.htm, but lets not prolong its misery :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 10:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While these guys are borderline notable with one album and a couple of EP's to their credit and some regional tours, they don't appear to quite meet WP:Music guidelines. The copyvio makes it an obvious Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, per Capitalistroadster. I'll change to weak keep if the content is replaced with non-copyvio. Pburka 15:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

HRG's cat[edit]

Interesting, but not notable - the article's claim to notability is that it's widely popular in internet forum discuission - but Google says 'not really' - a 100 odd hits, but just two forum [10]. --Doc (?) 10:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense or sub-cult ephemera. No anagrams found. Paul Klenk 10:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP KEEP This stuff i noticed in my University Philosophy book. It's some kind of test to determine if something is real (in a philosophical sense). If you vote to delete u are discrediting our beloved Wikipedia. ARTICLE NEEDS CLEANING UP 58.104.87.64 11:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reference to a philosophy book, I might change my mind --Doc (?) 12:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough. Nandesuka 12:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This belongs in an athiesm article, or something related. Roodog2k 14:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge, Delete. I wonder if Schrödinger's cat could beat HRG's cat? Dottore So 15:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [Changed fron Reserved Alf 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)] (Yes, Dottore, it would, but only if you didn't open the box) Alf 15:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No verifiable information to merge unless a reference can be provided. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The arguement is used on discussion boards from my own experience but I'm not sure if thats notable enough for an article. Falphin 19:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable thought experiment. Also suggest Last Thursdayism be considered. Sdedeo 20:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --tranquileye 00:46:13, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the original author. I guess I'm really not entirely clear what Wikipedia's "notability threshold" is (ten thousand people interested in the subject? I really don't know, and I can't find the relevant guidelines), but HRG's Cat is an argument that's seen thousands of pairs of eyes and thus that someone might want to look up. I guess I don't see the harm in having an entry on it. --Hyperbole 23:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show it has been mentioned other than in a couple of internet-fora? If you can, you might still save it. --Doc (?) 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've seen references to HRG's cat on CARM [11], AARM [12], ARN [13], and Theologyweb [14]. So, four Internet fora in all. The argument is also referenced on Paltalk discussions. I'm certainly not going to take the stance that it's the most notable atheist argument ever - certainly not up there with the "problem of evil" - and I wouldn't object to it being merged into some larger "atheist arguments" kind of page... but I consider it at least minimally notable, and growing. --Hyperbole 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep, the arguement may be notable if it explains what kind of an attack is it, and how it is used. Here are some sources I found. [15], this site(a wikipedia mirror with some additions) odly enough considers HRG's cat related to Worship? [16]. Another site, [17] "Why is your supernatural explanation better than HRG's cat, who created the universe last Thursday?". Three references here, [18] but since carm changed its links the articles are lost as far as I can tell, or are in the depths of the old topics. Finally at CARM, [19], [20]. There are others but that is enough. As far as it being mentioned elswhere that doesn't make notability in my opinion which is why this sic, and strange article still exists.God kills a kitten Another example is the Tourist guy and the Trammie article which I have no idea why it is notable. . Finally theres Eternal newbie which is internet slang I've never heard.(I've heard Newbie, Noob, etc but never Eternal noob. Falphin 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't tell if this is really notable or not, but perhaps it should be mentioned (there is too little content for me to call it a merge) in Last Thursdayism.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 in my future defence, I observe the author's vote! -Splash 01:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WCOOP[edit]

Should be deleted Planetpjs 11:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's real enough for Google, real enough for me. Paul Klenk 11:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, should not be deleted. 13,100 google hits [21] Kappa 14:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deal me in. Alfarillo Slim. 15:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable online poker tournament series. Klonimus 08:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE DELETE I made the damn article entirely up. There is no SUCH THING AS WCOOP Planetpjs 01:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm not quite sure what's going on in your head right now (did you fall out with some people over it and now hate it, or what?)- but it's definately notable. --195.92.168.175 02:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see pokerstars.com 2004 WCOOP ref and pokerstars.com 2005 WCOOP ref. Alf 21:21, 1 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. Rje 14:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

BORX[edit]

Not notable (no related Google hits), article links to nonsense page also up for speedy deletion Halo 11:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as bandity. Brighterorange 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lather, rinse, repeat. Pure drivel. Paul Klenk 12:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't forget to zap Ryan Demchuk too (assuming my nominating it for speedy didn't take), but to leave Mitch Miller untouched as a genuinely notable musician who had nothing to do with this nonsense. Oh, and just in case it's not explicit enough, delete. DS 13:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete meets nonsense croteria for speedy. --WCFrancis 22:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --maclean25 02:38, 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. Rje 14:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Perreault[edit]

Not notable. Delete brenneman^(t)(c) 11:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete vanity Brighterorange 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; anagram for Operate Blurb. Paul Klenk 12:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm for the delete; IMO local radio hosts need to be either syndicated or controversial to merit Wikipedia articles. But my vote is also flexible if any of the Ottawa contingent can present some evidence of notability. Bearcat 22:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to give it a non-notability delete also; I'm in Ottawa, not a huge talk radio listener, and I've never heard of him, but I've heard of, say, Lowell Green. He's not one of the three radio hosts that CFRA chooses to feature on the main page of their website, either. — mendel ☎ 05:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Any chance I can claim the article for the minor league goaltender who is currently the career shutout record holder for the Rochester Americans? Everything that links to the article is referencing him (and his brief stints with the Bruins and Red Wings). http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=4247 ccwaters 21:30, 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. Rje 14:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It Does[edit]

Seems to be nonsense, no notability, mentions a metalcore band with no Google hits and is just generally stupid. Halo 11:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If not a joke at least nn. Marskell 12:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. Paul Klenk 12:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please! Groeck 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BORX related nonsense. Alf 16:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It Does. It does suck, I mean. Delete. --Titoxd 22:05, 27 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 speedy redirect as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluescope steel[edit]

get rid of this or fix it up Planetpjs 11:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep biggest steel company in australia and new zealand - http://www.bluescopesteel.com/corp/navajo/display.cfm/objectID.603FE37D-596B-4E24-9E726E20F5201FE0 Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy redirect to decent existing article BlueScope Steel. FYI, the nominator can do this himself instead of nominating, and then it doesn't have to sit on vfd for 7+ days.. Brighterorange 12:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Redirect to BlueScope Steel. Also, even if the better article didn't exist, what part of "massive corporation" isn't notable? Please remember that VfD is not cleanup. If you see an article that needs to be cleaned up, why not try adding the ((cleanup)) tag to it? Nandesuka 12:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with all due speed. Paul Klenk 13:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BlueScope Steel. That article warrants expansion because as BHP Steel, it played a crucial role in the industrial development of Australia especially in the development of Newcastle, New South Wales and Wollongong. Capitalistroadster 14:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious redirect, I hope no one minds my executing it as such now. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:36, 27 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

ISAKC[edit]

Internet club with only 321 registered forum members. Not notable enough. Phil H. E. O. 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cute name, Phil. Paul Klenk 12:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way below standards for web entry. Alf 16:11, 27 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 redirected to Édouard Glissant. --Canderson7 16:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

EdouardGlissant[edit]

Dupicate article of Édouard Glissant--Don't think that it should redirect there because it's mispelled. Kewp 12:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's common practice to simply redirect misspellings--it lessens the load on Vfd, and makes it more likely for ill-informed readers to find what they're looking for. Meelar (talk) 14:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 23:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The King Street Run[edit]

A pub crawl in Cambridge. Drunk students are tedious, but they are not notable. Pilatus 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, utters ninth Greek. Paul Klenk
• Delete. nn. Dottore So 15:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've merged the individual pub pages there. None of them deserve their own article. On the other hand, if the Run has a pub named after it, then that suggests a significant degree of notability. So I vote keep. Flowerparty ^talk 16:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of it while I was living there. Knowledge of the custom can't extend beyond the undergrad population. Pilatus 19:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. David | Talk 18:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. The idea of merging a series of pubs is good, but organizing it around an undergrad drinking game is probably what is generating all the delete votes. Sdedeo 20:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, move to a more neutral list page. Flowerparty ^talk 20:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not include the information on the King Street article? Sdedeo 20:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you mean? Flowerparty ^talk 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • i.e., have the article on King Street contain the information about the pubs on King Street. Sdedeo 21:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So effectively you mean "merge" with King Street, Cambridge. Yes, that's probably sensible. Flowerparty ^talk 21:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Has any of you actually seen King Street, Cambridge? It has a few shops and pubs and the only coffee shop in Cambridge that doesn't close until midnight. It's not even one of the main shopping streets of the town, it's quite marginal in fact. WAH! Must we have every street in every town next? Pilatus 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The Cambridge Arms. If the consensus on that vote is to delete, please remove the information about The Cambridge Arms from the King Street Run article, as it would be a violation of GFDL to keep that information. Zoe 21:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Pilatus is right. It's where you go when you're bored with everywhere else. Although the coffee shop in question, Clowns, is rather good. -Splash 22:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clowns is horrible! Sorry. Why are so many Cambridge people hanging around VfD? Sdedeo 19:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, not quite. It would be a violation of GFDL to cut-and-paste the text into a different article, but there is nothing wrong about including information about the pub somewhere else on wikipedia. This happens all the time. Sdedeo 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, this is complex, because of the merging. Can we not merge the pubs in Cambridge into Pubs in Cambridge, or List of public houses in Cambridge, rather than organizing them by student drinking routes? I vote to Keep this, and merge it into some better organized article. Trollderella 21:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I'm regretting being bold now. Can we just replace that part with a link for now, and keep the discussions separate. I'm too scared to edit these pages now. Flowerparty ^talk 21:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable pub crawl. Nandesuka 22:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reorganize, as per Trollderella. Kappa 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not particularly notable even among the undergrad population. I can't help wondering why people think that a pub-crawl is somehow notable. You're not being blinded by the fact that it has some association with the students of a 'famous' Uni, surely.-Splash 22:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local custom followed only by undergrad students. Denni☯ 22:52, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
• Keep Does no harm. Dmn € Դմն 23:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every uni has a pub crawl. Students being drunk is not notable, it being the basic state of your normal student and all. And this pub crawl seems no more noticable than the ones I have taken in Coventry, Southampton or Leeds. Sabine's Sunbird 01:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per sabine's sunbird. --TimPope 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Martg76 00:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Many unreferenced claims. Quale 15:32, 31 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 Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Already been done — I will apply the redirect. -Splash 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"lady mary montagu"[edit]

It looks like this is the same person as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. I suspect it was created in error by a new contributor.

Also, I think there's some clever process by which you can do a redirect and delete simultaneously but I can't find it now. I do recall it looked rather complicated anyway. If someone knows, let me know. Cheers. Finbarr Saunders 13:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You misunderstand the purpose of a redirect, Finbarr - if X redirects to Y, then we don't need to delete X. Anyway, I've already merged the article into Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (there was some info in the badly-named version that wasn't in the already-existing version), so I think we can just leave it as a redirect.DS 13:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Apparently a new editor unfamiliar with wiki formatting, that did include source info. --WCFrancis 21:35, 27 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Geek shopping[edit]

Inherently POV, and impossible to maintain. Might benefit from being userfied, but I doubt it.DS 13:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with above, plus it's nonsense. Geek shopping is an anagram of Pigpen kegs, ho! Paul Klenk
• Delete hopelessly POV, nonsense Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. very interesting and useful. I might add a few things. Voyager640 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the anagram is proof that this is not an encyclopedia article. CDC (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic, and doesn't even mention Fry's. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Get a blog. --tranquileye 00:47:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Keep. These comments are proof that it is far easier to destroy than create, especially the anagram nonsense. If good reasons for deletion are presented then I am all for it (and a few mentioned above are), but how about making changes to the article to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that every article must start somewhere and that 'somewhere' will not be the final polished solution guaranteed an A in your English lit. class. I propose that if you have a legitimate good reason to delete the article, then spill it out, better yet make changes to it to make it more acceptable. If you just want to say something critical for the heck of it, then 'you' get a blog.
• Keep This page can develope, and is recently created. I think it should be given more time before this decision. vidarlo.
• Delete POV Rant, sorry newcomer. Karmafist 16:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the other "keepers": This page is a beginning and should be allowed to develop. In addition, the page represents a significant by-product of the internet age and though I can't help but smirk at such "techy geeks," I'd still let them make a point! Finally, one of the things I like about Wikipedia is that it's a one-stop destination for almost all serious information you'd ever want to find on the internet so I'm all for comprehensive inclusion and disagree with the enclopaedia-thumpers. --Lapin rossignol 10:39, 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 wasalready redirected --SPUI (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Morrisey Delete - Paul Morrissey Keep[edit]

• Paul Morrissey is correct . Greetings MutterErde 13:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. It's cheap, easy, and doesn't require a VfD! Pburka 14:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Done! Redirecter 15:04, 27 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 Marskell 07:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ilene Chaiken[edit]

Abstain. This was a speedy I thought others might consider notable. Marskell 13:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "Ilene Chaiken is the creator, writer and executive producer of the television series The L Word". Kappa 13:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa. Pburka 14:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. --rob 14:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as per WP:BIO. Writer and executive producer of television series with more than 5,000 viewers. Capitalistroadster 15:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Punkmorten 15:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- DS1953 00:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 23:34, 30 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Meunier[edit]

nn vanity Groeck 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No claim to notability. Probably vanity. Pburka 14:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speed Delete Under A7, can be sent to a better place forthwith. Dottore So 15:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A7 Placed the Tag --Aranda56 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hussful[edit]

dicdef, likely vanity neologism Wyss 03:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, probably speedy as nonsense. Mmmbeer 03:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Eww. Not only dictionary but made-up. How depressing. --Matt Yeager 22:06, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting August 27 for more discussion. Please wait for a few days before closing this, there's no tearing hurry. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no hurry, although this is so obviously a delete it's hardly worth discussing. --Doc (?) 14:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why were the three valid votes for deletion the first time around not respected? Sdedeo 19:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They were, and will be taken into account during the close. That isn't a lot of votes, though--deletions are made on rough consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It seems to be a waste of time to relist something that received three deletes and no substantial arguments for keep. But then again, it's a waste of time for me to argue. :) Sdedeo 22:11, 27 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 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. Radiant_>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Dean[edit]

NN. I Googled "Matthew Dean", and came up with hits for a comedian, BMX free-stylist, Actor, and a Whistle, Flute and Bodhran player, but none for this vocalist. Perhaps the most notable thing about Mr. Dean according to the article is that he co-founded a Russian Folk group, but this group does not have a WP entry. I found such a beast on Google at: Golosa Choir, but under the "History" section on this site, Mr. Dean is not attributed as a co-founder (before you ask, the two listed founders don't have pages in WP). David Henderson 03:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No verifiable evidence of him founding the choir and no other reasons given to keep the article. There might be a case for keeping the choir given that it has toured including Siberia. A quick Google and Galenet search comes up with noone notable with that name. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisted on August 27. Take your time, no hurry. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any of his books on Amazon, either. Pburka 14:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't check out, and I didn't hurry --Doc (?) 14:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Dottore So 15:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why were the three valid votes for deletion the first time around not respected? Sdedeo 19:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They were respected, as will be all other votes in this VfD.. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:54, 27 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 --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuskie[edit]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; additionally, searching Google didn't show that this was even a correct definition. —Charles O'Rourke 03:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Neologism, Not encyclopedic. Mmmbeer 03:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Mmmbeer. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting August 27 for more discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete slowly --Doc (?) 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dottore So 15:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. neo, ne, etc, pdq, plz.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:00, 27 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

IDoTheWondering.blogspot.com[edit]

not notable blog. For some reason, though, lots of user pages appear to be linking to it, and if I understand it correctly, that was the reason it was created in the first place. How does that work? JoanneB 14:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe there's some kind of bug in the wiki software? I can't actually find any links to this from the pages that are supposedly linking to it. Anyway, it seems entirely non-notable; just one of a zillion personal blogs out there (badly formatted with nearly unreadable font size and color), with no reason to give it any particular attention. Delete. *Dan* 14:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• I was just trying to work this out; for some reason, the database appears to have become corrupted in such a way that a couple of dozen links show up as backlinks for this unlikely page; seemingly, these are actually links pointing to Wikipedia:Community portal - a couple of redirect pages showed up, which have no other outward links (Wikipedia:Yellow Pages, Wikipedia:Doorway pages). Unsurprisingly, null edits (which cause the software to update its links tables) remove things from the Whatlinkshere list, but how they got there in the first place I've no idea. Oh, and I agree with delete for non-notability. - IMSoP 14:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Advertisement... No reason for it to exist... Delete. --Polaralex 14:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but all the linking pages need a blank save to remove them from the Whatlinkshere page. Flowerparty ^talk 15:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been done, except for MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, Wikipedia:Protection log/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Protection log/Archive 2 (which are protected). —Cryptic (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi. I created the page. Now I have realised that the only reason why a lot of pages linked to it is because somebody had been doing spamming. I totally support its deletion --Heebiejeebieclub 18:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it seems not to have been spamming, but a software bug. Either way, though, thanks for commenting. - IMSoP 17:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, and now with new as per author statement!  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional keep until the devs figure out what on Earth is causing the whatlinkshere bug. After that, delete. --Titoxd 22:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to keep the page just to investigate the backlinks - they were in the database before the page was created (hence it showed up on Special:Wantedpages or wherever), and will continue to be there after it's gone. - IMSoP 17:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It almost appears the user that created this page, also created this page Tammy Hart for the same reason-people linking to it? Srcrowl 04:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well yes, I just work m way through the "Wanted" list --Heebiejeebieclub 18:16, 29 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Berbie[edit]

nn Vanity; appears to be a nickname of one specific child. 64.173.27.127 14:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by nominator. Forgot to log in. Groeck 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just expanded dic-def anyhoo. Alf 21:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can hardly make heads or tales of it... I think the first voter was correct. --Icarus 03:40, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Eldest (Prior speculation)[edit]

In the first place, Wikipedia is not a place for "speculation". This article seems to want to serve as an sort of archive of how the Eldest article looked a few days ago, before the book was released. Wikipedia already has a place for archived articles, and it's called "history". Coffee 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If that is so, then why is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (prior speculation) not on vfd yet. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was on VFD, twice. Honestly, I think it squeezed by the first time because the euphoria of the Harry Potter release made the masses of Harry Potter fans spring to the article's defense. The second one failed because it was too soon after the first. Coffee 15:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree Groeck 14:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (The same with the Harry Potter article.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Eldest as a distinct section, there are recent edits and discussion on that talk page, I have left a message there, saying as much, pointing them here. Alf 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Coffee. I don't see the value of these "prior speculation" articles. --Metropolitan90 02:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted A7. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Lunzer[edit]

nn vanity Groeck 14:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Delete--Aranda56 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn Denni☯ 22:55, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul Klenk 23:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Amren ^(talk) 04:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Gone. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Besfort Kosova.[edit]

pure nn vanity Groeck 14:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unverified - only google hits are wikipedia - both of them. --WCFrancis 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he invents more inventions. Paul Klenk 23:23, 27 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bilgin Ali[edit]

nn vanity Groeck 15:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Nonsense --Aranda56 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Daddy. There is a Dr. Ali Bilgin at the University of Arizona with interests in imaging and communications. This makes me wonder if this is a subtle insult page. Maybe not, since editor was connected to an ip address in London. Doesn't matter; get rid of it anyway. --WCFrancis 22:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block author. Paul Klenk 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- --Bhadani 14:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN, vanity, and nonsense. How did this not get deleted earlier? --A D Monroe III 13:01, 1 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel King[edit]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, no notability given and no significant mention on IMDB Halo 15:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. Groeck 15:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Paul Klenk 23:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:21, 29 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzer[edit]

Googling indicates non-notability, and I really doubt the claims here are true. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:42, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• Comment the original author of this (presumably vanity) page removed the vfd notice as soon as it went up, and as far as I can tell nothing has happened since. I figured it's easier just to move Ingoolemo's page to the new vfd thingy than to start over, no? --fuddlemark 15:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable vanity Groeck 15:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Sdedeo 19:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Paul Klenk 22:44, 27 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ikecer[edit]

On the talk page, the author admits that this is a story ?he is writing and also appears to be claiming copyright. Anyway, it's not an encyclopedia article.-Aranel ("Sarah") 15:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity, nn, possibly advertising, not an encyclopedia article Groeck 15:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pburka 15:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's Eye-of-Argon-bad, to boot. --Agamemnon2 20:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this inane blather. Paul Klenk 22:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the above reasons BillC 22:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is useless ike9898 21:49, 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 01:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Hill Collins[edit]

Nominated for speedy, but not a candidate. Former head of a university department. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 15:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; pure vanity page -Howardjp 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I amend my vote as the article's quality has improved and shown the value of the subject. -Howardjp 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've done a bit more research, and I now believe that she is more notable than the average professor. 824 (unique) google hits, many publications (available from amazon), two awards. Black Feminist Thought has an amazon rank of 18,112, which is very, very high for an academic work. Pburka 16:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Pburka, you can ask that the nomination be withdrawn since you were the instigator. Sdedeo 20:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really consider myself the instigator. Another editor nominated the article for speedy -- I simply moved it from WP:CSD to WP:PFD. Pburka 23:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, reluctantly, because she published. If her books are drivel, we'll never know. Paul Klenk 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka. -- DS1953 00:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Published books + awards = notability. Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• STRONG keep. Extremely EXTREMELY well-known in sociological circles, often mentioned in the same breath as Cornel West and bell hooks. Black Feminist Thought is required reading in many race and gender classes. I cannot emphasize ENOUGH how strongly this should be kept. I am seriously surprised to see this even up on VfD. -HX 04:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have expanded this article further. Highly notable African American feminist academic and author of several highly regarded books within her field. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 23:35, 30 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

353 Fusiliers[edit]

Non-notable, possibly vanity, quite likely MIT alumni cruft. Anville 15:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Groeck 15:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An intramural team that lasted one year and had three members. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 22:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely non-notable, almost humorously so Drdisque 07:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please. kthxbi. Gold Stur 20:37, 30 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.