< August 6	August 8 >

[refresh]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Crystal skull. -Splash 16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, VfD tag added on June 22 by user Billhpike, but not listed on the VfD page. I'm adding it now to complete the process. --Sherool 00:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - little content, looks unlikly to expand beyond a stub Billhpike 20:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - valid topic, and a lot could be (and has been...) written about them. --Rlandmann 23:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Crystal skull, which has pretty much all of the same information in a NPOV and grammatically correct format. Lovelac7 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Crystal skull --Sherool 00:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to just redirect, I agree there is no point in deleting it first. --Sherool 15:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect as above --StoatBringer 01:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. No need to delete first. Pburka 02:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above arguments. Hamster Sandwich 04:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. Capitalistroadster 05:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. Is it my imagination or are we seeing a lot of duplicate articles like this of late? Don't folks do searches anymore? 23skidoo 14:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and de-listyfy from VfD. The singular articles is much better and redirect of plurals is normal activity. Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the page that's not gibberish. Eixo 03:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 07:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable organization - google 5 hits, delete also the redirect Visions for Central Europe.- feydey 00:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just looks like an advert for an offshoot of Toastmasters International, judging by the website.
• Delete -- yes, Toastmasters advert. Sdedeo 01:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 04:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with the above. Avalon 04:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 06:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:20, 7 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 that no administrator need delete anything and that further deletion discussion was unnecessary. The discussion came to a unanimous agreement, including the nominator, to keep and to go for redirection instead. The nominator and a second editor, Pavel Vozenilek below, also agreed that the discussion need not continue, and no further comments appeared after three hours. I boldly take this to be consensus for a rapid closure, so that we can devote our time elsewhere. Uncle G 20:05:22, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

actually consists only of a list of poems by Ray Buttigieg a guy who is on a bit of a self-boosting crusade (I just finished partly de-boostering his bio) and whose google results (minus wikipedia mirrors) are nearly all from his own webpage (he does have three out of print hits on amazon, so he is "notable" in the wiki sense.) Sdedeo 00:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no need to have brought this to VFD. The content of the article is already in Ray Buttigieg, and a simple Redirect to symphonic poem would have been in accordance with our Wikipedia:naming conventions (plurals). No deletion required. Uncle G 00:49:52, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• Redirect - You beat me to saying that by a matter of seconds, Uncle G! Tonywalton 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• My bad -- thanks guys, didn't see that. Let me withdraw the VfD. Sdedeo 01:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Uncle G. Hamster Sandwich 04:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and unlist from VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:21, 7 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 KEEP. -Splash 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ranking is around 81,000. WP:NOT a web directory. Joel7687 00:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Sootoday.com, which was nominated for a separate VfD vote a few days ago and had a speedy consensus (it was a one-liner), but has now been redirected to this. Whatever consensus is reached on this vote should stand for the redirect as well. Bearcat

• Actually, to be honest, the site is significant beyond its Alexa rank; it was one of the first local news websites in Canada to emerge as a response to CTV's local news cutbacks (see MCTV). Said cutbacks were one of the most intensely controversial concentration of media ownership issues in Canadian history, which reminds me that I've been meaning to add a section on Canadian media to that article for ages now. Fark also seems to have taken a liking to the site; posts there have linked back to SooToday several times (more than any other Canadian newspaper that I'm aware of, actually.) I've done some initial cleanup on it which makes its notability a bit clearer, so I guess I'm on the keep side. Bearcat 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone with a personal history in the area, I can confirm this as notable. Keep. CJCurrie 02:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Bearcat. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I know I'm the one who nominated it, but since I never actually typed the word "Delete," I'm going to vote Keep. The Alexa ranking isn't all that bad, I wasn't aware of the information Bearcat presented, and the article looks a lot nicer now. At least this VfD resulted in improvement of the article. --Joel7687 03:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries...you couldn't have known. (As written, the article really wasn't making its notability very clear.) Bearcat 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeps as above. DavidH 04:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after re-write. Nice Work!. Hamster Sandwich 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per rewrite. FCYTravis 17:39, 7 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. – malathion ^talk 07:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band vanity CanadianCaesar 00:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Good name, though. I hope they get signed so we can have this back. I wonder where "Leed" is? Flowerparty ^talk 01:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can only suppose they must belong to this organisation. :) Splash 03:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. -Splash 03:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wait, I'm confused - is this Faggoth? The closest I could find to notability was that they "have currently recorded four of their own songs which may be on sale at up-coming gigs." ([BBC entertainment section; apparently, a list of Leeds local bands]. Most of the 28 Google hits are text advertising to their MySpace page. Eldereft 04:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I was clicking the header I was thinking, "I bet its a death metal band..." Hamster Sandwich 04:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. vanity --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. If they can make it big with a name like that, more power to them... --Etacar11 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Also agree with the kick ass name which only Death Metal bands seem to have. Shame about the music though - Hahnchen 00:30, 8 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 Vince Neil. -Splash 16:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant, same information is provided on the Vince Neil page. StoatBringer 01:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, no need for a Vfd here. Kappa 01:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- but didn't we have a VFD about this...couldn't find it though. DavidH 04:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vince Neil. Hamster Sandwich 04:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vince Neil. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and return the info-rmation I put about her life to her article. After all, the article was dedicated by me to her, not to her father. "Antonio Slylar's my Angel too Martin"
• Redirect to Vince Neil. DS1953 16:26, August 11, 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. – malathion ^talk 06:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been made by mistake. The article Napalm Death says they had a guitarist named Bill Steer not Dedek Steer. Nothing links to this page. Google has zero hits for "Dedek Steer". No need to redirect an error no one will make to Bill Steer. RJFJR 01:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, accidental creation which does not warrant a redirect. -Splash 03:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- DavidH 04:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not valid information. Hamster Sandwich 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some one changed the name of Bill Steer in Derek Steer a while ago on either the ND or Carcass pages (forgot which one). Bill is the right name tho.
• Delete Ditto. Looks like we have a concensus here. Karmafist 14:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. all of the above --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Jam sandwich. Already done. -Splash 16:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straight cut and paste of most of Jam sandwich. Completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp 01:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect copies CanadianCaesar 02:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If you look at this version of Jam sandwich, you'll see that it was a poorly titled attempt by Rd232 to separate the police vehicle from the sandwich. Uncle G 03:27:04, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• Redirect as per CanadianCeasar. Hamster Sandwich 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. -- Necrothesp 11:37, 7 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. I discarded around half a dozen votes prior to vote counting, because the editors looked somewhat sockish or merely new. There were seven valid votes for keep, twelve for delete, two other valid votes. There being no consensus, the article is kept. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This totally non-notable page is likley to be little more than an paean against religion. Hipocrite 01:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sounds like the article could do with expansion though. Rob Church 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is a work in progress. by the by, is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of DreamGuy? his workings almost EXACTLY DreamGuy's style. Gabrielsimon 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I'm not. Hipocrite 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, he's not, and no the style isn't even close (for example, this article is clearly not against religion, it was put there so you could rant against psychiatrists, per your conversations on Talk:Otherkin and Talk:Therianthropy, among others), and you are one to talk about sockpuppets, having written the article in question under one. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Which is now proven beyond a doubt, see User:Ketrovin's block. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this acrticle could use some reworking, but its not non notable. Khulhy 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering the prevalence of sockpuppets on articles Gabrielsimon has been fighting over lately, I will have to call upon the official Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy and point out that this person doesn't come close to the 100 edits one needs to verify oneself as an actual real person and would note that the edits he/she does have are extremely suspicious, jumping into articles closely related to ones Gabrielsimon worked on but that aren't otherwise related. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Khulhy is now proven as sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Could be a great article soon. CanadianCaesar 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As described by User:SlimVirgin on the discussion page, "I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were." Also, singling out schizotypy as a specific disorder to mention in the title is really quite odd as it's just one minor classification out of a whole range that would be important for a comparison between religion and psychology in general or mental disorders more specifically. If the article stayed around waiting for cleanup it would just get redirectede to a real article on the topic under a better name, and this title is so specific it's really unnecessary as a redirect as nobody would think to go looking for it instead of, say, Religion and psychology or Religion and mental disorders or whatnot. This article is a completely unsalvagable mess. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment--your outnumbered, dreamguy. guess that means consensus will be keep.Gabrielsimon 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur with DreamGuy. android79 02:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with schizophrenia. Seems NPOV to me, not a paean (or, more correctly, a Jeremiad) against or for anything. But could easily be put inside a larger article, no need to break-out everything. Sdedeo 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with schizophrenia or into an article about religion and psychology. — David Remahl 03:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  ... I didnt gdo anything that last time...Gabrielsimon 03:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV personal essay, no sources, strange title, unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry. Vashti 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The topic is valid, apply improvement tag as needed. DavidH 04:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Xaa
• Delete I'm sorry to see things go down this way, but I see little salvagable here. Redirect to Religion and psychology. Friday 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly POV, and unnecessary. An article on all mental illness and religion? Maybe. This? No. Wikibofh 05:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article as it stands is close to being List of religious leaders who I think are nuts. A new article with a tighter and more technical focus could work, but scrap this one. FreplySpang (talk) 10:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is possible to change an article without deleting it ... — David Remahl 11:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• But realistically, is anyone going to in the near future? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• What SlimVirgin said. Also, I think the hypothetical new article would probably not have the same title. FreplySpang (talk) 12:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  Make it a redirect then. There is nothing in this article that would be unfit to be in the history of the article. — David Remahl 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - grubber 11:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
• Delete. - There is real potential here, but the article as written is totally unsourced and inflammatory. Attempts to insert a little NPOV disclaimer language amount to little more than lipstick on a pig. If no one will take responsibility for improving the article immediately, we are better off deleting and letting someone else re-create when they are ready to commit to making a worthwhile article.--Craigkbryant 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - The relationship between religion, spirituality, or the mystical experience and the schizotypic personality (not the same as a schizophrenic) is a topic of significant psychological research. I've dug up some primary and secondary sources, and would like to clean up the article. If there's a consensus to merge it with a larger topic, that's fine, but I'd like it to stick around for a while as I work on it. Much appreciated. Parker Whittle 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid topic. Potential to offend religious people is no reason for deletion. Martg76 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no useful content. Borisblue 14:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, baffling personal essay on an over-specific subject. There's probably no reasion this just can't be in religion, where it would fit nicely and do a solid job of offending religious people anyway...crud, did I just type that? Anyway. Lord Bob 17:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting and potentially encyclopedic idea, but it cites no references whatsoever. Burden of proof is on the article's author to establish that his/her contribution is not pure speculation or original research by citing references. I'm willing to change my vote if a reference shows up. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Comment" It seems unreasonable to expect a diagnosis of schizotypy in any but the most modern case histories. For instance, how would you say Joan of Arc or Joseph Smith or Mohammed etc etc, (in short anybody who has had some kind of faith based epiphany) were suffering from a schizoid disorder? It would be pure speculation in all of these cases because they can never be clinically examined and diagnosed. We can in hindsight say "oh that person diplayed some or all of the symptoms" but with mental illness there are a wide variety of causation, such as chemical imbalance and physical anomalies. For historical figures as outlined in this article it would be impossible to say definitively what the causation of the visions or voices that may or may not have compelled them to action. Hamster Sandwich 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there is no doubt in my mind that there is a link between some people's religious experiences and mental illness (in general), the article in question is potentially offensive speculation about important religious figures with no evidence presented. A researched article on mental illness and religion is encyclopedic, this is not. Sabine's Sunbird 23:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important part of psychological history. If the tone of the article is inappropriate, please fix the article, but don't delet it. --malathion ^talk 01:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - If Parker wants to work on it, then it's got a reasonably responsible editor sheparding it. Hipocrite 15:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'DeleteThough Parker made a lot of edits last night, none were to this article, so I don't believe that it's going to get done. Prove me wrong.Hipocrite 12:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to be a personal essay, not an encyclopedia topic. I will reconsider if genuine sources are cited before the expiry of this VfD discussion. --Stormie 06:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

((merge|Talk:Religion and schizotypy))

• This is such a small amount of information that it should be merged into another article. Forcing everyone to wait around a week, and to VOTE on it is stupid and anti-wiki.
• People should simply make suggestions on the talk page as usual and make edits and merges as usual
• It is asinine to generate 5 times more discussion than the amount of text involved here.

So I'm going to cut and paste the contents of this page to talk:Religion and schizotypy. Uncle Ed 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There's a VfD going on, you don't just declare yourself right and call it off. This should not be merged or redirected, it should be deleted, and we're still voting on this. DreamGuy 12:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, there doesn't appear to be any substantiated information in the article that could be merged anywhere. Vashti 12:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I had moved this to the discussion page, but another editor claimed that doing so was an attempt to bypass the consensus building process, so I am moving it back here. DreamGuy 03:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've dug up some good primary and secondary (reputable) sources on the link between schizotypy and religious belief, spiritual experience, and what not. I've offered to clean it up in the comments attached to my vote, above. Either way the vote goes, the info will find a home. Parker Whittle 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, if any editors have some sources they'd like to see used on this topic, please reference them on the talk page for the article (preferrably something that's easily obtained). It looks like the article and it's talk page have been deleted, but go ahead and add references there, anyway Parker Whittle 18:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, as soon as I wrote that the article/talk had been deleted, it returned, disappeared, returned, disappeared like a virtual particle on the event horizon of a black hole. Funky. Parker Whittle 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I get it. The "merge" template is screwy; it prepends Wikipedia: to whatever link you pass to it. Parker Whittle 18:26, 8 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 Speedied by Dpbsmith. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No sources given; no Google hits on "Enigmatical Sorority", let alone "Enigmatical Sorority of Van Dieman." Delete unless good verifiable sources are provided and verified. No indication presented of encyclopedic significance; Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. The lack of verifiable sources could lead a reader to infer that the article might be a prank or hoax. The editor who created the article added it to the article on Secret societies (see the history; I removed the entry), indicating that he considers it to be a secret society. Wikipedia only contains material that is verifiable which means that articles on truly secret societies, i.e. societies for which no public, verifiable information exists, must be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as likely hoax - Van Diemen is a notable road racing formula and sports racing chassis constructor. FCYTravis 02:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Thanks. I assumed it had something to do with Van Diemen's Land... which, I see from our article, wasn't called that until 1803... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as hoax. My dictionary tells me that a sorority is an association of women. Theres alot of men in this one, but maybe thats why its enigmatic(al). Hamster Sandwich 04:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied as probable hoax. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:22, 7 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. – malathion ^talk 06:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone affiliated with this song has denied that there is any intended backmasking in this song. Nevertheless, a link to this information and a sound clip is provided as an external link on the Stairway to Heaven article along with some information in the Trivia section of that article. This speculation doesn't need its own article. Cmouse 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, this is not worthy of it's own article. Own section on the song's page, certainly. Rob Church 01:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator reasoning. I'd suggest a merge, but can't see anything worth keeping. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to hell (although it's not badly written, I just couldn't resist saying that. Delete as per nominator)CanadianCaesar 02:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is it still copyvio when it's transcribed backwards? Oivypoc? Flowerparty ^talk 02:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• )CTU( 5002 tsuguA 7 ,84:03 hsalpS- .rotanimon rep ,dteleD
• Delete. Even if not copyvio, the interpretation of the reversed words is subjective. ManoaChild 04:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-encyclopedic, original research. DavidH 04:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to Backward message, where this song is mentioned. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. If you listen to Slayer's Reign In Blood album backwards, you'll hear a nice recipe for banana nut muffins. Enjoy! Hamster Sandwich 05:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. And incidentally, that's nothing, if you listen to any Pavarotti CD backwards, you see him dancing with the Spice Girls in a thong. My retinas will never recover. =P Xaa 10:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as per Wahoofive or to Stairway to Heaven, where it is also mentioned. I had not heard this one before, but we have a nice article on the 'Paul Is Dead' phenomenon. Most of the Google hits seem to be message boards where someone goes "omg, lol check out this completely unsubstantiated rumour," but I would say that if there is enough verifiable information to justify an article it would make a valid topic. As just some made up lyrics, ehn. Eldereft 06:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not warrant its' own article. - Longhair | Talk 08:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator; perhaps redirect per Wahoofive. Barno 02:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think this vanity unless a little more info on why he is unique in Australia. It sounds kind of like an advertisement for him at the end.Karmafist 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into John Butler Trio, the band in question. -Splash 03:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Splash. Hamster Sandwich 04:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The article describes Gavin Shoesmith's participation in other bands besides John Butler Trio as well. --ScottDavis | Talk 06:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as has been established, there is independence from the rest of the band. Slac speak up! 10:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable Australian musician. - Longhair | Talk 11:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My memory is that Gavin Shoesmith is a former member of the John Butler Trio appearing on the first three albums and has gone on to have his own career. Capitalistroadster 11:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (vote by Pete G, please see history. He forgot to sign, I will contact now)Karmafist 19:59, 7 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 Speedied by Sn0wflake. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, a random "backyard" wrestler who has no particular claim to fame. Only gets 87 Googles, and most of those are "Phil, sensational!" type things. I only spotted one relevant hit among them. -Splash 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's almost no content. This could have been speedied for that, the non-notability or the vanity. Rob Church 02:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, really. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I wasn't sure if the 'organisation' he wrestles 'for' might actually be interesting. -Splash 02:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedily). "Yard of Honor" itself manages a paltry 18 googles. Flowerparty ^talk 02:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete backyard wrestling is not notable. Hamster Sandwich 04:59, 7 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. – malathion ^talk 07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn advertising. Eclipsed 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising, non-encyclopedic topic. DavidH 04:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment"Association For Consciousness Exploration" with the c befoe the i gets 792 google hits, may be slighly notable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following the Google hits, it seems to just be a local organization in Ohio and a club in nearby Ohio-based Wright State University. Either way, it's advertising. -D. Wu 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reeks of a hoax. And I don't find anything for "TKH Productions" on Google. However, there is a Dutch company of similar name: [1]. I cannot verify their notability as I cannot speak the language. -Splash 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I got one Google hit, a half-constructed website hosted on cjb.net. I think the claims of mass murder and nuclear warfare give this away as 100% BS. Delete, since I'm not sure if it's speedy-worthy. Junkyard prince 02:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. BS. Greasy kid stuff. Hamster Sandwich 05:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Eldereft 06:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. hoax --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probable hoax. --Etacar11 22:33, 7 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). Nobody voted "bicycle" this time, but here you go: Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non notable. Can't put every high school into Wikipedia. Plus it's probably a copyvio Woohookitty 02:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless it proves to be a copyright violation. Fg2 02:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this nomination is absurd. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:51, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
• Even if we can't put every high school into Wikipedia, that seems to be what is going to happen, and I see no reason to believe the article is a copyvio. Abstain. --Metropolitan90 04:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- until there is a category policy regarding high schools with some basis for notability/inclusion, we have no basis for determining if article is valid. Unfortunately, that means WP becomes a phone book/directory of schools, but there it is. DavidH 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there is no possible way to apply 'notability' to schools without causing egregious systemic bias. Kappa 04:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for size, mentions in major media, notable alumuni, or other crazy stuff like that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially using factors like those. Kappa 19:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep this article is a sub sub stub. Not of particular interest outside of students, faculty and alumnists. Hamster Sandwich 05:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Woohoo keep. Meow. —RaD Man (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To describe this as a substub is simply incredible. It's perfectly good stub article. Let it grow. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to a list of schools in Charlotte. --Tim Pope 11:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I would prefer merge but such sensible moves would be blocked --Tim Pope 20:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you'd rather Wikipedia have no information about this school than information in your preferred form? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With what is on evidence so far, yes. Deletion does not prevent future recreation with a full article. --Tim Pope 21:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's your attitude, why bother to delete? You could easily just edit the article to improve it. That is, if one consider wikipedians to be editors and not just robots designed for deleting things. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why don't you edit it rather than making personal attacks on other editors who are just trying to express their views. --Tim Pope 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise if my comment reads like a personal attack--it isn't my intention. The point is that your vote rationale puzzles me. You clearly think the article contains valuable material, because you want it merged; however you instead vote for delete because you think "such sensible moves would be blocked". I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that you are willing to sacrifice good material simply because you can't get consensus for your preferred merge. You then say "deletion does not prevent future creation with a full article", so naturally I ask you: why bother to delete in the first place? The article can be expanded where it is--if you think it needs to be. For myself I am quite happy with the current contents, so it's silly to ask me to edit it. It's a lovely, bijou little stub sitting there inviting someone who knows about the school to write about it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for your apology. I didn't take personally anyway just as an attack on everyone voting other than keep. I am not keen on schools in wikipedia, at least merging reduces the number of articles about them, but 1 vote to merge amongst all keeps and deletes is a wild goose chase. (and I note some closing admins count them as keeps ;) ) --Tim Pope 16:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I generally assume that people who vote to merge want the information to be retained, since they're voting to have it preserved elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is this not your intention? Factitious 07:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merges are keeps. This is a fact, and not one that has ever been, or ever will be, seriously disputed. When an article is merged, the material is kept and its history is kept. When an article is deleted, the material and all its editing history is deleted. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. What on Earth would make you think it's a copyvio and it's certainly not a sub-substub or even a substub. Of interest to those who want effective, valuable education for the next generation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant value jamesgibbon 13:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your link goes to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete but you've deliberately edited it to make it appear to refer to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. That's very naughty, you know. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naughty? As in disobedient? How about you (St. Catherine's #1St. Catherine's #2Charlotte #1Charlotte #2 Sacred Heart) leave other people's votes alone and save the lecture. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can put every high school in Wikipedia. Also, when we find notable alumni, it would be nice to have the school article already there to add to. Unfocused 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Completely non notable school.Gateman1997 16:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given Wikipedia's exponential growth there is little doubt that we can have articles about every high school in the English speaking world within a few years. Osomec 18:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe we have some French, German and Spanish-speaking schools, too. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. "Can't put every high school into Wikipedia." -- I notice a flaw in your theory. Almafeta 18:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Schools are notable, high schools especially so. Pburka 01:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone who didn't go to this school doesn't care, and anyone who did just wants to forget it. Nandesuka 02:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't go there, but I care. Factitious 07:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable high schools. If notable information exists, put it into the article on Charlotte Public Schools at the district/city level. ESkog 02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete as suggested by ESkog. See Clark County School District for an article that allows for growth of information about individual schools without creating a stub for each one. Vegaswikian 05:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is probably incompatible with deletion under the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply merge the history for the two articles when you do the delete. At least that is what the documentation seems to say you can do. I don't see this as incompatible, just more work. This could explain why so many votes wind up as keep, the admins don't want to do the extra work, and elect to call the vote keep rather than merge and delete. So, maybe this is a good reason to not vote merge and delete, but to simple vote Merge. Vegaswikian 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh I see. A history merge. That is compatible. However I don't see what is gained from this that couldn't be achieved by simply merging and redirecting without deletion, which unlike a history merge is a reversible operation. I'd suggestion that admins probably don't want to do this precisely because once it's done even a sysop cannot undo it.
  • Voting merge won't necessarily get you a merge done for you by the closer. Anybody can do a merge so sometimes a sysop will do it (particularly if there is a consensus to merge--ie, merge votes outnumber all non-merge votes by a considerable margin, which is very rare), and often he'll leave that decision up to other editors, who are perfectly capable of doing it themselves.
  • There isn't a sysop "merge" button that a sysop can press to do a merge, it's an editing operation and often requires good judgement and knowledge of the material that, being chosen maybe for his clerical abilities and general reliability, a sysop does not necessarily have. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, just so we're clear, you agree your comment "Probably not compatible with the GFDL" was incorrect? Can we further agree that you'll no longer use this as an oft- repeated argument against delete and merge? I'll interpret no response as "yes" and "yes". - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, no and no. And it's preposterous to make these little assumptions--what if the editor you're addressing should happen not to read your comment, as I nearly did not? Have you by any chance recently been a denizen of some kind of flame forum?
    • Clearly it would be impractical to perform such a complex and irreversible procedure just to comply with a license, when a simple paste-and-redirect merge achieves precisely the same result in a reversible manner without any license issues. Also as a closer I'd not expect to see a discussion ending in a consensus "merge and delete", if only because it's a patently perverse vote. Having refined the argument, I shall reuse it to much greater effect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, schoolcruft. Failing delete, merge info as per Vegaswikian. Proto t c 10:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — High schools are notable. RJH 15:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this is just plain weird Yuckfoo 19:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some high schools are notable. This one ain't. Dunc|☺ 00:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Factitious 07:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable school; secondary schools should not need to prove notability. --BaronLarf 01:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of notability. If not deleted, Merge into Charlotte Public Schools. DES ^(talk) 23:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable. No Account 00:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Murder! Maim. Destroy. Unremarkable highschool. 213.78.96.242 User:Pilatus 22:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Dunc. Jonathunder 01:44, 2005 August 15 (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. – malathion ^talk 06:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this page has cleared the copyvio, but this religion with only 316 google is really not notable, especially since they are using Wikipedia as their webhost, delete--nixie 03:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we should lower our bar for notability for small religions, but even so this is non notable. CanadianCaesar 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn small religion. -Splash 03:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- small groups without wider influence aren't notable. DavidH 04:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisment. "It is certainly our belief that there is more to the universe than mere matter and mechanics even if not proveable by any objective means." First person reportage. Hamster Sandwich 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per CanadianCaesar. Eldereft 06:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/self-promotion. --Etacar11 22:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Less than active on the Net does not automatically lead to insignificance. -Zflash 00:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently notable? Ornil 02:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, is an assistant professor and thus fails WP:PROF immediately, (see substub autobio at her own institution [2]. The name also only gets61 useful Google hits. -Splash 03:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 05:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would not automatically assume that an assistant professor is non-notable; it simply means that she lacks senority. But her CV does not appear notable. (Unsigned vote by ManoaChild (talk · contribs))
• Delete nn prof. An assistant might be notable but it's rare. --Etacar11 22:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Accoona is a spyware-like site. It is not what it claims. It has no own search tech as it claims, instead gathers search results from sites like Overture. Wikipedia is neither an advertisement medium nor a home for 'false claims'. --218.41.113.27
  • If you search with Accoona, and see the results, everything is linked through Overture, a Yahoo! site, so it is not what it claims.
  • I searched on Google for Accoona Clinton and Google suggested correction of spelling to Acoona, which means, Accoona is not a popular term in the Internet.
• Keep If it really has Bill Clinton as a spokesperson, it's worthwhile to have an article about it. - Chris Wood 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because (1) It seems relatively notable, and (2) Inaccuracies and being a "spyware-like site" are not grounds for deletion. It's not advertising, either CanadianCaesar 03:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and use improve or NPOV tags if necessary. It's not whether the article is bad, it's whether the topic is valid for the encyclopedia. DavidH 04:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Businessweek confirms Clinton, and [ChinaDaily] acknowledges some form of affiliation. I am rather leery of their "artificial intelligence" claims, though, and bringing the page up to encyclopedic standard would be a good. Eldereft 07:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable website, regardless of contemptible practices. - Thatdog 08:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very interesting article -- but do ensure it has NPOV.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Delete. The article was nominated for deletion by its author and sole editor, Jake3DTrains (talk · contribs), who also blanked it (and, apparently whilst not logged in, requested its deletion a second time), and thus qualifies under CSD criterion G7. At least one other editor, Mysidia below, concurs. Discussions of verifiability and notability of the subject matter are left to future discussions of any future article on this topic. Uncle G 19:29:57, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

Delete I accidentally submitted this article while it was in an extremely incomplete state. ~ Jake 03:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but because of non-notoriety. Assuming you're Jake from this sonicstadium.org message board, Wings of Voyage is an online story written by you. In my opinion, this isn't enough to warrant an article. If I'm wrong about my assumption, please disregard my vote. -D. Wu 04:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was going to use this article as a means of compiling information, themes, and such about it; the idea that my intention was to advertise it is quite false, since I am quite aware (yet unfazed by the fact that) my story will remain unpopular. For an idea of how the finished article would have looked like, refer to an article regarding an actual novel such as "1984" by George Orwell, which is far from being an advertisement for the book. Still, by all means I'm wanting this void article to be removed at the moment. If, however, you are saying that this article should be deleted because of non-popularity, I suppose I can't do much other than to refrain from posting this article, regardless of whatever content I may put in it. Since I am fairly new at this and probably missed a few things in the guidelines of what and what not to post as an article, thank you for pointing this out. ~ Jake 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a primary source and Wikipedia is not a hosting service. It's not the author-submission section of Amazon. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Articles on stories are not here to be the primary sources of information about those stories. Our article on Nineteen Eighty-Four cites several sources where other people have written about (i.e. reviewed, commemorated, or analyzed) the story, and those (as well as other people simply reading the story) are what the article is based upon. That's what Wikipedia is here to do: to report what (it can be verified that) other people know about stuff. It is not here to report what the creator of the stuff wants people to know but that in fact nobody else knows. The place for you to provide new information, that heretofore only you know, to the world about your story is your own web site. When your story becomes read; is publicly reviewed, criticized, and reported by third parties; and generally enters the realm of other people's knowledge to a reasonably widespread degree, then it becomes a candidate for discussion in an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:11:12, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
      • Okay. I'm sorry that I misunderstood; please delete this article as soon as possible. Thank you. ~ Jake 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are more than welcome to contribute to any articles where there are sources to cite, of course. Uncle G 19:29:57, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under G7. --Mysidia 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vacuous content. Hamster Sandwich 05:09, 7 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 KEEP. I am going to move it to the singular form of the title however. -Splash 16:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was: "opinion peace on star trek universe or original research, at best". Original research essay. — Gwalla | Talk 04:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yeah, seems like original research. -D. Wu 04:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. "So let us hypothesize that there are no desert planets..." or coresponding articles. Hamster Sandwich 05:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep In light of edit and rewrite. Nice work! Hamster Sandwich 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. ManoaChild 09:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rewritten version is much improved. ManoaChild 03:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let us hypothesize that Star Trek Fans didn't try to hypothesize about the imaginary science of a fictional TV show... ;-) Xaa
• This article as it stands is original research. The article's talk page almost states as much outright. However, a one-climate planet is a popular motif in science fiction, as planets in science fiction indicates, and desert planets (specifically) range from Mars through Anarres to Altair IV. There might be enough secondary source material for an encyclopaedia article to be written. However, this isn't such an article. Delete unless rewritten. Uncle G 11:56:31, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • ... as it now has been. Weak Keep. Uncle G 17:33:39, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and fanon. 23skidoo 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rewrite; a decent if short summary of a recurrent fictional theme. Shimgray 19:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. as a common aspect in science fiction setting patterns →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ok after rewrite. --Etacar11 22:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Current version seems good. Pburka 01:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Nice save, guys. Move to Desert planet or list of desert planets in science fiction, however. — Gwalla | Talk 03:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good sci-fi article, but move to the singular Desert planet per Gwalla. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — mostly likely form of barely habitable, extra-solar world. — RJH 15:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to dessert planet. No Account 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yummy Hamster Sandwich 00:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-notable and very possibly a joke article. Google search returns one unrelated hit. D. Wu 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe change I think you should write something in about Milliteq Word when it comes out, rather than this. BTW, i make EnSpireMe, but all I use Gigateq for is to make my programs look better. I see mine as just a fake name. (MPN)
• Delete Hoax. One man coprporation, and a 14 yr old CEO? Go to bed! Hamster Sandwich 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Yes i'm 14 and it's a one man operation, i can't afford workers. I am the only worker so what, I still make programs and i will have one out soon. And if that program happens to be in google, and Milliteq too, can i come back then? brendan williams 1:48, 7 August 2005

Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you have a company thats notable you have to actually move beyond the developmental stage of your operations, remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thats not to say you shouldn't have an article here in the future. Generally speaking, it is better to have the notability as a company, or as an individual that other people who aren't your friends, family members (or particularly yourself) would want to write about or read a story about you and/or Milliteq. I happen to know a guy who owns a company called Millitex and he does a great business. Drives a sweet Porche. They do special paint jobs for military vehicles. And I doubt he'd get an article here in the Wikipedia as you can see by the red link (like this one) on his company name. You have to establish real notability or notariety to get an article in. Try editing about a subject you have a real interest in, maybe you can contribute something positive to the knowledge base here. Good luck with your company BTW, I hope you do make it big enough to get in here someday! If you establish a user page I could have discussed all this with you in that space. Just one of the benifits of creating a wikipedia account. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep i am his friend Justin and i don't see ANYTHING wrong with it 1:52, 7 August 2005

Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep what's wrong with it, the company IS real, 14 year old CEO or not. Robert 1:53, 7 August 2005

Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep When Milliteq Word is released on a website i'm sure i will get noted in google. brendan williams 2:18 UTC 7 August 2005

Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- vanity - Longhair | Talk 06:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much linguists study language as it 'is' used rather than simply recording and enforcing "correct" usage, Wikipedia is a record of what 'has' occurred and influenced the world at large. Good luck with your fame &/or fortune. Eldereft 07:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Delete. Ok then so someday I CAN be in here but just when it (My company) does come successful? and how is it vanity? And does the subject have to be VERY popular to get in here? Brendan Williams 3:33 AM ET 7 Aug 2005

Comment: Forget about adding your own entry. See Wikipedia:Vanity. If and when you become notable enough, hopefully somebody will notice and add it for you ;) -- Longhair | Talk 07:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is a User Page? Brendan Williams | Talk

Comment: See your talk page for my reply. -- Longhair | Talk 07:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete either total hoax or hopelessly obscure (nothing on Google at all), and the sockpuppets certainly don't help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious complete joke hoax. FCYTravis 08:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. ManoaChild 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vanity Tonywalton 09:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and Brendan, try not to be upset about it. I don't have a wikipedia page, either. Good luck with your business! =) Xaa 10:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure you do Xaa, it's just in the other namespace :) -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. vanity --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advise Brendan to Userfy. ESkog 02:59, 8 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 Speedied by Chmod007. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Useless trivia. Also an orphaned article which does not have any potential to become anything more than it already is. -- Longhair | Talk 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non encyclopedic topic. DavidH 04:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Too specialized, non-notable topic. --Mysidia 04:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn -D. Wu 05:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• So I did. — David Remahl 06:33, 7 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. The content of the article was:

Discrete Recordings

A UK label started and owned by Nahtan Vinall.

http://www.rolldabeats.com http://www.rolldabeats.com/label/discrete 06-28-05

which is almost a speedy deletion candidate as "little or no content". I do see that there was one keep vote, and my decision to delete is not only based on vote count but also on the article's skeletal appearance. Remember that the "recreation" speedy deletion clause is for "substantially similar content, so if someone makes another article about this record label, with more content than the one which is being deleted now, this VFD debate should NOT be used as justification to speedy delete it as a recreation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor recording label. Either delete or at least clean up/wikify (has no markup). Ornil 04:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Micro indie label. Distribution unknown. Hamster Sandwich 05:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normally I'd say to Merge into Skynet (artist) or Nathan Vinall since that's who all of their releases were by, but apparently nobody's bothered to do a page on him yet. It's certainly verifiable, as Discrete +Skynet pulls decent enough results on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:09, August 7, 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 16:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TV-cruft. Maybe there is something to be written about the traditional dance, but this stupid game from Whose line is it anyway isn't a start. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• —Delete as per Wahoofive. Hamster Sandwich 05:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Keep nice useful rewrite. Thanks Antandrus . Hamster Sandwich 02:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Two earlier votes discarded Keep. We now have a viable, creditable article on Hoedowns. Thanks, Antandrus . The disposition of the TV show material is a matter for editing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this. If someone wants to write an article on hoedowns (and make it beyond a dicdef) that'd be great. This is not that article. -R. fiend 17:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good save. Keep now, but if no one minds too much I think I'll merge some of the TV show bit into the Who's Line article (it's mentioned there alreasy) and add a "see also" link. -R. fiend 14:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I expanded a bit from the article "Hoedown" in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, as well as from the Copland article. Not sure what to do with the TV section; I put it under a separate heading. Antandrus (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonable rewrite. --Etacar11 22:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of rewrite. -216.119.144.32 23:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me, forgot to log in. -D. Wu 23:17, 7 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. I will move it to List of music videos using animation. -Splash 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a million of these (even though only a handful are listed here). Who even cares? What does "majorly animated" mean?—Wahoofive (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poorly defined list. The perplexing title requires editors to make some arbitrary/POV distinction of what constitutes "major". Flowerparty ^talk 06:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Majorly Delete List-cruft. Hamster Sandwich 07:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Animation is a popular gimmick for music videos, but not so outrageously common that it would be impossible to list them all. This article is a lot more likely to be completed than some of our song lists, for example. This is also an interesting topic since some of the most important videos have been animated ("Take on Me", "Opposites Attract" and "Sledgehammer" are just a few that spring to mind). I do recommend a renaming into something less awkward, like List of animated music videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But this article must be improved.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 09:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I recommend a rename. Majorly? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to List of animated music videos. 23skidoo 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that name is that some of these are only partially animated, and in fact focus on the interaction between animation and live-action (cases in point, "Take On Me" and "Opposites Attract"). That said, keep.DS 15:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but majorly populate.  Grue  20:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. but add a lot more, and rename. →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename, as mentioned above. Carbonite | Talk 20:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename as above. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename CanadianCaesar 00:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Starblind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a less clumsy title. Eixo 03:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band vanity, just released their first EP, only local shows. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They don't fit WP:Music standards as this article is at the time. Hamster Sandwich 07:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot find anything notable besides a local 'zine mention or two. Eldereft 07:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Leave them alone. It is interesting and useful information for those wanting to find out more. What is the point of an online encylcopedia if something has to be known by everyone before it is acceptable. SimonWoolford 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• User's 4th edit. Wikibofh 14:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Hamster Sandwich. Mistercow 10:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't appear to meet WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 17:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Mobrown are at the forefront of the London unsigned music scene which gave us The Libertines / Special Needs etc, and are hot tips for getting a deal by the end of the year. As such, there are many young music lovers who would find this information invaluable.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.33 (talk • contribs) 14:24, August 10, 2005

Keep. Yeah leave them be. I'm from Hull and i've heard of them

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.33 (talk • contribs) 14:28, August 10, 2005

• keep. so what's wp music policy then?--195.93.21.33 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It can be found at WP:MUSIC Wikibofh 14:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• keepthey're a really good band. just because they've only released one ep doesn't mean they don;t deserve to be onb here!

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.33 (talk • contribs) 14:32, August 10, 2005

• KEEPat least i tried is a tune!

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.33 (talk • contribs) 14:34, August 10, 2005

• KEEP And watch them grow - will be BIG soon135.196.109.101 14:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I would have hoped as a regular reader of Wikipedia, that the purpose was to provide information to the masses as much as possible. The deletion of this article will stifle the growth of Wikipedia. Perhaps there is the need for more information, in which case I'll write more when the article's status is confirmed. Having said that, who wants to win a grammy to be considered anyway? I have twelve grammy's at home. (Unsigned vote by 81.151.151.73 (talk · contribs), first edit)

KEEP. They are gonna be HUGE (Unsigned vote by 80.1.244.9 (talk · contribs), first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original Pilipino Music (frequently abbreviated to OPM) is original music created by anyone of Philippine descent. Oh yes, I'm sure it's frequently abbreviated. Can we abbreviate it as DEL instead? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe a Redirect to Pinoy rock or Music of the Philippines and delete the content here would be suffcient? Hamster Sandwich 07:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider OPMs to be a subset of Music of the Philippines. Somehow it wouldn't be right to call traditional music OPM. But that's my feeling, I could be wrong. --Chris 20:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be redirected to Pinoy rock because some OPMs are not in the rock genre. --Jojit fb 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It actually appears to be a common abbreviation. Who knew? Also, Filipino, Philipino, and Pilipino appear to be interchangeable; it's only 2:30 and I've already learned something new today. Eldereft 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, and yes, they do spell it three different ways. The *why* of that is an interesting story, but I'll spare you. ;-) Xaa 10:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, there are different ways to spell Filipino :)--Dysepsion 23:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DEL? No; keep... Google it, please. ;-) It's a common abbreviation of a valid musical genre, and there are different ways to spell Filipino. (OPM actually includes many genres; there is also Pinoy rap as well as Pinoy rock and other genres. In short, it's all music made by Filipinos anywhere, not necessarily in the Philippines or limited to classic Philippine music.) This article is relatively new, having only been edited by an anon, one other registered user, and myself, so of course it is a stub. If one of our experienced Filipino editors gets ahold of this (I am not Filipino and have never been to the Philippines; I just wrote what I could!), then it could presumably become a more complete article and thus more worthy of inclusion. I think this is just a case of VfDing an article that should have just been expanded by somebody who knew more about the topic. --Idont Havaname 04:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Google test doesn't prove much by itself; Googling "Original American music" or a similar variation also generates lots of hits. Does this phrase mean more than the sum of the individual words? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that it does, if you look at the Google results themselves for both OPM and original American music. The latter is often used to describe one artist for self-promotion or in some historical context, and while used by many artists there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on what it is. I've listed this VfD at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines; hopefully some of their editors will come here and vote. --Idont Havaname 15:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm in the Philippines, and though I personally find it a rather needless acronym, it's a common term in the Philippines. Google for opm music (without quotes). Coffee 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm Filipino and I can assure you that OPM and Original Pilipino Music are widely-used terms. I first heard the abbreviation when I was younger and didn't know what it stood for until I was a teenager. --Chris 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The name or term OPM (Original Pilipino Music) is very popular. It was coined by the late noted journalist Teodoro "Doroy" Valencia (famous for his column "Over a Cup of Coffee"). --Saluyot 01:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In Philippine record stores, you can find an OPM category and it is as many as other categories in the store. Also, we can add the Organisasyon ng Pilipinong Mang-aawit in the OPM disambiguation page. It is an organization for Filipino professional singers in the Philippines. --Jojit fb 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is why I love Wikipedia. I learn something new everyday. Thanks to on-the-ball editors like yourselves. Please feel free to expand this article. I won't withhold a vote to keep. Hamster Sandwich 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep However, the article really needs revision because its meaning in the present form of the article doesn't jive with how many, if not most, Filipinos define the term OPM. According to the article, as of this date, "OPM is original music created by anyone of Philippine descent. It can be in any genre, and its lyrics can be in any language." This is misleading. As far as I know, many Filipino artists (especially the more commercialized Pop music performers) limit the term OPM to Filipino Pop songs, especially those in the ballad form, popularize by artists like Martin Nievera, Rey Valera, Sharon Cuneta, and APO Hiking Society. I think, it's time to define OPM clearly. Should it refer only to Filipino Pop ballads, or should it finally mean: "OPM is simply Filipino music, or any type of music produced in the Philippines or by Filipinos regardless of their location when they composed it"? If this now becomes the more sensible and simple meaning, then OPM would become the mother umbrella of specific genres like Filipino (Pinoy) Rock, Filipino Jazz, Filipino Rap / Hip hop, Filipino Folk, etc. And I am for this more plain and sensible definition. --eLf_ideas 14:53, August 13, 2005 (CT)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A "long song" is (can you guess?) a song that is (drumroll please) long!!! Next —Wahoofive (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Kind of a non-topic. Kind of subjective (more than three minutes? Where's that written? I've always thought of six minutes as the epic song), little room for expansion, beyond the anecdote that DJs used to play American Pie because it was so long, dancers could take a bathroom break without missing much. CanadianCaesar 06:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this topic is unencyclopedic as it is, it would need expansion to include an unweildy list of "long songs". Would it also include whole symphonies or movements, arias, cantatas etc. etc. Mark as unmaintainable. Hamster Sandwich 07:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable, invalid topic. Punkmorten 16:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is a category or list called "list of songs over 15 minutes" or soemthing. Jobe6 22:51, August 7, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Premiere" software consulting company started four years ago. Looks like advertising to me. Its author submitted it and has touched nothing else on Wikipedia. Isomorphic 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems more suited to a brochure or business directory. Hamster Sandwich 07:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ad →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable company. Eclipsed 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/ad. --Etacar11 22:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to Wiki-Hell - advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:16, August 8, 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. – malathion ^talk 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article. High school band. No conventional albumsZeimusu | (Talk page)

• Delete -- article does not assert notability. - Longhair | Talk 06:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly a vanity article. --DavidConrad 07:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Label, No Tours, No Dice. Sorry guys come back when your semi-famous. Hamster Sandwich 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete suggests it is just a vanity article or advert. Doktorbukdok 07:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC) LiamP/Doktorb[reply]
• Delete. nn, vanity. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:41, 7 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no assertion of notability, few google hits, just another Newgrounds artist. Delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Newgrounds involvement in not notable. Hamster Sandwich 07:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hamster Sandwich. - Hahnchen 14:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, this garners a "what the hell" from me. --Etacar11 23:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, in this case standing for both "Not Notable" and "Nearly Nonsense". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, August 12, 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. – malathion ^talk 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an advertisement and a little vanity. Also the company does not seem very notable. Kushboy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. "Grafstein-Telecom still exists but has had some problems when some staff quit." And thats about 10% of the total article. Move along folks, nothing to see here.... Hamster Sandwich 07:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, buggy software and company crash doesn't establish notability. Otherwise I can contribute several similar articles. Pavel Vozenilek 16:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable software, non-notable company. Eclipsed 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/ad. --Etacar11 23:45, 7 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. – malathion ^talk 06:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only disambiguates between a dictionary defintion and Wikipedia:Disambigtation, not needed. --Commander Keane 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN. - Sikon 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Hamster Sandwich 07:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Josh Parris # 10:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not needed --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Instruction creep at its finest, a bit to subtle for BJAODN. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete recursively. I bet it's some bit of WP:POINT. Barno 02:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm... which point does it illustrate? - Sikon 02:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV about Lidia Vianu. More about her than the subject matter. Essay form. Kushboy 07:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, a copyvio. Crosslisted. -D. Wu 07:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copy/vio. Hamster Sandwich 07:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It appears not be a copyvio, as it's the poster's own work. But "For all literature at the turn of the millennium, Lidia Vianu is suggesting the term DESPERADO, instead of the all too vague Postmodernism" is a pretty well textbook example of Original research. You might also want to check out Lidia vianu. Tearlach 14:26, 7 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. – malathion ^talk 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for movement to Wikisource since April. Hasn't moved yet. Must be constipated, or else Wikisource doesn't want to touch this shit.

I've copied it to Wikisource, in the Jokebook section [3]. Now, unless there is any objection, we should delete the page. COGDEN 01:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a speedy candidate now to me. --FOo 01:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last nominated for deletion in November 2004. See /Archive for previous vote, which came to no consensus. Since then, the article was proposed to be moved to Wikisource, but nothing happened. So ... here we are. --FOo 08:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncyclopedia? Hamster Sandwich 08:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 09:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quote from article: If someone claims copyright for any of these phrases and objects their inclusion here, please delete it from the list. BUZZZ! Wrong answer, sorry, but thanks for playing, and enjoy your consolation prize. The correct answer was: If you don't know the status of the copyright, don't post it to Wikipedia. -- Xaa 09:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikisource isn't the correct place for raw lists of jokes. The Jokebook at Wikibooks is. This article was originally labelled as such during the prior VFD discussion, but the label was subsequently removed. The reason that things haven't moved from the transwiki queues is nothing to do with whether the target project wants them, and everything to do with the willingness of editors here at Wikipedia to actually perform the work of transwikification. Ironically, and entirely coincidentally, I was hoping to have a go at the Wikisource queue today. Uncle G 12:24:17, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• Delete and move to Unencyclopedia (though they have higher quality bar than one may think) or as per Uncle G. Pavel Vozenilek 16:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a joke book Osomec 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this were a discussion on the general nature of jokes then maybe. In its current state it is inappropriate encyclopedia material. Atrian 18:17, 11 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A hopelessly POV list of quotes where mathematicians proclaim their belief in God. Not encyclopedic. I've done the transwiki just now. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pages like this shall not be left undeleted!--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 09:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, very one-sided. Yes, I believe in God, but I don't believe in POV quote lists. =P Xaa 09:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. I don't see how such a list could be useful to anyone. Mistercow 10:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic Delete, a list of quotes by delusional superstitious mathematicians is no use to anyone jamesgibbon 14:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Any list of quotes is unencyclopedic, unless it has been redefined recently. Pavel Vozenilek 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, transwiki to wikiquote - I do think by mathemeticians about God are interesting, but it is a... collection of quotes... Sirmob 18:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps the author might elaborate on how 1 = 3 ? Dunc|☺ 18:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. Possible for wikiquote, though. Eclipsed 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. Interesting but POV nevertheless --Dysepsion 23:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. Very one-sided and not informative in any way. 22:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.98.109 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. I fail to be persuaded by any of the arguments above. It is not just a list of quotes; quotes are given for about half of the people mentioned. It is indeed POV, but that is not a valid ground for deletion in my reading of WP:DP. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • … and rename per CSTAR below. Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The name itself is POV. Mathematics and deities or Mathematics and religion would be more appropriate, I think. --CSTAR 15:18, 8 August 2005
• Keep but Improve. I agree with CSTAR that the title is POV, as is most of the article. However, I believe that with an overhaul, it could be a valuable article. I suggest the moving of this to Wikiquote and the construction of an article dealing specifically between spiritual beliefs of mathematicians and ideas relating math and religion. The Swami 09:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Improve. There is a long history of mathematicians speculating on the nature of god - speculation is their job - and the idea of god is entangled with the idea of infinity which mathematicians can be said to have a particular viewpoint on. Care needs to be taken with deciding whether the quoted mathematicians are truly talking about a deity which they believe in or whether they are using the term 'god' as a shorthand for a non-religious concept. -- Spondoolicks 10:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move to something like "Mathematicians and God" --Henrygb 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like an interesting topic to me, and could be expanded upon. For example I think I might add Paul Erdos's quote about God's book of theorems, perhaps Einstein's quote that God doesn't play dice. Would perhaps be better as a list, and could stand a bit of cleanup. I see no valid reason for deleting this article. Certainly POV is not a valid reason, POV is fixable, only articles which can't be fixed are to be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. At any event, the content should definitely be preserved somewhere. Paul August ☎ 19:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Georg Cantor made great contributions to mathematics, which he himself related to GOd in an interesting way, which could definitly be described in an encyclopaedic style. (Article could use some improvement, though.) --R.Koot 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after some cleanup. Oleg Alexandrov 23:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mathematical beauty, which already has some God-related stuff along with more general content. SpuriousQ 01:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename. It's interesting and recurring topic (I don't get how a collection of opinions can be POV). By the way, where does the quote "natural numbers are from god, everything else is by man" come from? Samohyl Jan 05:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's due to Leopold Kronecker. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 12:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cleanup issue. Pcb21| Pete 11:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps rename and/or merge, and adjust for POV. I am speaking as a completely unreligious (even anti-religious) mathematician. It's a very interesting start for a very interesting historical topic and should be expanded. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A collection of quotes belongs into an encyclopedia exactly why?
  • As the data for an article. Keep. Septentrionalis 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Not an article. NPOV. Quotation collection. Positive: mathematicians, history. Negative: no context, unverified (?) quotations, missing Taoists (and Muslims, etc.), no finite bounds, potentially highly offensive to followers of IPU. Consider this quotation about Newton's occultism: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." — John Maynard Keynes. But the page not only assumes existence of a "God", it lumps the "God" of Newton with the "God" of Erdös, which is absurd. KSmrq 11:01, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
• Comment: What I seem to be seeing generally here is delete votes because the article is just a collection of quotes and is POV, and keep votes because the history of mathematics in relation to religion is a valid history subject. What I propose is move this article to something like Mathematics and Religion or Mathematics and Spirituality and turn it into an article on the historical relation between the two. Or just start a new article at one of these places and remove this one. How does that strike y'all? The Swami 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain exactly why they believe that the title "Mathematics and God" is POV? Would it be better if we put quotes around the word "God"? The title "Mathematics and deities" sounds wrong to me. It is not clear to me that the article is talking about several gods. I would guess that with the possible exception of Plato, all the quotes here are talking about a monotheistic notion of "God". "Mathematics and religion" also sounds wrong to me, it is not about religion (or spirituality) per se. It seems to me that this article is about an idea. An idea, as expressed by several famous mathematics, about the relationship between mathematics and the notion of a supreme being they called "God" — perhaps seriously, perhaps metaphorically, perhaps jokingly. And in so doing, I would guess, they were also trying to say something important, about mathematics and its relationship to the world we live in. I think, the fact that these mathematicians thought this idea was important, means it is important, if only for the reason that they thought so. Their idea is certainly POV, our writing about their idea is not. Paul August ☎ 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the title by itself that causes the problem. The POV is caused more by title plus current first paragraph:

A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and God, often likening God to a mathematician.

Taken together, these could be read to imply a POV that a God exists. Now, I don't actually read it this way, rather I see this use of the word "God" as a literary device to denote a concept that the average reader will be familiar with, regardless of the beliefs about God that the reader holds. Nevertheless, I think the first reading is quite plausible for many of our readers, and the paragraph is therefore unacceptable as it stands. I would support keeping the current title if the first paragraph was changed so that the overall POV effect was eliminated. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes along these lines. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 20:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would certainly be POV for Wikipedia to be asserting the existence of "God". And I can see given what Dmharvey has said above that the article and title could be read as doing that. David, has now changed the first paragraph to read:

A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and various notions of God.

I hope this has eliminated that particular POV concern. Paul August ☎ 20:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If this is about Mathematics, not mathematicians, where is the formal definition of God? What is the status of the "proofs" mentioned? Are the proofs Constructive? A serious mathematician might view these questions differently from a pulpit preacher or a lay member of the congregation. When Intelligent Design advocates are trying to revise one's science curriculum, one can get twitchy about such sloppiness; it's no longer harmless fun. We (mathematicians) know the proofs are nonsense; they don't. Is there something about the word "God" that causes us to abandon encyclopedia standards? Try this: Substitute Satan or Invisible Pink Unicorn for God and decide if you would still keep the article. Wouldn't you want more confirmation, more context, more discussion, more balanced views? --KSmrq 05:12, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

• Keep. Some of the items are quotes, but the pseudo-quote attributed to Paul Erdös is not exactly a quote. It could be made more encyclopedic, but I see no reason to delete. The article does not (at the present time) seem to be non-NPOV. Arthur Rubin 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with comments from User:Paul August. This is a topic that is distinct from any questions about sacred geometry or any other topics in the Category:Philosophy of mathematics. As with certain other VfD's, I am deeply concerned that people who never contribute to math or physics articles (and presumably also don't think much about God in particular or philosophy in general) feel competent to pass judgement on an article outside of thier expertise. linas 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and there certainly should be quotes from Cantor and Russell; the second should help the PoV concern ;-> Septentrionalis 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whatever happens, the content from the "Beauty and mysticism" section of Mathematical beauty needs to move here or the content here should be moved there. Personally I think it would work well to have all this content under the Mathematical beauty article (I already voted merge to there above). SpuriousQ 21:59, 18 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 nomination is no consensus, defaulting to keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Darrien 08:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not a dicdef, but the information content is pretty much nonexistant. There may be room for a good article on Linux adoption, but this is not it. ManoaChild 09:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now has sufficient content. Should have been marked as a stub. ManoaChild 10:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was a stub, not a dictionary definition. Now it's becoming an article. Pengo 10:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  
  • Please note this VfD is for the article being a dictionary definition. Please see the article as it was when it was added to VfD: [4]
  • Please also note the Linux article is already 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable. Pengo 02:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. and expand --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, content of such article is very fluid and unmaintanable (computer systems are being changed all the time). Some general info about trends could make useful article but mere list of events not. IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 16:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do we have Windows adoption?  Grue  20:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, but nor is it a topic. Simple Google comparison: 366 hits (0 in news) for "Windows adoption" vs 47,500 (52 in news) for "Linux adoption". But feel free to start a Windows adoption or Windows migration article. Pengo 00:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a stub, to be expanded. Eclipsed 22:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to the Linux article, there is nothing especially encyclopedic about people using a product, without the context of the main article this one is poor.--nixie 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Linux. The current state of the article is actually quite good, and I would usually vote Keep on this sort of thing, but as nixie said, it lacks context without the main article. --Joshk 04:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hopelessly unmaintainable, and not terribly encyclopedic. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm between merge and keep. Pengo's comment and what I see on the techie sites both support the idea that this is of at least passing notability. Barno 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Any relevant information of course ought to be merged with Linux or another, more appropriate article. Note that at least two-thirds of this "article" is already in Linux. - Centrx 22:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by FCYTravis -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable vanity: only 6 google hits. Suspect the user is posting about themsleves as their user name is User:13lake. Francs2000 | Talk 09:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its a vanity. Anyone knows that.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 09:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - I added the template. Sirmob 18:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blake Matthew Goodacre: Not an important person. Son of cousin of the somewhat important Jill Goodacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13lake (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 August 2005
• Speedied. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:42, 7 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 speedied by Starblind. —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity... About a student and his sexual lust? Please. x42bn6 09:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. nn vanity. ManoaChild 09:24, 7 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was transwikied to wikiquote a while back (q:Latin proverbs), and now exists as an exact copy there. As Angela, Arpingstone, and Quadell have said on the talk page, this is an unencyclopedic list of phrases, and there is precedent for having these on Wikiquote. This is what Wikipeda is not. Therefore, delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- This isn't the Latin Wikipedia. - Longhair | Talk 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Invites endless proverb lists in thousands of articles that serve little encyclopedic purpose. -- Xaa 09:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this list links to articles and as I understand they are good to stay so this list organizes and gives context. There are dozens of embarassingly silly lists why remove this one that is valuable. Kpjas 11:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, encyclopedic, as demonstrated by the blue links. Kappa 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful. Just look at the transwiki links: français, Italiano, Polskim Română, Nederlands, Slovenščina, Српски / Srpski, Svenska. I see we've got out own "Carthago delenda est" tendency alive and kicking on Vicipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to link to the somewhat larger list of Wikiquote latin phrases. Sure all the "endless proverb lists" that this might invite may need deleting, but this article does serve an organizational purpose. Sirmob 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. useful ergo encyclopedic. →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as duplication of wikiquote article. --Tim Pope 20:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and useful. —Seselwa 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful as a glossary, I think these proverbs are so common that it is encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There does seem to be a precedent for not keeping pages of proverbs on wikipedia, but moving them to wikiquote instead. The links to English, French, German and Portugese proverbs provided at the bottom of the Latin proverbs page are all simple redirects to Wikiquote. Japanese, Polish and Spanish proverbs send one to a brief description of their use, and then once again redirect to wikiquote. Chinese proverbs trys to send one to wiktionary, but that may have been an accidental mistake. Therefor, we either need to send this page to wikiquote, or pull dozens of pages off of there, and back here. (Or at least duplicate the most important proverbs.) However, I don't know which way it should go. --Icelight 18:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see what Wikiquote has to do with it. These are proverbs (the non-proverbs, such as mottos and epigrams, should be removed) and have no place on Wikiquote, not least because they can seldom be attributed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are misunderstanding the situation (and Wikiquote). Proverbs have always been part of Wikiquote's mandate, since it's founding. They are featured prominently on the main page (just take a look). In fact, Wikiquote's very first, pitful, main page consisted of three links: Albert Einstein, Zen proverbs, and Irish proverbs. This kind of thing is the reason we have Wikiquote. And we at Wikipedia are not the ones to make Wikiquote policy. Also, you're pointing to the other Wikipedias is a bit of a red herring, because all of the Wikipedias have developed their own criteria for inclusion, plenty of subjects have been deleted here but kept on another 'Pedia, or vice versa. We don't follow their precedent, and none of the reasons cited here, like "useful" or "has blue links," make this article encyclopedic. Wiktionary and Wikibooks are both, but we certainly don't want to duplicate them, they still aren't encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll take all that on board, while still being completely unable to see that there's a good argument for deletion. If we don't follow Wikiquote's precent, nor that of any of the non-English Wikipedias, then I suggest we completely ignore their existence and just judge the proverbs on their encyclopedic quality, which I think is well nigh unimpeachable. --14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please. I have used it more than once. Jonathunder 14:15, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
• Keep, I have used this many times and often wouldn't have thought to look in wikiquote. If wikipedia's search engine gets better, to the point where it automatically searches wiktionary, wikiquote, et cetera then perhaps we can revisit the issue. Until then, keep it in both places and we'll periodically merge them. (It is a nuisance that I often must search both the Latin proverbs and the Latin phrases pages for whichever one I'm thinking of; I was just looking for quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur again tonight). If I use it (as a regular contributor here) then I have to presume that there are thousands silent users who also find it useful.JimD 06:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a list, no information about Latin proverbs, compare with Japanese proverbs. Marc Mongenet 23:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Just for clarification, do you think that the article needs a paragraph or two about latin proverbs, or needs to consist only of a paragraph or two about latin proverbs. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:34, August 15, 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 as a vanity article not asserting notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a vanity page, or an article about a non-notable person, at best. —MementoVivere 09:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - we don't even need to be having this conversation... Sirmob 17:46, 7 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 and DELETE. Relevant info already at Viktor Krum. Jinian 12:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely minor Harry Potter characters who are mentioned in about one paragraph and have no speaking lines. Article is full of assumptions ("They are supportive of their son") that are quite obvious but don't come out directly from the book. Any useful information could be merged with Viktor Krum, otherwise delete. ---Laur 10:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whats next, individual listings for Mr Krum and Mrs Krum? Allegrorondo 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, wikipedia's detailed coverage of Harry Potter is one of its strengths. Kappa 13:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big difference between "detailed coverage" and "ludicriously detailed trivia" -- and ludicriously detailed trivia is not encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 15:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless fancruft. Martg76 13:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Potter-cruft. --Calton | Talk 15:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a storehouse for ridiculous fictional minutae, regardless of the source's popularity. Lord Bob 17:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - origional research/non-canonical/fancruft Sirmob 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - however, the few relevant details that actually exist from the book could certainly be merged with Viktor Krum before or after the deletion... Sirmob 18:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with List of characters in the Harry Potter books or Viktor Krum. Pburka 00:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a Harry Potter fanboy, but this is useless. Nandesuka 02:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books and give these characters a brief mention there. The article is speculation or original research. Nonetheless, they have been present in book 4, so I don't support an outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but perhaps to a list of minor characters in the Harry Potter books (akin to the list which exists for minor Star-Wars characters; and: couldn't we somehow link this to Ashlee Simpson? :) Lectonar 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move to the extensive Wikibook on Harry Potter: Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter --Azertus 09:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into list of minor Harry Potter characters. --86.130.26.225 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, clear consensus that the article should not remain in its present state (hence a few "merge or delete" votes). I will follow the suggestion of the merge voters and merge this article with M65 motorway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor roads are not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia even one which is not paper. Tim Pope 11:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, motorways are inherently notable and encyclopedic, regardless of length. Kappa 13:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... or of actual existence as motorways by that name? Uncle G 15:01:44, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• There is simply no such thing as "Walton Summit motorway". The concept of this stretch of road being a wholly separate motorway by that name is a simple invention of a "Pathetic Motorways" web site. (The other occurrences of this name on the Web, such as this one, and on Usenet, such as here, all turn out to have that web site as their source.) If you look at a map of the road you'll see that this is simply a common slip road, that was previously a stretch of "A" class road, but where now non-motorway traffic is barred for the very simple reason that there is no way of exiting that stretch other than by joining a motorway, and that is still labelled as the A6 on some maps. As I have argued before:
  1. The sign on the "Walton Summit motorway" in the photograph on the web site that says "Walton Summit" isn't naming the slip road. It's not a road name sign. It's a direction sign, pointing the way, off the interchange and along the slip road, to Walton Summit.
  2. There are plenty of motorway slip roads and other nameless motorway-class stretches of road in the U.K.. Here are some more. And here. And here.
  3. It's certainly going to be in the interests of a "pathetic motorways" web site (the only source for this information) to build up the importance of a road into a fully-fledged "motorway" simply so that it can have one more target to knock down as "pathetic".
• Whilst a country's major highways may warrant articles, we should draw the line at articles on their individual slip roads going by invented names. Delete. Uncle G 15:01:44, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • OK, lets look at some of the things that you claim. As I have pointed out previously to you, this is an extremely unusual sliproad. Show me another one in the UK that meets two motorways at the same time. Oh, you can't. There isn't one. There is no claim that it is a "fully fledged motorway". In fact, the site states "Really, it's an overgrown sliproad.."
  • Secondly "Walton Summit Motorway" is only a 'working name', until the correct name can be found through more research. This name is in common use throughout the British Roads community. There is no claim anywhere that the signpost pointing down the hill does anything other than point to a destination. Presumably you also don't recognise "Mancunian Way" but only A57(M)...
  • Thirdly, it was never previously a stretch of "A" road. It was new build and opened under motorway restrictions. This claim of being a motorway simply because it accesses a roundabout that meets only motorways is false. See M1 junction 21, for example.
  • Fourthly, I suggest you look up the meaning of "pathetic" properly... Pathetic Motorways does not simply exist to "knock targets down" - there's a heck of a lot of solid research that needs to go on to actually examine small motorways accurately. That's real genuine research that involves trawling round archive material located all around the country. It's not designed to be staid and boring, but interesting for the reader to learn some things. And yes, I'm very annoyed at the suggestion that it is just pure fantasy. You try doing some of the work!
  • However, I vote for Merge with M65 motorway, with possibly a link provided from M61 motorway. It's not important enough to be in Wikipedia in its own right, although it is something that is extremely unusual, so perhaps deserves a mention elsewhere. If it came down to it, I'd go Delete rather than Keep. And I wrote the bloody website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.88.146 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 August 2005
• Keep. It is simply false to claim that the Walton Summit Motorway does not exist. The slip road has become legendary under that name and its status as a stretch of motorway, subject to UK motorway law, is indisputed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing that is actually false here is the claim that it has "become legendary under that name". That's uttter rubbish. It hasn't. As I said, the only source for that name, which isn't even in widespread use, let alone "legendary", is the "Pathetic Motorways" web site, which has simply made up that name for a common slip road. There is simply no such thing as "Walton Summit motorway". Uncle G 15:33:45, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • All you have established with the above reference is that there is no designated motorway by the name of the "Walton Summit Motorway". I also notice that the above map establishes that there is no such thing as the Newcastle Urban Motorway, nor even the Durham Motorway--two stretches of motorway that I'm intimately acquainted with. Well done: at this rate you'll have proven that there are no roads in Britain except those that are listed under official names on a map produced by the Department of Transport. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And assuming this hyperbole were actually true, this exercise of verifiability in action would be a problem how, exactly?
      • There is no verifiability problem; there is simply a case of a guy showing a single map that doesn't list a particular entity. I don't know what you find to be hyperbolae here--is it my statement that the motorways in question aren't named on the map or my statement that they nevertheless do exist? Both statements are verifiably true. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A 500-meter stretch of road with a name given to it by a website? --Calton | Talk 16:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh please. -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• On one hand, the name has been picked up by other sources. On the other hand, the naming isn't the best, and it should probably be merged somewhere. But it leads to two roads of equal importance. However, it was built at the same time as the M65, almost as a frontage road. I'd say merge with M65 motorway. --SPUI (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who gives a shit what "Pathetic Motorways" says about a minor road? Nor does the article even indiacte what "Pathetic Motorways" is. -R. fiend 17:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Purported name gets all of 45 Google hits, many of them Wikimirrors. If this was actually a widely used term I'd expect to see a lot more. FCYTravis 17:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not establish notability; in fact the article does not say anything above and beyond the fact that the road exists. How is this notable? Fernando Rizo T/C 19:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - My head says "delete" (apart from notability or not, that article is basically no more than a link to a website, which, incidentally, is a broken link). My heart says "keep" because I really like the name of the road. Tonywalton 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not verifiable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, however merge the explanation of "does this exist" from the discussion page Paul Weaver 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable. Nandesuka 02:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This road is of interest because of its nature. It is not just a link road to the national motorway network. This is a motorway standard road which is has an unclear status, revision and research into which may provide more information. 194.75.139.29 10:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Doktorb/Liam[reply]
• Delete, ludicrous. Proto t c 10:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. FOLKS, THIS IS NOT EVEN A B-ROAD. Pilatus 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's either an A(M) or an A road. Much bigger than a B road. Secretlondon 15:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for any number of reasons given above. Sabine's Sunbird 19:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting article that is needed to complete a set about British motorways, jguk 20:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete. Per the article, this "road" doesn't even have a name and isn't recognized as a separate road. It's just a couple of lanes, only 500 meters long, which lead into an actual road. Jonathunder 21:39, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, subtrivial. CDThieme 13:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hardly notable. No Account 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to M65, as that's the motorway it was built with. Also merge in info from discussion page. Maybe have a brief mention in M61. I go past this every day on my way to work, it really is just a slip road, but the naming mess does make it marginally notable. And for those who claim its unverifiable, just look at the external link, it has a photograph of the sign for goodness sake. Far more amusing and pathetic IMO is the nearby roundabout at the end of the M65, which only has one exit and it is impossible to go all the way round, but don't worry I won't start an article on that :-) the wub "?/!" 10:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above --βjweþþ (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Appears to be a quirky and notable if short roadway.Gateman1997 17:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor roads are not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia even one which is not paper. Tim Pope 11:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, roads are useful for navigation. Kappa 13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't an article, it's just a map in words. It makes painfully laborious reading and nobody would look up this information: this is what a map is for! Looking at Category:Roads in the United Kingdom, there do seem to be a great number of road articles. But this is a B Road. There are thousands of these things in the UK and very few of them of any interest except to the handful who live nearby. And I can't entertain the idea that it's likely to be expanded; it's twelve miles long and it's in a very sparsely populated corner of Scotland. Flowerparty ^talk 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an atlas. The B designation of the road means it's a minor single carriage road. Not notable. Unless it is a busy major road, or has historical significance, it should not be in wikipedia. - Hahnchen 14:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know how many B-roads you've been on, but there are a few in the Cardiff, Wales area that are the equivalent of freeways. 23skidoo 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and neutral. We're surely not going to go into the "notability" silliness for roads--they're literally on the map! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is the street I live on. And I'm in the phonebook but I doubt I'm getting an article here anytime soon. --Calton | Talk 16:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Verifiably and neutrally unimportant. --Calton | Talk 16:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an atlas -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep roads designated at the national level. --SPUI (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Completely harmless. Trying to exclude categories of articles about verifiable real things is not a productive use of time on Wikiopedia. Osomec 18:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content that dilutes the intent of Wikipedia is not harmless. If multiple notable events have occurred on this road, then I'll change my mind, but as of right now its a poor substitute for Google Maps. WP:NOT an atlas. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with SPUI and Osomec. If you're a road geek, you know what it's like to have articles on roads. They're fascinating if expanded. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's verifiable, it's neutral, there's no dilution, and Wikipedia is not paper. Eclipsed 22:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, right on brother Eclipsed jamesgibbon 22:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a B road! Just because it's verifiable doesn't make it notable or inclusion-worthy. The weather in London today is verifiable. And neutral. And probably affected millions of people. But not encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 00:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable. Nandesuka 02:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no case for notability made. Sdedeo 02:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I voted delete on a similar article recently, saying that unless therewas an intention to have articles for all B-roads, there was no point. But the more I think about it the more I realise it does little harm, is useful, and - hell, it looks like someone is writing up a lot of them. certainly more encyclopedia worthy than a lot of the cruft here. Grutness...wha? 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is even worse than schools. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Proto t c 10:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The road is part of an important link between the two principle (and rival) towns of Caithness.
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Bush (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 August 2005
• Delete, not notable at all. Pilatus 20:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons stated above as well as my reason stated below. -R. fiend 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, B roads appear to be on par with State or U.S. Highways in the U.S. Gateman1997 07:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. In Britain, B-roads are minor county roads. Major highways are designated A-roads. Pilatus

Depends on the state. States like Kentucky have a state route network of the same relative density as the B-roads. --SPUI (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is not Kentucky. My God, this is a minor road in a thinly populated corner of Scotland! (Ehrm, do you mean to say that any road in Kentucky is inherently notable because there are so few? Sort of like Wal-Mart in Britain, if there were any?) Pilatus 16:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: please see - and join in at - Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom
• Delete because it's just an insignificant minor little road and isn't notable. -- Joolz 10:19, 18 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 no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The B5405 road is a 5 km road linking two Staffordshire villages - see it here on Google Maps. It may be useful for the locals to travel from one village to the other, but in the grander scheme of traffic engineering it isn't. B roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into larger arterials. Neither does it have any historic or cultural significance to speak of.

It was nominated here once, back in August, when there was no consensus to delete. See the discussion here. Meanwhile one contributor has added some more local directions, but Wikipedia still isn't a map in words.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all numbered roads per Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom. Gateman1997 19:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom --TimPope 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without giving a flying f**k about Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom. This road appears to have absolutely nothing to commend it to an encyclopaedia. It is not exactly the Cat & Fiddle Pass, is it? I bet 99% of people who drive along it don't notice it's there! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The consensus can't be both to keep and to delete! My reading of it is that the consensus us is keep notable, delete others, which is also common sense. Is this road notable? rodii 21:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Delete it. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone comes up with something notable about it prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surely we had this discussion before. Why can't I find it? -R. fiend 20:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B5405 road/2005-08-07 ← moved there by UncleG *shrug* --TimPope 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to see here. Stifle 14:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as the B roads discussion. - Hahnchen 16:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep B roads as per the discussion. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete let's not go down this slippery slope...  Grue  15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn road --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for goodness sake why not?! Frankly I find articles on omnibuses a complete waste of time, bandwidth and energy. Somebody however takes the time to write them, and as long as they are obviously not trolling, I see no harm in keeping them. Jcuk 11:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is perfectly useful as it is, it's on an encyclopedic topic. and it may well grow in time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. I realize that there has been a rewrite, but there still is a consensus to delete based on verfiability and notability concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please re read original article, it has been updated with a lot of new material as of august 11th

This is a renomination due to the unusual outcome of the first VFD vote. The basis for the original nomination was non-notability. There were 7 Delete votes, plus 3 Merge votes (all of which recommended different pages to which to merge). The presiding admin discarded some of these votes on the grounds of lack of seniority, which apparently upset someone enough to open an RFC. So, let's try this again and see if we can reach a consensus this time. My own vote is delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebug (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 August 2005

• Keep. Changed vote; see below; I closed the last VfD, which was inconclusive because most of those voting were too new at the time (this may not be the case if the same people voted again now). The reason for discarding votes was not "lack of seniority" but (mostly) extreme newness--we tend to ignore votes from extremely new voters because of the possibility of sock puppetry.
  • Comment I wasn't doing this in order to attack your original decision; I just wanted to see if consensus could be reached this time. Obviously, what weight to give to the votes of relatively new users is a judgment call. Firebug 02:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote from the RfC: "DavidH (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 28 July) only had one month experience and 15 edits in article space. -asx- (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 29 July) only had 5 edits prior to 29 June. Xaa (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 29 July) made 5 edits prior to 27 July. It's is not a genitive (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 29 July via anon IP but signed) had only 14 edits prior to 23 July and to date has made only 13 edits in article space. JamesBurns (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 16 July) has voted in literally thousands of VfDs, but has fewer than 100 article space edits, about a score of which are insertion of VfD tags. Cuervo (merge vote, 15 July) just about scrapes home. Dcarrano (talk · contribs) (merge vote, 14 July) had no edits prior to 27 June. Harmil (talk · contribs) (merge vote, 14 July) had 7 votes prior to 21 June."
  • Now the original nominator for deletion, Harro5 (talk · contribs), has rewritten it.
  • It appears that this lot were mentioned in a FBI report and verifiable statements were cited. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I still don't have seniority, so this may as well be the last time I do this. I have read the article again, it has been re-written, and the re-write is interesting. However, none of the links show that the group the re-written article puports to exist actually exists. The first three links[5][6] [7] are links to defaced pages, on which we see that hackers who claim to be Arabic have had their way with someone's server. However, these three links do not prove the existence of the Arab Hacker group, but merely prove the existence of hackers who claim to be Arabic. There have already been several cases of hackers who claimed to be Chinese or Arabs or what-have-you turning out to be thirteen-year-old script-kiddies, so this literally means nothing. The fourth link[8] is to an article which mentions the FBI is on the lookout for Arab hackers. It does not proport that this group, the Arab Hackers group, exists. Instead, it mentions other groups in specific in the text of the article, and gives an un-cited list-box that has, as one of it's entries, "Arab Hax0rs." It can be argued that this is one and the same with Arab Hackers, but without a citation on the list-box, it is unclear as to where the list originated from. As such, the article seems to me to be poorly cited, offers no real proof that the group named "Arab Hackers" the article covers actually exists, and gets a Delete vote from me. Xaa 15:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have you thought of just cleaning it up? We don't delete the Unicorn and Leprachaun articles just because their existence is disputed by just about everybody on the planet. By the way, the decision to exclude you was based on my personal criteria, so another closer may decide not to exclude your vote. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I *have* cleaned up VfD articles I think are worth the effort of saving from the axe. I've done it twice already. But, this isn't an article I think is worth saving. I can find no evidence that convinces me that there is a group of hackers called "Arab Hackers," and the evidence given in the articles does not convince me of their existence, either. However, if you think it's worth spending the time, feel free to clean it up yourself. =) Xaa 21:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Group's actual impact, if any, is unverifiable. FCYTravis 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  20:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep notable enough as an orginization part of a pattern →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If notability is based on the ComputerWorld article (from late 2000), then the presumed name of the group is Arab Hax0rs, and the page should be renamed as such. But a google search for the correct name shows 9 results, mostly the computerworld article and copies of the report the computerworld article is based on. Eclipsed 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xaa. RJFJR 00:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to be verifiable. --Carnildo 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As requested, I have re-read the article. Adding original research to unverifiable material doesn't make for an article worth keeping. My vote stands. --Carnildo 02:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am changing my vote because I have been convinced by the arguments to delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - revote - not notable - Tεxτurε 14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the last "keep" vote on this I will just point out that my reasoning for holding out on this group's notability is that it is a yahoo group with 7000+ people [9], this link was included in the latest revision of the article, which seems to point to further evidence in its links. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 04:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The links the article points to alledge that the FBI is trying to catch them. Somehow, I think the FBI would not be trying to catch them if their members had a Yahoo group, given that the FBI has the right to simply subpoena IP's and e-mail addy's to track the members down. This seems EXTREMELY unlikely - and is more likely just a group of wannabes. If they really were who the FBI was looking for, it seems to me they'd already be caught and jailed. The existence of the Yahoo group called "Arab Hackers" only proves the existence of a yahoo group called "Arab Hackers" - it does not prove that the Yahoo group and the alledged international criminal conspiracy/hackers group are in any way related. Xaa 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment http://www.zone-h.org/en/defacements/filter/filter_defacer=Arab+Hackers/ Samuraisam 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unfortuantely, that doesn't mean anything. http://www.zone-h.org/en/defacements/filter/filter_defacer=George+Bush/ Looks like the President's been naughty, too. ;) The key is not "Can I find defacement by people who call themselves Arab Hackers and claim to be on a Jihad," the key is "can I find something OTHER than what could be done by a twelve-year-old who might think it was cool to call himself an Arab Hacker on a Jihad?" For example, a US Government site that lists the group as being one that's sought after for extradition/interrogation/arrest. Xaa 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would like to know what kind of evidence would prove this? There is no way more definitive evidence could be produced unless you want some sort of a video. "a day in the life of Arab Hacker". Maybe some satellite footage. I say that adequate evidence has been provided. there are literally hundreds of pages with the "fuck U.S.A. and israel" message so obviously, unless its a mere coincedence, they are connected. Samuraisam 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment As I said above: For example, a US Government site that lists the group as being one that's sought after for extradition/interrogation/arrest. I can find evidence that George Bush is defaming websites on zone-H.org. They only keep track of the names, they have no way of verifying if that really IS an Arab Hacker group or just one kid, or if the president is really vandalizing web-pages. Yes, I acknowledge that it's not unreasonable to presume what you're suggesting. However, we're not allowed to presume things when we write articles. If we're going to assert that a secret hacker group exists, we have to offer solid proof it exists that can't be explained as just one kid with a computer. Xaa 04:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten. No Account 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability and verifiability are rigorously established; this sort of thing can easily become a "Here's my l33t group" article or a bunch of weak speculation (which is what it is now). Note to closing admin: I'm watching this article, and I'll change this vote myself if necessary. Treat as delete unless I change it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 Google hit that is not a Wikipedia clone site. This is apparently not one of the significant Satanic organizations, which we do have articles for. Organization's own website has no verifiable information to indicate that it is a group of more than 1 person ike9898 12:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete there's a real (though supposedly only semi-serious) group called Church of Satan. This just seems like a dude with a Geocities page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Andrew. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete as well (Unsigned vote by 67.184.14.210 (talk · contribs))

• Delete a guy with a webpage with no links except to a non-existent Yahoo group? I'd say nn. --Etacar11 23:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the most damaging thing is that it is a Geocities homepage :o — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pov fork of the Church of Satan. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor school of little or no note. I tried to merge all the schools in Twickenham to one list, but I have met some opposition from two other editors. There is no policy to enforce their views so I would like to delete this article and move any useful information back to the list.--Tim Pope 13:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote Um, can that be done under copyright - delete and move?? --Doc (?) 13:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's nothing wrong with this article. I've added a few references to school reports and the like, and some stats from a 2000 report. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So, external links make it encylopedic? Vegaswikian 05:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your link's a bit dodgy. You refer to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments but your link goes to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Deletion. I tried to fix it a couple of times but for some reason it always goes back to the erroneous link. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look at the edit history here will eliminate any confusion [10]. Perhaps now you could "fix" the links on this one? And it's a shame you didn't manage to catch this problem here, here, here, here, here, here... - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woa, you're losing me here. Why don't you fix your links? What relevance do the other cases have here? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote withdrawn upon finding TimPope's merge attempt. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate. Articles should be organized for the convenience of real users, not to wow random page users with astonishing amounts of "notability". (Disclaimer: I started that article) Kappa 15:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is putting the article in a list inconvenient when a redirect points at the list? --Tim Pope 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the usual reasons. Also, Kappa's right, we're not here to wow the "random page surfers". Do try to keep that in mind. Unfocused 16:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete if it is not expanded.Gateman1997 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Probably not compatible with GFDL. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - per TimPope. FCYTravis 17:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A decent article. Subject is more worthy of one than tens of thousands of our pop culture articles. Osomec 18:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an independent school, for which read reasonably prestigious. I can't find any old girls though. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, how old is this school again? —RaD Man (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • how is age relevant, a merged list of schools would state the age of the school. --Tim Pope 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1914. So not particularly old for a British school. Dunc|☺ 00:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good school stub. Pburka 00:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you want build consensus for a merge, do it at the talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
• Delete - see User:ESkog/Schools. ESkog 03:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Tim Pope. Censure Tony Sidaway for vandalizing other users' votes. --Carnildo 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete per several editors above. Vegaswikian 05:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into list as per above. Please cease vote vandalism reworded - see below. Proto t c 10:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not vandalise any votes. That is a simple lie. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Catherine's #1, St. Catherine's #2, Charlotte #1, Charlotte #2, and Sacred Heart #1
    brenneman^(t)(c) 11:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again you lie. No votes were changed. I simply corrected the link that you had doctored in a misleading manner, and that you continue to doctor in the most brazen, disgraceful and disingenuous manner. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me reword. Please cease endless commenting on votes that happen to reflect a point of view other than your own. Proto t c 12:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and feed articles into Wikipedia:Schools where they belong. Secretlondon 12:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — RJH 15:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We keep railway stations. We keep suburbs. We keep bridges. We keep highways. We keep schools. --Gene_poole 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article goes well beyond the amount of information that would be contained in a single entry in a list. Factitious 07:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a good stub already, and hopefully will grow. Beta m (talk)
• Merge as per TimPope but do not delete. I do not normally advocate merging expandable stubs such as this but I can certainly believe that Tim thinks this is not expandable. Having gone to the trouble of merging to a reasonable article (though Schools in Twickenham would be a better name), it should not be split out until it is of a reasonable length and depth. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, are you recommending that all the information in the article be merged into that list? The page history doesn't show that any of it was ever there, aside from the name of the school. Factitious 22:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • The short answer is yes. The history of this article is extremely mixed up because of moves back and forth. It was part of the list once [11] but the list article was moved back to Waldegrave School for Girls since TimPope had originally moved that article to the list article as the beginning of a merger. I would like to recommend that when people "merge" an article to a non-existent article that they follow the merge instructions rather than move it. It makes it far less complicated to follow. When I first saw this VfD, I looked at the history as well and believed that Tim had only posted a redirect, effectively soft-deleting the article but more complicated look through the moves found what had really happened. You can see some of the moves and merges at [12]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the usual arguments. The most relevant here: 1) The editorial consensus apparently favors separate articles. Merging should be discussed with them, not on VfD. 2) There is a project to develop guidelines for school articles. The recommendations do not currently favor deletion. Go clean it up, expand it, tag it and sort it, etc. 3) Notability is not itself a criterion for deletion. Deletion is an extreme action only to be taken when there is no hope of a valid encyclopedic article arising through collaborative editing. Dystopos 23:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but needs more content to make a decent article. --Eoghanacht 14:52, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
• Delete No particular indiction of notability. DES ^(talk) 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a vanity article not asserting notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Notable. Probable Vanity --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity and lack of notability. A visit to his website shows no content under the link "gigs", further supporting lack of notability. Tobycat 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:50, 7 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I couldn't find anything at the Nanjing University site in English (my Mandarin is shaky), and there was nothing definitive on him in Google(is he Li Zheng-Ji?) Please expand and explain why he's notable, or this isn't worth an article.Karmafist 14:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he's 105 years old, must know something about nutrition. Did you look at his article in the Chinese wikipedia? Kappa 15:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I'll check it out now. Questionable notability is always a grey area, but questionable notability and stub-ness are grounds for deletion in my book. I just hope my Chinese Lessons last year don't fail me now...Karmafist 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I consider anyone who is over 100 years old to be notable.Gateman1997 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you're not serious... there's over 56,000 centenarians in the USA alone, and they're the fastest-growing segment of the population. It's certainly a cool life achievement, but not an encyclopedic one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I was serious. Living to 100 years old makes you notable enough for NBC news. Wikipedia shouldn't be any different with regard to people who live that long.Gateman1997 17:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide any indication that NBC news reports on 100 year birthdays of non-famous people. And don't count local affiliates. -R. fiend 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well besides the fact he is notable per below, the Today show has reported 100 year birthdays for years.Gateman1997 23:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Al Roker reports on 100 year birthdays less for notability than for color.Karmafist 03:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless anyone can explain/verify notability (and "he's over 100!" is the most patheic excuse for notability ever). -R. fiend 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sigh* "He is considered the founder of modern nutrition science in China" makes him notable, did you look at his article in the Chinese wikipedia? Kappa 19:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Just read the Chinese article(at least most of it and translated the rest in Babel Fish), and in 'that' article, I think he's notable. Centenarians alone aren't, but Centenarians who are active college professors and founded the first biochemistry graduate program in China among some other things are. The English article stub should be deleted in my opinion and the Mandarin article should be translated directly to replace the stub(I forgot to put in signature, Karmafist 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete', per Karmafist's reasoning. There are so many people over 100 that they are not notable. Supercentenarians on the other hand may be rare enough to be notable :). Thue | talk 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is considered the founder of modern nutrition science in China by whom? Cite a reference, please. Kappa, if you're able to read and understand his entry in the Chinese Wikipedia, perhaps you can help with this. As mentioned above by Andrew Lenahan, being a centenarian alone is not enough. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete notability not established, --Tim Pope 20:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, adequately notable jamesgibbon 22:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa. Pburka 00:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten article, Abstain. I translated the Chinese article and put the result in the English one. He had a long career as a professor and an administrator but I'd more likely vote Keep if he had made some scientific discoveries. Translating the article was a good exercise for me so I won't mind if it gets deleted. I also won't mind if someone wants to touch it up. --Beirne 03:39, August 15, 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.