< August 17	August 19 >

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

The result of the debate was Move to Erdini Qoigyijabu. Redwolf24 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page is mainland Chinese propaganda. Tibet chose someone else as the 11th Panchen Lama, this guy was chosen by communist China.--Biff Dong 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy DeleteAs explained above. Having this guy named the 11th Panchen Lama is incorrect and misleading.--Biff Dong 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading DS's comments, I would like to change my vote to Merge into Panchen Lama. I don't think he is deserving of a whole page just because mainland China doesn't like the other Panchen and decided to name their own. --Biff Dong 01:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biff is referring to my comments on his talk page, where I pointed out that even distasteful topics such as government-imposed false lamas can be quite encyclopedic. DS 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and remove propaganda. The fact that he is being promoted as the fake lama is notable. We have a page for several pretenders, Lady Jane Grey was a pretender too. The argument for deletion here is based on a controversy that is itself notable and this guy is one of the major figures in it. If I see his name in a newspaper article I want to know he is the fake.--Gorgonzilla 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page title itself is propaganda--Biff Dong 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename as appropriate, Erdini Qoigyijabu, fake 11th Panchen Lama or whatever :) . Kappa 00:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Erdini Qoigyijabu. DS 00:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that?--Biff Dong 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename per DS. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be similar to some antipopes of 12th and 15th century where we will not find out the truth until later. Panchen Lama needs to mention both. --Henrygb 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per DS. --Mairi 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per DS. -Splash 02:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per DS. Shantavira 11:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website. Francs2000 | Talk 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No alexa rank. Flowerparty ^talk 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising by User:1226media. Angela. 00:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, adv. Celcius 01:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn spam. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. GregAsche 02:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there are thousands of small media companies and no point in covering them all --Ebz 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Delete per above -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly promotion for the band, no attempt to even make it look like an encyclopaedic entry Ebz 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obvious band vanity Soltak 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Soltak. --Lomedae 01:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. “Non-notable”, “unencyclopedic” and “vanity” are just some of the words that have been used to describe this article. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; van, nn Celcius 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why would they write Scheduled for release on 6th June 2005... in an article created on June 9th? Flowerparty ^talk 01:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant band vanity and use of marketing talk. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for obvious reasons. HipHopOppotomus 09:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Delete Vanity --Dysepsion 22:43, 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 debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 00:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ad page by anon user 61.177.142.226, whose only edit was the creation of this page. Delete Ken 22:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm only seeing two or three valid votes. Relisting for another five days. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was a big ad before I toned it down. I think what's left is NPOV. Are you also suggesting it's non-notable? Naturenet | Talk 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it still reads like an ad to me, so I stand by listing it for deletion. Notable? I'm willing to let the folks who vote decide that. Ken 22:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this "toned-down" article is going to be kept, then the NXTbook Media and Texterity articles should be kept as well, but "toned-down" to match this Zinio article. -69.104.40.172 22:33, August 5, 2005
    • Not necessarily; notability and encyclopedic value need to be established for each article separately, which is why I listed them separately. It's possible that one will be considered notable enough (client count, market penetration, etc.) that it will be kept, while the others are not. Ken 22:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Understood. I was saying that I believe they are equal in notability and value. So if one is deleted, all should be deleted and if one is kept, all should be kept. -69.104.40.172 23:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still essentially an advertisement page ("provides digital solutions"), claim to notability is that it has 200 clients. My local café beats that. Sdedeo 22:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a new product space... There needs to be some way to describe these services/products in a factual way. For Zinio, I would remove "As of 2005, over 200 magazines use Zinio and it has 62% market share of audited digital circulation." as this is a "claim" which cannot be externally verified, and in any case, is subject to change over time. For NXTbook Media and Texterity as long as the descriptions are somewhat factual, its necessary to keep their entries to maintain parity. These are all "vendor generated" descriptions, but unless someone has a better idea, it's better to have some information rather than nothing.

Unsigned vote by Cimarron.buser, a user with 4 edits --Allen3 ^talk 16:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per article creator's comments in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NXTbook Media. --Allen3 ^talk 16:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete well, since the other "vendor" profiles are now deleted, delete this one too, I guess. The webpage links in the main definition will have to suffice. Cimarron.buser 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it doesn't seem encylopaedic, and still reads like it's selling the company, rather than informing on it. Cursive 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the market leader in its field it seems more notable than some companies we have articles on. Osomec 00:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this. Trollderella 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, the article still reads somewhat like an advertisement. A little research shows that it's a closely-held VC-funded company with a notable board of directors (Stewart Alsop, for one). The article should be cleaned up, but VfD is not cleanup. Nandesuka 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; But clean and add relevant info. Celcius 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still looks like advertising to me. WMMartin 10:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 10:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Non-notable company advertising. --Tysto 16:43, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Merge and redirect to Digital magazine along with information on other firms providing digital distribution for balance. -- WCFrancis 16:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --PhilipO 22:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn ad. -Splash 02:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, well-known media company. - choster 19:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn ad. - market leadership is claimed by any company I know of, so I wouldn't trust that :p --Raistlin 12:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand -- Reinyday

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, personal essay, no sources, no potential to become encyclopedic since the topic itself inherently presents a non-neutral point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lmao. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete KrisW6 00:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and i have to go shower now. Nandesuka 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - would have voted keep, except for its poor use of apostrophes :p --Doc (?) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and commas. Delete. Barno 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I needed a laugh --Dysepsion 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay-stub. Flowerparty 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research --Lomedae 01:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much of a plot. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. same reasons as Dpbsmith. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't know Ian Paisley had become a Wikipedian. :>) Capitalistroadster 02:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Kill it. And delete the article. Celcius 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for conspiracy theorist articles on wikipedia. GregAsche 02:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nateji77 02:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Nickptar. Slac speak up! 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate use of apostrophes cannot be tolerated Avalon 04:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been listed as a copyvio, but I'd just like to add my delete vote to make sure an article is never written on this title. It's inherently POV and totally unsubstantiated. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But are copyvios eligible for BJAODN? HipHopOppotomus 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a copyvio and I've removed the notice and reverted the article. The declared source of the copyvio is a set of online lecture notes that makes one brief reference to an "Anti catholic book alleging Catholic plot for domination in US," but does not contain so much as a single sentence matching anything in the article. Due to grammar and general bad writing I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the article is a copy of anything published by a print publisher. If Lacrimosus just wants to make the offensive material less visible he should make some other kind of edit. And a courtesy, major edits made during a VfD really should be noted in the VfD discussion so that people joining the discussion later know that they are discussing something different from what was being discussed earlier. As I write this, the article is back to its original state except the correction of one typo. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJADON - awesome. Proto t c 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless it's all true, in which case I'd like my portion of the world now, please. I suppose we could link this through to the Jack Chick page instead. HopperUK 11:57:37, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
• Delete, as completely un-encyclopedic and largely ridiculous POV. --Bhadani 13:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've replaced the entire content with the line "See: Anti-Catholicism." Most of the above discussion relates to versions of the article similar to this one. If I'd been thinking more clearly I probably would just have made the article a redirect to Anti-Catholicism instead of dragging it through VfD, but as long as it's on the road to deletion let's continue, as "Catholic plot for world domination" is not anything that anyone is likely to type in and hence not very valuable as a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't do this. We need to be able to evaluate the article more or less as is was when proposed. --Tysto 16:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
    • It's in the history, and you can view it by clicking on the link I provided. Here it is again:

Original text Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Original research. --Tysto 16:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Delete — WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine", although it's tempting to redirect to mwahahahahaha... ;) — RJH 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Oh no, we have been discovered! :-) Psy Guy 18:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition of something which isn't even yet a neologism. Doesn't seem to be in wide use beyond this blog. Angela. 00:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, it is a neologism... now. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • More of a protologism according to Wiktionary. :) Angela. 01:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trife triviality pretends to be intellectual. Please dispose of it. Celcius 02:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, protoneologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- non-notable band vanity. Oh, sorry, bad habit. Neologism. JDoorjam 14:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Baleet Illinoisian 03:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A useful neologism, one I might use myself now that I've heard of it, but still a neologism. Caerwine 15:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is page of a chapter of the Psi Upsilon Fraternity. There are about 2 other chapters of the same fraternity that have individual articles but I'm putting this one up because I'm not sure how the voting will turn out. I'm putting this up for VfD because there's really not much substance to this article. It would be best to link the chapter website from from the Psi Upsilon article instead of having each individual chapter having a seperate article and thus opening the possibilty of having a "personal" websites of chapters from any fraternity within an encyclopedia. Having one article of a national fraternity is enough. We don't need articles of every individual chapter. IMO Dysepsion 00:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Psi Upsilon. This is NN for a separate entry. --Lomedae 01:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Are individual chapters of any encyclopediac interest? Celcius 02:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all individual fraternity chapters with their fraternity. Bear in mind that there are probably lots of fraternities with a "chi delta" chapter. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I skipped a step in my thinking. Move content of this article to fraternity article. Redirect Chi Delta Chapter of Psi Upsilon to that article. Delete this article. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable, but failing that Merge per BD2412, who hits the nail on the head. If this was to stay a separate article, it would need to be renamed "Chi Delta Chapter of Psi Upsilon" or somesuch. Nandesuka 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nandesuka, which is to say that a Merge/Redirect per BD2412 causes problems with the generic "Chi Delta" title common to chapters of other fraternities. --Alan Au 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do NOT merge (Merging, as I understand it involves a redirect?) as there is a sorority called "Chi Delta," and also numerous chapters of other houses throughout the nation that are the Chi Delta chapter of their house. JDoorjam 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JDoorjam. In general individual chapters of Fraternities or sororities or other social orginazitions are not notable, unless there is specific reason to the copntrary in a particular case. Note this VfD as a precedant for future such cases. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What BD2412 and Nandesuka said. -Splash 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , but only due to lack of content. Some Chapter web pages have quite a bit of information. See Delta chapter of Alpha Phi Omega or Beta Rho chapter of Alpha Phi Omega or Mu Alpha chapter of Alpha Phi Omega. Links from the National Fraternity wikipage to the web pages of all of the individual chapters may not be reasonable. Alpha Phi Omega has 350 active chapters and over 250 have local web pages. Restricting links from the National Fraternity wiki page to only those chapters who have Wikipages seems more reasonable. Naraht 15:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to prevent those chapter links from being split off, say, into List of Beta Theta Pi chapters. Psi U incidentally is a very small national.-choster 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Said list for Alpha Phi Omega would hit the 32K limit... Naraht 01:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JDoorjam. -choster 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability for this blog. Alexa does not even have a traffic ranking for them. So, Delete Oops, the URL given in the article has no alexa, but apparently their correct address does. I don't see anything notable about it though. No vote. Friday (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, 907,000 google hits [1], alexa rank 42,633 [2] Kappa 01:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Kappa's Google search shows only 278 unique hits. Zoe 04:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • What is unique about them? Kappa 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unique pages. The count you gave is for duplicate mentions on the same page or in the same website. Zoe 06:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable blog as per Kappa. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, extremely notable American media commentator. Nandesuka 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and cleanup. The 'blog seems (barely) notable (though my standards seem stricter than the more cluey WPdians), but the article isn't all that well-written and comes across as POV. Combined with no assertion of notability, I can see why Friday thought it appropriate for VfD. --fuddlemark 05:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem more notable in form or content than most other blogs, and ( unlike some others ) doesn't appear to have "made any political weather". High site traffic is not the same as notability. WMMartin 10:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, almost all blogs are stupid and non-notable. Every single blog with an article could be covered in one article, titled List of notable blogs, which would have - at most - 20 blogs on it. 99.9999% of blogs are worthless. 278 unique hits != notable. Proto t c 11:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd like to know the source of the claim that it gets only 278 unique hits despite getting 857,000 hits on Google -- especially since Alexa says that 339 sites link to it. --Calton | Talk 14:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Click on Kappa's link and go to the last page of the search. Zoe 18:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable blog. But clean up per fuddlemark. -- JDoorjam 14:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete in agreement with WMMartin and Zoe. No indication of significance. Barno 14:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ...Vote changed to keep based on additional evidence of widespread notice beyond that of most political blogs. Barno 17:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; nn Erwin Walsh
• Keep; exceptionally notable Web site, it is ranked #237 at the Truth Laid Bear social network analysis site with over 500 unique inbound links, most from major blogs like Kos, Talking Points Memo and Americablog.--Gorgonzilla 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I have yet to see more compelling evidence of notability. --Lomedae 17:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; blog passes any standard for notability that does not arbitrarily exclude blogs--Craigkbryant 17:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Trollderella 18:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, article could be improved. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• This one's a keeper. It's Bob Somersby's stuff, guys. BTW, I'm shocked at this 278 figure - something really wrong there — the Howler is huge. The article on WP could use improvement, though.—Encephalon | ^ζ  21:40:04, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

The Daily Howler is notable because it is one of the most influential political blogs out there. Arguably, it is notable also because it was one of the earliest political blogs (1998).

Evidence of influence (this list could easily be expanded):

• The Columbia Journalism Review ran an article[3] about The Daily Howler and its author Bob Somerby from which I quote: "Bob Somerby needs no introduction, of course, unless your days are spent solely in the brick-and-mortar world..."
• Paul Krugman opened one of his op-eds[4] for the New York Times as follows:

A message to my fellow journalists: check out media watch sites like campaigndesk.org, mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com. It's good to see ourselves as others see us. I've been finding The Daily Howler's concept of a media "script," a story line that shapes coverage, often in the teeth of the evidence, particularly helpful in understanding cable news.

• The Daily Howler was included by CNN[5] on a list of about twenty "political must-read" websites.
• It is currently listed by Alexa as the tenth ranked journalism site.[6]
• Many of the most prominent political blogs include The Daily Howler on their blog roll or equivalent, despite the fact that Somerby does not reciprocate (he has no such list): e.g. Daily Kos, Instapundit and Brad Delong's site[7] (I only checked these three).

Replies to comments by others:

• I agree with fuddlemark that this article is not that well-written. Call me crazy, but I created a stub in the hope that the Wikipedia community would improve it.
• I don't understand why fuddlemark thinks the article is POV. I thought I bent over backwards to make it NPOV with locutions like "according to Bob Somerby".
• Google rankings: when I search for "daily howler" on Google[8] I get 1.54 million hits (not that it makes a qualitative difference, but I'm not sure why I get a different number than Kappa; perhaps we have different preferences). I think the "unique" number Zoe refers to is the number in the sentence at the end of a Google search (I had to go all the way to page 37 for "daily howler"):

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the XXX already displayed." For "daily howler", I get XXX = 367. Perhaps Zoe, Barno and Proto would like to suggest Wikipedia for deletion since it only gets 199 "hits" by this metric.  ;)

• I agree with Proto that most blogs are not notable, but of course that argument has no force in talking about a particular blog. I strongly disagree with his/her notion that all articles about particular blogs be merged into a single article or list. Should we do the same for newspapers? In fact I think Wikipedia has the opposite problem: the coverage of notable blogs is weaker than I would expect, especially of an online encyclopedia.

Crust 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the Daily Howler is well enough known for inclusion. Part of the problem was that despite the author's attempt to be NPOV, s/he is clearly too close to the material to excise bias from his/her writeup. I have cleaned up the entry, eliminated the POV and I think it should be more palatable. Dottore So 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Considered a blogger's blog by those in the know. Highly notable. Bcarlson33 21:32, 21 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. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Crackpot weirdo science people have created some sort of bookmark on this page. It talks about a "Universal Convective Pulse Theory" as a big bang alternative. Try googling that phrase and see what magic appears. Hahnchen 01:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - combining virtually identical vfd's for efficiency. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks - Hahnchen 02:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The pages are all talk pages without an article, identical in content, and said content makes no sense. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very obscure pseudoscience, possibly original research. ManoaChild 01:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dottore So 02:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My brain is bleeding now. Celcius 02:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete any and all Talk pages which do not have article pages. Zoe 05:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Let me be more specific: Speedy delete talk pages that never had articles to begin with or talk pages that had articles which were subsequently speedy deleted. Maybe this would make a nice CSD criterion? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • We already have one, CSD G3. And what are admins doing here voting for speedy delete? That's what we gave you the button for. I deleted 'em. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should just have been speedied as originally requested. Nothing links here, I can see no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Lomedae 01:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; not encyclopedic. Jaxl | talk 01:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, though I think it would make a great joke. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 3000 Google hits to this query contained within quotations and 1600 hits for the variant "...at gay porn". These are high numbers for a 7 word text string. Why? If you aren't an adolescent, you might have missed this, but the phrase is perhaps the most memorable line generated by web content. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I heard this at a lemonparty. Notable shock audio. Klonimus 01:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-encyclopedic meme.--nixie 01:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with shock site and delete. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaps Gabriel/Kwekubo with a wet fish. Please check the Guide to VFD. Merge and delete is an incompatible vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoops. I'm behind the times. In that case, merge with shock site. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 11:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely anyone will look for this. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Wasn't this originally part of goatse? Dottore So 02:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Ban the creator, this type of behavior is delt with far too leniently, unlike other VFDs where the mods seem to have no trouble making up their minds ahead of time - anon
• Keep but Rename to something less specific. Chances are, nobody would type 'Hey Everybody, I'm looking at gay porno!' in the search bar. Maybe it should be something like Gay Porno audio clip. Acetic Acid 02:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but rofl. Would be a permanent stub, and that huge name is probably worthy of BJAODN. Only thing we could possibly do to make it longer is get it moved to Looping audio clip stating "Hey Everybody, I'm looking at gay porno on wheels!". --Phroziac (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete --> echo Gabriel | Celcius 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is more-or-less covered at List of shock sites. Kappa 02:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's a link to it in list of shock sites. Slightly amusing, but you don't seriously want an article on it... Denni☯ 02:57, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Delete. No one is going to search this, and besides, the title pretty much explains it all. -R. fiend 03:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Porno keep but rename. —RaD Man (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ral315 04:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to shock site or list of shock sites. -Sean Curtin 05:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Denni. JDoorjam 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DJ Clayworth 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Denni. Alf 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The version going around my university was "Hey everybody! I'm watching porno over here!" --Carnildo 21:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge w/ shock site. I've had the dubious honor of happening across this one before. I think it's worth mentioning, at least on the list of shock sites. Boxclocke 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Unbelievable. Obvious delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ  21:44:25, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
• Delete, already covered at shock site and related articles. ~~ N (t/c) 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to list of shock sites, which Last Measure redirects to. But it's probably in there already. --SPUI (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see the value in a mention of this elsewhere, but that can be achieved by means better than a merge. Merging says we keep the redirect, and I am currently struggling to think of a less useful redirect. -Splash 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting and significant phenomenon. Voyager640 18:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shock site exists, and this clip is covered there. Pilatus 12:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nixie Christy747 12:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. Utterly pointless. --Agamemnon2 14:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - UE, as per the above --Mysidia (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - As suggested on WP:AN/I, I suggest not giving Anon Vandal Guy the satisfaction of being reverted. Cyrius's vote will hardly matter when this is closed. ~~ N (t/c) 20:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a vanity page, unlinked from anywhere, unwiki'd and Fenn doens't even pick up on Google Gary 01:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity page --Lomedae 01:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then recreate as a redirect to fen, which I've seen spelt with two "n"s in some olde English novel somewhere. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, van, adv | Celcius 02:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, also the idea of a singing maths teacher is to damaging to have on an open site like wikipedia --Ebz 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the vanity from our history and redirect to fen per BD2412. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per BD2412 and Mgm.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Nuke site that barely receives visits (no Alexa rank). Written as an advertisement. Delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nn; "a hub for the Italian-speaking paleontological community" <-- Soo... basically a website for 3 people? | Celcius 02:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 04:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; unencyclopedia advertisement--Craigkbryant 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity/promotion — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/ad. I'm suspicious of any supposed academic site that isn't a .edu or .org, but that's another matter. --Etacar11 22:38, 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 debate was Delete. And let the records state that I freaking hate sockpuppets used to fuck with VfD. Redwolf24 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of a website. (nominated by User:67.65.4.20)

• Vote - Pierce: Keep (User:Pierce)
• Vote - MistaMatt90: Keep (User:MistaMatt90)
• Vote - Jeff: Keep (User:24.186.98.203)
• Vote - Admiraljustin: Keep (second edit ever by User:Admiraljustin)
• Vote - Brett: Keep (User:Brett5150)
• Vote - Robroy: Keep ((User:Robroy)
• Vote - Murtu52: "Keep"
• Vote - rv56: Keep (Unsigned vote by 64.201.202.59 (talk · contribs))
• Vote - Keep

• Comment. Above votes by MistaMatt90 (10 prior contribs), 24.186.98.203 (first contrib) and Admiraljustin (second contrib). Only 900-1000 Google references outside of the site itself--Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's funny; I've never seen anyone ever vote by writing "Vote - (username): (user's vote)" before, and now suddenly six people, all voting the same way, do it all at once. Curious. JDoorjam 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a thought. Perhaps users of the forums in question alerted via a post and not knowing the "non-rigourous" format of a vote, just followed the example of the first submission? --Ikester 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This kind of thing is mentioned in WP:SOCK, under Meatpuppets. --Etacar11 05:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article is no different than Tech Support Forum (User:MistaMatt90)

• Which has been taken down and redirected to Besttechie. --Ikester 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. Dottore So 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
• delete That similar site is 40x larger. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; nn, adv | Celcius 02:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per everyone else who is sane. - Hahnchen 02:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ignore the socks. ESkog 02:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perfectly useless. Nandesuka 03:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote - blim: Keep (User:24.231.229.250)

• Delete -Eisnel 05:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sock supported article on non-notable website. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ban support hosiery, reset all Wikimedia servers and salt the earth. This is just useless. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote - tg1911: Keep

Above vote is by anon User:66.82.9.32.

• Delete, Alexa rank is 1,514,746; 700 members is common for forums and page used to link several times to the same domain before I removed those links. Advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sliggy 10:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Small forum. Punkmorten 11:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Sockpuppet limit has been reached and exceeded". --Scimitar ^parley 13:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN. And there are enough socks in here to keep wiki's toes warm for a month. JDoorjam 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"Good, helpfull site" Makai (User:139.55.226.118)

• Delete because "30000" really should have a comma in it (e.g. 30,000). -- BD2412 ^talk 17:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wow, that's a tough standard BDA, please feel free to never check my edits. Sock puppets where it hurts them. Alf 20:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All the sockpuppets are enough reason, not to mention the non-notability. DomRem | Yeah? 22:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn con sock puppets. --Etacar11 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --PhilipO 22:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote - R. fiend: Delete (R. fiend)
• Delete. Can't resist a sockpuppeted vote. -Splash 02:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Brrrrr. Delete, NN --Raistlin 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ... unless someone can explain the criteria here. How big must a site be to make it worthy of mention at WikiPedia? Has that been defined? How does one decide it's merely advertizing? I mean, how does a WikiPedia visitor know what's out there to help them if such sites are all considered to be advertizing? --Ikester 03:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This term is rarely used and does not meet the standards of a notable entry. 66.68.156.175 August 17, 2005

• Comment It will probably be used within theological circles in the next few years. (comment by nominator User:66.68.156.175)
• Speedy delete admitted neologism. Gazpacho 02:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; neo | Celcius 02:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef, and a pointless one at that (Cthulhu Theology: The discourse concerning the deity Ctulhu, Diana Thealogy: The discourse concerning the deity Diana, etc, etc, ad nauseam). Tonywalton  | Talk 09:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments only: I will come back soon after studying the factual position. --Bhadani 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article says its "within the context of Vaishnava Theology" - have anything about it there until it's more than a stub. Alf 20:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain: After my earlier comments, I could not study the matter to form any opinion. In the present form, the stub has perhaps nothing to offer. --Bhadani 13:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, NN. --Raistlin 15:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 14:50, 21 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 keep. I'm closing this one early because there's an obvious and overwhelming consensus. Gamaliel 19:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gropecunt Lane should be Deleted immediately. Its sources are dubious, its subject matter prurient and its historical relevance negligible. Totally unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Interesting that the first result on a Google search are the article itself. Very little to support it of academic quality. Also relevant to consider the image of the "Lane" has been proposed for deletion and will be deleted. KarlJetter 01:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bona fides of the main author of the article Coqsportif should also be considered. He has been involved in serial edit wars including over placing the Gropecunt Lane image in an absurd number of articles. KarlJetter 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't. This discussion is about the article. android79 03:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - An infamous British street name and one which links through Wiki to topics of language, culture, society and geography. A notable and historical street name dok 10:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Singular = is and Plural = are. Article is one of the most frequently citating of any I've seen on Wikipedia. Every sentence is supported by a source. I assume good faith but it is difficult to assume it in this case. Coqsportif 01:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid (if somewhat unusual) historical subject. -- Kirill Lokshin 01:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Historical. The OED cites it, why shouldn't we? Gamaliel 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The London Gropecunt Lane is an undisputed entity found in historical records [9]. The sources listed in the article certainly aren't the best but this can be remedied by research and editing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting historical footnote. Lullabye Muse 02:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Peter Ackroyd, "London The Biography", Vintage, London, 2001, p371) Surgeonsmate 02:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting, amusing. android79 02:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; My sanity needs this article | Celcius 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - as per above. Notable place, interesting history. - Hahnchen 02:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This VfD is merely some old-fashioned type shying at mention of a "rude word". Anthony Appleyard 06:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Historical, factual, notable, interesting. MCB 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I consider the given sources reliable when it concerns something as trivial as a streetname. Anyone in the cities in question could go dig up historical archives and prove whether it's true. Those papers wouldn't put their credibility on the line over such a thing. And if the OED mentions it, it's good enough for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - a famous example of how street names became more PC over the years. The article itself could do with a lot of improvement, though. Bluap 09:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs work (for example, it cites research without giving even a minimal citation, it makes unverificable claims about extant thoroughfares with the name), and is being disruptively edited by Coqsportif, but it's a perfectly reasonable article in itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Important historical aspect of London life. WMMartin 10:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic, just a shame it's not there any more. Proto t c 11:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems factual enough. Could do with source checking. DJ Clayworth 14:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Snickering keep, notable topic, though I have to admit until I saw Android79 and Gamaliel, and before reading the article, I thought this had to be an army of sock puppets voting . JDoorjam 14:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. chocolateboy 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The lane in Oxford is still there Proto, now called "Magpie Lane" and it was called this (but just called Grope Lane in polite company). Alf 20:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two reliable references to it. --Carnildo 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination? - ulayiti (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You might be right ulayiti about bad faith nom.Moriori 23:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• A very obvious keep, I think. jamesgibbon 23:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and verifiable. Qwghlm 09:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But it still needs work, and more sensible and reliable sources for some of the claims. Paul B 11:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if it were an urban myth, it's such a pervasive one that it still needs a mention. Hughcharlesparker 13:57:35, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Keep as an interesting footnote to English language and streetnaming. --Agamemnon2 14:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and noteworthy. PlainSight 01:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Misguided, ill-informed, bad-faith nomination. Bhumiya/Talk 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Redwolf24 00:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa 100k+ and 0-4 comments per post. This site is not popular enough to justify an article. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nn | Celcius 02:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn promotion/ad. --TheMidnighters 08:22, 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 debate was KEEP, particularly since most of the delete voters changed their votes after the rewrite. -Splash 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Website cruft --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nn, adv, van | Celcius 02:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bad vanity. Fails to assert notability or even provide context. Probably by someone who mistook Wikipedia for a private webspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

do whatever you want with it, but since i am a registered user i will assert AGAIN that i did not put this page up. i don't want someone thinking that i made this entry, i did not. -silentpyjamas (also i don't know how to use all this markup stuff so i can't make nifty links etc)

• Delete nn. And you sign your posts like this: ~~~~. --Etacar11 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh by crikey, why can't that just be speedied? -Splash 02:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

like what? with those squiggles? silentpyjamas 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC) silentpyjamas[reply]

• See WP:SIG, it applies to both talk pages and VFDs. --Etacar11 03:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useless user:Fallout boy

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic site Alexa: ~450k. Unlikely anyone other than site operators can contribute/verify info. delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn website. --TheMidnighters 08:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Shanel 15:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn and un-WP:V. -Splash 02:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i will rewrite this article if it does not meet requirements of "website" category, but the organization is notable and reasonably as verifyable as any other activist group. Also: Alexa is WRONG... redtv.org IS NOT erotv.co.kr Not sure why Alexa and Wayback Machine confuse the two, yet.... looking into that now. --._-zro 03:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Reinyday

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate traffic site ~50,000 Alexa. Devoted to minor details, this entry can only be verified and edited by forum members. For example: "There were a few controversies which plagued the Militaryphotos.net forums, one of which involved the use of extravagant and incredibly large signatures..." delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If this article is a valid description of a real web site, keep. Anthony Appleyard 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "message bord was in clinical death state for whole 16 minutes." - such earth shattering events are surely encyclopedic! Seriously though, delete as forumcruft, and how did it survive since July 2004? the wub "?/!" 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An Alexa ranking down there is too low to look notable to me, especially if the site has no other major claims to notability. I shudder to think of some of the other sites in that range we'd have to consider notable if that was a criteria. --Icelight 19:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Low alexa rank. 11,000 members/39 currently online, well below my notability threshold of 50,000/300. Article full of trivia. --Carnildo 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the original author of the article, I have some insight into why the article should be kept.

• For one thing, although the site has low ranking in Alexa from total site visits, the photo albums, video content, and original forum posts are linked from other sites directly, or replicated altogether on other military sites.

• Militaryphotos.net is a major primary source for military information from retired military, active duty army/navy/air force, and private military contractors currently in action in Iraq.

• The History Channel has used footage which was originally submitted to militaryphotos/militaryvideos.net in its television documentaries.

• Militaryphotos.net was the originator of the Finnish military abuse scandal, rivalling the Abu Ghraib scandal in the US in its media coverage and impact on military policy.

• Militaryphotos.net was the originator of the images discovered by a Militaryphotos.net member of a secret Soviet space-based laser battle station. This is a major discovery made at Militaryphotos.net and this is highly noteworthy.

It it the purpose of Wikipedia to present articles on noteworthy topics. For the four points listed above, I would argue that Militaryphotos.net is a very noteworthy website. I expect those who voted to reconsider their vote. I apologize for the crap that was also added to the article. I removed that stuff to make the article more wikiworthy. Carnildo, it's unfortunate that you checked the forum usage at such a time. The forum averages 300 members online. --G3pro 15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep --Agamemnon2 14:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The date is a giveaway that someone's just having a little fun with us. Denni☯ 02:46, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT (crystal ball) Page can be recreated if/when movie is released. --Alan Au 03:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article doesn't contain any actual sentences and Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball as stated above. If this movie is going to be made in 2009, the makers are nowhere near making casting decisions, so the entire contents are of dubious accuracy. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dubious info, at best. Nothing on IMDB on this supposed planned movie. There is an old Sally Field movie with this title but I doubt it's worth rewriting it about that. --Etacar11 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Novel still being developed, too far off. Rx StrangeLove 23:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page for owner of a bunch of low-popularity political websites (150000k max). Delete. Andrew pmk 02:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable bio. Denni☯ 03:20, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. android79 03:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Actually it's copyvio.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:06, 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 debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Delete Andrew pmk 02:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. I think the standard is to have more published than a single poem. --TheMidnighters 08:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies notability as an author, article previously did not state extensive publications. --TheMidnighters 12:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. the wub "?/!" 08:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubbify. He seems per google to have had more than one published (amazon's review of ISBN 1931337241 says this is "his fifth volume"), to have written at least one play that was a finalist in the Eugene O'Neil National Theater Conference, etc. I've never heard of him either, but that makes me ignorant, not him non-notable! Tonywalton  | Talk 10:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly ignorance to not know by heart the name of every single professor in existence, but good research and justification, I've changed my vote and added more information to the article so that he actually seems worthy of an article. --TheMidnighters 12:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I didn't mean "ignorant" in any pejorative sense; merely in the sense of "not knowing" (as in "I'm ignorant of the bloke next door's shoe size") Tonywalton  | Talk

• Keep per Tonywalton. -- DS1953 15:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above Trollderella 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although the four collections of his poetry are not self-published, nor published by his own press, they have very high Amazon sales rank numbers: Amazon sales ranks: Late Stars, 3,390,886; Gender Studies, #613,738; The Company of Heaven, #3,731,512; A Guide to Forgetting, #1,495,844. A sales rank number higher than 750,000 can be estimated to mean sales of less than 50 copies. My personal rule of thumb which guides my VfD voting on individuals whose claim to notability is authorship, is that they must have authored a book with an Amazon sales rank number of less than 200,000 in order to qualify as a notable author. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems a well-credentialled poet. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Published (non-vanity press) poet. Rx StrangeLove 23:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surely Amazon sales rank numbers aren't the end-all and be-all of author notablity? --Prosfilaes 07:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Reinyday

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Rick." That's all we have. Not even the most basic information any biographical article requires: a last name. Nothing here, and googling Rick along with his all nude workout gets few hits, many of them wikipedia. Pointless. -R. fiend 02:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sheesh.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Unable to verify, but if true, would be suitable to merge into All-Nude Workout. --Alan Au 04:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alan Au. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• It's verifiable [10]. There is alas nothing else to say about him except that he wore no clothes in a video twelve years ago and hasn't been heard of, under that name at least, since. Delete, All Nude Workout (which is labelled, puzzlingly, as a sport stub) already refers to his role in the video. In response to Tony Walton's vote I want to emphasize that I do not advocate the deletion of the All Nude Workout article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per Tony. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think there's a naked video of me floating around, too. Maybe I'll start calling myself just "Bob" PlainSight 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism/dicdef. Take your pick. Denni☯ 03:12, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

• Deleegit per nom. --Alan Au 03:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But Mgm's been selfish and taken all the options. -Splash 02:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure fanfic, no basis in Star Wars canon. Jon Hart 03:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Tagged as copyvio. --Alan Au 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without canon source -LtNOWIS 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Star Wars, my God. Erwin Walsh
• Comment. The Article has been wiped by Alan Au. according to the history. quite likely by accident but i am taking the original article from the history. Olleicua 23:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was intentially blanked in accordance with the instructions for addressing copyright violations. The original text is available in the edit history. Please see the Wikipedia:Copyright Problems page for more information. --Alan Au 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I may as well vote while I'm at it: Delete as unverifiable beyond copyvio page. --Alan Au 18:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Maru 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure fanfic, no basis in Star Wars canon. Jon Hart 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Tagged as copyvio. --Alan Au 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without source -LtNOWIS 03:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. HipHopOppotomus 09:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possible copyvio — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:33, 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 debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure fanfic, no basis in Star Wars canon. Jon Hart 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Tagged as copyvio. --Alan Au 03:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without source-LtNOWIS 03:53, 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 debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely non-notable site; hasn't been updated since March 2005. Google comes up with one self-referential hit.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 03:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. alternately, we can list it as an external link on Fan Fiction. alexa rank is 1,122,479. Nateji77 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. To compare, Fanfiction.net has an Alexa rank of 1,115. (Nfiction's layout is surprisingly similar to that of fanfiction.net by the way... - Mgm|^(talk) 08:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, ad/promotion. --Etacar11 22:55, 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 debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band-vanity. Fails to meet WP:Music notability guidelines -LtNOWIS 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "I've been waiting for their website to come up but their drummer has personally told me that it will be up soon. BLEEDING RABBITS ROCK!" My drummer personally told me "Delete."  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete standard nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 08:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "... and practicing at their frontman (may he remain nameless)'s house" -- Yes. Yes he may remain nameless. nnbv-delete JDoorjam 19:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As yet, NN garage band. Alf 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sigh. NN band vanity. --Etacar11 22:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Will your town be next to meet the wrath of the rabbit?" Yes, because I live in the town called Delete. Tempshill 00:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nnandity. But open to good reasons for redirects to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. -Splash 02:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Gasper is a game commonly played by Worthington,_Ohio and environs teens specifically students at Linworth AP and Thomas Worthington High School

A Google search for "Terry Gasper" Linworth gets 0 hits. Either this is completely made up or too insignificant for Wikipedia. —Snargle 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The game is an underground sensation getting bigger. I understand the criteria for what should be included in an encylopedia but I think the idea that its relevency is directly tied to its google score (or apparent lack thereof) is pure folly. I mean, if you do a search on 'columbus teens whippits' or any phrasing close to that you pull up nothing but porn yet last month no less than four local Columbus establishments were busted for selling 'whippit kits' to youngsters. Now, this is a significant story and issue and yet has no coverage from Google except to the Columbus Dispatch and other subscription only (and thus non-annexable by Google) local newspapers. cgardner 01:24, 18 August 2005 (EST)

All I have is your word. And I see that this is your only edit. And I definately think Terry Gasper is a bunch of bull. —Snargle 15:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This "game" or "activity" or whatever you choose to call it is real, and only getting bigger. As a former resident of Worthington, class of 2003 graduate, and class president I can assure all the unbelievers that this passtime exists. Sure it is still struggling for popularity, and it is doubtful there will ever be tournements, it is still a huge part of youth culture in a small suburban midwestern town.

• Delete, nn. Sdedeo 16:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this game. I'm from Worthington and graduated high school in 2000. Though I don't know who this Terry Gasper guy is, I can tell you that the game has reached Miami University of Oxford, Ohio where I first learned about it at a party. It's not as big as beer pong by any stretch, but I'd go as far as to say that most people around campus would have heard of it. I don't know if this helps or not. -D.G.

• Delete Give me a break, I don't buy this, it's a hoax. And if it isn't it's NN. --Lomedae 18:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack page. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Dottore So 18:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN Nezu Chiza 20:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As yet NN. Alf 21:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn nonsense. --Etacar11 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While high schools may be notable, games played there generally aren't unless they become widely notable such as rugby or are well-established traditions namely Eton Wall Game or Eton Field Game. There is no verifiable evidence that Terry Gasper is currently as notable.Capitalistroadster 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... interesting and notable. Voyager640 19:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete If not a hoax, definately NN. PlainSight 02:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm sure it's of interest to some. -- Reinyday
• Keep. This game is HUGE in Worthington, and even has Spin-off games such as "Drunken Terry" and "Terry or Carry" It is not a hoax.
• Delete. Probable hoax, possible attack page, definitely non-notable. MysteryDog 19:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a non-notable TV character. Google for "Johnny Extreme" only gets 471 hits, "Johnny Extreme" G4 gets 97. ral315 04:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, not even anything to merge. --TheMidnighters 08:32, 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 debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable television show; Google for "Race to GPhoria" receives 115 Google hits. ral315 04:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to G4 (television). --Alan Au 04:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The freaking Super Bowl pregame show doesn't get mentioned at all, why should the pregame for an under-the-radar look-we-can-do-an-award-show-OOH-COMPUTER-BOOBIES get coverage? — Lomn | Talk 06:48:45, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band cruft, does not meet WP:MUSIC, non-verifiable, need I go on? ral315 04:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no allmusic.com, no sign of meeting notability guidelines.
• Delete - another new band trying to promote themselves — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleté MessedRocker 22:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not WP:MUSIC compatible. I had expected an article on the Talking Heads song. Tempshill 00:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.58.0.142 created these two pages, spammed links in various areas. Aside from that, there's no evidence of notability. (I think this is the proper way to nom two articles...) Nifboy 04:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Epoch Star entry is largely copyvio, while the Krad entry appears to be non-notable original fiction. --Alan Au 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both are about the same (as yet) NN game. Alf 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.--Mitsukai 14:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable soccer club in Australia. Google for BeachSide soccer Hobart reveals 551 Google hits. ral315 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. GregAsche 05:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to my wiki. Wikinerd 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Wikinerd if you want this at your wiki you have to do it yourself. In VFD, transwiki means moving the article to another Wikimedia project, such as Wiktionary, not copying the information to someone else's website. --TheMidnighters 08:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? Where did you find this definition of transwiki? Wikinerd 08:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first few lines of WP:VFD. --TheMidnighters 08:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and if Wikinerd would please stop using VFD for advertising purposes? Radiant_>|< 09:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Jumpers for goals posts - ah, takes you back) Alf 21:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, all the way to this afternoon. -Splash 02:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, clearly. -Splash 02:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a particularly notable football (soccer) club. --Daveb 06:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:25, 23 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. Redwolf24 01:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Atlantis sunk in 9560 BC doesn't mean that the date deserves its own article. Nothing else happened of note in this year. ral315 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• 9560 was also the year that Isildur seized the One Ring from Sauron, but uh, I can't really verify that. As for the Atlantis stuff, the year 9560 is already mentioned in the Atlantis article. Delete --Alan Au 04:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contents are unverifiable. --Carnildo 05:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a year, and all years have their own article in Wikipedia. Wikinerd 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unofficial English wikipedia policy is to have pages for individual years as far back as 499 BC; earlier "year" pages redirect to the corresponding decade. For example 753 BC redirects to 750s BC. Likewise, there are pages for individual decades as far back as 1690s BC; earlier "decade" pages redirect to the corresponding century, and there are century pages as far back as 40th century BC. Perhaps the information could be moved to 10th millennium BC... Bluap 09:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See User:Carnildo above. brozen 07:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, how can this event be verifiable if the location and even the existence of Atlantis is disputed? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo and Mgm. The article itself states that it's making assumptions about the accuracy of what looks like a suspiciously-round number stated by Plato. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Timeline of fictional historical events per votes below. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking Plato literally? Presumably if Plato had made the same estimate a year later this page would be at 9559 BC? That's not very useful. Delete. Flowerparty ^talk 18:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, he wasn't alive in 560BC. Flowerparty ^talk 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 20th century BC, even if event is fictional it still corresponds with a date in history Guerberj 20:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content into Timeline of fictional historical events. Then redirect title to 40th century BC. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but I'm unclear why this isn't going into 96th century BC instead of 40th (4100s BC?)or 20th (2100s BC?). JDoorjam 22:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC) per Bluap. JDoorjam 22:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As per DES, merge content into Timeline of fictional historical events, then redirect title to 40th century BC. Jonathunder 01:57, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Jonathunder, merge and redirect. --Agamemnon2 15:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 9560BC is not in the 40th century BC. It is actually in the 96th century BC. Bluap 09:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the year once something verifiable has been found in it or somebody shows verifiable proof of Atlantis. Until then, Delete. Karmafist 15:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to MADtv, already done (at least, all the merger wanted to merge). I'll move it, too. -Splash 00:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even when the title is SPELLED CORRECTLY, a Google for the term 'Eracists' receives 114 hits, some of which belong to an unrelated, non-notable band. ral315 04:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to the correct title and then merge and redirect into MADtv. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Move n' merge per MacgyverMagic. JDoorjam 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge done, tho' it could use a good copyedit. Niteowlneils 00:46, 19 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. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

No google hits for the major player in this article, and the assetion seems a little problematic anyway. Denni☯ 04:29, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

• Speedy via vanity provision. Otherwise, delete. ral315 04:34, August 18, 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. Redwolf24 01:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from North olmsted high school). Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

• No notability proven. Slac speak up! 04:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Wikipedia:Schools for the history of the "schools" debate. --Alan Au 04:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valid stub. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a school and it's encyclopedic. If you delete it, please contribute the article to my wiki. Wikinerd 06:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) not now because radiant blanked your page Yuckfoo 17:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikinerd, stop asking for other people to do your work. It's public domain, if you want it, take it --Outlander 19:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, wikipedia should give people access to this kind of important information. Kappa 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this debate always about American schools? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because most African schools don't have websites? Kappa 08:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why doesn't Wikiproject:Schools do something about this systemic bias? Radiant_>|< 09:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I looked at the first seven or eight school deletion nominations of this month, and only about half of them seem to be of US schools. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to the creating (or expanding) of articles on schools; surely you're not suggesting that the WikiProject Schools is responsible for the school deletion nominations? Radiant_>|< 14:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, actually I wrongly thought that this is what you were suggesting. Nor does that WikiProject govern the creating and expanding of school articles. They seem to be largely spontaneously occurring wikifauna. Their may be a fairly strong sieve effect favoring the deletion of schools outside the developed world, even taking into account the geographical concentrations of Wikipedians; less verifiable information is available. Ideas on how that might be counteracted would be welcome. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, that is precisely the problem. I'm talking about expanding or creating articles on schools outside of the US/UK area, and you are talking about countering the deletion of them. I've asked the very same question at WikiProject schools, but it seems that project is mostly inactive these days. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with North Olmsted, Ohio. Does not appear to have any significance separate from its geographical locale (and no, Ohio state champions at soccer doesn't signify notability requiring a separate article to me - how many people show up to watch the Ohio state school soccer championships who aren't related to the players?). Average Earthman 11:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as four walls and a roof are not notable. Schoolcruft. Failing that, merge any info as per Average Earthman. Proto t c 11:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable per WP:Schools Delete arguments - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: I am sure the stub shall grow over a period of time.--Bhadani 13:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it doesn't grow, Wikiproject:Schools could probably expand it.--Shanel 15:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gosh, it has after school clubs. Dunc|☺ 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- DS1953 15:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is not deletable because it is encyclopedic Yuckfoo 16:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — as always. — RJH 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Schools are encyclopedic Guerberj 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep why would anyone want to delete this? Trollderella 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my reasoning at User:Gateman1997/Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 20:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I grow weary of this constant argument. . . they won't get deleted, so although it's your right to list them, please don't.--Scimitar ^parley 20:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Schools are inherently of little notability and have no encyclopedic value. An exceptionally small number, around 20, may have notability owing to age and quality of alumni. The rest are simply entirely insignificant. Worse, 99% of these articles exist merely to burden WP servers, because they contain only non-encyclopedic information you're supposed to get from the directory. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ  21:58:25, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
• Delete Some high schools are noteworthy, not all. I don't see how this is notable. What's it's claim to fame if any? --Dysepsion 22:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether the article can grow is largely irrelevant; otherwise JDoorjam's cat's dietary journal would qualify in no time. Merge per Earthman. JDoorjam 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As valid as all the others. Nominating schools disrupts Wikipedia and achieves nothing. Osomec 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stop nomimating them until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a notable high school, and the only people who would look this up are the people that live in the area and went to the school. Their only claim to fame is that they won a soccer championship and was attended by a semi-notable historian. My high school was visited by a president and won dozens of state titles, but that doesn't mean it deserves an article, because nobody cares about a little ol' school in the suburbs of a big city. If at all, it should just be merged with North Olmsted, Ohio. There's not enough room on Wikipedia to mention every school that has had a chess club and a no-name principal. (Notorious4life 04:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment I think this is very interesting. I haven’t been here in over six months when there was a pretty even chance of this breaking even for keep/delete. Back then i was a deletionist and i am not going to say that the big shift in community opinion comes as a pleasant discovery. However, if our space ever outgrows our resources and something such as downsizing is necessary, i think you can rest assured that non-notable schools will be at least looked at as a target. if nothing else other people who arnt in support of these articles will jump at the chance. After this in time iv found that i dont really care and just wish this amount of energy could be focused don bringing our species description articles as up to date because were sorely lacking support in that area. Since species are more important than a simple human institution, the vigor of the support for the articles somewhat mystifys me. Fledgeling 04:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike schools, species articles are not "endangered" (as it were) on wikipedia, and therefore do not need so much support. Since storage space is essentially free, the online version of wikipedia will never run out. Cut-down versions of wikipedia would however be useful for distribution, and for providing random page users with a more educational experience. These versions can be provided in a non-destructive way by rating or tagging existing pages, e.g. the recent validation proposal. Kappa 13:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We keep railway stations. We keep bridges. We keep highways. We keep radio masts. We keep minutiae concerning fictional characters in forgettable science fiction and fantasy literature that no more than an utterly minisclue proportion of people are ever likely to be interested in. We do these things because we are building the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopedia in history. Thus it is logical that we keep schools. --Gene_poole 06:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Are we still debating whether to have articles on schools? We sure must have boring lives. --Zero 12:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stop nomimating them until consensus is reached.--Nicodemus75 13:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Bicycle, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why are so many suggesting that they stop being nominated "until consensus is reached"? I suggested not nominating them because they won't be deleted; in other words for practical, not philosophical reasons. There is no current discussion on consensus. Wikipedia Schools is dead. There is no ongoing effort to reach consensus, since the pro-school faction seem to resent any effort to put a bar on notability, as is their right, since they view all schools as notable. If the discussion is taking place somewhere and I just don't know about it, please correct me.--Scimitar ^parley 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There's no ongoing effort; all talks have broken down. Until and unless the strongly inclusionist trend of the past four months either declines significantly, or solidifies into a consensus to keep schools, we'll have an impasse and VfD will be the appropriate forum for resolving the matter.
  • I'd observe that those supporting the existence of school articles have become better at concentrating their energy on nominated school articles, using the five-day lag time to research and clean up articles. Those opposing school articles have only one realistic response to this: to concentrate on preschools and other more controversial entries. This could be a realistic way of building support for the case that there should be some kind of boundary (which I would support--unverifiable entries, which preschools tend to be, shouldn't be on Wikipedia). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only real hope for those opposing school entries will be a serious decline of 'inclusionism'. Supporters will eventually turn to preschools and other institutions which may be less notable and research and clean up the articles in the same way now being undertaken for other schools. The view that schools are inherently notable includes private schools of all shape, preschools and other forms of schools. All VfD does at present, is force the cleaning up and researching of school stubs within the five-day lag time. In the meantime, the only sensible thing is continue VfD and for the 'inclusionists' to continue suggesting "stop nominating". This will be my vote on all schools I vote to keep from now on (or Bicycle).--Nicodemus75 20:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that all schools are important and deserve articles. Nobody's going to be writing a paper about school in metro Cleveland, where this information would be needed. The school has no importance, like many schools, and the article is useless. Should I make an article about my preschool, because our restroom had only one toilet and many kids, or how we couldn't go outside for our picnic because it was raining... no. It's pointless information, and nobody cares. The line has to be drawn somewhere. (Notorious4life 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • It's a matter of principle. You are right that nobody cares - I know several people who spend more energy (sometimes a lot more) on voting "keep" on school nominations, than on improving school articles. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just one of a million schools. Go start a school wiki or something. --TimPope 07:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - It's a fundamental question of whether Wiki should list every school on the planet. PlainSight 02:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I say we stop if we get to Neptune and there are no schools there. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boisemedia 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Given that this is a short article, I suggest merge with North Olmsted City Schools which is a fairly small school district. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable. here is the first hit google gave me for "David Persons". I see nothing of note on it. "David E. Persons" and "David Eric Persons" give one hit each. that said, Delete -- Bubbachuck 05:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity and/or promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. And his book is out of print, from a university press. --Etacar11 23:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article stands presently. Hall Monitor 18:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gave this one the benefit of the doubt...but 'tis another Zero Google Orphan! - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This alone is why there should be a speedy criterion for bands. ral315 06:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless some form of notability, other than appearing in a magazine I've never heard of, is apparent. Alf 21:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Funny, my vote also has a "screaming grind-core breakdown, which segues into a clean, trip-hop inspired segment": DeleleleleleeeeleeleleleeeeLEELELEELELEELEELEELEEDELEELEELEELEELELEELEEEEEEteeteeteeteeteeteettteteteteteteteteeee........ band vanity. Thank you! Goodnight everybody! JDoorjam 22:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL!! The Scrotum Nightmare has LEFT THE BUILDING! - Lucky 6.9 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <rushes off to write the JDoorjam's Band article in anticipation of a future release/>-Splash 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletelll nnandity. -Splash 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 15:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Alphax ^τεχ 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same person is back with the Thunderdome (communal).Vanity.

To quote User:HorsePunchKid: I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted.

Also, move Thunderdome (arena) back to Thunderdome and I suggest verbally warning User:Rc251, this is the second time that someone has tried this. In addition, the arena is way mroe famous then a communal. --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I believe that I can vote, and vote I am. Vanity, and not notable --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not terribly well-versed with the policies here, but I think that resurrecting a deleted article with the same content it had after the decision was made to delete it is grounds for speedy deletion. As such, I'm going to add the ((db)) tag. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:56, 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 debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional one-liner of a barely any traffic site (5 million Alexa). delete lots of issues | leave me a message 06:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertising, but I'd like to make a note, that Alexa results are likely skewed to the English speaking population which would make a 5 million Alexa rank for a Polish site quite understandable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - seems non-notable. Halibutt 06:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal essay. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, already covered in our articles on Alchemy and transmutation. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Mgm. Alf 21:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. BorgQueen 22:23, 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 debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in Finnish, which is my native language. It's about some school child born in 1990, who apparently plays the guitar in a band. The article goes to great lengths to advertise how well Vesa Ahonen can play, and it practically reads like a review from a rock'n'roll magazine. This is obvious vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanity. Martg76 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from the vanity, this is the English language Wikipedia. --Lomedae 16:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Belongs in Finnish wikipedia, if anywhere. — RJH 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, vanity written by a 15-year-old (born 1990) in very broken Finnish, and claiming for instance that his record has sold a million copies. Total and utter BS. - ulayiti (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, based on assessment on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Vesa_Ahonen, which gives the same basic reasoning as ulayiti Mamawrites 12:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular delete as vanity, does not meet speedy deletion criteria. Sietse 13:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as above, it's utter screed with no basis in fact. --Agamemnon2 15:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirected by someone else. Redwolf24 01:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ISNOT a webhost. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, blatant vanity and no assertions of notability. It's just a group of friends. Don't forget to delete the image as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Uliuli Fafita, Meng was his name when competing in WCW. I am ashamed to know that. Proto t c 12:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, redirect to Uliuli Fifita to avoid double redirect. Don't look at me like that, I didn't know who he was until i clicked on your link above. :) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to go ahead and make the redirect. Page creator deleted content. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proto & Dark Mark, ROFL! Alf 21:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I wish people wouldn't do that during a Vfd. It says not to on the tag for a good reason. In this case, it is because it should be a redirect to Master of Engineering which goes by the abbreviation MEng. -Splash 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well the content probably should have just been userfied, but since he said that he didn't want it up anymore, and blanked it himself, I felt there was no need to see this whole VfD out. Aren't we trying to slim the VfD process? What is wrong with making a valid redirect if the current page is useless? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of discussions on trying to slim the VfD process, but they are not taking place here. Making the redirect suggestion here would be fine, simply making the redirect circumvents any disucussion. In some cases, people also merge during a VfD and that means that, even if a debtae concludes the page should be deleted it can't be because of the GFDL. So drastic action on the page should wait until the conclusion of the VfD, as it says on the tag. -Splash 16:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that, but there was nothing on the page. The creator of the page himself says he doesn't want it anymore. No one else was supporting the content, so there was no harm in just creating the redirect. Oh well, I'm done with this page. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No, it should go to Uliuli Fafita, with a line on there stating 'This article is about the wrestler, Meng. For information about the MEng degree qualification, go to Master of Engineering'. Meng != MEng. And I have an MEng, so I should know, nyah. Proto t c 09:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do I. -Splash 16:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 01:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compadres! It is imperative that we crush blatant advertising in Wikipedia before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of the ObjectWeb consortium article. CanadianCaesar 06:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, señores. If SourceForge and OpenOffice.org are notable, so's this one. It could do with cleanup to make it look less like advertising copy though, I agree. And I already have a donkey. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a copyvio of [11] - I'll put it through the right channels. ESkog 02:38, 19 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. Redwolf24 01:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable piece of software. Speedy deleted already, restored by Tony Sidaway, I am now listing it here. Zoe 07:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC) * Delete, if already speedied, tag it ((deleteagain)) to make it stand. -- < drini | ∂drini > 07:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the new version is much better. -- < drini | ∂drini > 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in my opinion "Jive.exe is a DOS program that converts plain english to jive." does not provide enough context. it doesn't tell what jive is alhtough I'm assuming it's some non-notable conlang. Might change my mind if someone provided sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Write an article about Jive speak and merge this there. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jive is jive talk, like in Airplane! Zoe 08:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Firstly it's not a speedy deletion candidate (User:JYolkowski also made a comment to this effect in an edit summary which is in the history), and secondly it correctly describes the subject matter. I'll expand. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done. It's quite difficult to find original sources on this because the idea is a simple one and it's been duplicated many times. The phenomenon is quite well known, however, so I provided some external links--including quite a number from Swedish Chef. I'll have to work on the categorization--if we have a cat for novelty software I haven't yet found it. There was apparently no existing cat for novelty software so I created one. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 10:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Query whether a category for 'novelty software' is necessary also. Proto t c 12:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - EurekaLott 12:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is one of those fun things people distribute by email. It's bad enough we have conlangs let along search-and-replace-style language-altering tools. Garrett^Talk 13:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. It's been the occasion of some interesting legal questions. Borkified and Jived documents were submitted as evidence in the case Scientology versus Panoussis, 1998 in Stockholm, as reported by freelance journalist Karin Spaink. The defendants claimed that this was legitimate parody; the plaintiffs, violation of copyright. I've started a small section on this and will complete it when I found out whether the issue of parody through automatic filters was ever decided. This alone would make the software notable, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote on keep vs deletion but Rename to "Jive (computer software)" if we keep it. It's multiplatform. I've added some information to the article about the earliest implementations of this that I know of, which were distributed for Unix in the late '80s. Nandesuka 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Nandesuka on this. It should have a decent name. If someone wanted my opinion, I'd suggest that dialect filter might be most suitable, but I'd accept any other name that doesn't contain parentheses or punctuation--words should be enough and are more likely to be correctly remembered. But it's not that important to me. If this article survives VfD then is the time to talk about a move. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. GregAsche 16:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this spawned a whole genre of programs. Kappa 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting footnote to software history. Trollderella 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs better name though. Alf 22:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It be some very notable honky code. ElBenevolente 02:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Nandesuka. Not sure why this was speedied and I'd support Tony's action in rescuing this article, and commend him highly for his work in improving it. Clair de Lune 08:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. whether notable or not doesn't matter. Rename if it is not only about a exe. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well written, this is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia depth and its breadth. Well formatted and complete it does no harm and sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias. Rx StrangeLove 00:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Rx StrangeLove -PlainSight 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Original speedy was valid. So is this article (though it definitely needs a move). No contradiction here. JRM · Talk 13:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to appear too argumentative (as if!) but what CSD would you have put the original under? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    First one: "very short articles providing little or no context". Mind you, I'm not disputing the context could be extended based on what was in the article and/or personal knowledge (you obviously did so). Further disagreements are tantamount to asking what context is needed before it moves away from "little or no context". A useful question, but one the CSD policy does not answer, and is left to personal opinion (with common sense applied, of course). JRM · Talk 15:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, while I understand your reasoning, well I don't think there should be anything special in a stub. If my son said "what's jive.exe" and I replied "it's one of those programs that translate ordinary speech into a weird dialect", he'd probably have learned pretty much what the program was about. If that can happen in speech I don't see that it needs any more in the way of words to convey the same idea in a stub article. I think we should be permissive of stubs like this that obviously make sense. I've no idea what extra context would be required than the correct juxtaposition of the concept: program, conversion and jive, which were all there: "Jive.exe is a DOS program that converts plain english to jive." User:JYolkowski had earlier removed a speedy tag because, he said, he didn't think it lacked context. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that at the time jive contained nothing useful, and JYolkowski only removed the speedy tag without a clarification beyond "I think the context is sufficient" (making it a he-said-she-said-but-I-think case for any admin clearing it out). But I'm not arguing the point here: we agree that a reasonable difference of opinion is possible in this case, even if we may disagree on the most productive course of action, and we also obviously agree on the outcome of this VfD. JRM · Talk 00:27, 23 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm ignorant and came across this term only recently. I didn't know what it this was 'til i looked it up on wikipedia. So useful to all us trolls out there. --moreanon 20:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without merging, neologism in wide circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Widely used term. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 17.7 million Google results for blogosphere see [12] and this is a well-referenced explanation of the concept. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least transwiki --Swamp Ig
• Keep. Past AfD nomination should've given you a hint. --Andylkl ^(talk) 10:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously notable neologism. I want a button on my keyboard that violently murders people who actually use this word, though. - Randwicked 10:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a widely used and understood phenomenon. Jtmichcock 12:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quickly moving beyond neologism. Dottore So 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or transwiki. Depressingly—very depressingly—this neologism is here to stay. Please vigorously fustigate me if you ever catch me using the word non-sarcastically. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely used term, so deletion rationale "Not notable" is wrong. Survived AfD before if I'm not mistaken. Punkmorten 21:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Because a few dozen people participate in mental masturbation on the subject, doesn't mean everyone else has to. --Timecop 01:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep in use in mainstream media. Jessamyn 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, even if this is the stupidest neologism since "metrosexual." Andrew Levine 04:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be an attack on blogosphere entries at Wikipedia. There's also a vfd on the Canadian Blogosphere--Simon.Pole 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quantity is not quality nor notability. 65.34.232.136 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one, as it describes a notable phenomenon. I would say we should merge all articles on national blogospheres into it (including Canadian blogosphere and Belgian Blogosphere) if they had anything worth merging, but they don't. — Haeleth Talk 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Femmina 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable term. --J. Nguyen 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some might not like the term, but it doesn't change that it's in use and people want to understand it.
• Delete. Crappy term to denote a series of shit pages of worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it's a widely used term. Do not transwiki to Wiktionary since the article goes beyond being a simple definition of a word. Angela. 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's places for stuff like this. --Depakote 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Only going to get more important. Carina22 12:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this term is heavily used actualy. --Mateusc 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Blog. Reyk 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep used heavily by news outlets. Jacqui^? 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Stirling Newberry 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Blog. There doesn't seem to be enough here to merit a separate article. Slartoff 02:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tend to agree with foo. Rhobite 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep word with widespread mainstream currency and considerable potential for encyclopedic explanation. - squibix 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Redwolf24 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I know, nominating an article three minutes after its creation is a little harsh, but the claim to notability, founding the "New Age Goomba" movement, looks very dubious. That movement is awfully secret, google for example didn't know that it existed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this real???? Very POV (Moccia was on his way to becoming President of the United States???), about a not known group of racists (that is, if the group rexists for real) Also, no disrespect to "numbers" but it was written by a number, so that makes it double suspicious. Immediate Delete. Antonio Cooler than Goomba Martin 10:51 15 August (UTC)
• Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 10:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ay-yo!  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 11:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I became less notable just by reading that. Nandesuka 12:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is more about the supposed movement than about the person. But since Google and myself and several other people haven't heard of this New Age Goomba Movement and because it can't be independantly verified, I vote for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I still can't understand how anyone can think something only they've ever heard of and can't be verified is notable. NO Google hits at all, and if it was as notable as the article writer seems to think it is there'd be something out there to verify this against. Nezu Chiza 20:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as claims cannot be verified. Hall Monitor 21:35, 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 debate was KEEP. But note that redirects for deletion should go to WP:RfD. Doens't seem any point relisting it there given the manner of voting and the discussion here. -Splash 01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labelled incorrectly as a "United States Congressman from New York". There is nobody called Hoffman on the list on the house.gov website. The Nita Lowey article mentions Rich Hoffman, saying he was her opponent in 2004; describes him as "a self-funded candidate". This information was added a few hours ago by a user who also edited this article. Lowey is the incumbent for New York 18th District. I have verified that somebody called Richard Hoffman did run against Lowey last year. She trounced him.

Probably not notable (no vote either way). If article is kept obviously it needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_>|< 10:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep my rewritten version. Disclaimer: he's an unsuccessful Republican U.S. House candidate. I don't know if this meets your bar for notability, but it does meet mine. Meelar (talk) 14:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. See also Richard A. Hoffman, which is just a duplicate of the older page. Sdedeo 15:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And Richard hoffman. Sdedeo 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nothing to see there. I made redirects of them. Punkmorten 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but keep it short. On many occasions over the years I have looked up past opponents of current Congressmen. The ones who are not notable for any other reason (other than their campaign) become very difficult to find. In my view, a short article in Wikiepdia on losing Congressional and Senatorial candidates in general elections is a good thing. But don't overdo a good thing by extending the concept to losing State Representative candidates or non-notable primary opponents. -- DS1953 16:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Interesting. Trollderella 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems reasonable enough. Punkmorten 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into a new article List of losing 2004 U.S. House candidates. Then merge with other information on other persons whose only notable achievement was that they ran in a single U.S. House race and lost. I did a quick gander at other blue links for losing candidates on 2004 U.S. House election. The majority of them just regurgiated the obvious from that article with maybe a link to their campaign website. A few were for Texas representatives wo lost seats thanks to DeLay's gerrymander. There were a number of incorrect links to people who happened to have the same name. (The most amusing was from a losing Texas Democratic candidate for the House of Representatibves to a winning Nevada Republican candidate for the House of Representatives with the same name Jon Porter. This isn't even counting the vast majority of red links for losing candidates in that article. Caerwine 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepr : There is enough info in the article to consider this subject as interesting--Revas 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki/Delete. Redwolf24 01:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki and delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete per nominator. Sam Vimes 08:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. The nominator performed a copy&paste move and then nominated the original for deletion. This of course violates the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License. I've undone the copy&paste move, done a proper move, and informed the nominator of the existence of the "move" button. If you want the redirect deleted (It should be kept as per our policy on useful redirects, note.), please go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Uncle G 11:14:29, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

This page used mistaken capitalization that wasn't up to the capitalizing standards of Wikipedia. A new page with correct capitalization has been created and all links have been corrected as such, therefore, making this redirect page redundant. Ghidra99 09:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, valid redirect. Zoe 09:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the exact same reason that Tara mountain is marked for. Page should be "Bajina Basta" Ghidra99 09:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, valid redirect. Zoe 09:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep no need to list things that could be turned into redirects. Trollderella 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems I've made a mistake. This page is definitely a valid redirect. I'm still new to this thing. :\ Ghidra99 06:42, August 19, 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.