< August 18	August 20 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectus imperium[edit]

Alleged secret society, said to operate in Canada. No proof of its existence. Started by the same poster who created the CNDP page, previously on vfd. CJCurrie 00:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't be a very secret society if you could Google it, would it? Delete. --GraemeL 00:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Aw, I wanted to make the first snide remark. Delete. Flowerparty ^talk 00:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just the first snide remark of the article, but of the day's vfds!
• Clandestine Canadians... ))shudder(( gives me the willies. Delete per CJCurrie. JDoorjam 00:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:V.—Encephalon | ^ζ  01:05:45, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Which is to say that I do not expect it be verified from Google, being secret. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist — if someone can show there is some media (or literarY0 consideration (however hyperbolic) of the purported existence of this secret society, then I'd reconsider. -Splash 02:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As alluded to above, a truly secret society could never be in Wikipedia, as they would be unverifiable. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete faulty Latin. Martg76 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not verified. Zhatt 06:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too secret. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article suggests a leaked .pdf on the web, no trace of any by the names given which seem to come from this SS. Alf 10:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-verifiable. -- Cnwb 12:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in order to protect the secrecy of the secret society people. Yay! I'm helping! -- BD2412 ^talk 14:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Alex.tan 18:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Doesn't exist ;)Amren 00:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am in this society and I want it to remain secret. Hahnchen 03:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-verifiable and non-notable - Farquard 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:28, 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 merge with Dreamcast. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Dreamcast Hello Kitty[edit]

Not in the slightest bit worthy of its own article, surely. Dtcdthingy 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Dreamcast, and redirect this page.—Encephalon | ^ζ  01:03:04, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Merge into Dreamcast. Certainly needs a mention with a picture, certainly doesn't need its own article. -Splash 02:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Splash, above. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no need to delete. Trollderella 03:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Doesn't deserve its own article.Amren 05:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lovely article, pretty picture. Nice name. Hello Kitty! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Hello Kitty Dreamcast is already menctioned on the Dreamcast article. Arm 07:18, 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 and of course feel free to redirect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, the outcome of this vote was Redirect. There are no votes to keep this article. - Tεxτurε 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea anenomes[edit]

Delete. Pretty cute article about anemones that isn't worth merging. Redirect common spelling error? (The author also claims to hold a "copywrite", but I feel as though it doesn't exactly hold up. JDoorjam 00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if it's copyrighted, it's copyvio. So we have a redundant copyvio. Delete, I'm afraid. No redirects — we don't redirect misspellings, do we? That would necessitate an infinite number of pages.—Encephalon | ^ζ  01:09:57, 2005-08-19 (UTC) I bow before the compelling wisdom of the misslepping redirectors. :) Vote change: Redirect, to sea anemones.—Encephalon | ^ζ  03:50:21, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
  • we do redirect from common misspellings, particualrly for often mis-spelled terms. DES ^(talk) 03:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't generally pre-emptively create redirects for all potential mis-spellings, as we pre-emptively create redirects for pluralizations, different capitalizations, and so forth. But if someone has actually made the mistake and created a duplicate article at the mis-spelled title, then we redirect, on the grounds that if one person did it once, then others are likely to do the same in the future, and the redirect both prevents the whole cycle repeating and edifies readers. Uncle G 05:09:43, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Delete, though I'm tempted to steal the content for my school report. Flowerparty ^talk 01:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Flowerparty ^talk 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. No need to delete. Plausible misspelling. (I know I'd need to look up the spelling for this one!) Pburka 01:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I had to look it up to write the summary. JDoorjam 02:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect would be useful in this case. Not generally a fan of redirects for misleppings, but this one is worthwhile. In case of an otherwise no-consensus vote, this may be taken as a delete. -Splash 02:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for sure. I'm a pretty strong speller, but I would probably fumble through two or three mis-spellings of "anenome" before I got it right. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect Trollderella 03:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Pburka or delete if no consensus to redir. DES ^(talk) 03:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Agree with above.Amren 23:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Might I suggest Traswiki to simple english wikipedia as they don't currently have an article on it. The language seems simple enough and it seems like parts of this article could serve as a good start for a simple english one. --Aqua 00:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect "Anemomes" "Amemones" "Amenones" The word in the title is hard to spell. I'd call this a common enough misspelling. I don't agree with the transwiki-to-simple idea. This page isn't just simple English; it's childish. There is a difference. — Nowhither 22:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, feel free to merge as discussed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dépèche Môde[edit]

It's a old hoax, this architectural term not exist. Postmodernism in 1890? Vertical lines in Secession? Szwedzki 02:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Depeche Mode and delete the dab from that page. I can't find any evidence that this is real, nor that it is a notable hoax. Pburka 03:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pburka. "Depeche Mode" means "fashion dispatch", which the band got out of a fashion mag. JDoorjam 03:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to recall that it also means "sending mode", as used on speak buttons on intercoms. It's certainly not an architectural term, though. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The band does not go by Dépèche Môde, so no redirect is necessary. - Thatdog 07:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thatdog. It's a hoax; no need to redirect hoaxes. Nandesuka 11:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not a common misspelling, in fact I doubt if we'll ever see it again, so redirect is a waste of server space. --Outlander 16:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a common misspelling for an English speaker. But it is a reasonable misspelling for a French speaker. Wikipedia should consider people for whom English is a second language. Also, redirects make it less likely that the page will be recreated. Pburka 21:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. No redirect, I serious doubt anyone would type that in. --Etacar11 03:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect per Outlander and Etacar11. ESkog 00:03, 25 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. Woohookitty 04:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbegas[edit]

Non-notable band, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines -- WCFrancis 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and re-write. Trollderella 03:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. —Charles O'Rourke 04:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:music. Recording their first EP. Capitalistroadster 05:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. Cnwb 12:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Nandesuka 23:20, 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. Woohookitty 04:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Cradle Lake Family Campground[edit]

Dismally bad advertising copy. (A mouth watering ice cream cone? you gonna eat that?) Denni☯ 02:34, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

• keep and re-write. Trollderella 03:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability can be established. --WCFrancis 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability, no reason to belive there is any. Just one of many tens of thosands of campgrounds. DES ^(talk) 03:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. JDoorjam 03:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Dottore So 14:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising --Outlander 16:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notabl. Nandesuka 23:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 14:15, 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County Supervisor[edit]

Just a list of county suipervisors. Delete, unless county supervisors are inherently notable. Denni☯ 02:39, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

• Keep and re-write. This should not be a list, but an article about the role of said supervisors. Trollderella 03:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've suggested a rewrite twice now. Who do you plan on doing it? Denni☯ 03:20, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
    • It's my understanding that being badly written is not a sufficient criteria for deletion. Given that the article doesn't meet the criteria for deletion, I don't believe it's my responsibility to find someone to re-write it, but, since you ask, I'll have a go. Trollderella 15:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd be hard pressed to think of a less significant governmental position. Very poor "article" to boot. -R. fiend 04:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally NN  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. County Supervisors are inherently notable. Larger counties (at least)will eventually be included in Wikipedia by necessity.--Nicodemus75 13:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Move name so Santa Clara County, if you must. Pilatus 13:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Below threshhold. Dottore So 14:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless improved. Leonig Mig 15:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this page yesterday and have had less than 24 hours to work on it. I plan on improving this article to list all the county supervisors who have served in Santa Clara County. In the state of California Countys play a large role and are important elected officals. They serve over 1.7 million people and the county staff exceedes 15,000 employees. Most are former mayors and some have gone on to serve as state legislatures or US representatives. It would be useful and a valid article to have a list of all those who have served as Santa Clara County Supervisor. Please reconsider your votes for deletion. Thank you. Dapoloplayer 17:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to maybe move this article to "List of Santa Clara County Supervisors" or "List of Santa Clara County Supervisors serving the 5th district"?Dapoloplayer 17:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I spent 15 minutes adding a bunch more to the site. Compared to the previous 4 minutes i had spent on it it has greatly improved. Again please reconsider your votes for deletion. Dapoloplayer 17:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep but please clean it up Yuckfoo 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable elected office.Capitalistroadster 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very notable office (in CA counties more important then cities) and the article is brand new. Let it grow a bit.Gateman1997 18:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. jamesgibbon 22:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SchmuckyTheCat 05:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R. fiend. Xoloz 17:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R. fiend. Gamaliel 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R. fiend. Nandesuka 23:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable and locally significant. Those who are unsatisfied with the article content should try to improve it, rather than making nasty remarks here. -- Visviva 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, why would someone contribute to an article they do not think worthwhile? Is that just rhetoric or do you actually think that was a valid input to this discussion? Surely not! Leonig Mig 22:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before we decide to keep this article, has anyone actually read it? For some reason the first sentence specifies 5th district, though it seems more than one district is represented, based on the Don Gage stub (VfD fodder that one is) and the fact that there's so much overlapping of years it almost seems they were made by a random number generator. Someone decided all the names should be linked, even though they are almost all non-notables (a few are notable for going on to positions of some importance, but not for being county supervisor), and many are incorrect links. At the very least this needs extreme de-linking (I'll take care of that) and some sense to be made of the years and who exactly is covered by this article. If we're going to do a shoddy job we might as well not bother at all. -R. fiend 03:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R. fiend. --Several Times 20:21, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 tuners[edit]

I didn't think it was speedy material... but definitely not worth under this title. gren グレン 02:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I never heard any "formal" term for this while developing set-top boxes. Gazpacho 03:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm afraid it's got just enough context to avoid speedy, but there's no real hope for this as an article. Besides, dual tuners are for Picture-In-Picture, not watch-and-record. My DVR box is very specifically one tuner: I can watch and record separately. What I can't do is record two things at once. — Lomn | Talk 06:04:35, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

certainly two tuners are necessary to record and view different programmes, nothing to do with picture-in-picture. jamesgibbon 22:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not the formal term, as stated above. Cnwb 12:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dottore So 14:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not really separate article material. jamesgibbon 22:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Aqua 00:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Set-top box or Personal video recorder. -- Chuq 12:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Personal video recorder seems a suitable solution -- Graibeard 07:57, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Rask[edit]

Vanity page of a Norewgian topless model wanting to be a singer. Non-notable.

• Weak keep. Apparently hasn't hit it big in the US yet, but is pretty notable in Europe from what I can google.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Five front pages in Vi Menn (Reference from Dagbladet, for those who can read Scandinavian, a magazine that sells in the region of 100,000 with 600,000 readers in Norway. Borderline notable, might not even be vanity. Sam Vimes 14:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Sam Vimes. Good research. Doesn't read like vanity, either. Meelar (talk) 14:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As Rasputin says. Trollderella 15:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's just had a big publicity boost; last Wednesday a love-sick police officer was convicted of threatening her with a gun she got the tabloid front pages (with clothes on, that is). For those who read Scandinavian: [1]. Cnyborg 02:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I originally suggested the Delete, and I'm sticking with it for several reasons: First of all, Wikipedia is going to list a lot of porn/nude models if we go by the Google count, whether they have an ambition to become "artists" or "actors" or not? Second, the Google count - which is probably high for any nude model - is boosted by her boy friend holding a gun to her head. Still doesn't make her notable. Three, the fact that she has posed for a Norwegian girlie magazine or appears in a Norwegian tabloid hardly makes her noteworthy. What's next? All the Sun's Page 8 girls? Asav
• Keep as per Sam Vimes, does not appear to be a vanity article. Hall Monitor 21:11, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple retail stores in the US[edit]

• Delete. This is a list with no encyclopedic purpose. If someone is interested in finding out where an Apple retail store is, they should click on the external link from Apple Store (retail) to the Apple Stores web site. —Charles O'Rourke 02:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a business directory. Gazpacho 02:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Are we going to start doing this with every business? -R. fiend 04:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per R. fiend. This article creates a dangerous precedent. - Thatdog 07:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising. Not encyclopedic because it an area where Wikipedia can never do the job as well as other obvious sources. Apple has a far more intense interest in making sure that the public has accurate, complete, comprehensive, up-to-date information on the location of Apple retail stores than Wikipedia ever will, and can be thoroughly relied upon to make this information available to those seeking Apple products—who, come to think of it, are far more likely to type "www.apple.com" into their browser than "en.wikipedia.org." Assuming they don't just open their local telephone book, of course. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly unsustainable and outside the boundaries of an encyclopedic project. Dottore So 14:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup with articles for each Apple store, like the one at Stanford.Gateman1997 21:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per previous arguments --TimPope 07:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising, and a horrible "slippery slope" that could lead to the inclusion of every building in the universe. Xoloz 17:40, 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R 2760, R 2762, R 2763, R 2764, R 2765, SPR 2790, SPR 2792[edit]

This is hilarious. Apparently, one user has started to integrate the 2004/05 ÖBB train schedule into Wikipedia. These pages do not describe train lines (which might be encyclopedic), but individual trains, giving their exact schedule. Also, train schedules have been added to the pages of the towns where the trains stop (e.g. Oberwart). Note that this information expires in December. Delete. Martg76 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a transportation buff, I think this is too much. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 03:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real possiblity of an encylopedic article emerging. Very hard to maintain. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 03:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintable Mussolini-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte as per Zeimusu DES ^(talk) 03:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the first instance of railcruft I've seen on Wikipedia. It'd be BJAODN-worthy if it wasn't so serious. Delete. AlbertR 06:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a railway schedule. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unencyclopedic cruft. Nandesuka 11:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Choo choo! Perhaps someone knowledgable could take the time to explain the reason these articles will (probably) be deleted to the original contributor, as he (it's not gonna be a she) has clearly put a lot of work into this. I especially like "URGENT: These information are only valid til 10 December 2005". Proto t c 11:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete how bizarre. Dottore So 14:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Schedulecruft. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• delete all individual railway stations are bad enough. --TimPope 07:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopedic and mainly, unmainatainable. Pavel Vozenilek 15:59, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Independant Media[edit]

A smalltown media outfit (and a misspelled title as a bonus) Denni☯ 03:07, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable Tonywalton  | Talk 10:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN advertising. Alf 10:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Dottore So 14:11, 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek and pedophilia[edit]

Speculation is not fact. Even speculation by the press. Denni☯ 03:16, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Boxclocke 03:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I hate to say it, Keep. That specualtions are made by the press, and by police, and fairly widely reported, is a fact. This article merely notes that fact. It does not claim that the specualtions are accurate, merely that they ahve been made. It seems reasonably NPOV to me. DES ^(talk) 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A single original story, which doesn't even suggest anything more than coincidence amounts to nothing notable. If this was widely reported and discussed, than yes, I would support it's inclusion in wikipedia in *some* article. Let's pretend it was real: why create an article? There's a widely beleived correlation between crime novels and crime, but we don't create a specific article for each in every combination of specific crime novel and specific crime. Instead we make an appropriate comment in the article about the book (if it's pecular that specific book), or to the crime (if a type of reading material is common to the crime), but we don't (or shouldn't) have an article on every conceivable crime/book/tv/movie/work-of-art combination that some local cop noticed. --rob 04:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but I am the author of the original article.) As pointed out above, I was merely noting that the correlation was considered and widely discussed, not that it was necessarily true - it could be like the Sexual Rainbow Party, which was a subject of wide discussion despite flimsy evidence the phenomenon actually existed. I think that if we keep that article, this is worth keeping as well. Oh, and here's another recent article on the subject from Macleans; this isn't based on just one news story. Soultaco 04:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, if we follow the Maclean's article, we can either create a Star Wars and pedophilia article also. or we can find an appropriate existing article, and put it there (*if* sufficient notability exists). I'm sure there must be hundreds of *other* apparent commonalities or patterns that police see (or think they see). Also, putting this "theory" in an existing abuse-related article will subject it to appropriate peer review, by active editors on the subject. Passing off a POV in such an article will get you reverted much quicker than in some obscure little article, nobody sees. --rob 12:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps this could be merged into an existing article, but I didn't find one that seemed particularly appropriate. Suggestions? Soultaco

• Strong delete Inherently POV; no matter how matter-of-factly the article is written, the discussion of such a correlation on what is presumably a coincidence is always going to result in a skewed point of view. Trekkies, as abhorrent as they may be, may not necessarily all be paedophiles. Consideration of a correlation does not make for an encyclopaedic article. Proto t c 11:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does specifically note that the hypothesis does not imply that all or even most Trekkies are pedophiles - rather, it implies that pedophiles are attracted to Star Trek, which is quite different, as it says nothing whatsoever about Star Trek fans in general (who could also be attracted to Star Trek for other reasons entirely). Soultaco

• Delete as per Proto. Can never be NPOV.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per DES ^(talk), above. --Nicodemus75 13:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anything to make the Trekkies mad, man. -HX
• Keep. This is a controversial theory that has already received a fair bit of attention, and will likely continue to do so, if only to disprove it. The controversy is what makes this Wikipediable. We can't go around deleting things we don't like, or even things that are found not to be credible. We haev an article on the Flat earth theory. Why not this? Ground Zero 14:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DES. --GraemeL 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DES. Trollderella 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ground Zero. Sdedeo 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — unfortunate, but plausible. Actually I would think this article could be generalized into psychology of pedophiles. Also why isn't there a Clergy and pedophilia article since that phenomenon is authentic and so well documented? — RJH 15:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the article is dealt with in a really neutral manner so erasing this would just be censorship Yuckfoo 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but add a related article on Star Trek, Sadomasochism, and the Renaissance Fair]. Voyager640 19:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "... and paedophilia". Erwin Walsh
  • Comment Given that Star Trek is s U.S. production, if the article is kept, the AmE spelling "pedophilia" ahould be kept. Caerwine 23:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Feel me up, Scotty, Mom's in the other side of the department store. --Jscott 21:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jscott. ;-) Acetic Acid 03:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The theory is BS however it has received some media attention. Needs to be handled carefully so as to maintain NPOV. If it becomes a Trekkie-bashing affair, the article will be worthless. 23skidoo 05:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Rob. -- Kjkolb 06:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• One aside in one LA Times article and this thing gets spun up into a Wikipedia article. Delete. --Calton | Talk 09:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Anecdotal at best. However, would merit future inclusion if scientifically supported. PlainSight 14:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'd like to see where this is headed --Dysepsion 16:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Calton. One case does not make a theory. Iff this becomes more widely accepted (which it won't, would be my guess), then it would deserve an article. Xoloz 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Single newspaper mention later withdrawn by original source = no story. NPOV-ing and removing original research gets you "LA reporter claims Toronto police connected Star Trek and pedophilia; police retract" with no possibility of expansion that is not original research. — mendel ☎ 18:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carlton, PlainSight, and mendel. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Non-notable theory, apparently since withdrawn, not held up by a major news source. --Mysidia (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the statement is verifiable, it's substance is not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ridiculous, frivolous and outrageous! Hamster Sandwich 04:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It may be true that there was speculation, but the speculation itself is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. There isn't really anything to say about this topic, and it shows. Isomorphic 04:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speculation in a press report and later withdrawn by the original source. 213.78.162.189 15:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aimless speculation based on a coincidence. Not encyclopedic material. --Ritchy 21 August 2005
• Delete. More likely a correlation between Star Trek fandom and getting caught. TheMadBaron 17:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• del: speculation; misleading name (Star Trek and child molestation...). 24 at 19:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an accurate and historic record of how the press wildly speculates and retracts information. —RaD Man (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Des. Jobe6 20:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: dubious correlation, not even statistically sound. Pure speculation. --Ragib 21:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Everything2. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable news story. The police researchers themselves are probably full of bollocks, but the article is still encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 05:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:JIP. However, I agree that what it's saying is probably full of crap. It's also contributing to Wikipedia's systemic bias, but that's no reason to delete an article (otherwise we'd probably lose about half of all articles here). - ulayiti (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Ulayiti has eloquently put it, the article is full of crap, which is precisely the reason to remove this. Dottore So 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, POV (could not possibly be made otherwise), news story retracted by source, and one ridiculous and unfounded story does not make an encylopedia entry, anyway. --Fang Aili 13:19, 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. No consensus on the disposition of this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Planes[edit]

I wasn't sure if this nonsense quite made it to meet criteria for speedy delete, so I put it here. -- WCFrancis 03:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a Mental plane article. Redirect there. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 03:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete! I think it is nonsense, and i have so tagged it. DES ^(talk) 03:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Nonsense sure, but the namespace is a useful redirect. Got me a ticket for a mentalplane, I ain't got no time to take no fast train --Fernando Rizo T/C 03:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Mental plane article as suggested by Zeimusu. The Bearded One 03:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly nonsense --130.95.128.51 10:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole damn flight. Denni☯ 00:42, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zeimusu. "the mental plane is below the soul plane"... classic stuff. JDoorjam 16:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of the Landland Islands[edit]

Non-notable micronationcruft.Delete. --Pyroclastic 03:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Gazpacho 03:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and your little language. too. -- WCFrancis 03:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is it? Deleted. Non-notable vanity nation. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this "nation" and its language too (see below). Capitalistroadster 05:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another nn micronation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and also delete the Landland redirect. Flowerparty ^talk 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-existent republic. —Seselwa 23:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landlandic Language[edit]

micro-nation cruft NN -- WCFrancis 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gazpacho 03:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruftcruftic. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nn language of nn micronation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable. Flowerparty ^talk 18:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not cite any sources. —Seselwa 23:06, 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 Redirect to materialization. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Materialisations[edit]

Unverified, and unverifiable junk. Not quite patent nonsense in the wikipedia sense, but there is no way this can be converted to an encyclopedic article that I can see. Delate! DES ^(talk)

• Article has been marked with speedy tag, but if votes are still needed Delete. -- WCFrancis 03:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This has come up before, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Materialization (science fiction). Plural→singular Redirect to materialization. Uncle G 05:16:45, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Redirect. per Uncle G. Alf 10:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverified pseudoscience, original research at the best stretch. (I put up the Speedy tag on the original unadorned page, but after seeing this have replaced it with VfD.) MCB 07:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Uncle G. Perfect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GreatNews[edit]

advertisement for a nn software product. 10 google hits for "GreatNews + RSS", and that includes the company's own site. largely created by User:GreatNews. Delete DES ^(talk) 04:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity and nn. GregAsche 04:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. I was half expecting to be told the article saved a load of money by switching to Geico. -R. fiend 04:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adcruft. Hoorah.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry guys. I should have read the policy before posting about the software. Please delete. --GreatNews 14:10, 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 merge with Japanese war crimes in the Pacific. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes in the Pacific[edit]

Poor quality content, also very lacking in coverage. --posted by User:Sgkay on first nomination

The original editor, User:200.46.205.244, removed the VfD notice shortly after Sgkay put it on. I've reinstated it, with the following justification (from Talk:War Crimes in the Pacific):

Finally, I've initiated another VfD, with the justification that

1. it would probably be better to start over from scratch than try to retro-source and copyedit this mess, and
2. the article title "War Crimes in the Pacific" is wrong for at least three reasons anyway: it's miscapitalized; the article subject is particularly Japanese war crimes; and the article subject is particularly World War II Japanese war crimes. --Quuxplusone 04:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Japanese war crimes in the Pacific and redirect, clean up and expand. The article is a mess (and the article to merge into has its problems as well), but I think some encyclopedic stuff could come out of it. —Cleared as filed. 04:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Noteworthy info can come out of this. It's just poorly written --Dysepsion 04:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Manik Raina 12:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this as above, but for that matter I am certain that Allied nations also committed war crimes; although the Japanese had a culture of committing such crimes and did so on a scale worse than anyone else, and they of course lost and had the subsequent war cries trials. So there is potential for an article, I think, but this is not it. Dunc|☺ 13:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge, but, as above, I agree this should be the article title, not Japanese War crimes. Trollderella 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Japanese war crimes in the Pacific with this article, per Trollderella. ESkog 00:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A proper article title would probably include WW2 somewhere in there as well... ESkog 00:08, 25 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 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-AMUSEMENT[edit]

advertisement and subscription help for a particualr online service. Delete. DES ^(talk) 04:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity with no real content. edit: oops, forgot to include tag. GregAsche 04:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, might even be copyvio, but not worth searching for. -- WCFrancis 04:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically spam.Amren 06:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup e-Amusement is a Japanese notability online service for arcade games. RadioActive 17:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable function of various notable arcade games. Kappa 21:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bizarre. —Charles O'Rourke 22:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However, I see neither ad, nor spam nor vanity nor bizzarity. I see a how-to, or a FAQ which WP:ISNOT. With that removed, the remaining content could possibly be mentioned in Konami, but not such as to warrant a redirect. -Splash 23:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash. Xoloz 17:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. --SPUI (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Other Japanese arcade games use this system as well and it could be used for informing people interested on the subject without having to clog up every individual game page with information on the general information on the service. If anything, this page should be kept and referred to as a main article if a game's page contains an e-AMUSEMENT section. It has its purpose. --64.18.184.68 06:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. I apologise if this is my first real article and it didn't contain much information, but I do have extra content to add. I also assure you that e-AMUSEMENT is a legitimate add-on to these games offered by Konami - so much so that it has become almost an integral part of the latest versions of these games. --PkerUNO 05:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teletronics inc[edit]

I don't see this being a noteworthy corporation unless someone else can prove otherwise or there's a rewrite. It seems like an add. Dysepsion 04:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. Following the link makes it obvious that it's an ad. -- WCFrancis 05:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WCFrancis. (How many items downloading for that one page ad?!) Alf 11:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 03:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy hooligans[edit]

Yup...band vanity! Two relevant Googles, zilch on allmusic.com. - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 07:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Band vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ((nnbv)) JDoorjam 16:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kick in the pants[edit]

Band vanity --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline. No allmusic, but Google comes back with a few relevant hits. Leaning toward delete because of a lack of content. This simply doesn't establish notability. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. They're not even signed to a label [2]. --TheMidnighters 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing on almusic, and no evidence available that they satisfy any of WP:MUSIC. -Splash 00:00, 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 dealt under copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Almond Tree[edit]

Completing nomination. Has been flagged as a copyvio. Dunc|☺ 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator's criteria. --Agamemnon2 14:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamscape (rave)[edit]

Blatant advertizing --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedy if applicable. This is both blatant advertising and an attempt to make contact. - Lucky 6.9 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The anon removed the VfD notice. I put it back. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I beleive this is no different than any other annual event on here including Burning Man. To remove this would be hypocritical. [[User:Anon|Anon]
  • Above vote is by the author. - Lucky 6.9 06:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUSPECTED SOCK ***Admitidly but the point is still valid. - Anon

• With all due respect - and I mean no disrespect at all - there is a certain notability factor in your event that's somewhat lacking. I'm sure it will be a blast. BUT...this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an advertising or communications medium. In fact, this site is about as lousy an advertising vehicle as you can imagine. Take it from someone who works with advertising on a daily basis. - Lucky 6.9 06:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete asap. Rkevins82 - TALK 06:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUSPECTED SOCK *Keep,It should be all or nothing. Every event removed or every kept. Otherwise who has the right to say what event should be kept and which shouldn't be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.116.43 (talk • contribs)

User has 2 edits, both here. --TheMidnighters 08:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The folks who own the servers certainly do.  :) A major event like Live Aid, for example, is notable. A tractor pull in Ames, Iowa is not. Woodstock is a keeper. A demolition derby at a county fair in Coffeeville, Mississippi...see what I mean? - Lucky 6.9 07:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, ad. --TheMidnighters 08:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, ad and Crystal Ball. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonnotable -Nandesuka 10:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an ad which doesn't even bother to suggest where in the city it is happening, which might, if it's a huge venue, suggest some notability. Alf 11:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a well known event that doesn't necessarily take place in the same place every year. If you have some events, then why not this? It has been going for many years. Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it is minor, nor that it hasn't had a large affect on the rave generation (which i believe it has). That said, i would delete all events because they are irrelevant. --Genesis 12:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lucky 6.9. It's not hypocritical to keep Burning Man but delete this article. Wikipedia isn't an all-or-nothing deal. We have articles on popular musicians, but we don't have one for your uncle's band that plays at the pub on Tuesdays. --BradBeattie 14:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This shouldn't even warrant discussion. Can it be speedily removed? Dottore So 14:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like this has potential to grow. Trollderella 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ad for a rave with no proof of notability. --Icelight 18:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising

SUSPECTED SOCK *Keep, Although this doesn't show notablilty, information about this party can be easily found. I think the fact that there isn't more info is showing that it is not an advertisement but a brief summery (like any encyclopedia). I for one do know about this and will be attending. The information is out there. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean thousands of other people don't. There is world class talent at this and I would consider it notable. --FlyRyan433 18:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. User's first edit. Sdedeo 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising a rave on wikipedia automatically makes it uncool and thus non-notable. Sdedeo 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUSPECTED SOCK *Keep, It should be kept, that is all. OBVIOUS SOCK *Keep, I agree with the commentor above me, however, if this is to be deleted it should also be known that all other things stating events should be deleted as well. This will probably be taken down after it is over, anyways.

• • Comment The above two entries were made in the same post, by an anon IP (first edit). Hard to get more sock puppety than that. --Icelight 21:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising for nn event. The argument that people are hypocritical for deleting some events, but not all events is offensive. It's not a question of moral judgement, but of placing a cutoff. Even if WikiPedia is not paper, neither can it hold all of the world's knowledge. ManoaChild 22:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable party advertisement. —Charles O'Rourke 22:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal ball/advertisement for a non-notable event, supported by too many sockpuppets. --Carnildo 23:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be a oneoff party of some sort: I only half believe the contents. -Splash 00:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, check out http://dreamscape.eraver.net, it also on ravelinks.com, eternalbeats.com, and just about any other west coast rave site you can think of.... definitly not a oneoff --FlyRyan433 01:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It may be a regularly-occurring event, but that does not confer notability. MCB 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising, and puppet plague. Xoloz 17:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising, non-notable, and goddamn I hate sock puppets. (FYI I added the SOCK comments.) JDoorjam 16:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am not a SOCK... Btw, Presales are already out for this. This is also expected to be the biggest EDM event Vegas has seen in the last few years... Knock it if you want for notability. I found the wikipedia entry by talking to friends on trillian about it. --FlyRyan433 22:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. I'm inclined to believe that this could actually be somewhat notable, but the present article certainly doesn't present it that way. Perhaps some more content would be useful? Or would that defeat the "underground" purpose? --Several Times 20:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 22:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Originators IP (208.1.112.109) Traces back to Grand Forks, ND. This further proves notability. --FlyRyan433 23:38, 25 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 both. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koadic's Endless Intellect 2nd nom[edit]

This nomination also covers Spells of Everquest, where the article content was copied & pasted by User:Trollderella during the VFD discussion.

I nominated this something like a year ago. I think it got about one keep vote, yet here it is. My reasoning for deletion still stands, you can read about it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect. -R. fiend 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN Dlyons493 08:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, a spell from a videogame. --TheMidnighters 08:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also the copy and paste version. --TheMidnighters 06:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable Sliggy 10:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the article contains no assertion/evidence of notability, a quick speedy delete to them all, before they have any more offspring! Sliggy 18:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • In light of later comments, and to be utterly explicit: my vote is a delete for Koadic's Endless Intellect and Spells of Everquest on the grounds of non-notability Sliggy 12:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both ("Both" added Alf 11:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) Spells of Everquest was deleted (I assume), so Enchanter (character class), (don't smirk, I read the article and took the link), would be the only other place to put it, but I don't give that much either. Alf 11:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spells of Everquest was never created in the first place. Uncle G 12:00:41, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, doesn't assert notability. Martg76 13:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both cruft. Martg76 03:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above. Dottore So 14:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Spells of Everquest. Trollderella 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VfD notice says, please do not blank, merge, or move this article. Since you've already performed a merge despite a rapidly-forming consensus to delete, we'll have to keep Koadic's Endless Intellect as a redirect unless Spells of Everquest is also deleted. As such, I vote to Delete both. android79 16:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Chill out. I was trying to form an article where stubs on the spells can rest, like the many similar ones. Your eagerness to delete the material at all costs seems at odds with trying to create an acceptable article. Trollderella 22:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He is not trying to "delete ...material at all costs." He is following the rules. You were not.—Encephalon | ^ζ  03:41:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
      • That's fine, it's even good, but that should be done on a /Temp subpage or in userspace or something. Otherwise, the merge overrides the VfD debate which is why the tag requests that such not be done during the debate. -Splash 00:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Chill out"? I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Regardless of your intent, it should now be apparent why merging during an ongoing VfD discussion is a bad idea. My "eagerness to delete the material at all costs" extends to my single vote. I will abide by the consensus here. android79 03:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Merging is a bad idea, because it causes GFDL problems. Trollderella (talk · contribs) didn't perform a merge, though. Xe simply did a copy&paste move into a new article, creating a duplicate. And copy&paste moves are evil, of course. Such duplicates created mid-discussion are best brought under the umbrella of the existing discussion, as this one has been. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive#Proposition_10b. Uncle G 06:21:05, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Delete... *sigh* ... Alex.tan 18:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and the other one per Android79. -Splash 00:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both - Spells of Everquest is junk. What about a Fatalities of Mortal Kombat article, or a Scrolls of Morrowind article? Retarded - Hahnchen 03:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N; really, Alex.tan's reason is as good as any. Incidentally, please do not place a speedy tag on this. The first two sentences can easily be "interpreted" as assertions of notability, by folks who specialize in seeing such where there are none.—Encephalon | ^ζ  03:41:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Comment. The notice at the top of this subpage (This nomination also covers Spells of Everquest, where the article content was copied & pasted by User:Trollderella during the VFD discussion) was introduced after the vote was under way. [3] Can the editor who initiated this VfD please contact all editors who voted before the notice was put up and get them to confim that their vote is for both articles? If it is not clear that people are voting for both, it can be argued that there are grounds for dismissing the VfD. Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  05:40:32, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --*drew 07:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Android79. Xoloz 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per drew. Nandesuka 23:20, 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. Every keep vote is a sock. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANTs Data Server[edit]

Page is currently just a short ad; suggesting it be removed until someone takes the time to write a NPOV article about the subject TroelsArvin 07:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has been edited but seems no better, still has advert style claims. (Oh and the VfD tag was removed after the last edit). Alf 11:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is just an advertisement. Dottore So 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks fine now Lemiak 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep revised npov Chachka 19:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Robosmobos 14:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rewrite in its entirety. In addition to the article(s) themselves being almost entirely devoid of factual content, there is a disturbing amount of funny business going on here, including removal of a votes for deletion template, apparent sockpuppets, and false claims being posted to Comparison of relational database management systems. Not cool. --Craig Stuntz 17:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been improved slightly since my request for removal. However, a sentence like "uses 7 patented algorithms in the only parallel trasaction processing enginge that does not use locks at any database level" is still pure maketing rubbish to me. If the article starts to discuss lock-free techniques, it should cover the negative effects it has, or else explain how complete lock avoidance goes along with SQL's highest isolation levels. Also: The claim for "performance 15 times greater than conventional database systems" is 'documented' by a link to a sales article. C'mon... TroelsArvin 09:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and, by the way - have a look at the Keep-voters. Strange how they have all very recently been created... TroelsArvin 09:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, and looking at the contributions from those users also shows additional articles with NPOV / factual issues. --Craig Stuntz 14:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tarvin why don't you revise it? Manifoldtop 01:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I might revise it at some point, although I find other topics more interesting. Until someone takes the time to write a proper article, the article should be deleted, in order to support Wikipedias reputation. TroelsArvin 07:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup well this is getting interesting, has anyone actually tried to test it? looks like you can download it here *ADS btw, Troels, you have a really nice sql page there Sqlboy 18:29, 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 Speedy deleted as single-person vanity. Lucky 6.9 07:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T94xr[edit]

Vanity Page GaidinBDJ 07:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity pages can be deleted immediately. I dig that rule.  :) - Lucky 6.9 07:31, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Launie Anderssohn[edit]

I suggested that this should get pitched along with The Dissonants, but it didn't; so I'm renominating it now. Non-notable band; gets just 46 Google hits and nothing on allmusic. Nomination withdrawn. Withdrawal withdrawn, because the sockpuppet-to-legitimate-vote ratio has gotten too high for comfort. Bearcat 19:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. (I live in the band's hometown & I've never heard of them). Dottore So 14:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, I've heard of this band. They released an album last year, and the radio station that I work at received a promo copy (some idiot even called my show to request it). As much as I'd like to see this tossed for personal reasons, I'm going to have to vote keep. CJCurrie 19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CJ, I'm not sure that your reasons to keep are reasons that are acnowledged in WP:MUSIC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your thinking is that since you've heard of them and they've released an album, then they are notable enough to be kept, which isn't the case. What's under contention as far as I can tell is whether they're non-notable or if having a member who was part of The Dears is enough to merit an encyclopedia article. --Blackcap | talk 19:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • The band is fairly well-known (or perhaps notorious) at the campus radio station where I work. In casting my vote, I extrapolated that other campus/community stations in Canada are probably familiar with this band as well. In any case, I'm reluctant to delete a band that has released a full-length CD recording, and has distributed it to stations outside of their hometown (the worthlessness of their music notwithstanding). The WP:Music guidelines only provide criteria for bands to be judged as indisputably notable; they don't cover all of the grey areas. CJCurrie 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no Allmusic, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. --TheMidnighters 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability provided by the article. Gamaliel 04:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from unregistered and very new users[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia has rules around how deletion votes are conducted. If voting on this page is your first-ever contribution to this site, your vote WILL NOT COUNT. The sockpuppetry is to stop NOW. Also, note that Wikipedia is not a directory of bands "trying to get a break". It's an encyclopedia; to be on here, a band has to already have gotten that big break. Bearcat 18:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone who has never heard this band, let me tell you that they have some of the most original lyrics you will ever hear and blend it with an incredibly diverse range of music from country to rap funk and even calypso. They have toured 2 countries, and multiple outposts. A definite keeper. What a thrill it is to find them on this site. keep.--69.70.169.157 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and your friends can forget about this little game of yours; VfD votes by first-time users of the site are not counted. Bearcat 04:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could, however, improve the chances of keeping the article by improving it. Farquard 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course if they have toured two countries then they fulfill another criterion for notablity (assuming those countries wern't, say, Barbados and Grenada). - Farquard 18:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Launie Anderssohn rocked my socks off the first time I heard them. In addition to accomplished musicianship, these fun-loving fellas kept me smiling with their sometimes raunchy, always hilarious lyrics.

keep - 70.49.202.51 02:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Launie Anderssohn is in the middle of changing the way music is played and listened to and appreciated. They are the best, or maybe second best, band in Montreal, no question. While everyone else is regurgitating the same old crap over and over and being lauded as brilliant, Launie is creating some really incredible rock music with some really smart lyrics. keep--24.203.43.147 04:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Best band ever. No joke. Incisive, devicive, and inherently awesome. Keep your eyes open for this band, cuz they're gonna rock your underwear right outta your pants before you even know what happened. I could go on for days, but alas I must go. Do not delete this band, they should never be forgotten. keep (Unsigned vote by 24.37.250.84 (talk · contribs), first edit)
• """keep""" --204.19.199.102 16:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Harmless fun! What's the problem, young good guys from Montreal trying to get a break """keep"""--216.113.203.187 16:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to this Launie listner that all y'all haters out there are just scared. You're scared of the language they use and the feelings they give you at the tips of you pant pockets. But don't dismiss their importance in a sea of vastly unoriginal music and song lyrics. They are musicians and poets and lovers and future fathers and future lovers of each others kids. keep --204.50.131.2 21:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And this has exactly what bearing on whether they belong in an encyclopedia or not? Bearcat 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this band rocks """keep"""--24.202.237.179 16:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Important band on the Montreal indie scene. On top of which, WP:MUSIC says that a band should be considered notable if one member was once part of an "extremely notable" band . - Farquard 19:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's second edit.
  • Like everyone and their brother they've played the Green Room, Barfly and Swimming. How is that notable?
  • Okay, I withdraw the nomination. I overlooked the Dears connection. If you're familiar with the band, though, could you expand the article a bit so it doesn't look so much like a deletion candidate? Bearcat 19:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did The Dears become extremely notable? The Dears are notable, but not extremely so, therefore every single band each member has ever been with or will be with is not necessarily notable, especially if they don't meet any of the other guidelines. --TheMidnighters 09:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you actually quantify the line where one can realistically mark a clear division between "notable" and "extremely notable"? I sure as hell can't...to me, the line is contextually relative to the genre in which the band operates, rather than an objective scale that ranks all bands by the same measure. They're no match for the notability of The Beatles, granted, but within the specific context of indie rock in the 2000s, The Dears can certainly be described as "extremely notable". Bearcat 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a band has widespread popularity like the Beatles, then a side project (like George Harrison's solo work) is worthy of an encyclopedia. If a band doesn't have that, (as in the case of the Dears, having put out a few albums but, as far as I can tell, not know very much outside of Quebec), then while they themselves may warrant an encyclopedia article, their side projects may not. Anyway, in the realm of, say, Star Trek fandom, obscure bits on machinery might be considered notable, but would never make its way into an encyclopedia because it's too irrelevant to most people. This seems like music's version of that. It just doesn't hit enough points in WP:MUSIC to warrant staying. From going on their web site, they don't even seem to have a record label, saying only that you can get their music at Le Subalterne, a local record shop. They're a band who has one semi-notable person and nothing else. Maybe a good band, but not something for Wikipedia. Delete. --Blackcap | talk 17:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • To put it more simply, I think TheMidnighters' comment above says all it needs to. --Blackcap | talk 19:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Dears are considered "extremely notable" across Canada having had a near-cult following on many college campuses for years. There is no better guage for "notable" in indie-rock's transient and poor-student-driven world. Launie Anderssohn are genre groundbreakers misunderstood by the dull, and celebrated by intelligent witty townsfolk and hard to thrill musicians alike. As in, they have their own sound and message and media package. As in, they are influential. The fact that they play at smaller clubs should not make them less noteworthy for the history of musical progress. Wikipedia is a boon to music writers everywhere, let's keep it that way. The article should be expanded to contextualize them more distinctly """keep""" --24.80.81.229 06:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Proof by "because I said so". Can you show independent web references (newspaper articles, coverage or chart placement in Chart or exclaim!, etc.) which prove that they're notable? If not, they belong on skwik, not here. Bearcat 17:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Subservient Chicken[edit]

Non-notable, viral marketing. Coq Roq is also listed on VfD. --WikiFan04^{Talk 3:02, 19 Aug 2005 (CDT)}

• Keep; far more notable than "Coq Roq". --Golbez 08:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Coq Roq was advertised, Subservient Chicken wasn't. --WikiFan04
• Keep Subservient Chicken WAS advertised and is more well-known that Coq Roq (although also think Coq Roq should stay). -Wiffle0rz 09:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiffle0rz's 31st edit. --WikiFan04^{Talk 2:52, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
• Keep per Golbez Tonywalton  | Talk 10:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Memorable little website, liked the article. CanadianCaesar 12:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Memorable, multiple news articles covered the initial release. -HX
• Strong Keep this was the first really successful viral advertising campaign, and brought nationwide attention to the marketing technique. Plus, the chicken looks sexy in those garters. --Outlander 14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Trollderella 15:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. -- JamesTeterenko 17:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Klander Brigade 15:28 19 August 2005 (EST)
• Definate keep Unlike Coq Roq, is amusing and makes for quite an interesting read. D-Katana
• Keep 05:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Widely noted and reported on. MCB 06:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Wulf 23:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, reported in media all the way to Finland. --Agamemnon2 14:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep have a heart you people. --Boycottthecaf 23:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I just feel that it'd be probably a better idea to keep it and merge it with all the other examples of viral marketing. But that's me. --T-Boy 11:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP another example of someone trying to get an article deleted just because they don't like it....--The_stuart 14:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this site is changing the entire advertising industry. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,63053,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.154.2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 August 2005
• Keep This is valuable data as long as entered in NPOV, which seems to be the case. Lpm 19:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know this isn't the Wayback machine, but the advertiser isn't going to keep the website there forever, and Wikipedia is one of those able to keep a record of something that is both relevant and entertaining. rastro

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bran'do[edit]

non-notable vand banity Babajobu 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Babajobu. --BradBeattie 14:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Dottore So 14:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. And delete what looks like a personal snapshot. --Etacar11 03:34, 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 speedy deleted by Curps for patent nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sausagepedia[edit]

Doesn't cite its sources; is probably abusive nonsense KeithD (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not very abusive, but I searched his site and turned up nothing for "Sausagepedia". Clair de Lune 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletehoax, or neologism at best. --TheMidnighters 08:37, 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 (04:32, 21 August 2005 Zscout370 deleted "Fuck Hole" (attack page)) - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Hole[edit]

Doesn't cite its sources; is probably abusive nonsense KeithD (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax. Maybe Speedy as an attack? --TheMidnighters 08:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy with extreme prejudice. If you left in the verifiable content, it would be a blank page.Clair de Lune 08:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy please and thank you. Abusive and completely logically inconsistent with the Neal Boortz article besides. A. J. Luxton 09:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has used the term on his website and personal writings, how is it inconsisted with the article? -Wiffle0rz 09:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a neologism. I find it unpleasant as well, but that's beside the point. Sliggy 10:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. "Unpleasant"? Per the article it's affectionate! Tonywalton  | Talk 10:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it is true, it should be on his page, not a page by itself. Alf 12:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hi. I've just removed the speedy tag from this page. I hope you do not mind. If any of you have been following developments on the VfD page, the "undelete" process at VfU, and related pages at AN/I, you will know that there has been a great deal of controversy recently over the SD process. There are editors who monitor deletions and undelete articles that have been speedied, if in their opinion the article did not meet any SD criterion. This has happened even in cases where the most obvious hoaxes and similar nonsense were the subjects of the articles; i.e., you cannot count on common sense prevailing over a concern for "process." This has also occured the other way around: undeleted articles get re-deleted, then undeleted, and so on and so forth until all that is left is an unnecessarily acrimonious atmosphere and a bad taste in the mouth for all concerned. So we should all be careful with SD; if we're not, you can bet the house that the article will be dragged out far longer than it would with a normal VfD process. If you are going to speedy, make sure you know the criteria listed in WP:CSD. There are 8 General criteria, 7 Article criteria, 4 Redirect, and 3 each for Images, Categories, and User pages. I cannot see that Anything in G1-8 or A1-7 applies. The editor who SD tagged gave the reason that it is patent nonsense. But it is not. There is a page that explains patent nonsense, WP:PN; there are two criteria both of which are unmet by Fuck Hole.—Encephalon | ^ζ  13:09:24, 2005-08-19 (UTC)Note: there was a suggestion that this was a personal attack (on Boortz). It might qualify for A6 if so, but there is also a suggestion that the content of the article is true, ie. that Boortz actually believes this and has written it. I am not knowledgeable enough about this to know; Wiffle0rz, can you provide evidence that the claim is true? If it isn't there is a good case for A6. Of course, bottom line, Alf is absolutely right even if true and verifiable, this should go into the Boortz article.—Encephalon | ^ζ 
• Delete and redirect to Glory hole#Sexual usage. Pburka 13:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to cunt SchmuckyTheCat 05:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article borders on libel unless documented. Otherwise, Merge with Neal Boortz if such an opinion is documented. PlainSight 14:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. I have placed the speedy tag on the article for contravention of CSD A6. User:Wiffle0rz has not responded to a request to document the claim. His actions, as documented in his appaling edit history, make it very likely that his claim is completely bogus. I searched google for any reference to +"Boortz" +"Fuck hole", and there are no applicable returns.—Encephalon | ^ζ  15:30:13, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopedic JoJan 19:05, 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 redirect to Rorschach inkblot test. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inkblot[edit]

Delete nn performance artist. TheMidnighters 08:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is described as an artist who performed a "short string of shows" and whose whereabouts are unknown. Searching Google for information mainly produces references to the Rorschach inkblot test. Maybe this could redirect there? --TheMidnighters 09:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Al 13:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is who it says he is and the article is just starting out. Note the initial request for a vote to delete was entered within mere hours of the first entry of the article. Isn't there enough out there already on the much-disputed, and quite unreliable, Rorschach ink blot test as it is? Besides, there is a fun Inkblot test on his site at Inkblot.com. It should stay, or the delete police should start deleting or redirecting all references to people like Andy Kaufman, Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and so forth. Unsigned vote/comment by 216.254.17.15 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-19 19:38:02 UTC
• Redirect → Rorschach inkblot test. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-19 T 19:52:54 Z
• Redirect as above. --Carnildo 23:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect notability not indicated for the artist. --Etacar11 03:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Punkmorten 11:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paraffin section[edit]

• Delete nn band vanity. No Allmusic, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. TheMidnighters 08:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn and defunct. Alf 12:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Al 13:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if they don't exist now, they have no hope of ever achieving WP:MUSIC. ESkog 00:13, 25 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 both. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Bomb (Angel episode) and Five by Five (Angel episode)[edit]

These articles are essentially just a description of what happens in the show, written like someone recalling what they watched on TV last night. Such articles do not exist for all other Angel episodes, and aren't needed. Harro5 09:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, we have a precedent in countless things like The Initiative (Buffy episode). Maybe we need a policy here on individual TV episodes (like 'delete' the lot), or can I start on 3,000 episodes of Coronation Street --Doc (?) 09:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Please begin the Coronation Street episodes, they have a very large audience. Kappa 10:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There's already websites out there for this kind of fanboyism, but merging details of every episode would be unreasonable. Weak keep. Kappa, as you made the request, I think working on an article for every one of the Coronation Street episodes would be an excellent project that could really use your unique skills. I'm sure Doc would be more than happy to assist you. You could also create a series of articles on each incarnation of that ginger cat that appears on the credits - after all, a ginger cat seen by 13 million people a week is verifiable. Perhaps you could start a Coronation Street Wikiproject. Proto t c 10:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no interest in Coronation Street myself and very little knowledge of it, so I will employ my "unique skills" elsewhere. Kappa 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper, TV episodes are like miniature movies. CanadianCaesar 12:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As wikipedia ages and matures, this stuff will probably be pushed out into a Wikimedia project (with of course a separate Wikitrek project). For now, though, there is no basis not to include individual tv episodes since the precedent has long been established that pretty much any crap, if it was televised, meets the standard for inclusion. Dottore So 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. However, I'm a little worried that the discussion seems to focus on what we like as the criteria for what should be included in terms of pop culture. Trollderella 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no good reason to delete.Gateman1997 18:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think every single television series in the history of television deserves an entry for every single episode, but Angel is a notable series and has received a lot of academic attention (I say this as an editor of some Buffy criticism related articles.) Sdedeo 19:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. An article featuring synopses of the episodes of a series of Angel might be a very worthwhile article. But I doubt the need for individual articles on every episode. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and why don't we have synopses for all the other Angel episodes? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not start them, Tony? Proto t c 15:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is plenty of precedent for articles based upon individual episodes of series. 23skidoo 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of precedent for TV episodes; that this is the first is no argument. Xoloz 17:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul mcguire[edit]

Probable nonsense. Google doesn't support anything in the article KeithD (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possible A7 speedy. Apart from lack of verifiability, nothing is present to support the claim that he was one of Ireland's greatest fishermen other than he struggled with a catfish for several hours while fishing. According to the St James Guide to Crime and Mystery Writers published in 1996, there was an Australian writer of this name who published over ten crime novels in the 1930's and was later an Australian delegate to the United Nations. In my view, that Paul McGuire would warrant an article but this one doesn't. Capitalistroadster 10:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Capitalroadster, also noticed that some comments by original poster regarding VfD nominee is in the history. Alf 13:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick look at Google shows a Paul McGuire who's a syndicated radio host, another who's a minor actor, a freelance author, and a writer who specializes in writing about poker. And that's just on the first page. Make this a disambig page. Zoe 19:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete quickly in its current form. Would support a disambiguation page if created. Hall Monitor 22:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Emphatically not an A7, but not verifiable either. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of two jokes by the same anon. No useful content. Andrewa 09:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for punnery, hoaxery, tomfoolery and/or skullduggery. --Agamemnon2 14:23, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jo and Mike[edit]

Just about two seemingly random people, completely unverifiable, no indication of importance or context. Robdurbar 10:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as un-notable (though it says they're "famous" it doesn't attempt to establish why). Tonywalton  | Talk 10:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedy if possible) as this is unverifiable, lacking any attempt to establish/justify notability, and contextless Sliggy 10:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • reverting vandalism by 194.168.45.250 Sliggy 10:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no real claim to fame except being related to Tom Jones and Catherine Zeta-Jones and no surnames identified although one would guess Jones. Oh and they drive madly about the UK in a van. Capitalistroadster 11:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete About as non-notable as you could get. KeithD (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sound nice enough, I can't see how they've affected our culture any. Alf 13:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alf, we are.

• Comment See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Leek_Lobbing which offers some insight into Mike's leisure activities Tonywalton  | Talk 15:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leek Lobbing[edit]

The Scottish have tossing the caber and the "North Walians" have... um... leek lobbing. Delete as nonsense humour Sliggy 10:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (changed from 'Reserved'). I would so like this to be true, if anyone has any refs for it please update it as I could only find this Alf 13:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suspect this to be a hoax, given that the current holder of the cup seems to be from a place called "Green Bus". Tonywalton  | Talk 14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... and is very probably one half of Jo and Mike above, given both pages were initially created by the same anonymous user and mention this green bus Sliggy 14:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nnhoax. Sdedeo 15:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd missed the Jo and Mike link. I bet they're called "Illtyd". Pity though, this sounded like fun, especially in the edited version where the sheep got to "feast well on the leeks after the game was over". Tonywalton  | Talk 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably a hoax. Alex.tan 18:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a hoax. I so wanted it to be true, and there are a few tantalizing references in the BBC to the idea, but they all seem to be jokes[4]. None of the locals I've asked have heard of it. Therefore either a hoax or so totally obscure that it's only known in one home green van in Wales. Collabi 18:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. But if ever there were a sound candidate for ostension this would be it. It would be much more fun to change real life to meet the wiki here rather than the other way around. Collabi 19:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: hoax. — ciphergoth 07:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Snorkelling[edit]

Text is humour; article is not encycopaedic

Check it out on Google then, sock puppet!!

• Keep and cleanup. Genuine if bizarre sport. David | Talk 11:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - here's the Google search. (5720 results) Cormaggio 11:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not humour at all, it's real! jamesgibbon 11:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep; real sport, notable Lectonar 12:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Genuine sport. Watched this event many times.Brawd Mawr 12:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Article is perfectly encylopaedic, and true. KeithD (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep had a quick start at a clean up and stuck in a reference. Sliggy 12:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - changing my vote. I put this article on VfD, but it's since been fixed and referenced, and so it should stay. Note that it started life as a pisstake but has grown into a real article... — ciphergoth 12:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE sock puppet!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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/Merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage making and Sausage Making[edit]

Artical was resubmitted with proper capitalization eg "Sausage Making" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrell Larson (talk • contribs) 2005-08-19 12:03:19 UTC

• Move to Wikibooks if content isn't a copyvio, and redirect to sausages. KeithD (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sausage Making (but move to the correct capitalisation of Sausage making). (Article is much more encyclopaedic than when I cast my previous vote). KeithD (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article Sausage Making contains a lot of information that's not in Sausage making. People might vote differently on the two articles. Fg2 00:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the two, under the correct capitalization Sausage making, with all relevant non-duplicative facts in the merged article. Xoloz 20:02, 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 redirect to curing. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meat curing and Meat Curing[edit]

page has been resubmitted under proper capitalization eg "Meat Curing" terr 11:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to existing article on curing. KeithD (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Boldly redirected. BTW, "Meat Curing" is not the proper capitalization. Gazpacho 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Alex.tan 18:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the wikipedia does not follow normal conventions. For instance I picked up the first book on my desk and the section title is "How to Use This Book". I really don't care how it is coded as long as it looks good and links together. After we get rid of the duplicates then we can fix it. terr 17:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is an official policy. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Alex.tan 18:17, 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.

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Masochism Tango[edit]

Album is notable. This particular song is not. GeeJo 12:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn GeeJo 13:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. With The Elements, it's one of Tom Lehrer's best known songs.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC) never mind! I'm cool with merging.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The notability of the song is borderline, but the article is encylopaedic enough to warrant inclusion. KeithD (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I decided to Be Bold. I merged this content with An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer, so that a redirect can be put in place easily, if separate article is deleted. -- WCFrancis 12:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, that seems to be the better idea. I'd retract the nomination if I was sure I wasnt violating some VFD taboo :) GeeJo 12:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as per WCFrancis, I've had the pleasure of performing both these numbers and am fine with the content being at An Eve..., at least until there is too much there and we can consider a Tom Lehrer songs page. Alf 13:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per WCFrancis works. — RJH 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good grief! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable novelty song that has appeared on other albums besides the original because of its popularity. Caerwine 23:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as suggested by WCFrancis. Crypticfirefly 02:37, 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning Pigeons in the Park[edit]

Album the song is on is notable. The song itself is not. GeeJo 12:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn GeeJo 13:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep The notability of the song is borderline, but the article is encylopaedic enough to warrant inclusion. KeithD (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the song seems notable, and the article is a pretty good start. CanadianCaesar 12:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I decided to Be Bold. I merged this content with An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer, so that a redirect can be put in place easily, if separate article is deleted. -- WCFrancis 12:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, that seems to be the better idea. I'd retract the nomination if I was sure I wasnt violating some VFD taboo :) GeeJo 12:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You can scratch out your nomination and call it "withdrawn", but you can't remove the vfd notice, and an administrator won't necessarily close the debate right away, although I've seen that happen before, eg. with Self-induced abortion and most recently with SaRenna Lee CanadianCaesar 13:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I love the song. I know it by heart and I share it at every opportunity. How can we improve the article? Robin Patterson 13:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per WCFrancis, I've had the pleasure of performing both these numbers and am fine with the content being at An Eve..., at least until there is too much there and we can consider a Tom Lehrer songs page. Alf 13:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect works for me. We all go together when we go... — RJH
• Either Expand and Keep (but please, despite what Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky may have told you, don't plagerize), or Merge with album. -Satori 15:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Trollderella 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. What do people see, precisely, as the advantage of having a tiny crumb of information out of context as opposed to putting it on the same as related information? Leave it in An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer and break it out when and if it grows to a reasonable article size. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Don't Merge The song is notable enough that it regularly appears in compilation albums of novelty songs. Tho I will admit that I am slightly worried that some people might use the article as if were a sandbox "to experiment with". Caerwine 23:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nomination was withdrawn.Gateman1997 20:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer. Jonathunder 01:53, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
• Keep Is there a person reading this who doesn't know this classic? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not against any religion/to want to dispose of a pigeon", but I do believe this should continue to waste our evenings on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philie T[edit]

Self promotion, even going so far as to call himself an "accomplished internet troll", giving away a drop of motive. 123 hits for "Philie T" and 12 for "Philie T" + Rap makes me think nn. Delete Usrnme h8er 12:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per submitter. Can't find anything that verifies any of the rave reviews supposedly received from popular music magazines. --GraemeL 13:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was mentioned on the Respect List of Aphex Twin's "51/13 Aphex Singles Collection", and is known to be associated with the Jenkinson brothers (notably Squarepusher and Ceephax). --Easterlingman 13:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Easterlingman has a total of about 30 edits. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does my number of edits make the information I post less factual?
• Delete I'm not really convinced he passes WP:MUSIC or any other test for notability. CanadianCaesar 13:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notability, probably self-promotion. Can't find any links to his music and suspect "rave reviews" don't exist. "Known to be associated with" relatively unknown people doesn't mean anything. My mom went to school with Catherine O'Hara but she doesn't get an entry because of it... Marskell 13:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He actively worked with (Squarepusher and Ceephax) as a filmmaker. Not self promotion. This article wasn't written by the subject. The motivation is expansion on the Ceephax Acid Crew article (notable Acid house producer) as he has acted in movies by Phil Thompson. Thanks for criticism, article revised. Please don't shoot down articles because you never heard of someone well known in his genre. WP:MUSIC is merely a guide to strengthen the quality of articles, not a reason to delete something. Thanks! Joyrex 13:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Joyrex's third edit. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Like Easterlingman says: Does my number of edits make the information I post less factual?Joyrex 14:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philie T is known to the IDM community (WATMM is a good example). He worked with people like Squarepusher and Ceephax as a filmmaker, and other Chelmsford artists included Cassette Boy. He'll never be in the top 100 music chart, because he's an underground artist, and he gives his art away for free on www.philiet.co.uk I don't believe for a second that wikipedia's hard drives will crash and burn by adding an article about an underground artist who is well known in IDM circles. This article is an expansion from the Ceephax Acid Crew article. Had to mention his starring in Philie T's films, Philie T is well known to the IDM community. Why not add an article about him? Because he's not Britney Spears or AC/DC. Pff. Joyrex 15:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • He made films with famous artists from Warp Records. This is notable to the IDM community. Of course you and your granny never heard of Aphex Twin. Joyrex 14:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Philie T's short films are among the best I have seen in recent years, and his work with Cassette Boy was outstanding. A vital and respected member of the underground IDM scene, his popularity will only grow. Keep your eye on him for sure. chaosmachine 14:27, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • [5]- CanadianCaesar 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User chaosmachine has two edits, both to this vfd. Usrnme h8er 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, in fact I signed up just vote on this. As a member of the IDM community, and someone who's enjoyed Philie T's work over the years, I felt I'd show my support. Thanks for the welcome. Chaosmachine 14:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amount of edits is irrelevant to his words. Your rhetorical technique exposed. Knock it off. Joyrex 14:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until more information about this guy appears. "Philie T"+"Aphex Twin" garners a few google hits, all from either wiki mirrors or newsgroup posts by "Philie T" himself. He may be mad awesome, but the information in the article is currently 100% unverifiable. If we include him as someone garnering shoutouts from Aphex Twin, we will also have to include "Gentle John, Cylob Industries, Grant and Jen, Mike D, ...???... Captain ???, Lorna and Derek, Tennyson and Dali, ??? and Deanne, The Gentle People, Steve and Jen. Special thanks to Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish, Leila, TAN one hundred and nine, Debbie, Rob and Steve, Stuart, Mike and Neil, ??? and his dogs next door. ...???... Vulva, Rhysa, Philie-T, Maurice and Gwen." Sdedeo 14:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually several of those already have articles... they're just the real names of people who put out media under made up names. Mike P is mu-ziq, Mike D is Mike Dred or Kosmik Kommando, cylob is chris jeffs on aphex twin's rephlex label, lorna and derek are his siblings I believe, the gentle people have releases on rephlex, etc--Easterlingman 15:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... We do have articles for Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish but I think they are famous for other reasons... Usrnme h8er 15:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear delete; please ignore puppets from the voting! (amended to incl. my signature. oops.) Dottore So 14:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • and women, and blacks for that matter. and anyone left handed, or shorter than 5 foot 4.
    • Last charming remark by User:Chaosmachine, defending the rights of sockpuppets everywhere. CanadianCaesar 14:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • thanks for the insult, friend. it's ok, i understand what kind of a community this is now. enjoy yourselves, and goodbye. Chaosmachine 14:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's similar to alt.config, shooting things down, unhelpful to newbies. Also it's different in reality to the friendly spirit shown on the front page and in press articles.Joyrex 15:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems legitimate. Trollderella 15:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, more trolling from Trollderella. Zoe 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - for all the reasons already stated above. -Satori 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's okay to make an inappropriate comment towards a new user, but not one that has a few edits under his or her belt? --Easterlingman 16:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I've heard, let alone heard of Aphex Twin. Sorry. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain (I haven't a clue about this fellow) but comment. For those who don't know: the VfD procedure theoretically involves the WikiPedia community taking a look at a page which may be borderline (clear deletes are marked as "speedy"), and voting on whether it should remain in an encyclopædia or not. As such, the votes of anonymous users who happened to breeze in, or fans of the subject of an article recruited to WikiPedia solely so that they can vote against its deletion, are naturally not considered as important as those of regular 'pedians. Indeed, the practice of rounding up one's friends and getting them to cast a vote on a website that otherwise holds no interest for them is considered quite rude; it's called "sock puppeteering", a term that originated on USENET, associated with fraudulent or anti-social behaviour. That is why all y'all new users haven't been greeted in the warmest of terms. That said, um ... welcome! I hope you stick around and make a greater contribution to this encyclopædia than a single, discountable vote. If you do, believe me, your opinion will start to matter at last. --fuddlemark 17:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Joyrex et al do have a point. Remember WP:Bite and let's keep this at least minimally civil. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some verifiable evidence of compliance with WP:Music such as the release of albums, touring etc. The stuff we have been told would establish him as an interesting person but not a notable person as yet. Capitalistroadster 21:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. —Charles O'Rourke 23:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Nandesuka 23:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. --*drew 07:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, sockpuppets galore. Xoloz 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I asked forum.watmm.com to come here and comment. Easterlingman uses Wikipedia since before, and is a genuine guy. Chaosmachine is a seperate guy, but still classed as sockpuppet. Apologies for ruding Wikipedia from me. Sorry about that. I edited the article now to make it a bit better. Can't improve it much more myself. Philie T's notability comes from his link to Ceephax (by making films with him) and his high up friends in British IDM. He will never be in the top 100 pop chart, because his ethic is to give away music for free in mp3. There is too much about sockpuppets now to change anyone's mind, but I will try and make the article again in the future (coupled of months), because I think the present edit is not so bad as the original, and it shows Philie T's link to Ceephax Acid Crew, which is my motivation for writing the article (expanding knowledge of Ceephax's career, and noting things from the IDM community. Thanks, and sorry for the sockpuppet, it was wrong to do that. Joyrex 11:24, 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 redirect to Billiards. - 17:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Poolball[edit]

Non-notable "sport" created by a bunch of high school students. We played similar games when I was a youth, but it is certainly not encyclopedic. Al 13:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Proto (changed from 'Comment'). Are there any leagues of this game at any level, if not the vote is delete. Alf 14:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not that I can find. Google results for "poolball" and "poolball league", discounting the billiards results, returns a variety of different home-grown games played in a swimming pool. Al 14:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess it could be thought of as a typo of pool ball, which should redirect to billiards (which has the section on billiards/snooker/pool balls - how they're made, etc). Alternately, I suppose it could be what an idiot would call water polo. But I'd have it redirecting to billiards. Proto t c 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Proto. Jaxl | talk 17:09, 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 by user:FCYTravis as nonsense. Later speedied again by RHaworth as reposted nonsense nn-bio. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anselmo Anselmi[edit]

Prank - Possible the name of a real person, but the content is obviously a prank Outlander 13:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy. --BradBeattie 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as personal attack/libel. Kappa 14:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete What the hell was that? Hamster Sandwich 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Nonsense/personal attack. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:27, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haqim Bau[edit]

Non-notable. All images have no tags. Unencyclopedic.

• Delete as per anon user 155.69.5.235. --BradBeattie 14:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN orientation day ceremony. Hamster Sandwich 15:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. --GraemeL 15:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is so encyclopedic about this article? Doesn't seem to be important enough to me - and other wikipedians. Kontrovert 16:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry but Delete as student vanity. -- WCFrancis 16:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 17:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Agamemnon2 14:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, classic nn vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 16:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless non-worthy stuff.
• Delete. Junk stuff. 155.69.5.236 05:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Another piece of crap article. Delete
• Delete. NN orientation activity. *drew 03:29, 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 . - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory[edit]

There is no such theory, and therefore no need for an article of this title. Also, the journal article being alluded to is not correctly described. (The article is famous for predicting the cosmic microwave background, not Big Bang nucleosynthesis.) --EMS | Talk 14:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. There is indeed a theory, although I've never heard it described this way -- more of interest to historians of scientists than to scientists. EMS is incorrect; the ABG paper is indeed the first description of nucleosynthesis (despite incorrect information on the internet.) Here is the original article: [6], Phys. Rev. 73, 803–804 (1948), The Origin of Chemical Elements. I suggest, EMS, instead of trying to speedy delete this article, you try to improve it. Sdedeo 15:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [7] or Merge into Nucleosynthesis. --Pjacobi 15:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge into nucleosynthesis, but don't lose the info about where the name came from. DS 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge / redirect. Seems legitimate. Trollderella 15:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not merge. It is an important paper, the first to establish that the Big Bang could explain the observed ratio of H to He in the universe. The story behind it is also interesting. It deserves to be expanded into a meaningful article in its own right. Dragons flight 16:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - should be expanded; it is certainly notable. But in its current form, merge/redirect appropriate. -- WCFrancis 16:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see this as an impotant step in the development of Big Bang theory, not a theory in it's own right. I also see it as deserving better than this. If people want to keep it, then fine. However, at the least let's rename from "... theory" to "... paper". --EMS | Talk 18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. EMS, I agree. I'd be in favour of a "merge" to the rest of the nucleosynthesis. Presumably because of a single sci.physics.research post, people think it refers to the CMB, and it would be good to have the correct information in the wiki. Yours, Sdedeo 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep (seems reasonable to merge). This has been around a long time now - I've come across it a couple of time over the years. Dlyons493 21:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a very important paper and a well known anecdote. Renaming to paper instead of theory would make sense. I oppose merging, because this article really deserves to be given the chance to be expanded. ManoaChild 22:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it's inaccurate, edit it! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close this VfD - I'm glad to have brought up the issue and called people's attention to this even if the consensus did not turn out the way I expected. However, I think that we can stick a fork into this VfD: it's done. --EMS | Talk 02:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I've heard of this one. I also heard a rumor that Hans Bethe was reportedly a little irked at having his name attached to a paper in which he wasn't involved just to served as a pun. :) — RJH 18:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to big bang nucleosynthesis Joke137 13:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not that it matters any more. This is one of those examples where a VfD results in a mediocre page being improved until it is actually a worthy read.–Joke137 03:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep

I just linked this article in to the Big Bang entry because someone changed "expansion and evolution" of the universe, there, to refer to expansion only. There are a lot of expanding models (for example an unstable static Einstein universe) (positive cosmo constant) perturbed so as to expand, or a de Sitter universe. The Big Bang was clinched by the CBR, but the near uniform primordial element abundance is a very strong point. Deleting this classic entry is like deleting Christopher Marlowe because Shakespeare eclipsed him. Pdn 16:01, 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 dealt as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful Benefits of the Mediterranean Diet.[edit]

Where to begin. Original research, very non-NPOV, and ends with a lovely bit of linkspam. DS 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ  15:32:05, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Looking at the title I was expecting some very obscure band. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising spam, OR, PoV. --GraemeL 16:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - clearly advertising --Outlander 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising, original research, POV and vanity all rolled into one neat package. -- WCFrancis 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above, and it's a copyvio too. [8] Jaxl | talk 17:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: copyvio, and we already have Mediterranean diet. My God, my God, I am weary, weary, weary, weary of unsolicited dietary advice. Smerdis of Tlön 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Alex.tan 18:20, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - blanked by creator.

Sandeep_Menon[edit]

The person of interest is of no importance 66.46.159.78 15:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- short article, no meaningful content --Mysidia (talk) 16:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hung pork 50[edit]

Part vanity, part nonsense. BJAODN it. ...Oh, and I'm the Olympic champion of it. KeithD (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Joke - and besides, I just got out of a cold shower. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another shot at BJAODN, but not funny enough --Outlander 16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just because you never win^W^W^W^W^W Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN. --GraemeL 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the above reasons --Mysidia (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do you want one that works or one that looks good in the shower? -- WCFrancis 17:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I say keep the page!. It is informative, a valuable tool, and has already given me ideas on how to make some extra cash! Thank you Wikipedia.
• Delete. Rubbish, not suitable for BJAODN. David | Talk 21:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense presumably contributed by a big...no let's not go there. DJ Clayworth 21:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STAY Why can't this be a legitimate sport? Why do you all feel it is rubish or nonsense? I thought the object of an encyclopedia was to bring to date and inform the readers of fact. I believe it should stay and is worthy to on Wikipedia web page.
• Delete A Google search for "Hung pork" comes up with 45 results mostly relating to pig meat as you would expect see [9] Not even its popularity amongst the sockpuppet community can save it. Capitalistroadster 21:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I must agree that you can not find it by typing in Hung Pork but if you type [Hung Pork 50http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22hung+pork+50%22&btnG=Search] you will find an interesting site. There was a great story about an old timer named Tripod. If anything I got a good laugh.
  • A visit to the Google search above showed 4 of 14 results for Hung Pork 50 confirming my belief that it isn't very notable. Capitalistroadster 23:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --*drew 07:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Agamemnon2 14:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NEVER DELETE IT!!! Leave the page! It is too good and if true very informative.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pindut[edit]

Delete Non-notable slang. Used by a small number of people only. Kontrovert 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kontrovert. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 17:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless non-worthy stuff.
• Delete as per User:Kontrovert. *drew 03:30, 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Burns[edit]

Essentially a memorial page, albeit one with some press attention. This is admittedly a close call, and the subject of some discussion at Recent Deaths, so consensus might as well be sought here. I'm indifferent, so I will abstainXoloz 16:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If there are five deaths in 22 years directly attributable to cheerleading, and this is one of them, I'm of the opinion that makes it notable. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I disagree that it is a memorial page: she is notable for how she died, and the article focuses on cheerleading, which led to her death. It doesn't tell us, for example, that she liked fluffy kittens and wanted to grow up to be a ballerina. Ground Zero 17:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is very sad; however, I have to say delete, I'm afraid. If dying while cheerleading is notable, it should have its own page. Many, many wonderful people have died in unusual ways, performing sports, hobbies, etc. Its a shame, but they can't all get a mention.Grayum 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad but nn. Martg76 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. KeithD (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment naturally I'll go with the consensus, but I would comment that it would be surprising if an article about a single incident comprising 20% of the deaths in any other activity were classed as non-notable Tonywalton  | Talk 17:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad, but not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In reply to Tonywalton, all that proves is that the rate of death from cheerleading is fairly low, and/or that the number of people who participate in it is also fairly low. Most individual deaths are not notable, unless the person who died is notable before their death, with few exceptions. Meelar (talk) 18:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Put Elsewhere. I tend to agree with Tonywalton on this. Cheerleading is a dangerous sport with the constant possibly for severe injury or death. Instead of giving it an entire page, could it be added to the cheerleading page already in existance? And then, other cases can be added as they occur, also. I think it's important to show that it's not just a bunch of girls shaking pom-poms for boys, but a sport where people can get hurt or die. Why not include it with cheerleading? K of slinky 20:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough to make CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS and all 3 network broadcasts. Also, as per Tonywalton, this represents a significant event within the sport. Future deaths in Cheerleading are sure to refer back to this event.

--Nicodemus75 20:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Facts are important, not fame. Just because I haven't heard of a story doesn't mean I should automatically dismiss it as not being noteworthy. It's an encyclopedia, not a copy of US Weekly. Let's get as much factual information together as possible...just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone else. Vanity and advertising should be deleted everytime, but not factual news like this. BigGuy219 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable, and made national news headlines, which creates notability. Wikipedia is not paper. -Satori 20:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, freak cheerleading accidents are rare and notable.Gateman1997 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep due to widespread media coverage surrounding this individual. Hall Monitor 22:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gateman1997.
• Keep this, per Gateman. Trollderella 00:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; the only reason this caused a media flap is because of the somewhat amusing nature of the otherwise unfortunate story. That doesn't really make someone particularly notable, but the sheer amount of media attention here would seem to make up some of the difference. -Splash 00:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her name is already mentioned in the main cheerleading article. The contents of her article should just fully be displayed in the main article. Although her death may have been tragic, I don't think she is notable enough to warrant her own article. (Notorious4life 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Sad but her name will barely be remembered in 6 months except by her family and friends. This belongs in Wikinews--Porturology 03:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect to some cheerleading article. No meed for a separate article on this girl. Uppland 05:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the kind of story that's in the news for a week or two and then fades from public interest. NN. MCB 07:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:NOT--nixie 07:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. The test is if her name is used to push (or see attempts to push) changes in cheerleading organizations, the schools, and/or the law. I suspect it might. If it drops from the headlines, and no effect is left, it can be deleted later. --rob 09:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the original editor of the article I assert it is not a memorial page as has been suggested in the nomination for deletion. I am an Australian. I have never seen live cheerleading and would not participate in such an activity and would actively discourage my daughter from cheerleading. I wrote the article when I became aware of the death and issues of notability on the Talk:Deaths_in_2005#Ashley_Burns. Before coming across the reference to her on that page I had never heard of her. At that stage, just over a week over her death, a simple google search showed 464 hits. Today, three days later, the same search shows 609 hits. Her death, reports of the funeral, reports of the potential impact on cheerleading stunts has received national coverage being reported several times in the Washington Post, on CNN, in the Houston newspapers as well as local Massachussets papers. It is my assessment that the threshhold of notability has been reached and that although there are limits to the Google test other articles have been kept with fewer hits. I have referenced Ashely Burns's death in the Cheerleading article but I do not think it appropriate that the article be taken over by details of this incident. As a passing observation on process I find it strange that the nominator of the VfD chose to abstain. I also think as a matter of courtesy original editors of articles should be advised if an article into which they have obviously put more than a passing amount of effort were notified via their talk page of the deletion debate. Because of subsequent edits to the article the nomination to VfD did not show up on my talk page and I nearly missed the debate.--AYArktos 10:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought the matter to VfD having following the discussion on Recent Deaths (and wishing for the widest possible consensus), but I truly have no firm opinion, so I abstained, which is not uncommon. I do not follow the practice of notifying contributors of VfD's on their creations, at least not when ample and capable defenses are otherwise provided by dispassionate parties. Although I continue to abstain, I believe some would argue that the Google Test is less appropriate here, on the theory that this is a transient phenomenon, and not likely to be widely remembered after a short time has elapsed. My suggestion that is a this memorial page follows from my belief that nothing is memorable about young Burns except her tragic death. Any other details (about cheerleading hazards generally) would belong at cheerleading or, possibly, the odd-sounding cheerleading hazards. On the other hand, I acknowledge that press makes one notable. Hence, I am undecided, and abstain as above. Xoloz 17:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.  Grue  19:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. There are many people who've made a far bigger impact on humanity that don't have Wikipedia pages. This is really just a news bite. tooki 16:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it: Anything which points up what a stupid, pointless, exclusively American and, above all, dangerous "sport" cheerleading is must be kept as a warning to others. Sportsfan 00:52 22August 2005.
• Keep. Clean it a little bit 'nuff said. LILVOKA 18:12, 22 August 2005.
• I'd say Keep, but I'm from Massachusetts, so I might be a bit biased. Acetic Acid 05:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, there was media coverage, but of the flash-in-the-pan variety. Friday (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please wikipedia is not paper and people could look for this here Yuckfoo 19:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - as another has said, this may lead to law or policy change in which case she is notable. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:35, 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 dealt as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secure. Protect. Inspect.[edit]

Seems to be an advert. DJ Clayworth 17:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And a copyvio. [10] Delete. Jaxl | talk 17:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Spam. Please. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly seems to be an ad and copyvio, from unregistered editor. -- WCFrancis 17:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.lord-voldemort.tk, Lord-voldemort.tk (and the content by any other alternate names)[edit]

Appears to be advertising, clearly it is not in-line with WP:NPOV, perhaps that can be fixed, but also cannot find any indication of notability.. not even in the Alexa top 100,000 --Mysidia (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the site the article had linked as the page [11] is ranking around 60,093 --Mysidia (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete certainly looks like advertising to me. How many million Harry Potter fansites out there? --Outlander 18:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising, vanity, fancruft. Martg76 23:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Alf 11:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other foot[edit]

Original research. DS 17:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's about a card game. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original resource, but perhaps Wikibooks or Wikisource would be a good home for this instead? - Thatdog 19:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is outside of the remit of Wikisource completely. Whilst Wikisource accepts original works, it specifically excludes original works that are made up by the contributors to the project themselves. Moreover, whilst a book on how to play card games would roughly fit within the "instructional and educational texts" remit of Wikibooks, Wikibooks tends to draw the line at subjects and disciplines that actually exist. See WP:FICT and Wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks for some guides to the division of labour amongst the projects. The best place for this material is on the author's own web site, or as an article submitted to a games magazine. Uncle G 20:39:58, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G, and it's just....well...a card game! -Splash 00:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. Alf 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. ESkog 00:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Sam[edit]

Hoax KeithD (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete patent nonsense. --Etacar11 17:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as above. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Added SD request to entry as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bag Of Treaties[edit]

I am fairly sure that this is a hoax - I can find no reference to such a comic elsewhere on the web, and the content of the article suggests that it is meant to be a humorous piece in and of itself. CapitalLetterBeginning 17:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Put quotation marks around "Bag of Treaties" and you will find nothing relating to the stuff the articles talking about. Delete hoax. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Stevey. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 03:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no further comment Groeck 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snoogol[edit]

Neologism with linkspam. DS 18:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 'delete neologism Spearhead 21:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll continue to enjoy 'snuggling', thanks. Alf 11:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation communication[edit]

Admittedly original research. Laura Scudder | Talk 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. - Thatdog 19:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gazpacho 19:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Alf 11:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten citizen[edit]

0 google hits for "forgotten citizen" + "andrew anderson". DS 18:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — this is either taken from an obscure book somewhere, or is just the ramblings of its author. -Splash 00:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/unverified. --Etacar11 03:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a bit late on this one, but I've greeted User:Forgottencitizen, pointed them here and mentioned the Skwik wiki. Alf 11:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry. Forgotten Citizen is an actual project, not some obsure idea from a book. Information is provided for people who are interested in the concepts of the albums produced by Forgotten Citizen. The project's website can be found on google by typing forgotten citizen or forgottencitizen.com.Forgottencitizen 04:36, 25 August 2005

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