< July 10 July 12 >

July 11[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Conti|✉ 02:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Socio-Nationalism[edit]

Neologism. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 July 11 (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 --Conti|✉ 03:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Amir farmanesh[edit]

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Farmanesh[edit]

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Power Rangers monsters --Conti|✉ 03:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Silo Monster[edit]

Monster from one episode of power rangers. Non-notable to the extreme.--InShaneee 00:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. --Conti|✉ 03:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffries Projects[edit]

No claim to notability. Just some buildings with a history of falling apart and housing drug dealers. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I disagree. Researchers will look here for information on topics that are encyclopedic, even if well below the bar of notability for paper encyclopediae. It is more helpful (and absolutely NOT harmful) to have such information preserved here. This would, of course, include references to the pertinent back issues of local papers. Where there is a lack of "quality", there is an invitation to improve the article, not to axe it. --- And while I'm on it, even if I were going to give "notability" more credit as a criterion for deletion, having witnessed a consensus to keep a fleeting web-meme, I would have to set the bar WELL below the threshold of a major public housing project in a major American city. Dystopos 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so a bad decision can be used to justify more? The issue is encylopedic and I don't see that quality in this article. I do see it for an article about the failed housing projects of the 1950s since they all had similar histories and problems. For a project to be encylopedic on its own it would have to be rather different then a general article. I suspect that you and I would agree that some VfD votes keep moving the bar lower and that may not be a good thing if it gets too low. Vegaswikian 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We probably would agree on some. In this case, I think a single housing project is likely to have as much verifiable, encyclopedic info as entire classes of Wikipedia entries both notable and not notable. The fact that the article does not yet contain much of it is an editorial weakness. Deletion doesn't help us. Wikipedia is blessed with the potential to become much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles like this should be left open to encourage the development of that potential. Dystopos 03:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

ZAG[edit]

Seems to be a hoax, google returns zero hits. PrologFan 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

MentalBot[edit]

Somewhere between "not notable" and "vanity". There are some 26000 hits for the Beehive Forums, which might merit an article (although not in my opinion). However, the bot itself gets very few hits, and none from the aforementioned article. Nothing links here, and only two edits -- from the same anonymous user -- grace the article. Avriette 01:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Add "nonsense" to above two reasons. Avriette 01:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I would have said ((db|inspid rubbish)) but probably people would have called me prejudiced, or a deletionist, or whatever. I figured it wasn't a speedy, and that the vfd would bear it out. Last time I thought something was completely deletable, 40mm grenade, the article was vastly expanded within a week. I am generally not generous. Avriette 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Phuk[edit]

hoax with zero (0) relevant Google hits ➥the Epopt 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep. --Conti|✉ 03:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wenlin Software for learning Chinese[edit]

This page is an ad for a particular piece of software from a particular company. It is not an encylopedic article. There are many other programs, including freeware and open source, which have a dictionary function etc. Mccready 01:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think if it was expanded a bit, and included more than just basic advertisement, I would change my vote. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was move to The ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons. --Conti|✉ 03:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

THE ABC OF SEX EDUCATION FOR TRAINABLES[edit]

Note: I found this nomination half completed, I'm following through lots of issues | leave me a message 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a hoax. I think it should be deleted. Did I do this right?--BirgitteSB July 7, 2005 23:51 (UTC)


-Its a real movie, google it up.


It does look to be real. The title and all caps and small amount of info made me think it was a hoax. I think it should be deleted if left as is, but it could also be done properly.--BirgitteSB July 8, 2005 02:42 (UTC)

. --The_stuart 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. --Conti|✉ 03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Orlaith McAllister[edit]

If only Big Brother contestants were required to use NewSpeak... Not notable person in a notable but execrable show. Aaron Brenneman 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sometimes contestants have valid reasons to separate articles. This isn't one of them. --Vamp:Willow 20:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 04:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

SillyGoth[edit]

Advert for non-notable website. Self-promotion from one of the site's admins (on every newpage edit screen: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)."), and an alexa rank of 753,889. Only 348 displayed hits[2], mostly where anybody can post, so it's hard to know how many of them are also self-promotion. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 04:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ghettoware[edit]

Non-notable neologism dic def du jour. 43 displayed hits[3] most of which appear to be other uses. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 00:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Japanenglish[edit]

Bonus non-notable neologism dic def du jour. About 200 displayed hits[4] but many if not most appear to be other uses. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Daniel[edit]

Not sure what to make of this. Definetly vainty though...Delete and vote for the new speedy deletions so we won't need to wait to delete pages like this. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hugh Daniel didn't write it. I did. I did it only because the FreeS/WAN project page referred to him. It also refers to John Gilmore.--Mcr314 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this comment can be investigated. DarthVader 03:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 00:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Pizza Delivery[edit]

Spongebob-cruft. Stub with no potential, describing a single episode of a TV show. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

60's rioting[edit]

This seems almost taken from a syllabus -- although I can't confirm that (tried Googling several parts).

In any case, I think it should be redirected to an existing list. List of riots perhaps.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this vote please? -- Natalinasmpf 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tv carnage[edit]

Basically just an advert JeremyA 01:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton brown[edit]

Vanity page, hoax. Being edited by several anon editors, one of whom removed {explain-significance}. --bainer (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) delete, what kind of ibanking does he do if he has time to write this nonsense... lots of issues | leave me a message 02:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiltyfied.org[edit]

Not notable website. Aaron Brenneman 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Macro project[edit]

By Richard B. Cathcart (thank you for getting an Id, please remember to Log in when you edit). I would call this original research but there isn't any. When you strip off the pretentious language all you are left with is "very large civil engineering projects can have ecological impacts". -- RHaworth 02:02, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and public policy[edit]

Highly charged POV couched in calm language, unlikely to ever be NPOV, and original research. Aaron Brenneman 02:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anderhage Incentive[edit]

A secret society that seems so secret that I can't find any verifiable information about it. Almost identical information at Rostrum Campus. Joyous (talk) 02:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AngelBear[edit]

and Angelbear and Angel Bear (All three the same content)

Seems to be a hoax/joke. Zero hits for Angel Bear "Ursus Angelus". Sample from the article: "The North American Angel Bear (Ursus Angelus Americanus), most commonly referred to as Ann Marie, injests large amounts of honey and other sweet items to help match her personality."--sounds pretty joke-y. Niteowlneils 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

CastleCops[edit]

This article was created by two (possibly one, as one is anonymous) known link spammers, one of which (User:Zhen-Xjell) works for the website in the article. Both editors have link spammed to this website on several articles. The article itself may be link spam. LGagnon 02:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

EbolaWorld[edit]

EbolaWorld is not a very well-known websbite; for example, looking up "Taco-Man", or "The George Bush Show" do not display any pages on ebolaworld.com Gafaddict 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This vote is Adamcik's only edit --Allen3 talk 11:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruairí[edit]

A dicdef of an Irish word. WP:WINAD. Already transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 03:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digestif[edit]

A dicdef of an French (and English? Sounds familiar, but doesn't matter since it's a dicdef either way) word. WP:WINAD. Already transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 03:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd love to see that vfd. Why don't you see if you can persuade the folks voting "keep" on splash conception to change their minds, according to the unambiguous guidelines. Kappa 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, there are people who are encouraging people to totally forget about the deletion guidelines by insisting that they should not apply to whole classes of things, like schools, but that does not change the policy. It only makes those people untrustworthy. Dictionary definitions are out. Dictionaries are not encyclopedias. That is totally unambiguous. However, don't let that stop you from arguing passionately that nothing should be deleted. Geogre 00:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if you didn't respond to counterexamples with personal attacks and misrepresentations. Kappa 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that you feel that those comments applied to you and that you felt that they were attacks. I wholeheartedly encourage people who disagree with deletion existing as a function of the site to try to get the policy changed. I wholeheartedly discourage people who do not get the policy changed to decide to disrupt deliberations by voting without regard to the policies. Geogre 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not one of the people who believe that "nothing should be deleted" so your comments are misdirected. Kappa 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These topics are unrelated. Kappa 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original four[edit]

Vanity? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 03:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

This page was VfD'd June 25 with the following vote by User:Zantastik, but it was never listed. Completing the nomination. No vote. -- Grev -- Talk 03:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

And so on... obviously the idea of "Existing Wikipolicy" is kind of an odd thing in the face of such new (and sometimes non-existing) articles. -Harmil 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, I sincerely fail to grasp what contention you are making. Seeaxid 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep--individual sets are notable (the same is not true for most individual cards). Meelar (talk) 14:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, potential for expansion. Kappa 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redir all, or have one single article for all MTG card sets. Also, if it's unlikely to be included in Wikipedia 1.0, why go on at length? My ass has "potential for expansion"--doesn't make it encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 15:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Harmil. Almafeta 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mr Bound 23:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Zero significance outside of the game itself. -R. fiend 03:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet there are about a bajillion articles with: "Zero significance outside of the game itself" about Pokémon to be found here: Category:Pokémon. They are all connected through categories. If this were to be merged, would it not be appropriate to also merge all of the other 'expansion sets' (or even all of the articles in the Category:Magic: The Gathering which have "Zero significance outside of the game itself"). Yet merging all of them would be utterly impractical as the page would end up so enormously large and cluttered. Furthermore, already at the top of Magic: The Gathering it is said: "This page is 37 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." So while it may seem more appropriate to have all of the information about every one distinct topic each in their own single article, for topics which a large amount of information, this is simply impractical. Seeaxid 04:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, but if merged, merge to an article on the expansion sets, not to the main article, which is large enough already. -Sean Curtin 06:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge to one article per triad of sets (they release one major and two minor sets in sequence, all three in the same world). Radiant_>|< 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough, not running out of paper. Unfocused 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. If the article is merged, would have to merge all expansion articles, bloating the main Magic article. GeeJo 05:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging all the expansion article in to a single expansion article might solve that problem. -R. fiend 06:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or it may give a slighlty less gigantic article. Many of the other expansion set articles have much information in them, this one, as a few of the other ones, does not. However, does it not seem logical that this article has potential to expand to the extent of some of the larger expansion set articles, for example, Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering)?
      • Besides, isn't this votes for deletion. Wouldn't it be better to propose merging them here: Talk:Magic: The_Gathering sets Seeaxid 09:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, keeping the system as is, and Radiant!'s idea of merging them in triads, seem the most logical, but, I really think its pertinent to take the discussion to Talk:Magic: The_Gathering sets (I don't think this is an appropriate place to discuss it) or if not that, then we should keep and expand. Seeaxid 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, perhaps it would be better to take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, that is to say, that such an action would probably be in conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, and let me quote: "the goal is to create articles on each and every Magic: The Gathering set."(my bold). This "vote" does not belong here, it should be discussed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Seeaxid 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expansion sets have enough notable material to belong in their own pages. Abitrarily merging some seems counterintuitive. -- Norvy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    One doesn't even need a 'vfd' to have an article merged, perhaps Wikipedia:request for comment would have been more appropriate. Seeaxid 08:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand.  Grue  19:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is WoTC's core business, and each MTG set is the same as a publisher printing a best-selling book or album.  The Steve  06:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: This discussion, as Seeaxid said, does not belong here. Current policy is to eventually have a well-developed page for each expansion set. Andrew Levine 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: Many of the M:tG expansions have well developed pages and this one just needs a little love. -- Nis81 13:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Most of the expansions seem to have pages, and this doesn't seem much different from having an article on a best-selling book Salsb 20:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xhavok[edit]

Vanity Page Atratus 04:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • At present, vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD and note additionally that out-of-process changes have recently been made to these (though they still don't include vanity) -Splash 15:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightly.net[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability, it just has a lot of message board politics and such. Alexa traffic rank 104,302. Wikipedia is not a web directory. TheCoffee 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 04:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. -Splash 04:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, too much politics but nightly IS one of the oldest online SW communities. -Klestrob44 05:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nightly.net[edit]

Forumcruft AND Star Wars cruft. It's a twofer! FCYTravis 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Kahn's Law[edit]

Original research? "Kahn's law" gets 72 Google hits, none of which seem to be related. This is the only article by the author. TheCoffee 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 04:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten into an encyclopedic article on the main Google hit; "that the effectiveness of a committee is inversely proportional to the number of participants and the time spent deliberating". I doubt that an encyc article exists in the future for that, however. But I do wonder how it might apply to VfD... -Splash 04:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Splash. -mysekurity 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student neologism. JamesBurns 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable law. Don't even know if the law is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E5_Series_Shinkansen[edit]

There is no such train as the E5 series, and so this page can only be considered a hoax. Dave 04:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trusting the user above (Dave), this is a hoax. DarthVader 05:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with above. -mysekurity 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is indeed No Such Train. - Thatdog 08:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Userfy. Scimitar parley 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Illustrating a point[edit]

Contentless WP:POINT Whig 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I totally don't understand what point this is trying to make. It doesn't really make sense (but wait, is that a bureaucrat who wrote it?). And I'm not aware of any stub notices we use on Wikipedia namespace pages. In any case, I don't think deletion is the way to go. It needs time to be proposed as policy, or whatever the author was intending to do with this (which I'd like to hear). Userfy for now. --Dmcdevit 04:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy with haste. Bureaucrat or not, this has no business in articleWikipedia: space yet! -Splash 04:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (I guess). As in: move to a subpage of his userpage -mysekurity 05:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out to Splash that this is not in the article space, but the Wikipedia space. Still userfying is the way to go. -Mgm|(talk) 10:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you are quite right. The trouble with editing past dawn. Comment corrected. -Splash 13:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WP:POINT if the definition is really considered necessary. Otherwise, delete. --FreelanceWizard 10:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violation of WP:POINT. ~~~~ 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violation of WP:POINT. JamesBurns 10:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redir to WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 13:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete COULD be a violation of WP:POINT, except I can't see that a point is being made. Friday 14:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what exactly is being disrupted here? People throw around WP:POINT way too liberally. --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. User:Ed Poor had previously left a note in his summary when he added "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Illustrating a point" to the WP:POINT which read "which I shall now write - bear with me" [7]. It's clear that this is a work in progress, trying to create a "Lead by Example" proposal. Also, three people, including the VfD creator, have voted delete, stating that this was in violation of WP:POINT. Could these people please explain what they meant by this? What point is Ed trying to prove? I don't see how suggesting that people lead by example could possibly be in violation of anything at all. — Asbestos | Talk 13:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not done developing this. Stubs aren't supposed to be deleted simply because they are short. "I'm about to use this article to make a point, er, I mean ILLUSTRATE a point." There are many ways you can simultaneously (a) do something constructive and (b) use it as an example to teach somebody. "Here, let me show you what I mean." This is the opposite of disrupting to make a point: it's using an example of something good to encourage others to do good. Why is this so hard to understand? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FINISHED WRITING THE ARTICLE YET. I've been busy:
    1. Mediating
    2. Getting new features into the software
    3. Defending NPOV policy
    4. Helping clueless newbies
    5. Stopping personal attacks

If you didn't like the article, why didn't you leave me a note on my user talk page, instead of vfd'ing behind my back? And before you say "the rules permit it", let me remind you about Wikipedia:gaming the system. Uncle Ed 18:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not gaming anything, I think the article is inappropriate in Wikispace at least in its present form. Please feel free to Userfy it yourself and develop it into something worthwhile. No personal insult intended. Whig 22:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • None taken. Thanks. All I ask, is that if someone userfies it, they leave a note somewhere so I can find it. Uncle Ed 12:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. If you aren't done, why is it linked from WP:POINT? As is, I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. Superm401 | Talk 18:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Weeman the fisherman[edit]

It looks like a hoax and gets no hits on Google:[8] Seeaxid 04:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"'Do not delete'" This is legit User:CitadelWeeman05 05:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC) (No such user, edit actually by article creator 67.172.181.134)

Delete Well i did put it up for deletion Jobe6 04:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Based on real life events involving two college students from both coasts taunting each other over a girl SilverSnake020

  • Delete per other delete votes. --Trovatore 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. Thue | talk 19:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah nashold[edit]

While probably true, this does not appear to meet any standards of notability. Looks like vanity. A google search only turns up her resume, and other non-notable references. Delete. Dmcdevit 04:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn vanity. Orphaned, so not really needed. -mysekurity 05:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --TheMidnighters 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 00:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She is not famous yet, but wearable computers, her main field, is about to explode, the use of wearable technology in dance (her other field) could get very big and her work in both fields is excellent.see http://ambint.com/LNCS1/preface-toc.pdf (Unsigned vote by Mickeyyahoo (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General any topic[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. Nothing links to it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Alexa ranking 927,588. TheCoffee 05:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why do people put so much effort into this forumcruft? the wub "?/!" 08:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 14:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Phillips[edit]

Autobiography. Delete as vanity Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn vanity. -mysekurity 05:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. DarthVader 07:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Claims subject exhibited at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. If this can be verified it would make him notable. Pburka 23:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/self-promotion, google hits just say he gave talks at these places, I think. Doesn't make him a notable artist, in my opinion. --Etacar11 00:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). There are some merge votes, but they don't specify a target. Therefore, I will just call this one an outright keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gak[edit]

A band who only played one show and that was at a party? Sounds like a glorified jam session - clearly non-notable, despite the obvious notability of participants XmarkX 05:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, an improvised band that existed for a few hours. --TheMidnighters 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable jam. JamesBurns 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as a band page at all, and once again I feel I need to ask JamesBurns: what is your threshold for a notable jam? A major event with unarguable super-stars of corporate rock isn't notable? Pray, what is? Elvis returning from the dead to jam with the Statue of Liberty?!
This event was clearly an item for the rock-n-roll history books even if you don't like these performers (as I do not). -Harmil 12:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldnt be notable - it wouldnt be true. Everyone knows that Elvis is alive and working at my local burger franchise, so he couldnt possibly be dead. JamesBurns 06:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything celebrities do is not inherently worthy of an encyclopedia article, and I just don't see the possibility of expanding this to be a real article. The info can be added to the real bands/performers articles under "trivia." Soundguy99 14:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soundguy99. Dcarrano 14:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere or keep, notable incident. Kappa 15:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely a stick-on keeper jamesgibbon 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "the gak" hetfield gets only 5 hits, including WP mirrors. The jam may be notable somewhere (probably a la Soundguy99), but this name seems to be a non-notable neologism. Niteowlneils 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one show? --Carnildo 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely notable band members. Pburka 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one night that doesn't need it's own article. --Etacar11 00:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 13:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence for continued existance of this band. Yes, members are notable, but this doesn't make everything they do automatically notable. Friday 14:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC]. Since we cannot merge and redirect to each notable member, it should be kept as small article. A small article such as this can be mentioned in each participant's page. This is an example of where a "perfect article" in Wikipedia would necessarily be very small. Unfocused 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge somewhere. Despite the notability of the participants, event doesn't warrant its own article. carmeld1 00:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC.  Grue  19:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Jinian 20:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American political shift[edit]

Article is a dicdef and there is no evidence that the meaning of the term is what the article says. "American political shift" can mean anything. Yahoo search on "American political shift" with the quotes returns 11 hits of which 4 are Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors, and the other 7 have no relation at all to the definition given in the article. Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I heard about this before; perhaps it should get a clearer name, but I think we should definately keep and expand it. Djadek 08:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--2 reasons. First of all, this isn't an actual term used in political science or history, it's a neologism--the search engine results show this, and I've never heard it despite a political science degree and years of inspired nerdiness. Secondly, it grossly oversimplifies a hundred years of U.S. history, and is thus quite inaccurate. I would vote keep if this were a notable inaccuracy, but it is not. Meelar (talk) 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neologism; Merge into Politics of the United States, which does have historical info such as this. Dcarrano 14:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Realignment. Don't merge, this info is covered better elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:53, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Redirect to realignment which is the common name for this subject. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a redirect as suggested by Christopher Parham and Capitalistroadster. Note: Realignment actually redirects to Realigning election right now. Kaibabsquirrel 00:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, shouldn't the article be called 'American realignment'?80.61.232.49 09:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eventually the page might warrant being broken up, but right now it's best to keep them in one place, since all the examples provide additional context to each other. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:07, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom gaffe[edit]

Doesn't sound particularly notable. Greatest claim to fame seems to be managing a youth venue somewhere. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GTA: San Andreas Guide[edit]

An attempt to write a video game guide. Not an encyclopedic topic, but the author might want to look into Wikibooks. Don't know if they accept video game guides. Rhobite 06:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Kaibabsquirrel 06:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark 06:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would have voted to transwiki to Wikibooks, but there are about ten different guides on Wikibooks on various parts of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Cyclone49 06:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cyclone49. I have personally seen the books, in response to Rhobite. Perhaps Thankingcobra would like to look there? (and maybe at some of the wikitutorials?). -mysekurity 07:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, GameFAQs calling? --Madchester 07:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the wikibooks already exist and this adds nothing to them yet. Gently inform author about Wikibooks and why game guides don't belong here.- Mgm|(talk) 10:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pending creation of a WikiGamer project. Almafeta 21:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - Agent003
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was userfy, presumably, make this the userpage of User:RyanSaotome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Saotome[edit]

Vanity, created by user:RyanSaotome. Not notable, see also Wikipedia:Autobiography.Thue | talk 06:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. I also sugguest said subject move article to his own userpage, where it would be better served, as he currently lacks one, it would be a much more appropriate place for such an article. -mysekurity 07:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Suggestion by Mysekurity is a good idea. DarthVader 07:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Mysekurity. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Has edited some other articles afterwards, so not here just for just the vanity. Mgm|(talk) 10:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy That's what user pages are for. --JB Adder | Talk 11:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Dcarrano 14:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy that's what it's for. --Etacar11 00:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

M.R.M. Parrott[edit]

Appears to be reproduce article, but some time has passed.

  • Please see discussion which refers to another VfD. Has he become notable enough since then?
  • Please vote based only upon his notability, not his likability.
  • And, uncharacteristically enough - Abstain.

Aaron Brenneman 06:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (Parott, if you read this, have you considered moving the information to your user page?) Djadek 09:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JamesBurns, someday I'd like to know your specific threshold for non-notable. That aside, MRM is notable at least in terms of one of his books. -Harmil 11:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My threshhold is the same for most users that appear not to agree with your stand on this ie. Djadek and Dcarrano so far. JamesBurns 06:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe he is... Djadek 15:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone who fancies themselves an author and/or gets a book published should be on WP. This fella appears to have only one book on Amazon, and it's ranked #2,279,737. Seems like a smart dude, but, delete, unless there's some proof that anyone is really buying these books. Dcarrano 20:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The article is about a character that is only used in Macintosh computers. Even the title is not properly visible on non-Macintosh computers. Useless article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Apple Symbols (typeface). This can be counted as a Delete, if needed. Delete. --Blu Aardvark 07:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page isn't relevant to that article. The Apple Symbols (typeface) article is about a specific font which provides a wide variety of previously unusable symbols to Mac users. The "Apple" symbol is a character which is available in a large number of Macintosh fonts, but is not present in "Apple Symbols". --Murgatroyd 07:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article title is in the Unicode private use area, and so its appearance depends entirely on what font you're using (I see it as a Euro symbol with an extra line). It's completely worthless as a redirect, since nobody who isn't using a Mac will be able to type it. --Carnildo 07:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Macincruft. - Thatdog 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The private use Unicode sequence for "Apple logo" is "F000". I'm not sure what this one is, but it's certainly non-notable. -Harmil 11:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Neither IE nor Firefox on most PCs can understand the symbol (I just see a question mark). However, if there's a relevent article, I think it should re-direct, as I can imagine other Mac users typing the symbol into the search box to see if there's a relevent article (and to test Wikipedia's capabilities). — Asbestos | Talk 14:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to some generic Mac article somewhere jamesgibbon 15:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not look like it can be expanded so its probably a dicdef. Either transwiki or redirect. Vegaswikian 04:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect so noone will have trouble seeing an interrogative mark on a PC, and Mac Users curious to see something about  will have a redirect. ATMB 12:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Apple typography#The Apple logo which describes the codepoint's use on the Mac platform. This could be reevaluated if other significant uses of the same codepoint are identified. Carnillo: No, it is not completely useless since people who are using a Mac will be able to type it. This is in line with the policy on redirects (i.e. "if someone may find it useful") David Remahl 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect. No non-Mac computer can render this, unless you install the Mac version of whatever your default OpenType font (such as Times New Roman or, in this case, Arial), and even that manual quick-fix locks out Linux, Unix, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the URL. Say I link a friend to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EF%A3%BF. ooooh yeah, they're really gonna want to click on a link that looks like geek crap. This page would be fine if it showed a giant picture of the symbol for those who can't see it--like Ankh does--but as it is, no, just... no. Too narrow. Well, I'll vote to keep if I get to start an accompanying article about ÿ :) --yes, that's the Windows symbol, which even my beloved Firefox can't display. Only a certain percentage can see it, heck, not even all IE users at that, so it too would make a weak and "discriminatory" page, just like this. --and what would this page ever be beyond a stub? I mean, it's not like @ where you can talk about its long and varied history and myriad uses... GarrettTalk 08:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless trivia not warranting an article even if the damn symbol did show up. carmeld1 03:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbotika[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable dance non-craze. the wub "?/!" 07:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverifiable by its own admission. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 14:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two things:
    1. There aren't any artists who use the Beatbotika style--or at least any notable ones--so it's of no use to anyone;
    2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Doesn't matter how much the contributor thinks it'll be a craze, it shouldn't be here. --JB Adder | Talk 04:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Börner[edit]

I just finished this nomination. No vote by me. --Dmcdevit 07:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Delete. Icelight 6 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Icelight. Dcarrano 14:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bar DJs are not notable, unless they happen to also be the President or something. Almafeta 21:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, it sounds like he's just some guy who works in bar. --Etacar11 00:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete content, redirect/disambig (I'm regarding redirect and disambig as essentially the same thought here, since a disambig is really just multiple redirects on the same page). Scimitar parley 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan[edit]

I'm marking this VfD because I'm pretty sure it's a "vanity term", meaning it's a word invented based on someone the author knows personally. It is not a notable term and references a specific person. (preceding unsigned comment by Mipadi 08:09, July 3, 2005 (UTC))

  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE and REDIRECT to The Heroic Legend of Arslan. 67.68.64.81 09:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 67.68.64.81, even though his conflicting vote is the standard example. -Harmil 11:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "delete and redirect" is for once correct. The contents of this article should have been speed-deleted, and a redirect to a relevant article should then have been created. No license infringement involved, see? - Mustafaa 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am not mistaken, Arslan is Turkish for "lion". There are a few people and a few places with Arslan as part of their name. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be appropriate? Redirecting to a modern fantasy novel seems like a case of systemic bias. Uppland 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good point - I should have checked the link. In that case, delete and disambig. - Mustafaa 18:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

I vote to keep, since arslan is derived from persian Arsalan. Which means Lion, it was adopted by Turks, hence Iranian or Persian Kings with the name pre turkishi migration and also found in the Shahnameh the Persian epic. I vote keep it. --Aryan 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FinalFantasy123[edit]

Vanity, non-notable flash artist. Was subject of previous VfD with Delete consensus. Delete again. Thatdog 08:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable artist. JamesBurns 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatdog. Dcarrano 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy since it is recreated content. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a recreation. The previous nomination was never listed in the log, meaning it was never seen, or closed, or deleted, or recreated. --Dmcdevit·t 21:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalipps[edit]

Non-notable rapper with a very high opinion of himself. the wub "?/!" 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

7 Colored Fish[edit]

This may as well stand for all the pages I nominated yesterday, for the following reasons:

  1. The cards that these are written about are hardly notable. Many are not even famous within the Yu-Gi-Oh! community.
  2. The old "if every card had an article..." line holds true here.
  3. These articles have all been created by the same IP address. If several people made them, I could possibly accept it, but this person (or small group) have created all of these short, uninformative articles.
  4. The XYZ Series already has its own article, so the following pages may as well be merged with it:
    • X-Head Cannon
    • XY-Dragon Cannon
    • XYZ-Dragon Cannon
    • XZ-Tank Cannon
    • Y-Dragon Head
    • YZ-Tank Dragon
    • Z-Metal Tank
  5. An article already exists for each set, so we could always merge some of the more useful content into those articles, eg 7 Colored Fish into Metal Raiders.
  6. The creator appears to be somewhat biased towards WATER- and FIRE-type monsters. If these articles remain, there should at least be an even spread over the wide variety cards that could possess their own article.
  7. And finally, is it likely that Yu-Gi-Oh! fans will come to an encyclopedia of all places to find information on individual cards? If they are, should we begin reviewing cards? This appears to be the direction in which we are heading, if we do not act.

I made those articles and I am willing to talk about the problem. Maybe we could work things out so it benefits both of us.

Talk then; I have laid out my point of view. And you should really create an account if you embark on such a courageous project. Setokaiba 07:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your idea about reviewing cards would be interesting.

<Falls over backwards in a very animé-style way.> Setokaiba 17:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we start reviewing cards?

  • Strong delete for this, and all other individual weapons in Yu-Gi-Oh (or any other anime) that have their own articles. It's fancruft, I tell you. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
  • Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Delete --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable fancruft. I dunno how Yu-Gi-Oh! cards work, but if this thing belongs in any sort of series of cards, can't you just merge it in? Individual cards do NOT need their own articles. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's not a bad idea. DrachenFyre 01:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is neither a TCG card database nor a place for card reviews. Only cards that contribute majorly to the Yu-Gi-Oh! storyline deserve their own articles. Riddle | Talk 07:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual cards are not notable.  Grue  19:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A-B Porn[edit]

Finished this nomination, no vote by me. --Dmcdevit 08:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. By its own admission, this article is about a neologism that has not become widespread -- wikipedia is not a neologism-spreader. -- Zantastik talk 03:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. BTW: "Made famous in the Christopher Walken classic "Brainstorm" (1983). It was to be the last film that Natalie Wood appeared in." Didn't she appear in one of the new Star Wars films as well? - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to Natalie Portman perhaps? Natalie Wood tragically drowned in 1981. JamesBurns 10:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're absolutely right. No clue as to how I mixed them up.... - 131.211.210.10 12:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup This is a notable neologism, and keep in mind that neologisms are "acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape". I'm not sure what the Google hit count on A-B Porn should be before it's considered a notable neologism, but for porn-related slang, it's up there.
  • Delete. The podcast landscape is usually just a miniscule fraction of the public landscape. --Scimitar 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Google test for porn is really not reliable; look at the excerpts from the websites listed, most of them are nonsensical. Dcarrano 14:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Neologism. Also, I'm very confused. Somehow, the term was "made famous" in a movie from 1983, but "was first mentioned during a podcast". Either the iPod has been around for much, much longer than I was aware, or this entry is pretty bs-y. jglc | t | c 14:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

ACC_Climate_Control[edit]

This article is merely a commercial advertisement. (preceding unsigned comment by JunkCookie 21:57, June 19, 2005 UTC)

  • Delete, ad for non-notable company. Dcarrano 14:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment how big does a company need to be to have an article? Vegaswikian 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 11:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Acushnet Company[edit]

It even reads like an advertisement. Delete. Sholtar 04:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ad Dsmdgold 01:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm sorry, but this company seems notable. History21
  • Keep As a major employer of Southeastern Massachusetts with a long and notable history it should be kept. It just needs to be rewritten as to not sound like an advertisement. Mike (Unsigned 1st-3rd edit by IP 12.25.34.133. ~Mbsp)
  • Delete Advertisement, not encyclopedic. Djadek 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable sportswear manufacturer. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Can I please convince the deletionists to at least do some casual research before they point and shoot? per 12.25.34.133 who, anonymous or no, is right on the money (my mother worked for them for a while, and I heard about them constantly growing up) -Harmil 10:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worked the aritcle and added some more detail. These folks have been making the #1 golf ball in pro golf for 57 years. How are they not notable, exactly? -Harmil 11:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of them and I'm not even a golfer. --Calton | Talk 11:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather see it become a start to the presently missing Fortune Brands article, until space issues force otherwise. Fortune Brands is an NYSE co.--this is just one subsidiary. Let's start big and work our way down. I've heard of Titleist even tho' I'm NOT a golfer, but I'm guessing Acushnet is only a small part of their history. Niteowlneils 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also looks like the first version was copyvio and should be dealt with accordingly. Niteowlneils 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This subsidiary is quite notable on its own, and keep in mind that Fortune Brands is just an umbrealla holding company. They own Tequila companies, shoe makers, office supply companies, lock makers, bathroom fixture makers, etc. Because of this weird diversity, I think it makes sense to have one article for the holding company and one for each major categorical business unit (such as Acushnet, which is the sporting goods division), and possibly even one each for the really well-known individual brands that we already have like Titleist, Jim Beam, Swingline, and DeKuyper. Yes, a company can be so huge and diverse that it can be worth several entries in Wikipedia. Take Ford for example, though I will grant that Ford is "F" on they NYSE where Fortune Brands has to slum with the two-letter "FO".... -Harmil 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the holding company stub, Fortune Brands has been created. I think when you see that page, and think about the fact that they employ 32,000 people world-wide, the idea of an article for this division will not seem quite so odd. -Harmil 04:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an ad for a company I've never heard of. --BradBeattie 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - golf puts me into a coma, but even I know about this golf ball company --Mothperson cocoon 00:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Titleist is a brand even a non-golfer has heard of (or seen the ads for). Uppland 12:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 13:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC) very well, keep per the below. Radiant_>|< 09:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP You've got to be kidding me. A hundred year old company, one of the most important companies in the game of Golf, and someone is seriously considering deleting it? Titleist golf ball production has only been going on since 1932. Yes, it was bought by a larger company, but only after establishing a very notable history of its own first. Unfocused 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not an ad. It is about an important company. Fg2 07:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable company, not advertisment enough to make this delete-worthy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas 1[edit]

  • Delete:too little content ~ Dpr 6 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
  • 'delete - dito, tempted to do a speedy deletion. andy 6 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, is now expanded, but still needs help with formatting and tone. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I made it into a more traditional stub. This is a pretty significant first, and I really don't see how it could be considered non-notable, even on the first day after its introduction. -Harmil 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, We have articles on Sharpie and other such things. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, if they put a microchip and an electric motor in a Sharpie, I'd write the article! :) -Harmil 15:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (Toto song)[edit]

I finished this nom that was never listed here. No vote from me. --Dmcdevit 09:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

delete/merge to Toto (band) - I think this small of an article is not necissary. in the main Toto article, there could be a mention of its appearance in GTA:VC, but this small of an article is not necessary. At least not for now. mysekurity 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the criteria for a song if "Africa" can't make it? -Harmil 10:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. #1 song on Billboard charts in 1993 see [9] . Capitalistroadster 10:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really much of an article, forgettable 80s song. JamesBurns 10:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Forgettable? The darn song still gets stuck in my head to this day Youngamerican 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleaup Gorrister 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redir. I like the song, but two sentences? Keep it in Toto (band) until/unless it's ready to stand on its own. Niteowlneils 14:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC) or as BD2412 said, the album.[reply]
That said, at some point we need to decide if WP's main goal is to be a timeless, universal encyclopedia, or just a db of today's pop[mostly Western]-culture (I wouldn't be surprised if we have more articles on fictional alien races from the StarWars extended universe than real human races/languages on Earth). If it's the former, I'd like to volunteer as the first paid full-time WP editor. If it's the latter, I may find something else to do with those 60-70 hours per week. Niteowlneils 17:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be assuming that real things and fictional ones are fighting over limited resources, which is not true in an unlimited electronic encyclopedia. WP should aim to be an encyclopedia of all culture, and western/pop culture should be kept not just on its own merits but precisely because it preserves wikipedia's potential coverage of non-western/non-popular cultures. The kids in Africa should be able to use wp to tell each other and the world about whatever songs they are listening to. Kappa 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And how many dollars have you donated to Wikipedia to build new DB servers? And how many non-Western pop-cultural articles have you contributed to or voted to keep? Theoretical/idealistic and real-world limits are very different. And a merge/redir to the band or album article would allow the "...kids in Africa should be able to use wp to tell each other and the world about whatever songs they are listening to..." to do just that. Niteowlneils 20:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and hard to forget. Kappa 14:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable song but only if expanded. Otherwise merge with the band article until someone gets around to writing a full article. 23skidoo 15:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge with an article on the album from whence it came. Notable song. -- BD2412 talk 15:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable song, emblematic of the 80's. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Merge unless the album or band page is too busy for it, then keep would be acceptable. And damn you all for giving me an ear worm. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per capitalistroadster (Sorry, forgot to sign my vote Chuck 18:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC))
  • A notable song, but nothing here. Redirect, unless expanded into a semi decent article, in which case keep. -R. fiend 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and, I hope, expand. An important 80s song and worthy of an expanded article. Moncrief 06:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect unless expanded. -Sean Curtin 06:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The song is older than I am, but I love it. Keep and expand. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left my brains down in Africa. Erm, I mean, keep, notable song. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable song of the 80's. --YUL89YYZ 20:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know a depressing large number of people who enter into ecstatic trances when this song plays. Xoloz 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable song, per Capitalroadster. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Great song, but is there really much more to be said about it? (cf. Billie Jean, another 1983 hit) Unless the article can be expanded to something more subtantial, it doesn't really seem to warrant its own entry. ----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aitsu[edit]

Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The brushback.com[edit]

Delete, self-advertising/non-notable website Atratus 10:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the Alexa ranking is 182,470. Not notable, delete. --Dmcdevit 10:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 10:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, unless someone can prove otherwise. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dmcdevit -Harmil 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  DO NOT DELETE---this is a growing site that should be included
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 SSD (band). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al Barile[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander raftopoulos[edit]

I'm sure Grampa Raftopoulos was a great guy, and it's too bad he died so relatively young, but he wasn't notable. DS 02:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Requiescat in pacem Alexander Dsmdgold 23:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not important Dr Ingel 01:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Malathion 2 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia isn't a memorial and the article doesn't indicate he's done anything noteworthy. I'm tempted to speedy for a lack of useful content. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, genealogy. --Etacar11 00:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jack[edit]

I sent this to vote because the article to me doesn't say anything extra "real" about this phrase. If it's a valid phrase, then a vote shall decide, no? Antares33712 21:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, found 628,000 Google hits for this article. DCUnitedRock23
  • Delete. If anything, the phrase should be "I'm alright Jack" or "I'm all right Jack". However, this might be better off in Wiktionary, if that handles phrases. As it is, the article struggles to say anything of value, and the usage sentence is very contrived. The only thing that might rescue it is some etymology. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable lists it (using 'all right', along with a Naval equivalent ("Pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm inboard") and an Australian equivalent - "Jack system"). If you feel it necessary to keep, then I'd suggest that those snippets are added. Noisy | Talk 17:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • In the UK, it is quite normal for "alright jack" to be used to describe things other than oneself. "I'm alright jack" may have been the original example, but the phrase has migrated to become a general term, and usage as in "They don't care, it's a safe seat, the MP is alright jack" (in an informal context) is common. Hyphz
    • Wiktionary accepts articles on idioms, such as bob's your uncle, containing etymologies, examples of their usages, and explanations of their meanings. Uncle G 12:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary It'd be more at home there, instead of in the encyclopedia. --JB Adder | Talk 11:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable stereotype of an attitude. Kappa 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very, very common British phrase of the post-war era. Perhaps should be moved to "I'm All Right Jack" with a disambig to the Peter Sellers/Ian Carmichael film of the same name. The film may be slightly better known outside the UK than the phrase and I have no real opinion on how the ambiguity should be resolved except that one of them should be primary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Radiant_>|< 13:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per TonySidaway. Xoloz 03:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanecer de sol[edit]

I hereby nominate this page for deletion.

  • (nomination by anon 152.163.100.202, but I second it - vanity. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC))
  • Delete: POV, promotional --Tomunist 16:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable, vanity, pov. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A popular guild in Guild Wars". Delete. Meelar (talk) 14:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMC KOSHY[edit]

Appears to be vanity, I've pulled it of CAT:CSD and put it here, just to be sure. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 10:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unknown person. I did a google search and came up with nothing on any such person. Manik Raina 11:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified/vanity. --Etacar11 00:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English Twister[edit]

Vanity page for 18 year old wrestler - not notable --Porturology 03:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think it is a hoax, and even if it weren't, it is not notable. -- Marcika (properly listing the article on VfD.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guildwars - Warrior[edit]

Game guide. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non encyclopedic. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non encyclopedic. The Guild Wars article already has a brief overview of this class, we do not need detailed guides for video games here. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson burger[edit]

Hoax. Search for "Johnson burger" idaho = 11 Google hits, none relevant [10] --Uppland 11:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete'. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless a proper reference source can be found it must be treated as a hoax. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ("Johnson burger" "Thomas Johnson") returns zero relevant links. —Tokek 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoaxier than a hoaxy thing. KeithD 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ASERTH[edit]

Promotion/Original research. Quote from the linked website "was released in July 2005". If it gains any usage then it may be worth an article, but not yet. andy 11:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable, also gives no information whatsoever, seems more of a personal rant than anything else. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator. —Tokek 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much as I like this kind of things. Agree that it may be re-created if the layout spreads- LjL 00:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spazz Inc.[edit]

Advertising/nn. NSR (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Timeline Carter[edit]

Non-notable blogger, ZERO goggle hits for "Dave Timeline Carter} Gorrister 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Vanity. --Durin 14:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn, alexa 1,819,729 for referenced site -Harmil 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC) div>[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scannicchio[edit]

Delete: Appears to be vanity. --Durin 14:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bennett (manga artist)[edit]

added by Morwen to VFD on July 11, not added properly before then

  • Delete While I have nothing against the topic, this article is not noteworthy and functions primarily as a personal advertisement. --Slac 9 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
  • Comment.Keep and Expand. Actually, I'm the guy who created the article, and I tend to be a critic of Steve Bennett; I also revised the Studio Ironcat article, so trust me, it's not advertisement. I had the article stubbed, as I was trying to find some others out there who have better knowledge than I of his pre-Ironcat years (he apparently worked extensively as an animator in Japan). He is well-known (and a divisive figure) amongst the anime/manga communities, so there is a basis for his entry.--Mitsukai 14:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, just revised the article. Still leaving it as a stub, since I think it can be fleshed out more, but didn't want to add too much (lest I inadvertently bias the article). A peer review on it would be appreciated. I also added the information on his newest projects.--Mitsukai 15:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your expansion, but I still hold my original vote. There are many other divisive figures and entrepreneurs in the comic industry who have tried to make a mark on culture and failed - and would appreciate a Wikipedia advertisement. --Slac 18:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, not trying to create an advertising for him (I'd be the last person to do so), but I can see where you're coming from on that.--Mitsukai 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not an advertisement. Kappa 14:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Delete I'm always on the fence about these low-notability artists. He's known, but doesn't seem to be terribly popular.
New info I just found: "We regret to inform you of the closure of Studio Ironcat, LLC. ... -Stephen R. Bennett IV" from Studio Ironcat Home
Any question I had before would have been based on the fact that his limited notability would grow over time.... at this point that's in serious question, and 500ish Google hits, notability does not make. -Harmil 15:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Harmil. Dcarrano 20:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. or merge back into Studio Ironcat. WP is not here to provide a "Wikipedia advertisement" to anyone. WP is to document notability, not create it. Jeesh. Niteowlneils 21:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable self promotion, as per Niteowlneils. JamesBurns 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not appear to be self-promotion, information is presented in a neutral and non-POV manner. Hall Monitor 23:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims for notability.  Grue  19:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Penninsula airport[edit]

Delete. Word-for-word duplicate of Monterey Peninsula Airport. I would have simply made this a redirect, but I don't see how it would be of much use. The article's name is misspelled and nothing links to it, so I doubt the redirect would ever serve its purpose. Wasn't sure if this qualified for a speedy deletion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess there are five possible wrong capitalizations...? Yeah, just delete it. Dcarrano 15:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. No harm there, as we know at least one person can't spell peninsula. -- BD2412 talk 15:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Odd capitalizations that won't be found by Wikipedia's 'go button' logic won't help users find the real article. Monterey Penninsula Airport (note doubled 'n') probably would be a good idea for a redir, tho'. Niteowlneils 15:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no value in this page, even as a redirect. -Harmil 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless it is already a policy to allow redirects from misspellings, I think it would be a bad precedent. People misspell lots of things in many ways -- we could soon be overwhelmed by variant spellings of article names redirected. Ground Zero 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always speedy clones that have no significant editing history (this had one version only prior to VfD) and this is no exception. IN case anyone is wondering why, it's to avoid having to do a tricky history merge at a later point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as copyvio --Allen3 talk 20:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Heavils[edit]

"The Heavils are definitely going to make their mark in music history with the release of their debut album on Metal Blade Records due out early to mid 2003" If that's not blatantly copied text, I don't know what is. And... I think it's pretty fair to say that "the Heavils" have not made a mark "in" music history. jglc | t | c 14:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thue | talk 15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Elbe[edit]

Patent rubbish Manik Raina 15:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. Should have been candidate for Speedy Deletion. Mrendo 15:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very clear speedy delete, see WP:CSD criteria #1. Thue | talk 15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs[edit]

Almost a Speedy Delete for being patent nonsense. As far as I can tell, this is a made up term and the page appears to have been created as part of an edit war, by an editor who wants to move gasoline to petrol. Solipsist 15:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not nonsense. It's just not terribly accurate. No one that I have have ever heard uses this term, and Google gives it zero hits. -Harmil 15:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 15:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this was disruption to make a point as part of the Gasoline/Petrol naming dispute. - Omegatron 15:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. During the Gasoline/Petrol wars, the article was moved repeatedly, to increasingly silly names. When the war was added to WP:LAME, it included a redlink to Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs. Just for the heck of it, I created that title as a redirect to the title of the article at the time (I think it was Gasoline (Petrol) or somesuch). When the edit war was ended, that redirect was deleted along with all the others left over from the move wars, leaving a redlink from WP:LAME. User:Ezra Wax then re-created the article as a stub. --Carnildo 17:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gasoline. I mean Petrol. Oh never mind.  :) Looks like somebody already got rid of that redlink (well done) so delete this nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, restore and delete again, purely for good measure. I'm only kidding, of course, but this one really should have been speedily deleted. It is patent nonsense. —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. I've got to admit the horrible truth: I suggested the use of this phrase on WP:LAME. Obviously, I never intended its actual creation. Perhaps BJAODN, definitely delete. Nickptar 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Down Comforter Collection[edit]

Does every album of a band deserve a seperate page ? should this not be part of the page by band Granddaddy? Manik Raina 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--individual albums usually get separate articles (assuming that they're not self-released or something of that sort, but I don't believe this one is). Meelar (talk) 15:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Grandaddy is a notable band and there are already pages for all their other albums. If that's not enough a Google search of grandaddy "broken down comforter collection" yields over 1,500 results. --TheMidnighters 17:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable album by notable brand. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Keep. We have so many goddamn pointless album articles, what's one more? -R. fiend 03:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Grandaddy. Although Grandaddy amybe a notable band, there is nothing really notable about this album. JamesBurns 06:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, merge recommended, but no consensus. --Dmcdevit·t 05:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Finger joint[edit]

Not very encycloediac Manik Raina 15:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. Dmcdevit·t 05:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Petrovich Trubetskoy[edit]

Delete (see below): Can not verify; there's one page on the net with this person's name on it. Furthermore, the university's directory [11] does not seem to think this person works there. Also, the article contains virtually no content except links to other future articles. Lastly, appears to fail WP:BIO. --Durin 15:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also note that an earlier version of the article contained text copy/pasted from another website, and the article was copyvio'd. Then the contributor removed the text, leaving it as it now stands and removing the copyvio notice. --Durin 15:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Uhg. This is a mess (or not?). Have a look at Troubetzkoy. Try going to any of the articles listed under the generation sections, such as Iwan Symeonowicz Trubczewski, Roman Trubczewski, and Jerzy Trubczewski. These various articles are similar to the article I've listed here for VfD. The articles contain virtually nothing but a single line indicating they are/were a prince, and a bunch of links to indicate where in the genealogical tree they lie. One, possibly more, of these people have something of interest about them in the article: Sergei Petrovich Troubetzkoy for example. Most have virtually nothing. Looking under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, specifically Genealogical entries, it seems like this whole set of articles might be candidates for deletion. The only thing that might separate it is the fact these are nobles. Perhaps all of the articles on these nobles that lack information should be merged into the parent article on this family, noted at the beginning of this comment. Most of these articles seem to fail WP:BIO (granted, that is a guideline, not a policy). I'd like some input here. --Durin 16:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say put them all together and let's zap 'em all at once; the Troubetzkoy article justifies an article for Dmitry Timofeievich Troubetzkoy, but not IMO for anyone else mentioned there ... and certainly not for every damn member of the family unto the 21st generation! Lordy! Delete this one, anyway. Dcarrano
  • Delete nn vanity and genealogy. --Etacar11 01:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll change that to a weak keep as per below. Article could do with expansion to show why he is a notable member of the family. --Etacar11 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Vladimir Petrovich as nonnotable, but let's not be so hasty as Dcarrano suggests in deleting them all. Nikolai Sergeyevich, for example, was an extremely important linguist in the Prague School; he was the first to identify the phoneme. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't be so hasty. Is there any point in trying a rewrite at this stage? Wladimir Troubetzkoy (which is the spelling you have to search for) can certainly be found in the directory of the University of Versailles. He is author of several books in the field of comparative literature, co-editor of a handbook and editor of a congress volume. He has also translated and edited classical Russian authors like Pushkin and Dostoyevsky. See his entry at the catalogue of the Bibliothèque nationale de France I have also found a couple of articles by him referenced in different places. There are probably more of the latter, although that is more difficult to locate in a hurry. Sportspeople, cartoon artists and heavy metal guitarists are kept for fewer accomplishments than this. There are, unsurprisingly, several other members of this family who are notable in some way, such as for instance the sculptor Paolo Troubetzkoy. I'd bet anyone versed in Russian history could identify a couple of dozen more. Uppland 15:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll change my vote to Keep for this article, but still believe the entire line needs to be reviewed. Are there people in their genealogical tree worth having articles on? Absolutely. I said as much above, and still feel the same. However, I do not want to withdraw this VfD as I do think we need to rethink the various articles on members of this family who are flatly unremarkable. WP:NOT does offer some direction, as I noted above. What I am unclear on is whether there is any meta page dealing with the status of nobles, and whether just being a noble is enough to readily grant inclusion. Too many of these articles are simple one-liners, with a host of links to other people in the family tree. Can they be expanded? Maybe, but for many probably not. In the meantime I think they should be merged into the parent article. Thanks for finding the more common spelling of this individual's name Uppland! --Durin 16:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one problem is that these silly nobility categories and nobility stubs remove the focus from the individual accomplishments of people to the genealogy. The ((euro-noble-stub)) should really never be used unless there is some other stub-type on the person first. Uppland 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I rewrote the article, but my French is rusty, to say the least, and I would be very grateful if somebody would take a look at it. I'm sure it can be improved. Uppland
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In flagrante delicto[edit]

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log. --cesarb 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No content and slang.Howabout1 14:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the article needs improvement. Perhaps I'll put it on my todo list. →Vik Reykja 00:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Definitely, although as noted above it certainly needs some work.--Xinoph 01:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Important to know the origins of these commonly used phrases, even where the meaning has altered over the years --217.33.241.210 11:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)RaJ 12:02 18 May 2005[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it's defined in Black's Law Dictionary, so it's certainly not slang. A legitimate latin phrase in common English usage. - Jersyko talk 05:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a stub but on a legitimate topic. --Casey J. Morris 14:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a stub and needs work, but a most valid topic. I just arrived here because I need to link to this expression from another article. --J-Star July 8, 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Jersyko. Tufflaw 21:46, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Just realized that VFD is from April. Any reason why it's still active? Tufflaw 21:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
"Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log." articles are often tagged, but not added to the main Vfd page. Niteowlneils 16:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, other items on List of Latin phrases have articles. This one looks expandable - some famous examples might help - how about the Watergate scandal. -- Solipsist 15:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable and useful phrase which belongs in a dictionary, thought article should be concise and to-the-point. jglc | t | c 16:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable phrase. Capitalistroadster 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I could say in flagrante deleto, but I can't. Keep.DS 21:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable phrase. Xoloz 03:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Scimitar parley 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecked Ship (Super_Metroid) and associated pages in Super Metroid[edit]

Forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log. --BradBeattie 15:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sub-articles for Super Metroid

  • Transwiki to Super Metroid. Otherwise delete. These pages don't seem notable. Should we have articles detailing every level in video games? That seems excessive to me. --BradBeattie 5 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might as well post a whole walkthrough and be done with... NO! -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 8, 2005 14:40 (UTC)
  • Merge. Just merge them all into one article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 2005 July 8 20:54 (UTC)
  • merge. Note, some of these show up in other games, too, like Norfair (original Metroid). But they could easily fit in an article on Areas in the Metroid Series, or something like that. Brighterorange 20:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the exact details of videogames are not encyclopedic. Dcarrano 21:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Brighterorange. Some of the areas have been used in games outside the Metroid series, too (doesn't one of them show up in F-Zero?), but 'Areas in he Metroid series' would be quite fine. Almafeta 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, as per BradBeattie. JamesBurns 06:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Take a look at the Super Metroid article itself. It seems to have a number of other sub-articles that should probably be merged or deleted (Etecoon, Dachora, Torizo, etc). Wikipedia isn't a game walkthrough. --BradBeattie 12:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BrighterOrange. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere else; they are not individually encyclopedic. tregoweth 19:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could we just post an external link to this list of game walkthroughs on the Super Metroid page? I've merged the pages to Areas in the Metroid Series as per Brighterorange. It still feels like a walkthrough that we could easily have an external link to. --BradBeattie 13:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Betzefer[edit]

Unsure if band is notable or not (they are a group from Israel, supposedly), but their only release has come in 2005. Text is generally indicative of vanity, but I can't make a call on it. Can somebody please check the validity of this group? If not proven otherwise, the paucity of releases and meagre discography would call for a delete, I feel. jglc | t | c 16:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Tough call, no Allmusic page but 3,500 Google results for Betzefer "down low", among the results are interviews and reviews so at least some people find them notable, which is usually good enough for inclusion. I don't think they meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC, but that doesn't discount support for other pages, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ampere (band). No big loss if it's deleted though, if they become more notable in the future a page can be created then. --TheMidnighters 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After consideration, should go by the books regardless, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, doesn't warrant inclusion yet. Sorry for the convoluted switching. --TheMidnighters 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This band has just joined RoadRunner Records. If you check their website you should be able to find out more about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.254.150 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 July 2005
Comment: many bands are signed. Few go anywhere. Also, regarding Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ampere (band), it seems as though the reason Ampere was kept was both for their being signed, as well as their inclusion of a well-known musician on the lineup. I'm still not judging Betzefer either way, but it seems that they do not - and being signed, in itself, does not fulfill the criteria for WP:MUSIC. jglc | t | c 18:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well known musician? The name of this well known musician isn't present in either the Orchid (band) page or the Ampere (band) page, so how can he be well known if we don't even know his name. My point is simply that Ampere does not satisfy WP:MUSIC but will probably be kept, therefore, the fact that this band does not satisfy WP:MUSIC does not necessarily justify a deletion. Either way I don't really care if it's deleted or not, I just think deletions should be consistent. --TheMidnighters 19:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I was under the impression, after skimming over Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ampere (band) was that this was a reason for the supporters to say that the band should be kept. I agree with the deletions being consistent, leaning towards noninclusionism. jglc | t | c 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, neither pass WP:MUSIC, neither should stay. --TheMidnighters 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am in strong agreement. jglc | t | c 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkatan[edit]

Patent nonsense. This is vandalism by User:202.156.2.36. I think he refers to a street (Bangket Street) in Binjai Park, Singapore. Googling for "Bangkatan" reveals zero hits. Alex.tan 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy as article with little or no content. --Scimitar 16:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cornus_of_Denmark[edit]

The list on this page has been in the "please expand" category for over a year now. It is, as has been observed, a list of some of the dogwood family. On the assumption that the climate is not dissimilar to the UK it is likely that they will all grow in Denmark. However it is not a complete list of cornus, nor even a complete list of cornus that will grow in Denmark. It is certainly not a list of native cornus. On these grounds I do not see why it remains and threfore suggest it for deletion. If I have misunderstood either the methodology of a vote for deletion or the grounds that should be used, I apologise in advance. Silver149 16:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soignee[edit]

Dictdef: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gblaz 16:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - worthless in this context (and not even spelled properly}. Deb 17:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. --PrologFan 17:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jaxl 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Portraits[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a picture gallery. WAvegetarian 16:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and ExpandThis gallery of Hitler portraits will be linked to the Adolph Hitler biography page. There is not enough room on the Adolph Hitler bio page for the numerous portraits. These portraits will strengthen Wikipedia and should stay. Endurance 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to commons:Adolf Hitler, but can we first ensure that we have copyright info about all of these please? Saying that though, I think we could have an subarticle from Nazi propaganda dealing with specifically Hitler paintings, but it must contain text not just images. Dunc|☺ 16:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per template:GermanGov these are unfree images because they cannot be altered and therefore cannot be used. Change vote to Delete Dunc|☺ 18:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These portait images are all over the Internet and are not copyright protected. Endurance 19:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless this page is going to discuss portrayals of Hitler, I can't see how it is an encyclopedia article. And it starts a prescedent, which if followed would have serious server implications (a gallery for everyone). So delete (and if they are 'all over the internet' do we need them here?) --Doc (?) 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article and images. Wikipedia is not an image-hosting service. The images that have copyright tags on them are unfree images (no modification allowed), and I have no reason to believe that the others do not have this restriction. --Carnildo 20:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useful and copyright-free ones can be added to Adolf Hitler, any others should be deleted. Niteowlneils 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The hitler article is 53 K. The pictures page took longer to appear than the hitler article. If you can not create a sub-article when your article is too long, what are you supposed to do? Copyright is a reason to delete individual pictures, not the whole page unless there is nothing left. These look like nazi propaganda pictures, so why would they be copyright now? Anyway, they make quite an interesting collection of how he wished to be portrayed, especially number 2.Sandpiper 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "article" per Carnildo. Image galleries are not encyclopedia articles. They belong on Commons rather than WP. Because these images are unfree, delete them as well. -- Jonel | Speak 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page (not the images). I'm pretty sure this goes against wikipedia policy in no uncertain terms. -R. fiend 03:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an image gallery is not an article. However, if it became an article with text containing artistic, social, historical and political criticism of the images I'd vote to keep. Wyss 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 00:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Unless the page discusses some more encyclopedic matter, eg how the portraits reflect on Hitler's public image at the time. --Ypk 02:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 14:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People accept reality more when the society is the same[edit]

Most of this orphaned article sounds like original research. I can't imagine anyone searching for this material with this title. Joyous (talk) 16:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete bad title, rambling original research CDC (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic. Dcarrano 21:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Friday 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolingue[edit]

Conlang. - Cymydog Naakka 17:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. --PrologFan 17:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conlang. —Tokek 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely non-notable conlang. The "discussion group" for the language has only two members and was created just a few days ago. Clearly, delete. --Whimemsz 19:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, I concur. From their website: "still in the developmental and experimental phase..." yup. —Tokek 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable conlang, only 900 Google hits. --Carnildo 20:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think a lot of those results are unrelated. Google search for {eurolingue auxiliary|constructed|conlang|auxlang} returned only two results, and the second one appears to be unrelated. —Tokek 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable conlang. JamesBurns 06:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chivichuss[edit]

Appears to be a hoax article created by IP with all other edits being vandalism. --Tabor 17:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete; no such place known to Google seglea 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied - "county in Yellowstone" - wtf? --FCYTravis 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Scimitar parley 19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kbot[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was no real consensus, using best judgement and merged into Total Annihilation. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

BLoD[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nepean Concert Band[edit]

Not notable as per WP:MUSIC RMoloney 18:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 21:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are notable; individual classes baring unusual circumstances are not. Almafeta 21:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:MUSIC: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. Community Concert Bands are a Canadian tradition, this appears to be the prominent representative of this style in Nepean. The grades mentioned in the article are nothing to do with class in a school, but are a measure describing musical difficulty as per the Royal Conservatory.--Simon.Pole 22:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stub, clean-up, and expand as per Simon.Pole. ·Zhatt· 22:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, per WP:MUSIC. I saw nothing in the article to suggest that this band "has become the most prominent representative... etc etc". Community bands are a tradition in many places; so are garage bands. This doesn't make individual bands of those genres automatically notable. See WP:MUSIC. Friday 05:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the school maybe notable, this band isnt. Agree with Friday on this. JamesBurns 06:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable per WP:MUSIC and User:Friday. --Deathphoenix 13:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or add some interesting content quick. Somehow the latter seems unlikely to happen. -Joshuapaquin 04:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I was in a high school jazz band that was quite prominent, we even went to the same MusicFest that is the origin of the picture, its basically the Canadian nationals. We never made a wikipedia article about it, and we, and the program in our community were quite highly regarded. The problem with this type of article is that these bands can loose there notablity quite quickly. There is no reason for there to be an article on this. Many local concert bands could likely make equivalent claims. This is clearly a page made by the band itself. I recoginze the name of the fesitval at the bottom, the only reason you would have it is because you were in the band. Benw 07:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely non-notable. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 19:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Mclennon[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. Entire content: "Ellis McLennon is the greatest person that ever lived." Delete. Tokek 18:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Probably could have been speedied for nonsense. --Durin 18:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Jaxl 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted - Very short article, no context, etc. etc. --FCYTravis 19:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of rule[edit]

This article seems to be just speculation, and has no basis in Greek Mythology. The original page contained some wild theories [12] which were subsequently whittled down by edits. But, to my knowledge, the whole notion that Agamemnon had some sort of magical staff called the "rod of rule" isn't correct. So this page should just be deleted. JW1805 18:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 21:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google search for agamemnon "rod of rule" -wikipedia yields 4 hits, 3 of which are Wikipedia mirrors, the last of which is a Project Gutenberg text of a collection of Old English plays. Agamemnon and rod of rule do not appear in the same play in that text. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a fabrication. If not, a source needs to be produced for it. Delete, unverifiable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - reasons above. --TheMidnighters 21:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UnHoly 00:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone provides a source. DanMS 04:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

66.6.66.6[edit]

Non-notable and non-encyclopedic IP. Unless there was some sort of very public flap over its use (if there was, Google doesn't know about it) I see no particular reason why this needs an article. FCYTravis 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable IP, just another IP. Jtkiefer 19:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This would apear to be an urban legend. A dogpile search gives the identical small story propagated accross lots of sites. A whois.arin.net query returns the fact that the range this IP is in has been allocated to the Connecticut Telephone Incorporated company since 1997... Lomedae 19:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well spotted, Travis. -R. fiend 20:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable XmarkX 20:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lomedae. Just another IP address. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this can be verified (which it looks like it can't), then keep. Otherwise delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Microsoft. ~~~~ 22:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely inaccurate, and given that, the topic is completely non-notable. —Stormie 11:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense Eliot 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reports an unremarkable, trivial topic.Rintrah 15:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% irrelevant. 100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 17:31, 18 July 2005
  • Delete. Non-notable urban legend. Bart133 (t) 16:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and not merge with Microsoft. Unverifiable. --Vizcarra 18:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_DiRenzo[edit]

Vanity /non notable Gunmetal 19:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed, this is a vanity page.
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 20:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete standard teen vanity page. --TheMidnighters 20:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn teen vanity. And don't forget his friend Nicholas Volpe. --Etacar11 01:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. van. jni 05:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 07:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable Punkmorten 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jarden Corporation[edit]

This was marked as a speedy delete candidate, but isn't really. I intentionally mangled the external links because they were un-useful and spammy. No vote from me, however. CDC (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability established, ad. --TheMidnighters 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheMidnighters. Dcarrano 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I originally marked it as a speedy candidate, I figured it was nothing but a corporate ad. —Cleared as filed. 22:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is an article (marked as stub) for Coleman Company, which is one of the companies that makes up Jarden; if this is deleted should that one be deleted as well? . The Jarden article certainly reads like an ad in its present form. (Mulling it over...no vote yet) --WCFrancis 23:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Hooperbloob 22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save I just started this article and have not finished it. The company is a spinoff of Ball Corporation, and has a rich history dating back over 100 years. It started in the 1800's as a home canning company. Now it includes other 100+ year old companies like Diamond Brands matches (largest match mill in the US), and US Playing Cards. There is a lot of history here that still needs to be added to the article. I'd think once this historical content is added it will be worthwhile. --mab 15:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Walking Club[edit]

Non-notable student organisation. I was in walking club at uni too, and these guys do exist, but they are simply not notable. Dunc|☺ 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Scimitar 21:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 21:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable student club. JamesBurns 07:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clicking on this link represents 3 seconds of my life that I will never get back. Youngamerican 15:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hagfish fiber[edit]

Hoax? Search in http://www.altavista.com for "hagfish fibre" and "hagfish fiber" shows nothing except Wikipedia echoes. I know some biology: talk of making fish slime into tough fiber is SILLY. Anthony Appleyard 20:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not a hoax - I've read articles on hagfish slime before; it's a fascinating substance which, yes, has some horribly nasty vicious tough fibers permeating it. Don't think it's notable yet, though, so I vote delete - for now. DS 21:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep...for now. See if anything else comes up. (But keep the VfD sign up as long as new, truthful information hasn't come up yet.) 68.14.25.141 02:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

simply the knowledge of the uses of 'hagfish slime' would be useful. perhaps changing the presentation of the article so as to imply that the findings are few would do.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here Is a Question[edit]

Forumcruft, mostly. Doesn't even have a website. And the capitalization is wrong, too. Nifboy 21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- agreed. CDC (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --PrologFan 21:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable forumcruft. JamesBurns 07:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ez publishing[edit]

Advertising; no evidence that this is an encyclopedic company. CDC (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertizing. --PrologFan 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed. Gwk 21:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I specifically wrote this article to be included on the List of U.S. Companies. There are a fairly wide variety of companies on this list, some of which are not famous. Why do you favor large corporations over small businesses for listing? We are a U.S. company. That seems to be the criteria. Thanks. manatee123
  • Delete - advert. Manatee, just being a company is not enough; you need to do something notable. Naturenet | Talk 21:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many if not most of the companies on the list have only one notable thing about them: they are large corporations. Frankly, most are quite uninteresting. Only a very small number of the companies on the list have actually done something notable (e.g., Apple). Thanks. manatee123
    • Whether or not the list of companies has a bias in favor of large corporations, the fact is that it is Wikipedia policy to not include things that are not notable. Besides that, Wikipedia policy also does not allow advertising and the article is clearly written as if it were an advertisment. Gwk 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article states basic facts and is less promotional than many of the current company sites taht are currently on Wikapedia. Very few of the companies that are currently on Wikapedia have done *anything* notable at all. The *only* thing they have in common is size. Most of them are large companies. This seems unfair that large companies -- boring ones at that -- get to have entries on Wikapedia, yet our small company cannot have an entry. manatee123
        • If you want to debate the policies of Wikipedia, you can do that on my talk page. As to this article, I leave it to the community to form a consensus. Gwk 23:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want to debate policies but am merely saying that my page is no less in line with policies than the current entries that are cataloged in "List of United States Companies".manatee123
  • Delete. Vanity page. Can't even properly spell "wikipedia". --Vizcarra 23:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a careless spelling error but am well aware of how to spell wikipedia. It is kind of rude to call attention to petty errors. manatee123
  • Delete, ad for non-notable company. Dcarrano 01:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry Manatee, but Wikipedia is not here for you to advertise on. —Stormie 11:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

John D. Curnow[edit]

Appears to be not notable at all. I can't find anything about him on Google. --Hottentot

  • Delete. Probably a hoax. Gwk 21:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability unverified. --Etacar11 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to find any sources with google. Unverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


It's very hard to find out how a person is to defend themselves in Wikipedia. This may be the wrong place, and if it is I'm sorry. My name is John D Curnow and I'm not a hoax, as one person suggested. I was one of the first people to record bird songs in the midwest. My tapes were sold by the Audubon Camp here in Wisconsin. The NASCO Corp of Fort Atkins, WI sold my tapes to high schools all over the US and Canada for ten years. A copy of my book "Plant Communities - Ecological Studies Of The Upper Midwest" was copyrighted and sent to the Library Of Congress. I was also awarded the outstanding alumni award from the University Of Wisconsin-Platteville and I did teach from 1951 - 1999. I may not be important enough to be found in Google and I can accept that, but I'm certainly not a hoax! John D Curnow

  • As the closing admin, I can say that the discussion was fairly straight forward on this article. The deletion policy does have a provision for cases were verification is provided after a debate has occured. If you are able to cite appropriate references to back up the article then please request an undeletion of the article at WP:VFU, including your references as part of the request. --Allen3 talk 16:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Circuit[edit]

As always, I could be wrong. Vanity? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. Gwk 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable local business. Dcarrano 01:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable bar. JamesBurns 07:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

plod[edit]

Hey, this should definitely be kept, because "Plod" is used in "Life on Mars" and a lot of folks don't know the origin. I had to look it up.


Neologism and/or vanity nickname (see Matt Nedrich before it gets speedy deleted) --Gunmetal 21:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, speedy if possible Melaen 21:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity neologism. JamesBurns 07:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOB[edit]

I did not find anything from google to match this description of WOB. Please comment. (hmmm foo bar?) Feydey 21:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably nonsense. Gwk 21:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears at this time to be nonsense. Dcarrano 01:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense WOBbing us of our time. JamesBurns 07:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Dmcdevit·t 05:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

List of modern remakes of Shakespeare[edit]

Is this really necessary? Gwk 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - no it's not necessary - but there is plenty of more useless listcruft out there --Doc (?) 22:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC) (Merge sounds better --Doc (?) 18:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, The list is weak but maybe create an article on the subject. I'm sure there must be a formula to these remakes and has been covered extensively by film critics/analysts.maclean25 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unmaintainable. no definition of modern or remake.--Porturology 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ~~~~ 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list, but needs a better introduction that more clearly explains that these are adaptations of the plays that have been "time-shifted" to other eras. This trend in adapting Shakespeare as modern-day stories is in itself worthy of an article. 23skidoo 23:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shakespeare movies, that article has plenty of room to discuss when the movies are set. Dcarrano 01:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Dcarrano. Barely beats out Porturology's excellent suggestion. The Literate Engineer 04:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shakespeare movies, as per Dcarrano. JamesBurns 07:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 13:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it please it looks useful to me too Yuckfoo 18:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Pavel Vozenilek 21:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge perhaps with List_of_adaptations_of_Shakespearean_plays AND Shakespeare movies 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermaphrodude[edit]

Neologism - delete or merge somewhere --Doc (?) 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, 5 days on vfd, no votes. Dunc|☺ 23:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Em, no, I nominated this one hour ago? --Doc (?) 23:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be widespread yet, just 25 google hits. Martg76 23:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask peeves[edit]

  • Delete Advertising. It's funny that the registered owner of AskPeeves.com and the IP address of the user that edited this are from California. -- BMIComp (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. Jaxl 22:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete And putting Ask Jeeves and other web site entries is not advertising? Wonder if they have a rival encylcopedia page on here. (Unsigned by 69.110.138.75)
  • Delete. Website ad. hydnjo talk 00:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad, nn, not even an URL. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Eliezer 09:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep NSR (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Jia Kim[edit]

The situation is similar to the Jiyang Chen which has been recently readded and should also be deleted IMO. --Missmarple 20:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The creator blanked it. I vote Delete. Bart133 (t) 23:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well, it's not blank now, and Angela Jia Kim appears to be a fairly notable pianist -- she released her debut album Dances and Fantasies in 2003 and another one, titled From Vienna To Paris in January, 2005. She has won the 1997 award for Best Interpretation of French Music by the French Piano Institute in Paris, as well as the 1991 grand prize at the Mozart Festival Competition in Illinois, and she's doing a 27 concert tour of in 2004-2005 across the United States. (Or maybe she's finished already, I'm not sure.) She's most certainly notable -- she's an internationally recognized, award-winning pianist, as these links tell us. The article's not in a great shape, sure, but that's a separate issue. I'm kind of baffled -- why would she not be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- Captain Disdain 13:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I reorganized the article and wikified it. Reads better now, I think. -- Captain Disdain 13:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's not "famous" in the media sense, but is certainly notable. WBardwin 20:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • By your link, do you suggest she be kept in "a strong central tower which forms the heart of a castle"? -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google turns up her website [13]. Gwk 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines having performed a national concert tour of the US in 2004-05 plus having recorded two albums. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captain Disdain. -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it was probably blanked becuase the author was scared and intimidated by missmarple Yuckfoo 18:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She's known here in China, but maybe add her birthday?Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:57 Beijing Time
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Gluemeat since the content has been merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't We Real[edit]

This article has a clean-up request on it, but frankly I don't think it's worth the time. It's clearly a vanity piece and the topic doesn't meet the critera for significance. Fernando Rizo 04:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Apparently, the comic is on "hiatus". Official site forbids access. [14]. Google search reveals perhaps 100 relevant results. [15]. There's no discussion on the talk page so I removed the notice. --Barfooz (talk) 04:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Gluemeat and Redirect - Although the comic is no longer running, it is available [16], so it still counts as a valid web comic endeavor and worthy of note on Wikipedia. However, it is hosted on the same domain as the author's primary comic [[17]], so I feel it is subordinate to the other work. Thus, I propose that it become a subsection on the Gluemeat page, with a redirect from Aren't We Real to Gluemeat. Gemini6Ice 28 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)
    • Redirect - Merge already accomplished. Gemini6Ice 8 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a vanity piece and not signifigant.
  • Delete non notable now defunct web comic. JamesBurns 07:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gluemeat. Dcarrano 00:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neil Martin[edit]

This subject is not notable. Deb 22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Tory boy, big ego, little to show for it, delete Dunc|☺ 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete evidence of notability not in article. Friday 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Godzilla Vs. Deathra[edit]

no google evidence of it's existence Melaen 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a new Godzilla series underway, and it's possible this is simply mistitled. I can't really vote on this unless someone better versed on the franchise can confirm or deny this film's existence. The fact it has yet to film isn't grounds for deletion as we have plenty of articles on planned movies. 23skidoo 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Link within article details a director's desire to make the film... he doesn't have the money though. Delete, for every movie that actually comes out, there's literally thousands of people pitching one. Dcarrano 00:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
now it is a redirect to Godzilla 3D to the MAX --Melaen 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 07:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4info[edit]

Delete this; looks like a press release --JonathanZ 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for non-notable product. Dcarrano 00:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

WeBuilder 2005[edit]

Advertising, non notability Melaen 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arun the He-Man[edit]

Finishing incorrect vfd tagging. No vote. --Dmcdevit 22:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freewebs[edit]

Article on a subject I just deleted through vfd process, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Free Webs however this article has been around a lot longer, so I don't know if it's a candidate for speedy deletion. Francs2000 | Talk 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, "steadily increasing" popularity usually means "no one knows who the hell we are." Anyway, same subject = same treatment regardless of whether it was initially noticed or not. Keep due to exceptional Alexa. Dcarrano 01:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alexa ranking 245. Seems popular enough to be notable. TheCoffee 07:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And the previous VFD was because the article was advertising/spam... this one I couldn't call advertising. TheCoffee 07:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable MLSfreak777 10:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept.

AwesomeFunny[edit]

Delete - self-promotion NAF 03:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self promotion for a non notable website. JamesBurns 07:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flashcruft. Alexa traffic rating over 600K, not significant. Friday 13:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't believe that the article is self-promotion, and I would like to mention that the article previously came up for Deletion in May (see archive), with no consensus. EvilPhoenix talk 22:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • AwesomeFunny was well-known because of an internet fad, and has been steadily losing popularity. Thus, it is useful to reconsider deleting the page now, as the site is all the more nn and the Alexa rating is low. Mimsy Borogoves 13 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
  • Ah, but its supposed major claim to fame, How to Kill a Mockingbird, looks likely to go. Delete per Friday. Dcarrano 01:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is no big deal (although I admit I did vote keep last time). But there's also a principle here: If this content was ever encyclopedic, then it still is. Maybe we should tighten up our practice on Internet phenomena generally, that would wash. But deleting an article on the grounds that it was once significant but isn't now is a very dangerous precedent, and that seems to be the sentiment above. The article itself might be considered a candidate for redirect and merge, just so long as the content is preserved, and the redirect makes it still accessible. But that doesn't need a VfD discussion. Food for thought? Andrewa 00:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a big "if." It never was encyclopedic, and half of it was wrong until my recent edit. (Check out the history for references to the fictional legal battle between Awesomefunny and its "rival," Funnyawesome.) Awesomefunny is not an internet phenomenon, even if "How to Kill a Mockingbird" was. And you will notice that the HTKAM wikipedia entry has been deleted. There is no matter of dangerous precedent here. The article should be deleted, not because it was once important but is no longer popular, but because it was never important, because it is self-promotative (which it clearly is, as it contains references mailing list content), because it is unencyclopedaic. Now that HTKAM is gone, Awesomefunny should follow. Mimsy Borogoves 16 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
      • Comment: Agree with some of this. If this survives VfD (and to me it looks close) then I'll be nominating HTKAM on VfU to make it a redirect to AwesomeFunny, I think that's the correct process and I can't see how we can have it both ways. Agree that if the argument is that AwesomeFunny was never really encyclopedic, then there's no dangerous precedent. But that's a big if itself considering previous Alexa rankings, surely? This is just the sort of content that it's important to preserve, otherwise it will be lost. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrewa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: HTKAM was tried on number of hits rather than its actual quality, and the site's responsible for other good productions too.
Comment: Please sign your votes, and don't remove the VfD notice, it's considered vandalism. Your vote will count largely according to your contribution history, and that did not help it at all. Andrewa 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to remove comments by other users. Its looked at as bad form. Also, I don't believe anonymous votes even count for deletion debates. Further, articles may be brought up multiple times on VfD, so there's no need to remove the tag just because it has been on VfD before. EvilPhoenix talk 21:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to break Wikipedia, but the comment was addressed to me so I felt I had the right to remove it. I'm also sorry I don't sign my posts, but that's my style. I don't see why I have to sign them, I've seen other people vote anonymously. Also, I'd rather people didn't sign them for me: you can check the history page to see who the editor is.

Comment: I think they do count, but I don't think they count for much. VfD is a bit different to national elections and the like, in that it's difficult to police someone creating a new userid each month, for example, and contributing (and voting) under each. So the admins in practice weight the votes in a quite subjective (and I believe intelligent, fair and reasonable) way. And it works quite well enough. Part of the theory behind this is that borderline votes like this one don't really matter a lot. The credibility and integrity of Wikipedia are not at risk at all here either way, regardless of what some may think. No change of vote. Andrewa 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evidence for the article's claims of notability is lacking, and those claims are weak even if they were established. WP is not a web directory. Quale 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has already passed through vfd (no consensus, but I still feel it should be kept. RickK, in response to your last comment: I find it unusual that I would have heard of it since I don't cruise the 'net for humour. It's not the best reasoning, but I figured if I've heard of it, it must be at least slightly notable. How to Kill a Mockingbird was pretty popular.). ✏ OvenFresh² 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus on an old vote started in April. FCYTravis 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bart McQueary[edit]

Delete- Bart McQueary is all hype; an expert self promoter who's turned the non-issue that is his crusade into a newstory through irrelevant inflammation. His biggest accomplishment to date is being a part of a larger lawsuit by the ACLU against a Ten Commandments monument; but that's not even his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he's a hanger-on to Fred Phelps; if McQueary gets a page here, then all 200-some-odd other members of Westboro, who participate in the exact same activity, also need entries.

  • This nomination was made by 70.241.25.240, who has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep.

I see nothing wrong with someone adding entries for Margie Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Benjamin Phelps, Carl Hockenbarger, or anyone else associated with Fred Phelps for that matter.

Your reasoning seems to be that because he is a shameless self promoter that he is not deserving of an article discussing his rather interesting life.

Your argument does not hold water. 68.217.162.167 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This user has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - Your reasoning for wanting the article deleted almost seems like some sort of personal hatred. There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is. For that matter, most of Hollywood is comprised of attention seekers. Not to mention Washington DC.

I can see no legit reason to delete his entry.

209.42.140.166 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This is this user's first, and thus far, only edit. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. Do me a favor and go to Melsondorph the Powerful and vote to keep it based on the criteria you just mentioned (There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is).

By the way, what makes you think I hate McQueary?

  • Delete not notable, possible vanity Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

This man hasn't made any sort of "mark" on the world, nor is it likely he ever will. The reasons given to keep it are wrong for this very reason. If there is a page on this nobody, there should be a page on every other nobody that's out there.65.71.125.180 04:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KEEP I personally do not like him nor Fred Phelps, nor their "religious organization", however thats not why we keep or delete articles on an encyclopedia. He is an important figure head for the "movement" and represents a portion of our society, which he is very notable for. We have to record good and bad topics, otherwise we are destined to repeat the same mistakes. <>Who?¿? 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong DELETE He's disappeared off the face of the Earth now, and what he did while he was around was nothing to write home about, except try to (unsucessfully) emulate Fred Phelps; and it's in serious debate whether or not he event meant what he said and did. If McQueary comes back out of whatever hole he disappeared into, and does something noteworthy, ACTUALLY NOTEWORTHY, then I wil be the first to put his article back on Wiki. Until then, he's just another wannabe; does every wannabe get a page? No one outside of Harrodsburg knows who this man is, and plenty of self-gratification articles have been deleted from Wiki before. What makes Bart so special? Mistergrind 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment whether or not a figure is still alive, or even around, is not an issue of noteworthiness. Even the people we cannot tolerate, are noteworthy to the thousands of people they influence, however, intolerance alone is yet, not an issue of encyclopedic value. <>Who?¿? 01:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleyte of course McQueary's "existance" as it were has no bearing on his status; Wiki is full of information on dead people. What matters, though, is that his barely noteworthy actions have apparently ceased. It may have been an excuse to keep the page going as long as he was still active, therefore prolonging the possibility that he may do something noteworthy, but now he's gone from the public eye, gone, it would seem, altogether, and he took with him any present hope of being a valid entry into Wiki. He has not affected "thousands" of people; it would be a long stretch to say that more than a few hundred people have ever been affected by him in any way, shape, or form. If McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.70.243.35.89 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping with format, John Wilkes Booth is both dead, and his actions have definately ceased, but that one noteworthy action is very encyclopedic. Again, to one, a persons actions may not be noteworthy due to intolerance, that does not say it is not to another. Personally, NOT a supporter. <>Who?¿? 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment What is your obsession with changing my words around and trying to paint me as someone who wants McQueary deleted for intolerance? I have never stated that. One of my pride and joys on Wiki is the work I've done on the Fred Phelps page (another page you have made repeated attempts to sabotage). But the difference between a man who changed the course of history my murdering the leader of a country, and Bart McQueary, IS THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING NOTEWORTHY AT ALL. There are people in every city in the USA standing on street corners with signs like McQueary's, preaching the same things as McQueary. Phelps belongs in the article because of his noteriety; he's been on CNN, worked with/for Al Gore, possibly was involved in a girl's death, has been the topic of a nationally read book, and, despite your fervent denial of it, leads a cult. McQueary is none of those things; he's a street-corner prophet. If McQueary is allowed to stay in, then I must insist that you restore another article of mine that you were instrumental in getting deleted, about a local band in Tulsa. They have the exact same level of noteriety as McQueary, and in the realm of music, have accomplished just as much as McQueary has in the realm of religion. Again, I say, if McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.70.243.35.89 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't feel this is the place for this type of conversation, however, you do not have a talk page, per say. I have no obsession with you nor this article. I do not mean to twist, contort, or demean your comments or vote. It "seemed" your comments were of a more personal nature, and I just wanted to stress the fact that we cannot delete articles we have personal feelings against, nor keep the ones we are in agreement with. With the little research I did on the topic of the article, it was easy to find many supporters and readers of this person. Whether or not there are "hundreds" or "thousands", it seemed he had quite a few followers and readers, with or without reguard to Fred Phelps. I fealt that the person was notable enough, for inclusion, on that basis alone. As far as your band, which I do not recall, or other garage bands. It is common not to include such bands, as they are very many, and notability seems to go hand-in-hand with recording status and the ability to cite references, other than blogs. I am no expert, I just do research to attempt to establish such, I am only one voice on Wiki. Please do not take my comments on article bias as a personal attack or reprimand, as I did not intend it that way. <>Who?¿? 19:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

Seriously, who knows who this guy is other than the alleged terrified people of that redneck town he's plaguing? Seriously, who? (Unsigned comment)

Delete

Upon further review of the page, as well as the wikipedia deletion criteria, it is obvious that this page should be deleted- as it contains serious bias, and passive aggressive attitudes.

Weak Delete In terms that this guy is just sort of an interesting figure, and there are lots of people on wikipedia who are just so of strange tangenial figures without much real purpose or accomplishment. But he is just a cultist, and not every two bit nut gets his own webpage unless he makes it himself or herself.

  • Speedy Delete Nvr herd of him. mlsfreak777
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bart diet[edit]

Delete - fails the google test, I've never heard of it, nothing links to the page; just cluttering up wikipedia --Sherurcij 08:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC) Delete. Neologism. --SuperDude 03:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete but maybe I will try it. --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Delete Misleading. I came looking for the diet of Bart Simpson.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Wiest[edit]

Vanity, self-promotion, prediction WCFrancis 22:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fricke[edit]

non notability Melaen 22:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand, notable rock critic. Dcarrano 01:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Dcarrano said. I've actually heard of him, he's written some books on bands. --Etacar11 01:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, notable writer. Friday 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but direly in need of expansion, notable writer on alternative music. Curt Woyte 10:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Mortal Engines. -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batmunkh Gompa[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

  • merge into Mortal Engines. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
  • Having read the article, I'd prefer keep (the city also features in a small way in Predator's Gold), otherwise Merge and keep the redirect. I see no good reason to delete the material itself, which is an excellent summary of an important location in a popular, award-winning book. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
  • Merge into Mortal Engines. Dcarrano 01:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Silber[edit]

Vanity. "Bear Silber" music gets zero Google hits. "BearSilber" gets only 23, none of which bear any apparent connection to this article's namesake. Denni☯ 03:32, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Please refer to [18]. It's not vanity, it's biography.
    • Comment made by 69.107.55.113 (talk · contributions)
    • We need more third party references than your official web site to verify how noteworthy you are. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently, I cannot find any third party references to verify this and/or to prove that this person passes WP:MUSIC. I get zero hits on Amazon and IMDB. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • He falls under this:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

No, you still have not proven that "the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." In other words, please provide credible third party references to back up your claims. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nn. I guess savage internet guerilla marketing means spamming Wikipedia nowadays. jni 11:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, musician vanity. WP is not advertising. --bainer (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence requested by Zzyzx11 is given. Dcarrano 01:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find any valid resources that substantiate information. Runix 19:54, 15 Jul 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Creagh, Amos Badertscher, Mark Abrahamson[edit]

Delete. Three photographers who... um... well, that's about it, three photographers. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 22:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanities. Gwk 22:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" Mark Abrahamson & Michael Creagh - 50 names on photo list are bogus, these 2 I've heard of. Read recent article about Creagh in Retail Ad World User:Fashion101 4:08, 12 July 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bioentanglement[edit]

No original research. Google turns up 5 results for the phrase, including the wikipedia article. None are reliable sources or peer-reviewed journals. GeeJo 22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Gwk 23:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fringe "science". Only very well known quackery is encylopedic, IMO. Friday 14:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (4.5 deletes, 1.5 merges) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Downer (song)[edit]

The song does not appear notable, simply a bit of trivia. Certainly this could be either excluded with no great loss or merged into one of the album articles. My own opinion is that there's no reason to keep it. Delete. Mr Bound 23:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge. Agreed not notable. Gwk 23:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Incesticide. Dcarrano 01:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable song. JamesBurns 07:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need articles about every song on an album, and we don't really need redirects to the album either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proactionary Principle[edit]

Neologism, still warm from the oven. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:45 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ran through 5 days' vfd with no votes. Back to the front of the queue... Dunc|☺ 23:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable unless someone can provide a reference that anyone other than the creator of this neologism has paid any attention to it. Quale 01:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my vote below for these references. --HarveyNewstrom 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But put the information somewhere else. Something like a "concepts in transhumanism" page that can aggregate blurbs like this, which seem to be a lot of the specific transhumanism things, more see also links than content. Arturus
  • Keep. BrentN 17 July 2005. Important part of the debate on science and policy.
    • This user has only two other edits. Denni☯
  • Keep. Vergil 42 BC. "fortune favors the BOLD."
    • *This user's only contribution is to this VfD. Denni☯
  • Keep. The precautionary principle emphasizes the potential costs of innovation, and its advocates favor pre-emptive restrictions on new technology based on the _potential_ harm that the new technology may cause. The proactionary principle emphasizes the opportunity costs of _not_ innovating, and it's advocates favor restrictions based primarily on _demonstrated_ harm. Although a neologism of relatively recent vintage, it succinctly names a large body of thought in opposition to the precautionary principle, that has heretofore, to my knowledge, gone unnamed. Crasch 15:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proactionary principle came out of Vital Progress Summit I. Many organizations participated. --Macterra 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has only one other edit. Denni☯
  • Keep. The article may need some NPOV work, though. --NeuronExMachina 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • vote by anonymous user 80.47.62.145, whose only edit is this vote. Ken
  • Keep.
    • vote by anonymous user 209.128.88.148, whose only edit is this vote. Ken
  • Delete nn neologism. Ken 00:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermaphrodude[edit]

Neologism - delete or merge somewhere --Doc (?) 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, 5 days on vfd, no votes. Dunc|☺ 23:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Em, no, I nominated this one hour ago? --Doc (?) 23:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be widespread yet, just 25 google hits. Martg76 23:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul quinn[edit]

Not quite ((nonsense)), but it comes rather close. Seems to be vanity. --Canderson7 23:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Googling "Paul quinn" Ballycastle mayor[19] reveals that it indeed is nonsense, or hoax. Delete. Dcarrano 01:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/probable hoax. --Etacar11 01:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep paul quinn has recently been voted mayor of ballycastle it is all complete fact! Jim Hill Ballycasyle Resident (Unsigned vote by 62.252.192.9, this IP previously blanked this page)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go Back to Mother Russia[edit]

del. nonnotable joke. mikka (t) 23:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 16:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skcuslled[edit]

Zero search results for Skcuslled or Croboystein on Google. I think someone's just making nonsense up, but I figured there was always the off chance I was wrong. Delete unless someone can prove otherwise. g026r 23:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is nonsense, and it probably comes under speedy deletion. Gwk 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Gwk. -- DS1953 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 16:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The croboys in D'ni[edit]

  • Non-notable, unencyclopedic. 0 google results. --Tothebarricades 23:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant hoax; anon writer is contributing a series of similar hoax articles, google doesn't get any hits for any of them, and some have been speedily deleted.--Scimitar 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Garbage hoax article. Gwk 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Jaxl 00:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nonsensical; hoax. -- Natalinasmpf 00:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense, hoax. jni 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Tracts[edit]

There are literally thousands of tracts produced cheeply by hundreds of organisations - this list is unmaintainable and would be largely unverifiable. A list of historically significant ones perhaps --Doc (?) 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a useless article. I bet there are very few of those tracts that are actually notable. Gwk 23:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; notability not shown, and in any case unverifiable and unmaintainable. Dcarrano 01:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable: yes. Maintainable and capable of being reasonably parametricized: no. Fernando Rizo 03:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Some of these are notable. Most are not. Unless there is some kind of criteria to limit it to the notable ones, this could become a huge, unmaintainable list. Kaibabsquirrel 03:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antievolutionist[edit]

Neologism, POV. --Tothebarricades 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Provides information on a term covering many groups --206.45.181.141
  • Delete. Neologism. Article claims "Supporters of Evolutionary Theory use this term in the same way antievolutionists use Evolutionist", but I don't believe this is true. Quale 01:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN neologism. --Scimitar 14:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering the topic, this page is weirdly NPOV (or close), but still neologism. Xoloz 03:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Rintrah 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke137 23:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dragonfiend 03:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the United States[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted: Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for America bashing and the page contains mostly essays of original research. (unsigned comment by Bertly).

  • Keep. That page is a valid article. Wikipedia does not pander to the POV of one person. Gwk 00:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. While there are good reasons for such an article, there are significant POV problems with the article. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Interesting that the nominator should single out this one out of the 14 members of Category:Human rights by country. - Mustafaa 00:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a bad faith vfd to me. America-bashing? Or do you don't like the fact that the US isn't as perfect as it makes out to be, for some reason? -- Natalinasmpf 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, a valid article on a valid topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- Joolz 00:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this nomination is made in good faith it's evidence of ignorance of the function of VFD and of the policies of Wikipedia. Expedite removal of the unsightly template, please. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Encyclopedic. --Lee Hunter 00:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that an encyclopedia should not have an article on Human rights in the United States!! Resolve your NPOV issues as they should be resolved, which is not here. Dcarrano 01:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and ban nominator for this disruptive attempt at censorship. We don't need to keep this listed for days on end. Why on earth would anyone want to delete this article, except to try and bring Wikipedia into line with their political stance? — Trilobite (Talk) 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — possibly also consider action against nominator for abusing the vfd process. Pakaran 01:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think perhaps Bertly doesn't like the facts that might eventually land in this obviously encyclopedic article. BrandonYusufToropov 01:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article needs a lot of cleanup but is a proper subject that should be addressed Reboot 04:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Invalid nomination. WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, trivially encyclopedic and valid subject, nomination probably invalid, incoherent with the idea that it "badly needs work" (you really destroy what needs work ?), WP:POV and WP:POINT. Rama 09:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly an encyclopedic topic, if there is a concern over the article's POV, the solution is editing, not deletion. —Stormie 11:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — A fundamental precept of the U.S. constitution. RJH 14:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Just more america bashing liberal crap that has no place o this venerable website - 152.163.101.12 14:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This address is an AOL proxy. While the address has made quite a few contributions, it is impossible to determine how many the user has made, or to determine if this vote is valid. Pakaran 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could do with a bit of a tidy though. Terwilliger 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this nomination seems invalid to me too so speedy keep it Yuckfoo 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down. Last time I checked it was not policy to yell at or ban newcomers the moment they complain about an article. As for the article, I think the intro is a bit jingoist myself. Gazpacho 02:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least the new user managed to state a ground (OR), so I'll assume good-faith. Of course, an obviously enclycopedic topic, and the ground is quite wrongly applied. Xoloz 03:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
More