< June 21	June 23 >

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Pilotstars, Graham Cooke and Eoin Gibson[edit]

non-notable band, no mention on allmusic, little on google, own website doesn't work (for me anyways!). delete also nominating articles about the band members and redirecting to this nomination -- pcr^talk 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all, non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 07:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Non-notable. Doesn't fit music notability requirement. Most google hits are for wikipedia mirrors. Wikibofh 14:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete barring proof of notability. --Scimitar 14:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone proves notability. --Silas Snider (talk) 17:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Phoenix2 23:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all three. Non notable band vanity. hydnjo talk 00:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Cooper Sanborn[edit]

Guy's a voice actor under 20, currently studying etc. Can't be found from IMDB; no Google hits that I can find except his own website. (His friend, Robin Sharp, has a similar status and they apparently work/study together; I'll post a separate VfD about that one, too.) Seems to be vanity. Captain Disdain 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Small update: That other VfD is here -- they're obviously friends, and they're pretty much on the same level of notability, I think -- so however you vote on one of them, you'll probably want to vote the same on the other one. -- Captain Disdain 00:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same for the other one too. -Splash 01:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, vanity. JamesBurns 07:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete His current voice acting appears to be on a radio reading service. If he did that for free, then I applaud his service to the community. However, he is not notable yet. A student. Geogre 11:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy vanity --Habap 22:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity it seems. hydnjo talk 00:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy (on assumption unsigned IP is the subject); otherwise, delete. Kevin/Last1in 01:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:09 (UTC)

The 1421 Heresy[edit]

Delete - appears to be an ad for a vanity publication. The title and the author both return 0 hits on Google. The website does not appear to be associated with any publishing house. Finally, the book has not even been published yet. -- Rlandmann 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though this might be able to come back once the book has been published. -Splash 01:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There's another book with the similar idea... but the name eludes me right now. Could this be a translation/different version? -Hmib 03:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The book you're probably thinking of is Gavin Menzies' 1421: The Year the Chinese Discovered the World. This is apparently unrelated. --Rlandmann 07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment :: This book (although possibly not under this title) has been published in the UK since 2004 (probably earlier -- what I saw was paperback). The theory behind it has been discussed widely in the "more intellectual" talk-shows (although (I suppose) as product-placement arranged by a good agent). I am not sure if this, therefore, is the right title, but an entry to the theory itself deserves keeping. --Simon Cursitor 06:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There already is an entry to the theory - called 1421 theory, appropriately enough. Average Earthman 08:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge a reference to this book to 1421 theory, delete the remainder. This page is not notable in itself, and the 1421 theory page covers (or could cover) all that is likely to be notable about the subject. Naturenet 11:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There really doesn't seem anything to merge, since this article is a pure ad. The article doesn't say anything about the theory, just says that there's this book to buy. The article title is improper for discussing the "controversy" as well. Geogre 11:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't add to 1421 theory. Just an ad. hydnjo talk 00:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either as either duplicate of 1421 theory or (if not duplicate per se) nn. Kevin/Last1in 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:13 (UTC)

Accuracy Paradox[edit]

At best, this is original research. No relevant Google hits for this phrase. Eric119 00:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Sounds like someone has misunderstood an A-level statistics lesson. The 90%/10% mean that, given you tested positive, there's a 90%/10% chance that you do/don't have it. It does not say outright how often the test reports positive/negative, and it does not say that there is a 10% chance of testing positive when you're in the clear. See bayes theorem, and you'll see the article is missing a piece of information. -Splash 01:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --BaronLarf 01:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter nonsense. What User:Splash said. -Hmib 03:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research? Possible neologism (zero relevant hits on Google), and what Splash said. Crush with giant killer robots. --  B.d.mills  (T, C) 05:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, elementary statistical inference poorly explained; I've never heard it called a paradox. Peter Grey 05:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The Mayo Clinic called it a paradox, and they seem to have had some trouble figuring it out.... "When symptomatic patients with abnormal electrocardiographic stress test responses first came to be referred for coronary angiography, the proportion with disease-the predictive accuracy of an abnormal test response-was noted to be very high. But when the identical testing procedure was later extended to asymptomatic subjects, the proportion with disease was surprisingly low. This puzzling paradox was eventually resolved through Bayes' theorem...". [1]. Kappa 06:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article is nothing but elementary statistics. Of course, nobody says that a test with 10% false negative rate AND 10% false positive rate is any useful for testing for a disease which, at average, appears in one out of 1000 persons tested. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So this web page [2] is wasting space discussing a concept that everyone understands intuitively? Kappa 08:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An explanation of the (more or less) counter-intuitive consequences of conditional probability could be useful, though. Leibniz 10:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect: Notice that this article has both capital letters. It's an article on one particular paradox. Whether other people waste space or not is not our concern. Med student tutorial pages are also not our concern. The question is whether this particular phrasing is a famous enough term that a person needs an encyclopedia to explain it and will search only by this phrase. I don't see much popularity for this phrase. Therefore, a mention of it in paradox and in conditional probability would be sufficient. Have the redirect point to the latter. Geogre 11:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not even a paradox - it's just a misunderstood point of (conditional) statistics.-Splash 12:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Paradox has the definition: "an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition". I believe this fits that definition. Kappa 12:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I'm not sure which part of this pseudo-example is paradoxical. First, we should ignore the example in the article since it is incomplete and mathematically wrong. The Smurfs example on your link is (one of) the correct formulation(s) - note it has an additional piece of information. But even in that example, if you improve the true-positive rate from 99% to 99.9% (you improve the test), the chances that the smurf is ill, given that they test positive also goes up (to 20.1%) which is hardly counter-intuituve. If you increase the false-positive rate to say 3% i.e. you make the test worse (with true +ve still 99%), then the chances that the smurf is ill, given that they test positive, fall to 14% — again hardly surprising. If it were a paradox, something would go 'the wrong way'. It is perhaps surprising that a 99% accurate test only picks up 20% of actual cases, but there is nothing paradoxical about it. Perhaps an example on the conditional probability page is in order, but certainly not the malformed one of this article, and certainly not under a 'paradox' heading.-Splash 13:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • The counterintuitive part is the test has a very low rate of false positives, but a large proportion of the positives are false. Kappa 14:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, perhaps. But the counterintuition only results from a cursory examination of the facts. Seeing as the OED more or less concurs with the def you give above, I suppose this could be loosely termed a paradox but, given the almost complete absence of the terminology in actual usage (including on Google), and the (mathematically correct) page that Cyan found below, I still think this page should be removed.-Splash 16:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can see the article is actually wrong, but I have never heard of the Accuracy Paradox and I would suggest this is a new coinage and not suitable for a heading in an encylopedia. If there is anything in it (I think not) it should appear elsewhere, eg conditional probability.
• Delete, insufficiently notable error. At most, an explanation correcting the misunderstanding could be merged to conditional probability. This is not a paradox nor a notable meme, even if one confused source once used the word. Barno 13:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm this error is mentioned under "false positive" "False positives can produce serious and counterintuitive problems when the condition being searched for is rare" but since it's non-notable maybe that should be taken out. Kappa 14:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is already adequately explained in the correct place, Bayesian inference#False positives in a medical test. -- Cyan 15:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad you found that! Maybe the conditional probability, Bayes theorem and Bayesian inference bunch need some merging, but certainly not with the help of this article.-Splash 16:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, had this been an actual paradox I may have said otherwise. Phoenix2 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speaking as one in howevermany of course. hydnjo talk 00:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Who will miss mary[edit]

nn band vanity You (Talk) 00:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep about 1400 hits on google. Article could be expanded Billhpike 00:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) — (Billhpike's 25th edit.)
• Delete without prejudice against recreation when circumstances change for the band. 158 unique Googles for "who will miss mary" band. No allmusic.com entry. Article does not assert notability or meeting any one criterion in WP:MUSIC. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per AиDя01D. -Splash 02:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. --FCYTravis 03:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --WikiFan04^{ß 2:11, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Keep and expand. Band has some notability. JamesBurns 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not that I don't trust you, James, but do you have a link or something that would show this? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 11:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Toured the US and UK, [3]. JamesBurns 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: First, this should be a speedy delete candidate for being criterion #1. Second, no notability offered in the article. I wish "keep" voters would help the rest of us by editing the article to make it better. Third, I suspect it's even misnamed, that it's "marry" rather than "mary." Fourth, no indication of notability, no contract, no records, no distribution, no influence on others, etc. Geogre 11:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that it is a rather uninformative sub-stub but it is not Patent nonsense. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: No, no, I didn't mean that it was nonsense. I was referring to "very short articles with little or no content." This article is "A band founded in 1997 in city." Notice that it lacks a subject to the sentence? It's all an object of an implied verb. This is an article that people are voting "keep" on? Geogre 05:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, I see. I agree with you then. Speedy delete unless someone wants to write an article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Who will miss this article? I won't. Delete per WP:MUSIC or lack thereof. Radiant_>|< 13:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete every single-sentence article that shows no notability and gives no useful information. You don't honestly believe that this little gem is going to be of value to anyone, do you? --Scimitar 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. "...The band gigged incessantly over the next year, from London&#146;s Borderline and Barfly to New York City&#146;s Bitter End and Mercury Lounge, taking in summer festivals and major events such as the London City Showcase, where The Guardian pronounced them "the highlight of the day...". [4]. Kappa 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't click this link if you have your speakers turned up... :-) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failing to meet WP:MUSIC --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Scimitar for failing to establish notability. --Xcali 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but please expand it too Yuckfoo 22:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but obviously expand. Phoenix2 23:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable yet, the official site shows only one single and one "mini-album" have been released. I may change my vote if someone shows anything else that proves notability (Billboard success, any of stuff from the music guidelines). Cyclone49 01:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. They might be close to hitting it big, but I've not seen any evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC. Girl's got a great voice, though. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa (talk · contribs). Pburka 02:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:14 (UTC)

Memphis meltdown[edit]

This page was marked for speedy deletion for "vanity and non-notability", neither of which is a reason for speedy deletion so I am moving it here. Abstain. JeremyA 00:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Sorry about the speedy tag... originally the page was just nonsense. I will try to use my speedy tags a little more strictly. --Lord Voldemort 13:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability not claimed - amateur club teams are generally below the bar of inclusion. --FCYTravis 03:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I am an author of the site and a new user. Seeing some of the obscure stuff on Wikipedia I thought it may be ok, but in hindsight it's a bit silly I agree. Feel free to delete us! It's been fun learning how to make a page though. Looking forward to utilising Wikipedia for more serious topics in the future.

Comment: Thank you for your honesty and integrity. Welcome to Wikipedia, and please do not be discouraged by the VfD process. It's one of the ongoing struggles, deciding when obscure stuff on the project should stay or go (and then getting it done). Geogre 11:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: An amateur team and therefore of local interest only. Geogre 11:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Souvenir of Sadness[edit]

This album has not yet been titled (although Souvenir of Sadness was previously the working title) making the article name false. MrHate 00:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think a new album by KoЯn comes with notability built-in; the problem is the name of that album doesn't seem to have been confirmed yet. Ben-w 16:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep in the absence of a better name being suggested, in which case move there. Kappa 22:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:15 (UTC)

Kage no Clan[edit]

nn forum You (Talk) 00:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable forum advert. Nestea 00:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - it confess to "[having] no point whatsoever". -Splash 02:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable forum. JamesBurns 07:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as forum vanity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:19 (UTC)

Cuddle bitch, Intellectual whore, & Intellectual Whore[edit]

A bunch of articles created by the same anon editor, seemingly for the promotion of a dating service. Delete all of them. JeremyA 01:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (speedy?) --BaronLarf 01:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedsomely I was the one rv'ing to speedy tags which were repeatedly removed until we finished up here. I really don't think that the 'text' that goes with the link makes this something other than a 'single external link' coupled with a 'very short article with little or no context'. -Splash 02:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all three. Then write an article on the widely understood concept of the "intellectual whore"-as-smart person who manufactures an opinion for the highest bidder. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:21, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep Remove the link, of course. Samboy 02:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Neutral.Merge into Ladder theory Samboy 05:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is a widely subscribed-to theory, despite being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Also, the said article has generated some sort of fame in internet circles. Of course, make Intellectual Whore redirect to Intellectual whore. Alternatively, rename to Intellectual whore (sarcasm) or something similar, and add the popular concept of an intellectual whore per User:BD2412. -Hmib 03:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all as neologisms. Denni☯ 03:59, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Merge into Ladder theory (where it probably already is) and redirect or delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:33, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete. --WikiFan04^{ß 2:12, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete all, neologisms. JamesBurns 07:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ladder Theory. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Donutz 17:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism and spam. Delete all, <eta>possibly</eta> redirect Intellectual whore to Ladder Theory. - Mike Rosoft 20:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with a redirect of intellectual whore to ladder theory. While the term is used there, that is hardly its predominant use (even that article notes that it refers to a "political abuse of scholarship"). It is a concept that deserves its own legit article. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:02, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never understood that term "blue balls", which seems to recur in a certain kind of mysogynistic literature. I was about thirty before I had sex with a woman but my love dumplings never changed color or gave me any kind of displeasure. Is there some predisposing medical condition? --21:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The pain can actually be intense, but I believe you have to have used friction to inspire intense near fulfillment without performing the act (there is no male nudity involved in acts that inspire "blue balls"). Despite the pain, at the time, one can't help but continue to be involved. --Habap 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's a circumcised penis thing. Friction has never been a problem for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete cuddle bitch as neologism. Intellectual whore is not a neologism, as it has been around since at least the advent of the Ladder Theory. If someone wants to create a new article and disambiguation page for intellectual whore, I would support it. --Habap 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (speedy) --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Comment. Redirect to Ladder Theory may be appropriate after review. No vote at this time. hydnjo talk 00:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all three. Unencyclopedic, no third-party sources available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Laddertheorycruft. — Phil Welch 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

(rat)[edit]

No vote tagged on June 2, but never linked to VfD page. --Nabla 02:05, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

---

found in orphaned pages, no hits in google for rat, (rat), or "Ben D. Cooper" + electronic music - suspected vanity. StopTheFiling 23:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with above opinion; look at year of birth: 1986. CurdledMeowMix 21:54, 3 June 2005.

• Delete, vanity --Kiand 14:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. mikka (t) 21:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unimportant. No Clue 02:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "Aspiring to the likes of" is code for "not notable" -- BD2412 ^talk 02:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete Fails Google test badly. Denni☯ 02:41, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. "Single voice polyphony" is an inherent contradiction. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. hydnjo talk 00:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Metroid Prime - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

Phendrana Drifts[edit]

Videogamecruft. What wil this be worth in ten years (assuming it's worth anything now?) Denni☯ 02:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Merge into Metroid Prime. Thunderbrand 02:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• merge as above. This is definitely an important part of the game (one of something like 4 major areas), but there needn't be a whole article about it. Brighterorange 05:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Metroid Prime. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, I wish wikipedia has existed ten years ago, especially if it had aimed for usefulness not prestige. Kappa 08:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Metroid Prime. JamesBurns 09:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Metroid Prime. Wikipedia exists now and it aims for usefulness with regard to significant facts, not useless unlimited coverage of trivial gamecruft. Perhaps Kappa meant to find Wishpedia. Barno 13:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per all of the above. (except Kappa) Nestea 15:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:17 (UTC)

Onetoomany[edit]

Unverifiable bandcruft, much sounds like a hoax (bandmembers going to prison *and* forming a reunion concert?) FCYTravis 03:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: From now on, I'm going to assume every "band" that turns up no Google hits is an outright piece of vandalism. Geogre 16:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keeping this around would give us one too many articles. --Xcali 19:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at best band vanity, as worst just nonsense. --Etacar11 23:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable band vanity. hydnjo talk 01:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified and unverifiable non notable band vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Yellow Brick Road[edit]

Original research. Interesting original research, but nonetheless... Denni☯ 03:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Merge into Yellow brick road, trimming a bit (I think most of the content is OK). We have articles on Diagon Alley and Knockturn Alley, which are far less notable. -- Visviva 03:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful as above, though it appears most content - and certainly all "original research" has been edited away. 23skidoo 03:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yellow brick road. There's nothing to merge: everything in this article is original research, non-notable, or already stated in the other article. AJD 04:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yellow brick road. JamesBurns 08:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yellow brick road. There's nothing to merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above —Kjammer 09:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge there might be something to salvage and put into Yellow brick road Francis Davey 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: See that last sentence? "For more information on reading too much into things?" Someone was in a class, heard this, and thought the movie was the end of the discussion and that it was just a movie. Merge what? The Wizard of Oz (book) article already has a number of readings. Geogre 16:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Confusing at best. hydnjo talk 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Visviva. This is currently a slightly better article than Yellow brick road, without too much overlap. A merge would make for a stronger overall entry. Jgm 29 June 2005 04:21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Sum Poosie[edit]

Non-notable beverage Denni☯ 03:11, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement. -- Grev -- Talk 04:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since I've never heard of it, and it has a low-level domain name... delete. --WikiFan04^{ß 2:09, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. hydnjo talk 01:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I started this article, it wasn't an advertisment. As for the comment by WikiFan04, thats just idiocy, because he doesnt know about it he votes to delete it? Sounds like science vs religion to me... Seriously, if Bawls has a page... Sum Poosie should too. --TwoTogether 02:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I live in a town of about twenty thousand people and three places here carry this drink. It's still relatively new, so I wouldn't call it non-notable or delete because you haven't heard of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.107.133 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look... fuck you guys... Two rules, you guys suck... so get on your knees. He's just trying to further the community and you guys put him down. Suck. It.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Le Bert[edit]

Delete silliness about a 20-year-old pool hall manager in Quebec. Joyous 03:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious vanity, silly. Crush with giant killer flame-breathing robots. --  B.d.mills  (T, C) 05:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Umm... yes. Right. Vanity. --WikiFan04^{ß 2:07, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and don't forget to delete Image:Backinbert.jpg at the same time. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete total vanity. --Etacar11 23:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Buh-Bye. hydnjo talk 01:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge to Lincoln, Nebraska.  Grue  6 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Jazz in June[edit]

Pretty much every major city has a summer jazz festival. This is just another non-notable one. Denni☯ 03:50, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I believe this article has potential, if more info can be added to it and it is wikifyed. --WikiFan04^{ß 2:08, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete non notable festival. JamesBurns 08:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable at present. Naturenet 11:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete for Denni's reason, or retitle if expanded to disambiguate from dozens of similar festivals. Barno 13:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Lincoln, Nebraska, as it's been in place since 1991 and contains information that might be useful to people visiting or looking for information on the city. --Scimitar 14:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete: A merge wouldn't hurt, but there is no question about aptness of this article. Local event known only to itself. Geogre 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lincoln, Nebraska—Wahoofive (talk) 16:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, locally important. Kappa 21:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Scimitar. Falphin 00:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the new stuff into Lincoln, Nebraska. hydnjo talk 01:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Maths: Subtraction[edit]

Instructions for an educational videogame. Denni☯ 04:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete. The whole point of Zillions of Games is that there's zillions of 'em, which is too many for an encyclopedia. I doubt that this one is particularly notable. Brighterorange 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Brightorange. My only concern is that Karlscherer3 is creating a number of Zillions games articles (I see Rabbits, Quadrilles, Traffic Lights, Pancakes, Triki, Tetrasticks, Matchsticks and Matchsticks II just to name a few). Are those going to go through separate VFDs or is there some general rule regarding them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge them all. Kappa 06:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with all other non-notable 'Zillions Games' articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all 'Zillions' articles. In addition to not being particularly notable, they appear to be self-promotion, as the author of all the ones I've checked is " Karl Scherer, presumably the same person as User:Karlscherer3. Niteowlneils 00:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GaZillions of these. Should this project become a web search engine? I hope not. hydnjo talk 01:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising hoarding, or a product catalogue. ~~~~ 09:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - please see Karlscherer3's contribs for a full list of these video game instruction pages. -- Jonel | Speak 04:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also User:219.89.35.182's contribs. Niteowlneils 14:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games. ~~~~ 10:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)

Maths: Multiplication[edit]

Instructions for an educational videogame. Denni☯ 04:10, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not GameFAQs or a host for game manuals. Geogre 04:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove advertising content and create a redirect to Multiplication article. Average Earthman 08:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with all other non-notable 'Zillions Games' articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.GaZillions of these. Should this project become a web search engine? I hope not. hydnjo talk 01:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - please see Karlscherer3's contribs for a full list of these video game instruction pages. -- Jonel | Speak 04:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games. ~~~~ 10:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:32 (UTC)

ROFL Attack[edit]

For the prior VFD discussion of Roflcopter see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Roflcopter. For a discussion of potentially expanding the speedy deletion criteria to include speedily deleting material that is re-created during a VfD vote, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load.

This is a non-notable internet game (approx. 800 google hits), possibly created as advertising. This article was created in response to the VFD discussion of Roflcopter, which see for background information. Xoloz 05:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Flash vanity, advertising. — JIP | Talk 06:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You beat me to it, although I would have listed it under the rationale of wanting a clearer sign of consensus before deleting outright content that's already been listed for deletion. BTW, if this passes, remember that roflcopter is now a candidate for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch 09:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conversely, if the consensus here is to keep, it may be worth considering merging the edit history of roflcopter beneath ROFL Attack, thereby fixing the copy&paste move. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep, roflcopter gets 17,400 google hits. Kappa 09:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is ROFL Attack. Uncle G 10:31, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • But Roflcopter will be deleted if this article is. Kappa 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • roflcopter has already been discussed, and the argument to keep it lost. Uncle G 18:59, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable flash animation. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 11:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, [lame] extension of previous [lame] joke animation game. Not notable and no potential to become encyclopedic. Kappa should research and vote on current topic instead of almost-unrelated topic that inspired this one. Barno 14:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The survival of information on roflcopter depends on the survival of this article. Kappa 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's true, but it appears very little, if anything, of Roflcopter lives on in this. My nom., at least, and many of the votes, I gather, also reflect the thinking that the redirect was not useful. Xoloz 01:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'll borrow two WTFbombs from the game and say- how is this even in here? Delete. --Scimitar 14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - roflcopter only survived in the first place due to sockpuppetry Proto 14:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 15:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the lack of notability. Nestea 15:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not for an encycolpedia. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I wish we had a Game project. Say, Wikigamopedia. It might someday be bigger than ... well... Wikipedia (who knows). hydnjo talk 01:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though I voted for keeping ROFLCopter, I think that the ROFLcopter article pretty much covers this game as this is the ROFLcopter game... Pretty much a useless page. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I thought that this would be a sure loser, but I thought ROFLcopter was, too. Now I see that it was kept. Apparently, it takes 99% or better delete to delete something, so I'd better vote. Geogre 05:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to LOL or some equivalent. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The game is notable.  Grue  15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And Keep in the strongest terms possible the history of Roflcopter, since there was no consensus for its deletion.  Grue  16:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The admin did not rule that there was no consensus in Roflcopter -- he stated plainly that he was invoking his discretion. Xoloz 18:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable game. And nuke the Roflcopter redirect while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, while not part of common knowledge, even to people who frequent the internet, like many words on the internet slang page, it is well known within the Gamer Community. Brekk 1:20, 24 June 2005
  • Improperly signed and improperly placed comment by 24.2.249.2. Moved to proper place on page also. Xoloz 06:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this whole LMAONADE, ROFLCOPTER, etc. stuff is definitely well known and I've seen it quoted in many places. This game was mostly responsible for bringing this extension to common internet acronyms to the masses. Perhaps edit the article to mention? — (Unsigned comment by 131.215.158.170; user's 5th edit.)
• Keep, I clicked on it because I wanted to know more about it. Why delete it then? Is this Wikicult? — (Unsigned comment by 35.11.210.84; user's 1st edit.)
• Keep, it's an important aspect of forum culture. — (Unsigned comment by 209.89.225.205; user's 1st edit.)
• Delete. Roflcopter may have been notable. This is not by itself. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 16:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Khalil al-Duleimi[edit]

Article is obscenely short with no real content.

Update: User:Scimitar has expanded the article and it's no longer a substub. Votes may not be based on the article's current content. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep, Saddam Hussein's lawyers are notable. Kappa 07:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. Notability not established. JamesBurns 08:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• While I don't have anything against an article on this guy - being Saddam's lawyer is notable - this should be deleted as a substub unless it's expanded before VFD ends. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. No longer a substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Verify and expand, or delete. Depending on when and how the trial proceeds, this person is likely to become widely notable, and to become considered more significant than Johnny Cochrane. This hasn't happened yet and might not; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Wikinews is down the hall to the left. Barno 14:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've started expanding, and I'll see what else I can dig up. It should be noted that al-Duleimi is only one of 22 lawyers representing Saddam, but he is the only one who attended Saddam's interrogation, and Al-Jazeera incorrectly reported him as Saddam's "lead lawyer". He is also the only one based in Iraq. --Scimitar 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on new expansions. --Briangotts 16:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The Saddam trial will be a notable case. Capitalistroadster 17:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While we may not be a crystal ball, the trial is notable. Unless he turns out to be a brother of the secretary of the dog in a picture with Saddam outside the courthouse, its a safe bet that we'll have more to add shortly. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DS1953 21:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; surprised that this could be considered a candidate for deletion jamesgibbon 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable topic Billhpike 22:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jareth. Falphin 00:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jareth. --WikiFan04^{ß 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:24 (UTC)

Doubles crew[edit]

Seems to be vanity, at least not a group warranting an article. kmccoy (talk) 06:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete team vanity. JamesBurns 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep may be important to thousands locally, doesn't seem to include any real vanity or boasting. needs to be merged with other linked pages though, no need to have 3 seperate pages Duderanch 08:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • NB User:Duderanch isn't registered, and is a very naughty sockpuppet. This vote was actually by user:Murf2k5 (talk|contribs), the author. [5]
• Delete get yourself a geocities site. Dunc|☺ 10:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete known for playing football and excessive drinking, eh? Well, if playing sports and drinking are criteria, I have 50000 other articles I want added...--Scimitar 14:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, create redirect to sport rowing. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:31, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  • A reasonable redirect. Uncle G 20:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny, but needs to go. Non-notable. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)

2003 Doubles Champion[edit]

Seems to be a vanity page kmccoy (talk) 06:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity - some school's tennis footaball tournament. (Does not even name the school.) Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as a useless article with no context. - Mike Rosoft 07:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's actually football. See doubles crew. Uncle G 20:35, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. JamesBurns 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, no useful content. Average Earthman 08:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can add location/more information to show this is notable. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Final, 2004 Doubles Champion and Final Doubles Champion[edit]

Seems to be a vanity page kmccoy (talk) 06:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity - some school's tennis football tournament. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 08:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's actually football. See doubles crew. Uncle G 20:35, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. JamesBurns 08:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable event. Average Earthman 08:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. --Durin 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Final Doubles Champion to a redirect to here, as the votes are by the same people and the articles being voted on are essentially the same. --Durin 14:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless further information can show that this is notable. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to be non notable. If we were to create articles for every single sports tournament ever played around the world, the servers would explode. Aecis 21:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus).  Grue  6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Booger[edit]

• Keep there is no elevated scientific term for it, so pushing for deletion based upon the lack of a scientific name is an absurd and uninformed objection. additionally, there is useful and accurate information on that page in it's current form. lesotho

Delete - Booger is not the scientific name for this. If this is to be discussed at all then it should be discussed under a scientific name.

Anonymous nomination by 152.163.100.14

Speedy keep. Wikipedia is not scientific-elitist. Is there even a scientific term for this? Nickptar 08:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the name not being scientific is not a reason for deletion and since this got enough content, I can't really see another reason to kill it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with nose-picking and redirect. Uppland 10:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Move, as above. Booger-related humor may want to go, though. Sonic Mew 10:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Mucus. Booger-related humor wants to stay, but WP policy requires it to be deleted or BJAODN'ed. Barno 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I can't believe I'm saying this. Keep. The article seems well written, discusses the etymology. Some of it would be lost on a merge. I think it could be cleaned up. The humor is unnecessary. Wikibofh 14:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no reason that a chapter of nose-picking jokes cannot be started in the Jokebook. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep but move to nasal mucus to try to raise the tone. Dunc|☺ 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Nobody actually uses terms as "nasal mucus". Booger/bogey are the most common terms used. Seems reasonably well written though the joke section probably doesn't belong here. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 15:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I forsee the petrol/gasoline debate coming around again. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Not the most scientific name, not the most dignified name, not the most official name, not the most accurate name, not the most medically professional name, but the most common name. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And here it is, beginning ... Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Dunc. Funny bone and pointer finger are both redirects as well. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Merge, just don't delete...--do you want your kids to grow up, not knowing the word 'booger'? ChercherEccles 19:23, 2005 Jun 22 (according to edit history. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC))
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopaedia. For words, see a dictionary. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Comment: There was a failed attempt to move fart lighting to flatulence ignition. Kappa 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mrs Grundy is not dead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Mrs. Grundy isn't either ;) -- Jonel | Speak 04:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article, though it could use some illustration. I've no idea why anyone should suggest that an article which is mostly about an American word and its place in American culture should be under a name in a language never spoken in America. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the nominator's suggestion is to put it under "a scientific name", you are making the statement that the language of science is not spoken in America. That is most definitely untrue. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• keep please we have a precedence for this at the fart lighting aticle Yuckfoo 22:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Phoenix2 23:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep , its a common term and is notable article. I wouldn't neccesarily object to Merge however. Falphin 00:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. as per Falphin above. Also, oppose merging and strongly oppose renaming. The common name may inspire its share of jokes, but that is why we edit articles. Booger is the best common name, and, while informal, it isn't quite vulgar. Content now exists here, and more could be added, about the excretion so plentiful in human life. Xoloz 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as well as second Xoloz. This isn't gas/petrol, which is diffcult because soth are widely used, but a much simpler debate. Methinks Uncle G would enjoy the arguement, though. humblefool® 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is. The gasoline/petrol debate diversified into a discussion about Commonwealth English and United States English. A booger/bogey debate would end up doing the same. Even the "rename the article to a technical name and redirect to it" suggestion is exactly paralleled here (Fossil fuel for spark-plug-containing internal combustion engines and nasal mucus). Note that a requested moves discussion has just begun on the talk page .... Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Merge with mucus to avoid redudant information and add the rest to BJADN. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not put it into the Jokebook? Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Merge into Mucus. JamesBurns 08:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mucus. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There's now a Nose-picking Jokes chapter in the Jokebook. Uncle G 15:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 23:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mucus.
• Merge into Mucus. JYOuyang 20:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Mucus. 64.12.116.136 Jun 26, 2005
• Merge with Mucus. 205.188.116.65 June 2005 01:47
• Keep. The article is about a word and its usage, not mucus per se. Leibniz 2 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
• Merge with the Mucus article. 345.238.896.78
• Keep as per Leibniz UkPaolo 4 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  6 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Dohyo[edit]

This subject is already treated fairly well in Sumo. Recommend redirect to Sumo -Tadanisakari 08:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, better as a soft redirect. Kappa 08:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, I don't see why we should have soft-redirects when not send across different wikis. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sumo. Content duplication. JamesBurns 09:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand surely info on ring size and history can be found. Falphin 00:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Falphin. -- Jonel | Speak 04:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This can be a normal encyclopedia article. Rentastrawberry 17:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: other reasons to keep are to have the interwiki link, to be able to categorize it, and because donors are more likely to contribute if they aren't annoyed and confused by inconvenient hard redirects. Kappa 22:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Fernando arturo effio solis[edit]

This seems to be vanity: a text in Portuguese about a college student and his food & music preferences. Sietse 08:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Belongs on the Portuguese wikipedia if anywhere. Wikibofh 14:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Using [6] Portugese-->English, it's clear this is pure vanity. --Durin 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The texts is in a weird mixture of spanish and portuguese. The guy is from Lima, Peru, but was exiled in Brazil. Pure vanity. --User:Magrovsky

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Izawl.com[edit]

Spam and blatant vanity. (And the advertised site has no Alexa rank.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The website is the most popular Mizo community website. Mizos around the world get together on this website and discuss various topics about their home state, a state in India. The Article is worth it. Do not delete.
  • Anonymous comment by 216.148.62.214.
  • If that is really true, then it seems that no Mizo website is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. And even if this one were, the article - as it is written - is patently non-encyclopedic anyway. - Mike Rosoft 10:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, written as advertising. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete. Blatant ad. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/self-promotion. --Etacar11 23:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, advertising, self-promotion, non-notable, written poorly, etc. No reason to keep. Falphin 00:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Kibonis[edit]

Spam and blatant vanity. Affiliate marketing scheme (Vstore); no Google hits. Ambi 09:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No Google hits and no Alexa rank (after 4 years!) is quite pathetic for a commerce website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew. DS1953 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but perhaps a Wikipedia Vstore could pay for more servers? I keed, I keed! --FCYTravis 03:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable, advertisement. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:27 (UTC)

Vodooclown[edit]

This article has previously been through VfD and deleted without problems. It has popped up again under a new name, and is deletable band vanity. The band has no albums, no chart success, and apparently no money. Delete. Harro5 09:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity, though interestingly Voodoclown doesn't have a hidden history that admins can see and so it may not be speediable under the recreation of vfded article criterion. Dunc|☺ 09:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Though, the link shows that no one voted, so apparently an admin didn't close it. Sonic Mew 10:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It didn't get votes last time, so we can fix it that this time. NN. Wikibofh 14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails all 7 points (as near as I can verify) of WP:MUSIC. --Durin 14:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Matthew harding[edit]

Vanity. Dunc|☺ 09:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. There was a famous Matthew Harding who was a businessman in the UK and owned Chelsea Football Club until he was killed in a helicopter crash in 1996, but this isn't him. David | Talk 11:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like vanity. Conscious 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. --Durin 14:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn DS1953 15:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed. maadio
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, curriculum vitae and uncapitalized last name. Changing vote slightly: I'm still going delete, but the title should be turned into a redirect back to the Chelsea FC article. That particular Matthew Harding is mentioned in that article. - Lucky 6.9 05:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Create a new article at Matthew Harding about the late businessman, and Redirect the uncapitalised version to that. Qwghlm 10:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just created a stub there. Shall I do the redirect as well? Qwghlm 10:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait for the VfD to conclude. --Durin 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, will do. Qwghlm 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe i'll die in a helicopter accident too? then will i be noteable  :) (Matthew Harding) unsigned edit by 220.240.241.178 (talk · contribs)

• • It's not the helicopter crash, it's the owning Chelsea football club. Kappa 22:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Ramesh balsekar[edit]

Non-notable to-be guru; only web presence are his own pages. This is a vanity page, should be deleted. Bambaiah 09:48, 2005 Jun 22 (according to edit history. I also fixed the nomination. Uncle G 10:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC))

• Delete non-notable, not independently verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Vincent Hermany[edit]

0 Google hits for "Vincent Hermany". 2 for "Vincent L. Hermany", no demonstration of notability (wrestled for his university), and some other guy (possibly his father) who died recently [7] Dunc|☺ 09:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN. Wikibofh 14:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~~~~ 20:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris (nonsense). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jiang Boshen[edit]

Student vanity. Apparent author of books Origami Astrophysics Guide and The meaning of Theoretical Physics and founder of the "Association of Paperclips and their effect on the sub-conscious mind", might qualify for nonsense. Dunc|☺ 09:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Nonsense for reasons noted above. Wikibofh 14:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. I actually founded the "Association of Paperclips and their effect on the sub-conscious mind" --Scimitar 14:58, 22 Jun 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:33 (UTC)

Dion Gee[edit]

Schoolkid vanity. No imbd entry. Dunc|☺

• Delete - vanity and NN A curate's egg 14:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. Googling "Dion Gee" with "actor" results in no relevant hits. --Durin 14:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "many in the media" refer to him as "Dion Gee" eh? Well, no media that are searchable from Google News. Bye bye. Donutz 17:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 23:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:34 (UTC)

House Of Horus[edit]

Not only is there no evidence to show that this amatuer hard rock band passes WP:MUSIC, its website is also being hosted on FreeWebs.com. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity/self-promotion. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Durin 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Sorry House, try again if/when you become more notable. Donutz 17:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite to show the House of Horus from Egyptian mythology. (see [8]). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. If it was an article pertaining to Egyptian mythology, that would be another story. --Etacar11 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 09:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 4 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Tokyo Posse[edit]

This article seems to be about a new toy line that was just announced by the Takara toy company a few days ago. The problem is that it will not actually debut until September and thus makes this article violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the announcement is presumably verifiable. Kappa 14:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a crystal ball. The announcement is verifiable, but until it comes out, it's Vaporware. Wikibofh 14:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no reason not to cover notable vaporware. Kappa 15:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is no Duke Nukem Forever  :) Wikibofh 17:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is apparently fact, not speculative fantasy. CalJW 14:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Misuse of crystall ball argument must end. Proto 14:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with regrets- Takara (the designers) also made transformers, and these dolls will be sold internationally, so they will conceivably be cared about by people who find anime dolls important (whatever floats your boat I guess). Additionally, the crystal ball argument is a non-starter, because we don't need a crystal ball. This was a big PR announcement by established companies. --Scimitar 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't out yet, so at present what we have is nothing more than an advertisement, which is imminently deletable. It isn't even a particularly useful advertisement. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep not available product yet but can and hopefully will be updated as more information about this toy line is released by the manufacturer, I also strongly disagree with the use of the crystal ball argument since this is not about a future event, I can't see any argument other than the fact that there may not be enough information to justify an article. Jtkiefer 23:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Week delete, the line hasn't established itself as being notable in any way. Falphin 00:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar, agreeing that crystal ball not apply when a major company makes a significant announcement. If the line is not issued, that too could well be notable as a PR failure for the company. Xoloz 01:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar but without regrets. -- Jonel | Speak 04:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Look, an annoucement is otherwise known as a news article or an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. So, if this article is going to stay because it describes a product, then delete because the product doesn't exist. Absolutely valid use of crystal ball argument. What is so hard about waiting until it exists before writing it up? We're not trying to scoop anyone, because we're not a news site. We're a reference work, and one that depends upon verification from other sources. An article that a company plans to do something is not notable. Geogre 05:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising/annoucement for a line of merchandise that hasn't been released yet. Notability not established. Until the dolls are actually produced I can see no reason why this promo should be kept. JamesBurns 09:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As usual, Geogre's argument is spot on. Quale 21:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified, expandable, thus it's a stub. Almafeta 00:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Geogre said. This product could die like a dog: there's no way of knowing. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it "dies like a dog" the article can be updated to reflect that fact. Kappa 22:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Hair extensions[edit]

Blatant advertisement for Monofibre (I've removed that stupid registered sign). While the Monofibre article is salvageable because of the small amount of content, I see no practical way to make this article read as anything other than advertising. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup. Notable hair fashion with multiple materials and techniques. See Dreadlocks for precedent Djbrianuk 12:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That would have to be rewrite instead of cleanup. When I tagged the article for VfD, the content was so blatant advertising it was painful to look at. — JIP | Talk 12:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, Keep and Rewrite then. You're right that the article as it stands is advertising but the topic is certainly encyclopedic, and deserves an article. Whether it's better to rewrite this, or delete it and start over is of course debateable. Djbrianuk 13:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content, list on requested articles. Radiant_>|< 13:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vandalized by a spammer. Keep and revert to an earlier version (although the brief mention of a salon there may also be spammish and should be removed unless verified) and have the spammer crushed by elephant. Uppland 13:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Enough people get them to be notable, but this is just an ad. Wikibofh 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite, remove spamvertising. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep/Rewrite. Someone had cleaned it up, but IP responsible for advertising keeps reinserting it. I've reverted to the cleaned version, but it might get readvertisementitiated. Proto 14:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment - also see Sewn - is this a VfD candidate? Proto 14:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not a vote, but i think the entire content here is best thrown away. It ignores the existence of say, artificial hair extensions. The sentence about the supposed invention of the technique looks like an advert still. Morwen - Talk 15:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Current content is an advertisement; former one was blatant spam. Cleanup/rewrite (as per Morwen) or, failing that, delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - as it currently is, only needs destubbing in due course. This is certainly a valid topic for an article, but just needs to be the right one, not all the dismal spam. No reason to delete the artice, though. If the offender persists, there are other remedies. Naturenet 16:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable hair fashion. If necessary, protect stub against spammer. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Monofibre into present article. As it is, it's an ad for the Salon, although it has possibilities.
• Keep or merge; notable hair fashion; not a good VfD. Phoenix2 23:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite per Proto et al. Xoloz 01:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable hair accessory. JamesBurns 09:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with hair weave. This article only talks about one type of hair extension, but you have clip-in, bonded and sewn track (a hair weave), braided, and this technique are all types of hair extensions. Antares33712 29 June 2005 17:44 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 11:16 (UTC)

WFMed[edit]

Spam advertising of non-notable company Djbrianuk 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Spam. --Durin 14:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre (Speedy deleting for the THIRD TIME). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cbrlist[edit]

Advertising. Small non-notable mailing list. " It's been suggested that we don't discuss as much motorcyclecentric topics, which is entirely true. The reasoning for this fact is that we have already talked about it. 43 times." is complete non-information. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Google shows 157 hits but the vast majority of those aren't about the list that this article describes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising for a mailing list. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted for the THIRD time: Clockworksoul deleted it on April 15th. I deleted it yesterday. It's back, so I deleted it yet again. I saw nowhere in the history that anyone had undeleted it as an objection to the speedy deletes, so let's all watch to see if this link turns blue again and blast away. Geogre 05:16, 23 Jun 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect.  Grue  6 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin main characters[edit]

All information in this article is already contained in the individual pages for the characters: Himura Kenshin, Kamiya Kaoru, Myojin Yahiko, Sagara Sanosuke and Takani Megumi. Links should go to the individual character pages, and be provided on the main Rurouni Kenshin article. Delete- Js2756 13:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge or redirect but there's no need to delete this page. Kappa 16:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to, most likely, Rurouni Kenshin. humblefool® 02:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rurouni Kenshin. Fork. JamesBurns 09:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris ("Phenominal basketball player who plays for Craigmont High School."). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maurice Goode,Jr.[edit]

Delete: Vanity. --Durin 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. --FOo 15:29, 22 Jun 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:35 (UTC)

Millennium Boy Productions[edit]

I first nominated this for speedy deletion, but it doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, so I hereby nominate this article for deletion. Possible vanity article about a non-notable production company that hasn't produced any movies. Aecis 13:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Vanity, self-promotion, advertising, etc. --Durin 14:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No indicia of notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:23, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable Naturenet 16:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/advertising. --Etacar11 00:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Party pooper[edit]

Dictdef. (Previous vfd of same title with different content here) --W(t) 14:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete. Move it over to the Wiktionary instead of putting it here. Donutz 17:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Party. Radiant_>|< 08:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Party, dicdef. JamesBurns 09:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -not encyclopedic AT ALL...--GrandCru 08:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

Althanas[edit]

A web forum. No Alexa data, and while it has 217 inbound links, if you search through them, all but one are either from the site itself or from allrpg.com. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Cryptic (talk) 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: As the author of the article, I do not intend the article to be an advertisement for the forum or an entry in a "web guide.' Rather, I was perusing Wikipedia, and I noticed several entries regarding play-by-post gaming and online roleplaying games. However, there were few entries which described an example of the operating systems behind such a forum. As such, I felt it necessary to describe one such system in some degree of detail, so as to provide a more comprehensive knowledge of the topic.

I have also edited the article to more clearly reflect its intent. I read the entire rulebook before posting the article, too, and I see nothing to disallow articles which enhance the depth and breadth of knowledge on particular subjects. It may be, however, that a better method is just to hyperlink for examples in the external links section, or provide a generic "example" within the context of other articles. If that is the case, feel free to say so.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.221.98.4 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: AllRPG.com is the parent site of Althanas, and due to their usage of sidebars and XHTML, there is a direct link to Althanas every viewable page. "Spiders" that are meant to make Internet searches more thorough and complete have indexed every single page of AllRPG and every page of Althanas (which both have forums), making it seem as though our entry is JUST a web forum. A regular google search shows 3,840 total links. Google filters out many of the "Spiders," and as you can see, there are many unique inbound links to Althanas. This should prove that Althanas is both a fantasy world and a unique gaming system comparable to existing entries on Wikipedia such as "Play By Post" and "Alleria."

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.71.113 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm, the link you gave is the same one I do, and unless Google is feeding us different information, it's still just 217 from a total of three different domains, not 3,840. A regular search for "www.althanas.com", which is what I think you meant, turns up just 45 displayed hits. (By the way, proper etiquette is to sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~) --Cryptic (talk) 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Play-by-post gaming, possibly being cut down. Kel-nage 21:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is NOT a webguide. You will see that in the deletion guidelines, if you look. It's not "knowledge in a particular area": it's advertising for a website. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your product or service. Geogre 05:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Tim Smith[edit]

Losing minor party candidate in last November's Congressional election - and no edits since last November. Not notable. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:33, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete. Losing minor party candidates (and, indeed, major party candidates when they have no chance whatsoever) are not as a rule notable. Articles on the parties are fine, but unless they are a recognisable figure in there own right (e.g. the late Screaming Lord Sutch in the UK) then nothing can really be worth saying about them other than their percentage of the vote, and that is most usefully achieved in an article on the election rather than the candidate. This Tim Smith has certainly had less influence politically than, say, the former Conservative party MP for Beaconsfield in the UK of the same name. Average Earthman 15:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep candidates who have been on the ballot in federal elections. Failing that, merge/redirect to United States House of Representatives, Washington District 7 once created. Change to disambig page once someone writes an article on the MP. -- Jonel | Speak 17:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if we should have an article on the district (which I agree we should), I disagree with incorporating information about gadfly candidates. The Green Papers (which is very conscientous about listing third party candidates) does not even show this guy's name, meaning he probably never even made it on the ballot. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • Hold the phone. I just checked the WA Secretary of State's site (here) to double check that, and their site (like the Green Papers) lists only McDermott and Cassidy. It appears that Smith was not on the ballot; therefore, I am changing my vote to Delete. Please note that my comments in support of keeping all candidates that are on ballots for federal elective office still stand; I just now know that Smith is not one of them. Charles Moore, Bruce Guthrie, Spencer Garrett, and Robert Losey should have articles. -- Jonel | Speak 03:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This discussion has been had before. It is trivially easy to get onto ballots in many countries. (In several, it's merely a matter of a monetary deposit and a certain number of people's signatures.) A general principle of allowing biographical articles for people whose sole claim to notability is that they managed to have themselves listed on ballots is an unwise one. Actually winning the election, on the other hand, is a different matter. Uncle G 03:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
        • I suggest that a losing candidate is notable by their candidacy alone (as opposed to some wacky thing they said or did) if the number of votes they received has some legal significance (in many districts, a minor-party candidate who gets more than 5% of the vote assures their party an automatic slot on the ballot for the next cycle), or if their presence on the ballot actually influences the outcome of the election (in the sense of Ralph Nader in 2000). -- BD2412 ^talk 03:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
        • And I still disagree that including federal candidates regardless of ease of candidacy is an unwise principle. For example, Bruce Guthrie in WA-2 received 2.5% of the vote in a U.S. House of Representatives election. That's not a huge percentage (and less than the 5% referenced by BD2412 above), but it still means that nearly 8,000 people voted him. Charles Moore in WA-1 had 1.75% of the vote, which means almost 6,000 people voted for him. I'm fine with merging them into district articles if really necessary, but we've kept article that I feel have far less notability than federal political candidates. However, I do realize that consensus is (usually - see Alan de Jardin and the related VfD) against me in this and will not create any more articles for losing third-party candidates. I will defend them each and every time I see them on VfD, though. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this generically-named losing candidate. He can have an article if he accomplishes something. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert W. Mitchell Delete. Uncle G 20:04, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, please note that Mitchell was a candidate for a state legislature while Smith was a candidate for a national legislature. -- Jonel | Speak 02:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I already noted it, in the reasons that I have referred to. Please read them again, more carefully. Uncle G 03:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
      • Substantially more than 49 people voted for, e.g., Bruce Guthrie. And I actually do think Barrie Singleton should have an article. However, I do think that my comment there should have been generally addressed rather than to you in specific, as there are plenty of other reasons (by contributors other than you) given in the Mitchell VfD that do not apply to Smith. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,failing that merge, per Jonel. Kappa 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Losing candidate not notable for anything but losing. Tons of people run for office every year and fail. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless he has done something else notable. Running for office is not in itself notable unless the candidate is elected or affects the election contest ie by saying something controversial that handicaps his parties chances. Otherwise, we should have candidate biographies when they already hold a notable position such as state member or mayor of a sizable city or they have a biography featuring achievements in other areas ie sportsman, corporate leader, union leader etc. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. I see no reason to expect expansion. As for verifiabilty, his bio says little more than he's "a bottler, a father, a husband, a handyman and a freshwater fisherman". DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_>|< 08:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable losing candidate. JamesBurns 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.  Grue  16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete its gotten to the point that even **I** am more notable than the subject of this article. Vonkje 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete losing in an election is, by itself, non-notable. -Splash 15:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable person... Any clown can run and lose. In fact, any clown can run and win :) --GrandCru 08:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Wizza[edit]

Neologism. The page says the word is only used by "a small group of Boston College alumni". MysteryDog 14:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Someone blanked this entry on the VfD page a few hours after I created it. MysteryDog 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ChercherEccles 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A slang term for marijuana used by a limited number of people. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. cannabis (drug) points to Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang exactly so that more slang term articles like this don't grow here. See Talk:Cannabis and Talk:Cannabis (drug). Delete. Uncle G 20:51, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Redirect, I think it would be much easier to simply redirect the article. Falphin 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. humblefool® 02:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable slang neologism. JamesBurns 09:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:37 (UTC)

Barney spiro[edit]

One of several vanity pages created by anonymous user. Madchester 14:48, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete. joke article, no such person.
• Delete, no evidence of passing WP:BIO, possible joke/hoax. Kappa 14:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No trace of Barney Spiro elsewhere: likely joke. Alf 15:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. "smash hit, "time space and evrything in between!" After that he met JES who joined the band to play the triangle." I don't know the song, and if it exists it's certainly not a smash hit. And triangle...? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/joke. --Etacar11 00:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity at worst, joke at the best - Skysmith 09:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Darren Wogman[edit]

One of several vanity pages created by an anonymous user. --Madchester 14:51, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Delete - clearly not true and made up... while I'm here, delete Barney spiro too. Will => talk 14:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Save - just because you have never hear of him dosen't mean he dosen't exist, i know some other editers have changed it from it's orignal form. my father's uncle knew Darren Wogman, i truly resent that you think it was made up. you should do some research first!!! --number1fan 21:06, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• keep it, mi m8's mum knew Darren when he attended Tottenham Comprehnsive, thay all called him Einstien on account of his cleverness. i aslo think it would be bad to delete this page, on such a great guy. i dont know this barney spiro person though.

Save :Save :Save! i am on the board of directors that decided to search for Darren's 'lost' documents. i find it utterly appaling that you wish to delete this page on sush an important man, how bored must you be to search for people you have never heard of and then say that it should be deleted without doing any research (google is not research). get a real job and stop being such a loser. Darren is and always has been a great thinker. unlike you.

Delete as vanity or possible malicious vandalism (links to this person are being inserted into various science articles apparently at random).--Christopher Thomas 21:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because some stupid kids are ruining other pages using Darren Wogman's name dosn't make this page any less reliable. i think it is unfair to 'punish' the creator of this page, and also Darren Wogman himself on the stupid antics or random anon users who are on a vandalism spree. definatly keep the page! it is one of the only places with relevent useful information on Darren Wogman. people may need it for research. (--Mod5, 22 June 2005)

This page is only _useful_ for research if sources are cited. Without references to show where this allegedly factual biography is coming from, it counts as original research, and would be deleted as that alone. Also, please be advised that you can sign (and datestamp) your posts by putting four "~" marks after your comment. --Christopher Thomas 22:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete sock-supported biography of at best non-notable person and at worst a hoax (suspected due to name).Capitalistroadster 00:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/possible prank. Anybody who challenges relativity is going to generate notice and this guy gets two non-relevant hits on google [9] --Etacar11 00:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on bases of unverifiable information. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - probably nonexistent, unverifiable in any case, supported by sockpuppets. And not particularly unusual anyway - Skysmith 09:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

Military Families Against the War[edit]

Delete. Non notable organization. Advertising. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 23:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite - this is a valid topic. Dunc|☺ 14:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The present article is useless, unencyclopedic, and does not describe the organization whose website is at http://www.mfaw.org.uk . With 8000 Google hits for the exact phrase, with random samples suggesting that almost all are relevant, I think the organization is probably notable enough for an article. However, the present article is not a useful start. Keep if someone puts in a decent stub prior to expiration of VfD, otherwise Delete and make this a Requested article. This is not a vote. I intend to make an explicit vote prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a copy of a poorly written press release and to me could even be a candidate for speedy delete under the criteria "Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title."--Alabamaboy 16:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) After reading a rewrite of the article, I have changed my vote to Keep. --Alabamaboy 20:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right about that. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: MFAW are a notable group in the UK. I am going to attempt a rewrite. Kel-nage 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've done a minor rewrite, there's still plenty to be added, but I've done what I could. Could previous delete voters please reconsider their votes? Kel-nage 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite, thanks Kel-nage. Kappa 21:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Changing my vote in my nomination (also signing) Zeimusu | (Talk page)
• Keep. Revolución 23:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, after rewrite. Falphin 00:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form, thanks Kel-nage. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable organization...--GrandCru 08:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Clear keep. Poorly-written articles on notable entities go to cleanup, not vfd. The current version is decent enough anyway. Jgm 29 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)
• Keep Badly need a rewrite/fix but the subject should hold some value --C64 29 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)

KOS Users[edit]

Tagged on May 26 but not listed on VfD. Delete.--Nabla 15:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

---

Is this article really worthy of staying on Wikipedia? Maybe this small section can be added to the GameFAQs article (with major editing, of course): KOS users are users from the site of GameFAQs. These users are KOSed (or Killed On Sight) by repeated violations on multiple accounts. KOS is the worst form of punishment one can receive. Many people chide these "infamous" celebrities on GameFAQs for not following rules. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• • No, these warriors should be remembered. The names are needed.
• Delete, forumcruft. RickK 04:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Being banned from a website does not earn one notability. --EvilZak 04:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unencyclopedic and unnotable. -- Cabhan 02:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not just about being banned. Don't be ignorant on this subject please.
• Delete. Eh, I'm ignorant on the subject. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:28, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete being banned from some website does not make someone notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These warriors are brave indeed for having the supreme skill of acting like dicks on a message board and the tenacity to create hundreds and hundreds of accounts to do it with. I'll be sure to give them a call if ever a situation arises where warriors of such caliber are required. However, my toilet does not currently need unclogging, so for the time being, they'll just have to find a shrine to their bravery somewhere else. -- Captain Disdain 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge definition with GameFAQs; remove the list, it's just personal attack in disguise Peter Grey 16:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable forum cruft. JamesBurns 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Karol Kozeluh[edit]

Tagged on May 26 but not listed on VfD. No vote here.

See also the redirect listing at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#May_30. --Nabla 15:25, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

---

same case as Hans Nusslein

• I've written an article him. So this is a NO vote for deletion. Hayford Peirce 22:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This whole Wikipedia bit about redirects etc. can be very confusing. What I *want* to say is this: keep the link between Karol and the Pro Championship listings. Do *not* delete the link or the Hans article. Hayford Peirce 06:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The current artcle (stub) looks OK. Delete the redirect.--Nabla 15:25, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep and edit the redirect into a link. DS1953 15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article may not be the best but winning the Tennis titles establishes notability. Falphin 00:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, somewhat notable. The article could be much better - his name was Karel Koželuh, diacritics is missing. Pavel Vozenilek 01:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geez, what does someone have to do to become "somewhat notable" by your elevated standards to justify a small Wiki article besides being the world's Pro tennis champion several times and beating Bill Tilden from time to time?! Many American sources spell his name Karol. But I've checked, and you're right -- it's Karel. I'll correct it in the article and try to change the redirect or whatever. But if you think the article could be much better, why don't you improve it yourself instead of carping about it? I'm the first person who ever wrote a single word about him and I've got a gazillion other things to do besides listening to complaints about how it could be better.... Hayford Peirce 04:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've just started an article called Karel Kozeluh, with his first name spelled corrected. I've put the diacritic over the z within the article. Would someone who has more knowledge of this stuff than I move the text from the current article to the new one. I'll change the spelling of his name in the list of Pro Championships. Hayford Peirce 17:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)]
  • Ah, forking an article is a big no-no. I've removed the new stub, and moved Karol Kozeluh to Karel Kozeluh. (I couldn't include the diacritic in the article title because it needs a Unicode character; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Character set differences - Latin-1 for more.) Since this is clearly not going to be deleted, I removed the VfD notice from Karel Kozeluh (the link back here wouldn't work anyway). I'll put the redirect at Karol Kozeluh on RfD with a recommendation to keep. Noel (talk) 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Danke. And I'll remember about the "forking". I did a couple of articles like this a year ago and no one brought up the matter at the time, so I didn't know it was a no-no.... Hayford Peirce 22:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Ryan Alan Hade[edit]

Note: I'm holding off any edits until this VFD is settled. Zerbey 20:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Tragic short life - but not notable and Wiki is not a memorial - sorry! A curate's egg 15:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tough break, to be sure, but it's not encyclopedic material. In the end, he was just some guy; either we limit ourselves to notable entries or resign ourselves to creating about six and a half billion pages so everyone can have his very own article... and, frankly, there's the rest of the internet just waiting to be used that. -- Captain Disdain 16:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable crime which helped create new laws. The article could use some expansion and discussion of this. Zerbey 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zerbey, not every person has laws created because of an incident in their life. Kappa 20:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - No Google hits linking this person to any new law, so his alleged claim to notability is unverifiable. If evidence is supplied, my vote may be changed. --FCYTravis 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Notability possibly established, but am waiting for more specific evidence - ala "Megan's Law." Will abstain for the moment. --FCYTravis 05:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changed back --FCYTravis 17:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. Only thing Google [10] confirms is that he died in a motorcycle crash. The rest are probably not relevant (all in a Scandinavian language, I think). --Etacar11 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless connection to Earl Shriner is verified--Google can't[11][12]. Niteowlneils 05:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverified, with hoax claims in it. What laws allow for indefinite confinement of sexual predators? Geogre 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zerbey (google fails as name of minor was not connected to crime at the time) see ref [13] and [14] Further reference to legislation: [15] and [16] Edwinx2 06:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither legislation source actually links this person's case to the legislation. As far as I see it right now, he's simply another depressing victim of child molestation. Sad, but simply being a victim of child molestation does not make one encyclopedic, just as being a victim of rape does not make one encyclopedic. Absent compelling evidence that this person's case has specifically been cited in changing laws or national advocacy efforts (Polly Klaas and Megan Kanka being examples), I have changed my vote back to delete. --FCYTravis 17:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, I'm sorry. I've had doubts about the usefulness etc., etc., of wikipedia for quite a while, but this is too much. I've no idea whether Ryan Hade had any effect on laws at all, but NEITHER HAVE ANY OF YOU. You seem to be basing your decisions on who/what is important using google. google doesn't show information on this, therefor it's not important. How sad.

I'm doing this anonymously 'cos I can't be bothered signing up to wikipedia. :-D - (anon comment by 212.101.70.221)

Yes, we often use the "Google Test" to determine the notability of an person. If Google can't find information on a modern-day person, it's likely that their notability is, at the very least, highly questionable. With the pervasiveness of Internet news, it should be simply easy to find links between a person and his claim to notability. If it is difficult, then that rightly invites discussion of whether that person's claim to notability is sufficiently encyclopedic. I would invite you to stay on Wikipedia and improve it - these discussions are part of the ongoing process and if you want your voice heard, make it so. --FCYTravis 17:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further comment: "Polly Klaas" - 28,000 hits. "Megan Kanka" - 14,000 hits. "Ryan Hade" - 10 hits. Subject's life, while tragic, is not sufficiently notable to merit encyclopedic inclusion. --FCYTravis 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Update: Summary of opinion in favor of keeping article: At the age of seven, RYAN ALAN HADE (unidentified minor in media reports, verifiable as HADE via later reports) was abducted, raped, mutilated and left for dead by EARL KENNETH SHRINER.[17] In response, his mother (HELEN HARLOW) formed a Washington State political action group known as THE TENNIS SHOE BRIGADE. THE TENNIS SHOE BRIGADE was subsequently responsible [18] for the passage of stricter laws for predatory sex offenders, including Washington state's Child Protection Act of 2004. [19] HADE died in June of 2005 after a motorcyle accident.[20] A CNN/AP article confirms the connection between HADE and Washington Legistlation. [21]

Edwinx2 18:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) [NB - This user's only Wiki contributions relate to this vfd] - User's second vote, struck through.

Updated entries to reflect clarification of background info (strike moved from second entry to first).

I feel that I must clarify that I have no previous knowledge of any of the subjects of the article in question; I just found the entry compelling, and created my account to introduce research advocating the inclusion of an interesting, though possibly only of local interest, historical footnote. My decision to wade into public Wiki mediation is based solely on my reaction to the pathos of this poor kid's brief little life-- to survive through all that and affect (indirectly, I suppose it could be argued) major legislation-- only to get killed in a motorcycle accident. It seemed to me that no one was willing to look deeper than what a cursory Google returned, and a potentially important (beginning) of an article was to be dismissed without adequate research consideration.

Apologies for accidentally voting twice; that was not my intent. I suppose I should have read the instructions more thouroughly; I thought noting that the summary provided was an update would be sufficient. I suppose it is not outrageous to assume that I have some personal interest in this issue, based solely on the fact that it is my first foray into wikipedia research advocacy, but, again, the first I heard of any of this was reading through the delete comments on this entry. I don't even know anyone who has been affected by a similar tragedy, nor do I have personal experience with any of the issues involved.

I have no problem with the article being deleted based on the merits of the facts of the story as exposed by research, but I have read no response addressing the four linear links which provide documentary context in the above summary. If the local nature of the story makes it inappropriate, then delete away... I suppose it is not inappropriate to scrutinize the motives of someone who posts emotional pleas or pure opinion in defense of an article. It is, however, inappropriate to ignore clear research in favor of speculation about the motivation and character of the researcher. Edwinx2 01:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one was disparaging your character, but in votes for deletion it is common to note users who's only contribution to Wikipedia is on deletion pages, because of the potential for abuse (See WP:SOCK, although I'm not implying you are a sockpuppet at all). Believe me, no offense was meant. --Etacar11 01:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken, I understand that concerns of bias must be addressed. Sorry if my response was a bit defensive, I just wanted to make it as clear as I could that I have no personal interest-- the data are my concern :) Edwinx2 01:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep CNN article linked to above clearly establishes link between sexual molestation case and the passage of legislation. That makes it notable enough for me despite the google test. carmeld1 01:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still think it's below the bar of notability, so my vote isn't changing. --Etacar11 01:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A google test on a then-minor child (who would NOT have been named at the time, unless he were already dead) is madness. How about the 50 zillion hits for "a 7-year-old boy" which DID refer to him? To know what later happened to him isn't just "insufficiently tragic", it's really interesting and important. This aspect of Wikipedia really bothers me. Articles which could be expanded to be really interesting and informative are placed on Vfd ten minutes later on the basis of three seconds of google search. That's what's really sad. Doovinator 28 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)
• Keep So-called Ryan's Laws are now quite common in US states. While the child victim was really just in the "wrong place and the wrong time" (clearly a 7 y.o. didn't write nor significantly push the law himself), his was one of those unlucky accidents that achieve notability. By analogy, think of Candace Lightner and MADD, or even more-so Adam Walsh. Candace Lightner actively formed the MADD organization, her daughter seems not to have an entry; but Adam Walsh himself was just a young victim, even though his murder pushed his father into notable activities. Similarly, Amber Hagerman. Of course, the stuff on Hade enjoying snowboarding or whatnot is silly, but could be cleaned up. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 June 30 15:56 (UTC)
  • Show me evidence of any law called "Ryan's Law" connected to this person. A search on "Ryan's Law" +Hade yielded nothing for me. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)

CNN, for example, write in Mutilation victim dies in motorcycle wreck:

Hade was the victim of a grisly attack in 1989 that made national headlines... Legislators cited the case in adopting the nation's first state law to allow indefinite civil confinement of sexual predators...

Various news sources are currently running basically the same obitz/summary. It appears that Hade's full name was kept confidential until he died recently. This contrasts with other child victims of crimes who were murdered during the initial crime, and hence did not get their name protected as laws were passed "inspired" by their cases (Emily, Amber, etc.). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 June 30 16:10 (UTC)

Personally, what is essentially one news story isn't pushing me over the bar into keep, sorry. But others may disagree... --Etacar11 30 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Do you really doubt that the Ryan's Laws are named after Hade?! Or are you just being pedantic about an ultra-rigorous proof that it is so? I guess it's conceivable that the newspapers are falling for a hoax, and some different Ryan was the inspiration for the laws rather than this one that died... but pretty darn unlikely. FWIW, I think almost all these laws named after child victims are quite offensive to civil liberties; dead or abused children make for convenient hysteria. But good or bad, the laws (and indirectly, their source vicitims) are notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 June 30 17:44 (UTC)

Pedantic is probably it. ;) Point me to a source that refers to a law as "Ryan's law" and says it's named after Ryan Hade. I saw an article that mentioned a Ryan Mason [22]. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Oh, that UK case is something different (different vicitim and criminal, different decade). I definitely remember hearing about "Ryan's Laws" in a US context, starting around 1990 (i.e. "preventative detention" of "sexual predators"; e.g. semi-judicial w/o reasonable doubt conviction). I also remember reading much more recently about the Manchester murders, which horrifying also, natually. And I guess one of those Manchester victims was named Ryan (I hadn't recalled that until I clicked Etacarl1's link). Despite the common first name (and perhaps similar laws), these are definitely different cases. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 June 30 20:51 (UTC)

More on context. While I certainly never knew Hade's name prior to today, the so-called Ryan's Law(s) that came out of Washington state (but were later copied in other states) are well documented. In Washington, this was passed as the "Community Protection Act of 1990." The history, in synopsis:

In 1989, Governor Gardner established a task force on community protection following a trilogy of events: the murder of a young Seattle woman by an offender on work release; the brutal assault of a young Tacoma boy and the murders of two small boys in Clark County. The task force conducted a series of public hearings across the State to discover what citizens believed were major flaws in our State laws regarding sexual and violent offenders. Following extensive research and study, the task force made three key recommendations: significant increases in offender control and treatment, community prevention and protection services, and victim services. As a result of the task force work, Washington State was the first state in the country to pass a community protection law (the Community Protection Act of 1990). [23]

Now admittedly, you have to put some pieces together to conclude that the recently deceased Hade is the same Ryan. But typically news agencies wind up knowing, but not disclosing, the names of rape victims, and especially of juvenile victims. Rape shield laws typically prohibit disclosing their names prior to their death (or the victim's voluntary statement as to their role). I find it unlikely (but admittedly not inconceivable) that CNN, AP, etc. didn't, in fact, look up their old non-disclosed name for Hade before running his victim status in his obitz. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2005 June 30 21:19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Union School District, San Jose (was Union School District)[edit]

This is too narrow a article. A Union School District is (?) a type of School District that is unified with greater independence per school. (nominated by User:70.185.179.4)

• Keep in preference to having an article about each school. BTW if the nominator didn't read the article before nominating, then this VfD is invalid. Gazpacho 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I moved the original content to Union School District (San Jose). There are other school districts which just call themselves "Union School District" so this can act as a disambig. Kappa 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment a brief Google search leads me to believe that this phrase means different things in different U.S. states. For example, [24] [25] —Wahoofive (talk) 16:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we should just dismbiguate on the name. Individual articles can explain the local significance. For instance, the San Jose district which is the subject of this VfD was called "Union" to express loyalty to the Union army, in 1863. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For some reason the VfD notice has become detached from the text which has then been cloned. I will move the article to the location of the clone and insert a disambig in the current place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anonymous nominator fails to demonstrate a grasp of proper VfD rationale. —RaD Man (talk) 20:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School district. --BaronLarf 20:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This Union School District is named for the Union Avenue in San Jose on which the district offices are located. I recommend moving the page back to Union School District because that page currently serves as a "disambiguation" page for exactly one other page, which is not how disambiguation policy works. Nohat 01:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Union School District, now disambiguates three things. Keep where it is. Dsmdgold 21:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but do not move back to Union School District as I've rewritten that article to explain what a union school district is, as opposed to a unified school district - per California law. --FCYTravis 03:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, don't move back. The new article is good because it performs primary topic disambiguation on the general term and the name of one school district (and there are more, at least one in Oregon for instance). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I suppose I should vote since it's the first article I've contributed to be nominated for VfD--what a milestone :/ . Once the voting is over, I think it should be moved to Union School District (San Jose) or just Union School District (I'm pretty sure there are other cases of both First Caps Title and not first caps title articles co-existing, with 'top of page' dab links to each other, tho' I don't have any examples off the top of my head). Union School District could then be turned into a dab page once the Tulsa, Oregon, and/or anywhere else articles are created (disambiguation before being necessary is generally discouraged). Niteowlneils 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre (Prank with libel). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Costeala[edit]

I am not wholly sure what this article is about. It is nonsense, vanity, a spam page, or unencyclopedic. I'm just not sure which. smoddy 15:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This belongs in BJAODN. 131.111.8.96 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense, includes a personal attack. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:11, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. I tried Encarta, Britannica, dictionary.com and Merrian-Webster to verify and got nothing in return. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• It also includes a contribution written by a friend of a gay. Speedy delete under CSD criterion G3. Uncle G 21:01, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense. --Habap 21:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nonsense. --Etacar11 00:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Delete-patent nonsense, false information etc. Falphin 00:59, 23 Jun 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 10 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes, 5 "merge" or "redirect" and one apparent abstention.

There is a clear majority arguing that this should not remain as an independent article. The largest vote was for deletion but it did not achieve the overwhelming majority necessary to show concensus for deletion. I am going to call this one a "no concensus".

In my capacity as an ordinary editor, I will now turn this into a redirect. (I didn't see anything worth merging but if you do, please recover it from the page history.) Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

Monofibre[edit]

This article passed a VfU because it was speedy deleted (possibly out of process). No vote Deathphoenix 15:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(changed my no vote to the default of VfD nominator's delete) --Deathphoenix 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I requested the article's undeletion, so I am supposed to vote to keep it. I am doing that, but this is just a provisional vote (to give it a chance); it can be nominated once again as a substub. - Mike Rosoft 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay. Redirect to Hair extension, and merge any useful content (if any) there. - Mike Rosoft 21:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep based on VfU --KharBevNor 16:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  The fact that it passed VfU is irrelevant; VfU is not a judgement of the merits of an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Article was undeleted because of process not because it should be kept. - Tεxτurε 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I am aware of that. The discusssion of it in the vfu, however, convinced me it should be kept --KharBevNor 00:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid stub. Kappa 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Monofibre is a trademark and refers to a particular product. See http://www.monofibre.com Monofibre is not a generic term for a family of materials used for hair extension. The word is not found in dictionaries. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. --W(t) 16:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Merge with Hair extensions —Wahoofive (talk) 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn corporation.--Nabla 16:52, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. Article was originally located at [[Monofibre%AE]]. As he said, it's specific to one company and not a generic term. Whatever the deletion summary said, I deleted it because I believed it to be blatant advertizing. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed my vote to Delete in light of the information by Dpbsmith. However, the link above is a dead link. I believe the correct web site is http://www.monofibre.com --Deathphoenix 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Advert, not notable, as above. - Tεxτurε 18:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The anonymous spammer who changed Hair extensions to a horrible advertisement also created Monofibre, but luckily managed to keep it as a stub with no blatant advertisement. Wikipedia already has N+1 articles about commercial products by for-profit companies, so what's the harm in this one? — JIP | Talk 19:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with hair extensions. JIP forgets that Wikipedia is inconstent. (If someone will link to the guideline, thanks.) Septentrionalis 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to hair extensions. David | Talk 20:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why redirect a company name to a generic site on hair extension? Sounds misleading since there is no mention of a specific company (nor should there be) in the article you plan to redirect to. Just because the content is similar does not mean the redirect is a good idea. Beyond that you are redirecting to hair extension when the company may have other products. This could result in confusion for someone looking for combs, hair gel, etc. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The company name is "Dome Cosmetics". "Monofibre" is the name of one of that company's products, just as Abdomenizer, Ginsu knife, and OxiClean are products. A discussion of artificial fibre hair extensions versus hair extensions made from real human hair seems appropriate for hair extensions. Uncle G 23:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
      • "Monofibre" is not a single product. It is a trademarked name of a line of products. Linking this to hair extensions is misleading. From the Dome website:

        Select our individual Monofibre Products from the navigation menu on the left.

        Some of the products in that line:

        • Monofibre Collection (razor, colour shade chart, shampoo, conditioner, mist...)
        • Monofibre colour shade chart (in above collection)
        • Monofibre Laminate
        • Monofibre Window Poster
        • Monofibre classic
        • Monofibre wave

        The trademarked Monofibre product line is not a single product and not only a hair extension. - Tεxτurε 15:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        • I see nothing of the sort on the Dome Cosmetics website, but I'll take your word for it, given how bad that site is. You'll find that the colour shade chart is a chart telling people what colours the Monofibre hair extensions are available in, and the window poster is a poster that salons can stick on their windows advertising to passers-by the availability of Monofibre hair extensions. You'll also find "Monofibre is the original hair extension product." on the web site given by Dpbsmith at the beginning of this discussion. Uncle G 19:42, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Being specific to one company, and being not a word in the dictionary, does not preclude something from being an encyclopaedia article. Trademarks are not supposed to be in dictionaries, and trademark holders vigourously oppose their inclusion in dictionaries. Photoshop, McRib, Pepsi, and Gatorade are trademarks, not dictionary words. So the question is, really, whether Monofibre is a product/invention worthy of an individual encyclopaedia article, not whether the word is in a dictionary. Uncle G 21:29, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Fuck trademark holders, they don't control encyclopedias and dictionaries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So your rationale for keeping is that you want to fuck trademark holders, rather than anything at all to do with Monofibre the product/invention, what the article at hand is actually about? Uncle G 23:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  • My rationale for keep is that it's a word as common as sellotape or aspirin. If I talk to my hairdresser about monofibres we're not engaging in advertising, just talking about a form of hair extension that she may or may not want to use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "a word as common as sellotape or aspirin?" Aspirin, 2,800,000 hits, Sellotape, 157,000 hits, monofibre, 532 hits Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Mr. Anthony Sidaway: "FCUK™" is a registered trademark of French Connection Group Plc, for its line of products including but not limited to shoes, sunglasses, fragrance, mens grooming, and childrens' wear products. We respectfully require you to cease and desist from using terms that could be confused with or suggest an association with the valued products of our company. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely yours, J. Smedley Ramsbotham III Esq, Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Department of Intellectual Property Law. This is intended to be an obvious joke. Or an obvious attempt at one.
• Merge with Hair extensions, allowing any searcher to learn about the product without advertising problem. Xoloz 01:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If it's not a vanity/promotion item, then it belongs in Wiktionary.
• Delete: Advertising of something that, by itself, is not notable enough for an NPOV article to serve. Geogre 05:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 08:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten and expanded. Valid topic. JamesBurns 09:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with hair extension. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified stub. Almafeta 00:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but merge into Hair extensions Vonkje 20:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vonkje, delete and merge are incompatible votes according to GFDL, because content that is merged must also have the proper author attribution. I assume you mean Merge and redirect to Hair extensions? --Deathphoenix 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, they are not. "Merge and delete" is perfectly valid, but strongly discouraged because if the edit history is nontrivial it is a lot of work for the acting sysop to merge the histories. But in this case and many others, the edit history is trivial, as the entire content of the article, other than adding VfD notices and so forth, is the result of one edit by one editor. All that needs to be done is to insert the text of the 07:19, 22 Jun 2005 revision before making any changes, make a simple note on the talk page saying that the inserted text was created by 210.86.121.151 on 07:19, 22 Jun 2005, and then making any desired edits, and GFDL is fully satisfied. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Hear, hear. And even for pages with really big edit histories, you can always move the page edit history to a subpage of the talk page (as some bright person brightly suggested on the VP a while back). --W(t) 00:31, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
        • In that case, we need to update the VfD guide, because the guide seems to indicate that this is an incompatible vote. --Deathphoenix 05:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I haven't read this guide but really people make "votes" but all we're doing is expressing our opinions. The closer decides. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Note that the actual language used is "should be avoided," not "is prohibited." And in general it should, but there are times when it is reasonable. Note, too, that the rationale is the requirements of the GFDL. Well, the GFDL requires only that the history be preserved. The automatic history features of Wikimedia are not the only way to satisfy this requirement. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:41 (UTC)

Captain Riot[edit]

Hate to do this to a fellow captain, obviously, but vanity is vanity. This guy is not notable. The fan group he's a part of has already been deleted once, though it's now been recreated; I'm putting that one in for speedy deletion -- wish we could do the same with fairly obvious nonsense like this, but I guess this one wouldn't fly over there... -- Captain Disdain 15:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 16:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hasn't done anything noteworthy and article fails to provide useful information. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one of the most pointless articles in the world. DELETE! IT! Deskana 23:47, 26th June 2005 (GMT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus but I tagged for suggested merge. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

Living Forest[edit]

Video game trivia (a setting in the Mortal Kombat series). Gazpacho 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, location used in multiple games in a series. Kappa 16:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I've done a serious rewrite and wikify. I reckon it's worthy of retention now. Naturenet 16:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now. I briefly contemplated speedying this when I saw it on RC, but figured someone would put it here instead. Good rewrite, and although the topic is of zero interest to me, it fits our criteria for inclusion. --Scimitar 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not for deleting it, but can we merge Mortal Kombat settings? -- BD2412 ^talk 18:41, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Good rewrite, but Merge into Outworld. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Nature Net. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Outworld, and disambig with other Living Forests - for instance, Final Fantasy III has one, and there is a film by that name. Radiant_>|< 08:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Outworld, agree with Radiant. JamesBurns 06:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Mortal Kombat II where it first debuted. Vonkje 20:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

100 Greatest Cartoons/Temp[edit]

No vote. Tagged at May 15 by User:SchmuckyTheCat, but never listed on VfD. Looks like a leftover temp page from an old copyvio notice--Nabla 16:48, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete Falphin 01:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry for not completing. And uh, someone who knows the template should fix whatever it is that makes this edit link go to the template and not the vote. SchmuckyTheCat 19:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Not a template problem but my mistake. I forgot to use subst:.--Nabla 02:09, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Anonymizer and redirect both to Anonymous proxy. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Spynot[edit]

Sure looks a lot like advertising to me. If the product is notable -- it gets a lot of Google hits, as can be expected from a product of this type, but I have no idea if it's something that deserves an article of its own. As it is, though, this doesn't establish notability or anything else -- like i said, sure looks a lot like advertising to me. -- Captain Disdain 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It mentions a commercial product but that's not unique for Wikipedia. In fact, it references competing products that are also listed in Wikipedia- specifically the 'Anonymizer'. If this page comes down, would the Anonymizer page come down as well to keep editorial consistency? Why hasn't the Anonymizer been deleted previously if mentioning a product is reason for deleting a page? The editorial standard has already been set for this issue, and the mere mention of a product doesn't mean that the page must come down.

• Good point. Merge these articles under the single heading of anonymous proxy. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:39, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Ooh, I really like that, BD2412. That's a good merge. -- Captain Disdain 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 11:14 (UTC)

Various Em[edit]

Delete. Looks like band vanity - no indicia of notability. Their own website suggests that they've done nothing since last October. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete. KFP 18:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 2, 2005 11:12 (UTC)

The Bomb Dogs[edit]

Delete. Apparent band vanity - no indicia of notability. Google search turns up fewer than 20 relevant hits. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:17, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 09:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

Michael Wadkins, Jon Schliesmann, Jage "Nick" Nichols, Michael Belley, Jeromy "Swamp" Swafford, Michael "Bump" Alexander, Tommy Mattox, Jeremy Ives[edit]

Delete. Non-notable members of a now-defunct band (Clay Sun Union) that was, at most, marginally notable (probably should be deleted as well). -- BD2412 ^talk 17:21, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete the band itself may be a marginal keep at best but the individual members definitely don't merit their own articles. --Etacar11 00:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Clay Sun Union. Falphin 01:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There isn't enough contributory material to delay the deletion by sending to the merge queue. Geogre 05:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, non notable band. JamesBurns 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Aaron Schlosser[edit]

This article was tagged for Speedy deletion but it does not quite qualify. This article seems to be about a student activist at Dartmouth College. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this heartwarming tale of a non-notable hometown hero who spoke from the heart. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Etacar11. Falphin 01:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete my friend made this as a joke for some reason.--AaronS 28 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

Tognar[edit]

This article was tagged as ((db)) for being a "dicdef of neologism," but that does not quite qualify for speedy deletion so I moved it over here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, this is so totally Delete!. Non-notable dicdef neologism. Do not pass to Wiktionary. Do not collect 200 Wikidollars. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete, I'll take those wikidollars, thank you. Radiant_>|< 08:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; Also, you might want to move the speedy on Gnarly here. Thanks for the reminder as to speedy policy... it's just that there's so much crap :( But yes, I'll heed your advice. jglc | t | c 18:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: No meaning or use to people who don't care about it.

ChercherEccles 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete this and Gnarly, vanity dic def. Not in wide use, not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I note that Wikipedia permits neologist entries in the case of 'realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits'. I think it could do with a more matter-of-fact rewrite, though jamesgibbon 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism. Actually Wiktionary might allow neologisms, if there is evidence of currency of the term. Wikipedia is never about word meanings. A dictionary definition of "monotonous" would not be valid, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Geogre 05:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 23:00 (UTC)

The Stompin' Charlies[edit]

Delete. Band vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:39, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. Nothing in allmusic. --Etacar11 01:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 09:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Bartle Bogle Hegarty[edit]

Um, so user "Kindie" placed the "vfd" tag on this article on the 29th of May, but he or she failed to follow the rest of the proceedure outlined on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Kindie's edit summary was "Candidate for deletion, reads like a pr release, possible advertising". Laconic 17:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:06, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for an advertising agency. JamesBurns 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:43 (UTC)

Vandolah[edit]

Yet another non-notable band. You know the drill. 39 Google hits for "Vandolah" + "Mark Hutchins". They seem to be legit, and actually getting their name out there, which is a nice change from pure B.S., but still not WP:MUSIC. jglc | t | c 17:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deletolah. Concur with the above. --FOo 19:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. CanadianCaesar 09:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

TamarNavrotzky[edit]

Non-notable. Doesn't even have a single Google hit. — Elembis 17:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (maybe even speedy), the article doesn't make much sense. KFP 18:08, 22 Jun 2005
• Very important subject. I will add much if will not be deleted. Iris 10:08, 22 Jun 2005(UTC)
• cool entry. Please don't delete Dugi 13:12, 22 Jun 2005(UTC)
  • Both of the above entries were by user:192.114.107.4. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge and has been so marked. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Associated_Student_Body[edit]

I doubt the relativity and encyclopicity of this, delete' Frenchman113 17:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - It's not much at the moment, but if we mark it as a stub, maybe it will get fixed up. With examples, typical structure, responsibilities, charter items, and such it could make a useful article. Gary D Robson 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Students' union article. Change my vote to Merge. Gary D Robson 18:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge - I'd suggest Merging it with the Student's Union page. It already encompasses Student Unions, student government and student council. Other than the name, is it significantly any different than those others? --Wahooker 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Students' union, per Wahooker. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:35, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Merge as stated above. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 18:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as above. carmeld1 01:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 by MacGyverMagic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mikes big al story[edit]

Wikipedia is not a storybook. smoddy 18:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'll second that. Shouldn't this be a speedy? - Lucky 6.9 18:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In general, stories do not qualify as speedy because of the option to transwiki them to Wikisource. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No claim to be an article even. Just bad crime-glorifying prose. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete. I am not in favor to transwiki it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not an encylcopedia article. DS1953 18:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not an article. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. KFP 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Kurt taillon[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 18:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. KFP 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn DS1953 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. More nonsense than vanity. --Jyril 18:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Only by being patent nonsense would the article qualify for speedy deletion. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • Come off it, the last line is Kurt is very good at baseball and plays 1st 3rd and pitcher Kurt is also Bananas B-A-N-A-N-A-S, if it isnt nonsense then what the hell is.Bluemoose 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That is silliness, but it is not patent nonsense. Please refresh your memory of the definition of patent nonsense, especially what it is not to be confused with. Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete--needs a hell of a lot of work to pull it out, and I'm not sure it'd work, even then. ChercherEccles 19:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per section 1.2.1. --Xcali 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What context does it lack, exactly? Please don't abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 20:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • Look at the example given there. Other than verbosity, this is no different. --Xcali 20:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It is significantly different. In the example, there isn't any context to tell us what "Factory and the Hacienda" are. In this article, by contrast, it's clear what "arlington hts.", "Paul Ed Taillon" and "Donna Lee Taillon" are. Uncle G 22:37, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Article does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 20:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete silly vanity. --Etacar11 01:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - silly, unverifiable, unencyclopedic patent vanity nonsense of the sort which is clogging up VFD. --FCYTravis 04:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only because 8 people feel the need to vote when 2 would be plenty. Kappa 05:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's mis-stating the issue and dangerous ground to tread. The number of people voting is not what is "clogging up VFD", according to those who make that assertion. It is the number of articles to be read and discussed (a natural consequence of the growth in the number of new articles being added). The number of people commenting is not the issue. (Furthermore: If 2 editors were plenty, this would be speedy deletion.) It's dangerous ground to tread to chastise others for adding their opinions because "2 [delete votes] would be plenty" when also making the 3rd vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark Kenneth Matthews. Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
      • 2 editors are not always plenty, but they are in obvious cases like this, where no-one's actually going vote keep unless the article is rewritten or new evidence is produced. Kappa 16:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If these cases were obvious to 2 editors, we would already have worked out a speedy deletion criterion to cover them, long since, stating the reason that they are obvious. (I happen to think that we are close to working out a speedy deletion criterion that does cover them. There's certainly a hypothetical speedy deletion criterion where this article qualifies, which 2 editors could apply. These cases may become obvious if that hypothetical criterion is accepted. But it hasn't yet even been proposed, and it's a criterion that I suspect is only obvious in hindsight.) Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete family vanity. JamesBurns 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Bluemoose 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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...:

• article was speedy deleted by Smoddy (content was: 'American Living Legend.')
• recreated and speedy deleted by Smoddy (content was: '((db|nonsensical vanity))American Living Legend born in Angelina County, Texas in 1973.Phillip is a martial artist, poet, artist, musician, philos...')
• recreated and speedy deleted by Zzyzx11 (duplicate of exact content that was previously speedy deleted)

--Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phillip McKnight[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 18:08, 22 Jun 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirected to Catatonia. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)

Katatonic[edit]

I admit, the source I used to stubbify this is of dubious quality, but from the number of hits I got on Google, I assumed it was a notable place. Anyway, I don't think it's speediably, so I'll bring it here. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, based on the listings I saw on Google. A club in Nashville that got busted and is now defunct? Studio 54, sure. But not this one. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Catatonia. Current article is not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per JamesBurns. Pavel Vozenilek 01:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic...--GrandCru 08:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Harold Bernstein[edit]

A search for one his works and his last name yields no google results. TO my knowledge there is a composer named Bernstein, but that's either Charles or Richard. This person has no IMDB entry and I'm having a hard time verifying. Anon creator recently created a vandal page at Bangbangjin (now deleted). Please remove entry from 2002 if this is deleted. I'm voting delete for being unverifiable, but please don't shoot me if I'm wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified. --Scimitar 18:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the creator of the page, 62.252.0.6, has been responsible for vandalisation of several pages today alone. While the user seems to have a genuine interest in adding content, they should probably look over the Tutorial if they wish to make positive, NPOV contributions. Ben Babcock 21:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the composer (and conductor) is Leonard Bernstein, but the composition titles mentioned don't seem to exist at all. Elmer Bernstein (1922-2004) wrote film music, including The Ten Commandments. Both are Americans. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 01:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied as substub. Feel free to write a full article on this person. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Eleazar ben Azarya[edit]

Single sentence stub was put up for speedy deletion as patent nonsense, which isn't accurate. Subject has a bunch of google hits, so I'm just throwing this article out there. Nominator Abstains Scimitar 18:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Article as it stands contains no useful verifiable information and is a substub. Such items can be deleted under the first criterion for speedy deletion. I've got no prejudice against a real article replacing this. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Mgm. --Xcali 19:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, then. I just felt the patent nonsense tag was inappropriate, and in the past I've been guilty of speedying stuff too fast. --Scimitar 19:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus.FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Andreas 'bds' Thorstensson[edit]

Not suitable for Wikipedia; likely vanity page. FOo 19:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Sigh. Did you read the Discussion page? I've never met him. He's not one of my heroes. I found when editing and updating the SoGamed page and the Ninjas in Pyjamas page that he was on both. It seems that he is actually an important figure in professional gaming - not for being a gamer, but for creating two different, successful gaming news sites and owning a professional gaming syndicate. In a normal encyclopedia, he might not belong because he is just a small businessman, but on the internet, he sounds like one of those who really shapes the online gaming experience. --Habap 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment For the May 2005 deletion debate on the less-notable gamer Emil Christensen, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Emil Christensen.

• Delete online gamer, vanity. His website (which is not active anymore) scores very little on either Alexa or Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the link to his current website - sk-gaming.com and links to SoGamed.com, which is descended from his original site and a link to nip-gaming.com, the professional gaming clan that broke ties with SK Gaming over his alleged double-dipping. Sorry to refer to a defunct website (geekboys.com) without reference to the current ones. --Habap 20:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Habap. If Emil Christenson was kept so should this article. Falphin 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the organization of online labor, and leading figures in that movement, is fine for inclusion. Unless there's a major verifiability or fact issue with the article, which there doesn't seem to be, this looks keepworthy. The Literate Engineer 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Gaming. I meant to say online gaming, not labor. Wow. The Literate Engineer 04:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:46 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party of Canada[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. There are no Google hits for "Democratic Labour Party of Canada", "Democratic Labour Front Party", "Democratic Labor Party of Canada", or "Democratic Labor Front Party". The article was created by Winterhaze13, a new user with a history of vandalism/hoax creation (see his contributions). Unless some information on the "Democratic Labour Party of Canada" is found, delete this article, along with Democratic Labour party of Canada and Canada - Democratic Labour Party (two redirects). — Bcat (talk | email) 19:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neo-party. If they gain membership and influence we can write about them later. --Xcali 19:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-existent or abysmally minor political parties. --Scimitar 19:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with Xcali, at this time they lack influence in politics to the point that I have never heard of them. I am Canadian and consider myself to be fairly left-wing as well as keeping in step with federal politics.. Furthermore, their article is more of an advertisement and exercise in POV propaganda rather than a well-written article that explores leadership, history, et cetera. Ben Babcock 21:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this party even exists they have managed to avoid any media attention. I work in the media and have never heard of 'em. If the party is real, someone can create a new article once they establish thsemlves. 23skidoo 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. --FCYTravis 23:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 02:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Deathphoenix 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Ebanese language[edit]

You're right. But I dont think that is against the rules? (Unsigned comment made by User:170.115.184.10 --Jyril)

Yes it is. It is not in any way encyclopedic. Unless, of course, it is important in some way, like Esperanto, Quenya, or Lojban.--Jyril 19:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be someone's own language. Only Google hits are misspelled Lebanese. Jyril 19:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable conlang unless good evidence of genuine use and real importance are provided prior to expiration of VfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Some conlangs can be notable, but this isn't even a conlang... it isn't even a language game like pig latin or ubbi-dubbi. It's a very simple letter-substituation scheme, like ROT13 except not in wide use. Anybody with an index card, a pencil, and 30 seconds to spare can make a code like this for themselves. No need to give it an encyclopedia article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• We already have substitution cipher, thank you. Delete. Uncle G 22:12, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete what does Ebanese translate as? ~~~~ 08:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable conlang. JamesBurns 09:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even rise to the level of conlang: it's a straight substitution cipher. With few exceptions (ROT13, Al Bhed), substitution ciphers aren't notable. Almafeta 00:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Only ROT13 is somewhat known. Pavel Vozenilek 01:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)