Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< August 23 August 25 >

Purge server cache

August 24

edit

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

The result of the debate was merge to an unspecified target. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unbibium

edit

This article has been tagged for deletion by User:132.205.3.20, but he seems not to have been able to figure out how to finish up the deletion process. The article has been nominated for deletion once before: see Talk:Unbibium. No vote --Carnildo 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: potential merge source Unbiquadium was speedily deleted moments ago 132.205.46.188 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a fair bit of such entries left. As I said, recreate those systematic element names that are missing and have them point to List of undiscovered transuranium elements until they are reported and merit an entry of their own. Pilatus 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please create all such redirects (up to, say, 200?) because that will stop people from recreating them. A neat table would be nice. Delete or redirect. Radiant_>|< 13:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep possibly Merge: There has been at least one article in a scientific jourmnal dealing with its theoretical properties, so it not that we don't know anything about eka-thorium, we just don't know very much. Granted, the amount of information known is minimal enough that merging with other theoretical period 8 elements into a single article may be a reasonable option, especially since the elementbox templates aren't really set up at the moment to handle anything past period 7. Caerwine 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we merge this VfD into that one. 132.205.45.148 17:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Gamers (forum)

edit

Non-notable web forum. No link provided, and I couldn't find it on google. Mairi 00:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That could be it. In which case the article isn't very accurate either. --Mairi 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it!-Gamers.com is a major forum, it is not all that much different than having an article on ebay or google. I'll admit Gamers is much smaller, but it is still there, and important to many people. - Josiah

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medical politics

edit

original research/vanity/pseudoscience Ben-w 00:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. (The Fairly OddParents) (formerly at A.J.)

edit

Supporting character from The Fairly OddParents without enough information to really be worth keeping. If this is kept, it needs to be moved. "A.J." is a fairly common nickname. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney J Bush.. UK Optometrist/inventor/researcher

edit
Please note the existence of a complete rewrite at Sydney J. Bush, which is under the umbrella of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002..

Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002. --IByte 00:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. As for the rewrite, there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus to delete it (although it's close and some votes are ambiguous), so kept for now. Next time could we please not merge VfDs on completely different articles? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002.

edit
Please note the existence of a complete rewrite at Sydney J. Bush, which is under the umbrella of this deletion discussion.

Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Sydney J Bush.. UK Optometrist/inventor/researcher --IByte 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. -- BD2412 talk 01:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable bio. JDoorjam 01:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I note Uncle G's re-write, discussed below, and clarify that my vote is for the unworkably-long-titled article in the heading of this VfD. I abstain from voting on the revised Sydney J. Bush discussion. -- BD2412 talk 13:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Screaming vanity | Celcius 01:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. nn and vanity. ManoaChild 01:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the article with the long title. The rewrite has merit, and I need more time to evaluate it. I applaud Uncle G's efforts; however, I wish that Uncle G had not placed the new article under this VfD, since the articles are so different. ManoaChild 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Extend delete to cover rewritten article. Unable to independantly confirm notability. Rewritten article, while much improved, consists primarily of a list of letters written, which is not notable (fails average professor test). ManoaChild 20:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As above, so below. Geogre 01:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and additional vote: Uncle G's separate article is only tangentially related to the issues here, so I have to vote on it separately. The fact that the fellow isn't spoken of or his technique much used/discussed is what makes me argue for delete on that. Mind you, cardioretinometry is back. Folks need to watch out for deleted things mysteriously reappearing. Geogre 13:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I am in favor of deleting vanity cranks, this one is a bit harder as we still seem to have the article on cardioretinometry. As long as that article persists there ought to be an article on its inventor. Obviously this existing article needs to be torn to shreds and rewritten but it's anomalous to have the "medical" procedure without the "medico" who invented it. Hold-the-nose keep See below -EDM 02:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicate with very crappy title. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done a complete rewrite from scratch at Sydney J. Bush. It wasn't based on this article, which is entirely autobiographical, having been created by User:Sydney J Bush. There is no need to retain Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002., and it should be Deleted as the self-promoting, biased, egregiously mis-titled, autobiographical abomination that it is.

    However, I have brought Sydney J. Bush under the umbrella of this discussion. Other people don't write much about this person. Research mainly brought up self-publicity. For the latter article, Weak Keep. Uncle G 11:22:50, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

  • Delete I applaud Uncle G's efforts, but this doctor appears to be pretty much textbook non-notable. He's got a theory, and he's given his examination style a name. That's good, and perhaps one day, we'll have a big article about how he was published and everyone follows his theory of scurvy. Until that happens, it's non-encyclopedic. -Harmil 12:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "First optometrist to make available inexpensive, cosmetically acceptable, invisible prism segment bifocal spectacle lenses (not available in the USA at present) for the relief of convergence insufficiency." is a fair claim at notability, but maybe that's because I worked with an opticien's shop. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • "It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this." — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth.

      I didn't find anything at all that mentioned the claim that you mention, or the claims to holding patents. The only source for these claims is User:Sydney J Bush, writing his autobiography in Wikipedia. See the rewrite for the stuff that I did find. Uncle G 13:17:16, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

  • Obviously, delete the horrible-title one and its twin firmly and quickly. For Uncle G's version, while it's very nice to see verbs in the sentences and a good structure, its virtues only make it clearer why "other people don't write much about this person", so delete (a little less firmly) that one, too. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/query: if the invention of cardioretinometry is notable, why has the article been deleted? Similarly, are his invisible prism segment bifocal spectacle lenses notable enough to discuss in corrective lenses? If not, I don't believe we can call him notable. Delete, though admittedly not as speedy as before. JDoorjam 13:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I mention that, in addition to vanity, it is also original research? Still delete. This applies to all articles in this series related to cardioretinometry or its inventor. --IByte 16:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • cardioretinometry certainly was original research. And the parts of the two autobiographies by User:Sydney J Bush that also presented that theory directly, were too. But to be original research as a biography, Sydney J. Bush would have to have presented a novel interpretation of the biography, or have been primary source material. With no arguments that this is a novel interpretation, and cited sources for practically every individual sentence in the article, I suggest that this is not so. As it is a biography article: rather than addressing it as if it were about the theory propounded by the person, which it is not, it's best addressed on the grounds of whether the person, that it is about, satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, as Geogre, MacGyverMagic, EDM, Harmil, JDoorjam, and Bishonen have done above, discussing such things as whether people have written about this person and what this person's recognized achievements have been. Uncle G 18:10:45, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
      • Vanity, then. This is why I'm usually not fond of merging VfDs for related articles, because the reasonings may differ. Building a bridge from one reasoning to the next, though, I don't think coming up with a theory that fails WP:NOR gets you sufficient notability to pass WP:BIO. --IByte 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Groups of articles nominated together are sometimes troublesome in that regard, yes. But this wasn't a group of articles, just a rewrite done as the discussion progressed, a rewrite to replace an autobiography with a biography, about the same subject. That your opinion about a rewrite may differ from your opinion of the original is the idea. ☺ Moreover: It's better to bring rewrites created as new articles under the same umbrella than not to. Uncle G 19:47:53, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • The re-write just scrapes through in my opinion so a weak keep for that, delete the other. -- Francs2000 | Talk   20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. --Carnildo 22:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, he wrote letters to the [BMJ] - if he'd been asked for an article I might have been convinced. But having a letter published in a journal is nn. --Doc (?) 09:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, vanity, advertising. From this point on, any similar articles should be speedied as re-creations of material voted for deletion even if not absolutely identical in content. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep something about this guy? I did a search of the U.S. patent database and found patent number 4,124,282 issued to one Sydney J. Bush in 1978 for "ophthalmic lenses" to be used for the unobtrusive correction of anisometropia. Crypticfirefly 04:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. -- BD2412 talk 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hot milk cake

edit

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Transwiki to WikiBooks. Acetic Acid 00:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote to move Klonimus' hilarious comment over to BJAODN after this VfD is finished. Acetic Acid 08:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
All together now, in four-part harmony: Klonimus, how do you know?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, merge is moderately suppported. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masculinity

edit

"Feminity" redirects to Gender role; article is mostly covered by Gender role ♥purplefeltangel 01:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sticks

edit

Non notable band. No albums, no major tours yet Zeimusu | Talk page 01:19, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous. There is not even a majority for outright deletion, so it stands between redirect and outright keep. There are seven votes to keep, five votes to delete and six votes to redirect. If I put the redirect and delete votes together we have 11-7 for discarding the content, which I will not call a consensus either. Also, I'm not sure if a redirect at this title to Beta Theta Pi would be really useful, or just confusing. Therefore, I will call this an outright keep (no consensus) for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or redirect, they may do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I have deleted it. This is a copyvio, and I can't believe nobody saw it before. All the Beta Theta Pi founder articles were created as copyvios back in February. Might want to put them on your watchlist so when they get recreated again you can redelete them. CryptoDerk 12:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

John Reily Knox

edit

Minor, non-notable lawyer who founded some fraternity. Delete. Gamaliel 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name a famous one. --Tysto 05:55, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Roger McBride who famously cast his vote for the Libertarians instead of Nixon and later went on to run for President on the Libertarian ticket.--Nicodemus75 06:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 03:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ravindra Swarupa

edit

Delete - This gentleman does not meet the standards of a notable entry. 66.68.156.175 August 23, 2005

Completed broken listing, no vote — Lomn | Talk 02:18:28, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable member of a notable religious movement. Pburka 02:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 196 google hits. No references in the usual biographical databases. No evidence of true notability in the article. Gamaliel 03:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Not as well-known as Dwight L. Moody, maybe, but seems more notable than your average high school. Google prefers the spelling "Svarupa," tho. --Tysto 06:26, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • keep please based on what pburka said earlier Yuckfoo 06:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added the more commonly used name of the religious movement. Since the movement is notable, its leaders are too. - Mgm|(talk) 07:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep short but informative article. Alf 12:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, as I have no definite clue to his notability to be here. --Bhadani 14:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a notable figure within his field. Hall Monitor 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems potentially interesting. Trollderella 21:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most people have heard of Hare Krishna. The religious leader of such a movement is notable enough. -- Klafubra 00:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per abover. Hare Krishna is a major movement ----
  • Weak Keep It is not clear how big a guy he is in the organisation. Tintin 05:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He also wrote a chapter in a book, "The Hare Krishna Movement," published by Columbia University Press in 2004. Also, per a civil complaint I found online (case number 3-00CV1254-L U.S. District Court N. Dist. of Texas) he was the Chairman of the "Governing Body of Commissioners" of the "International Society For Krishna Consciousness" and was accepting service of process on their behalf at the time the document was prepared.
  • Delete nn. --tranquileye 19:23:44, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

John Stofa

edit

Non Important QB lifelong backup. Delete. Aranda56 01:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Large

edit

no google hits for "Jonathan Large" + "Jerry Lane"—hoax? If so then delete. JeremyA (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a student film. Perhaps he isn't very well known.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lane

edit

non-notable film. No google hits, no IMDB entry. Delete JeremyA (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all four. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funkadelphia

edit

NN band vanity, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Co-nominated along with articles on band members Aaron Weik, Matt Conlin, and Dan Leayman. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:08:51, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World of Starcraft

edit

This page appears to be the World of Warcraft page with a search and replace conducted. Should be deleted, as no such game is planned at this time. EcoRat 02:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio for the first article, and no consensus, so keep for the temp article. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pejman Akbarzadeh and Pejman Akbarzadeh/Temp

edit

This page appears to have been written by Pejman himself (see edit history) who has an account (User:Pejman) but also edits under different various IPs. Anyways, Pejman Akbarzadeh appears to not be notable enough, as he only gets 296 Google hits. Delete? --Hottentot

  • I was probably going to vote keep, but I think it's a copyvio. I will tag as such. CanadianCaesar 04:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- Seems to be vanity & nn. Large number of red links for "prominent musicians," "greatest Persian cultural figures," and "reputable Persian publications" is a strong indicator. A Google search for one of the publications cited, Bukhara bi-monthly returns only one hit: Pejman's bio. Several other references yielded similar, circular results. However, I do have some reservations about this VfD, since I am not even remotely familiar with the Tehran musical or cultural scene, or the volume of net-based data related to it. -Awyllie 04:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability further established. Radiant_>|< 07:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio... nn although does appear to have written a lot... could vote keep if rewrote to show notability --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --PhilipO 19:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a published author who has produced two volumes of an ongoing work on Iranian music which has been well received within his community. He's been interviewed by the weekly literary magazine Ketab-e Hafte, the Iranian.com (which featured him in 2002 as their Iranian of the day) describes him as "the keeper of all things Persian". He is listed by persiangulfonline.com as one of two "Research and Publication Members". If I were Iranian (I'm not, as it happens) I'd want to know a bit about this fellow. I'm not Iranian (as I said) and I want to know about this fellow. This is why we have encyclopedias. This is why I write for this encyclopedia. We can put stuff into his article and other people can read it. All those who think this is a good idea say "Aye". --Tony SidawayTalk 01:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's not the first Persian musician to write an article about himself at Wikipedia (see Peyman Nasehpour). No biggie, we can rework it so it's not a copy-vio or excessively hagiographical.--Jpbrenna 03:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to that extra information, I can now happily vote Delete as not notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewritten version. CanadianCaesar 22:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity/not notable - Tεxτurε 15:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 03:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gomez

edit

Vanity/advertising in my view. A speedy delete tag was removed by User:JYolkowski, so I suppose this should be taken to VfD. Delete. Martg76 05:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger Adults of Greater Washington

edit

Only one editor (besides a minor by me), who I'm guessing is the founder. Site in question is a yahoo group. Most likely original research, vanity, etc. etc.. Also same editor keeps putting in (and occasionally reverting) bits about International Asperger's Year (a term coined by this "group") into ANY Asperger's related article. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Asperger's Year

edit

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asperger Adults of Greater Washington - term coined by them. One editor - original research most likely --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It. merge it if you most.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 09:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Fingers theories

edit

There was a page with the same premise of this one that was previously voted for deletion, yet another one was created. That page is archived here. Articles with personal essays and original thought have no place in Wikipedia. The decision should be respected, and this article should be deleted. Kaonashi 05:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For rules on original thought/research, please see Wikipedia:No original research
  • Keep. I think the parent article, Salad Fingers, has gained enough notoriety to warrant an interesting and well thought out article on the sense behind the nonsensical that is Salad Fingers. Wikipedia is not completely devoid of theories behind speculated symbolism, and on a related note, Harry Potter has a huge page devoted to the all the spells that appear in the books/movies and their possible incantations, causes, effects, and origins. -- MacAddct1984 06:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; this smacks of original research. --Alan Au 06:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 06:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think all those involved have done an excellent job in explaining the aspects of the Salad Finger universe and the article is both entertaining, enlightening and informing. I don't see how Salad Fingers Theories needs a deletion its presense only serves to be of help. And somehow I believe fans of the series would likely look on Wikipedia anyway for analysis rather then synopsis. I really don't mean to offend those who want to delete the article but i doubt their critical reasoning, those who aren't so keen on Salad Fingers shouldn't be voting as to them it may be seen as a mindless cartoon. This would prevent an argumentum ad numerum which is largely swindled by lack-of-knowledge decisions rather then of informed decisions.
rebuttal Original research applies largely to only academic articles, also I have reason to believe Rjonseric is a sock puppet as it seems to be within close time frame and point as Nandesukall. The article states that it is theory and primary and secondary research is clearly used noting a NPOV which is not minority --Raddicks 13:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kaonashi, this new page was created beause it shares nothing at all with the last page besides the name. It wouldn't be fair to keep the same votes for a page that has been completely redesigned. You've all probably seen the episodes. From discussion I know that 90% blow off the series as non-sensical and weird, while the other 10% ask if there's moe to it than what they see on the surface. David Firth even admits that there is more to the series than most people think, and I believe it's a great idea to keep theories (that were actually the result of discussion on David's page and not the result of one person's effort) so interested people can have a resource to help them with their own analyzations. -- Kyle Michelson 24 August 2005
  • Keep I believe this has proved some interesting ideas into this series, and could be a good solve to the true story. -- Legendarydairy11:25, 24 August 2005. - (user's 4th and 6th edits)
  • Abstain I think it would be better as a section of Salad Fingers, but I'm prepared to give this page a chance to prove its worth. --Billpg 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All i would say to that is there are two points to one match stick, you either get the spark or you don't. --Raddicks 19:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what kind of accuracy speculation is supposed to have.--Kaonashi 02:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), could perhaps be merged with Disney family, but no strong consensus on that either. I will let the article stay as it is for now, but if someone wants to merge it somewhere, go ahead and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Mae Disney

edit

Non-notable relative of a famous person, attack page. Zoe 05:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The School

edit

Vanity. The subject is a short film produced by teenagers as a school project. There is no IMDb entry for it or its creators, who, tho creative and surely destined for film immortality, are not yet appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia. Related: Dark Night. Tysto 05:44, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Night

edit

Vanity. The subject is a short film produced by teenagers as a school project. There is no IMDb entry for it or its creators, who, tho creative and surely destined for film immortality, are not yet appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia. Related: The School. Tysto 05:44, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castelo, Erik Joseph de Guzman

edit

Despite many claims of notability, it seems that this young man's notability is mostly in his own mind. Vanity. Zoe 06:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Zoe, can't this be A7'd?. Dottore So 06:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish, but if I did, there would be an uproar because of all his claims. Zoe 07:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • A7'd? What's that? --Blackcap | talk 07:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:CSD. Original author requests deletion. The original author blanked the page after I put the vfd header on it, and I reverted it, the noted Dottore is suggesting that that qualifies as a request for speedy deletion, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. If another admin disagrees, then by all means, go ahead and delete. Zoe 07:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Blackcap | talk 06:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, being the editor for a school newspaper and the vice president of a student council are not by any stretch notable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would even have sppedied it as nn-bio. --DrTorstenHenning 11:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no objection to the author having same/similar on their user page. Alf 13:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Non-Notable? But he has "actively participated in various extra-curricular activities of the school"... If this could be moved to his userpage, I'd suggest that. Otherwise Delete...--Isotope23 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Burns

edit

Not notable. Article is largely conjecture. Dlyons493 06:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6jkmaple

edit

Non-notable blog, 5 days old, doesn't even have its own website. Zoe 06:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Do not delete singaporeboy. this site is also informative about Maple Story. It can become a hit among Maple players and bring more people to Wikipedia! Also, why must blogs have websites? This is such a pathetic statement. Blogs and forums are not vain, for MacGyverMagic's information.
    • Blogs may not be vain, but articles about them are. Especially blogs that are less than a week old. Zoe 19:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • (Referring to Zoe's statement) singaporeboy. First of all, vain means unsuccessful or useless; of no value. The value of a blog is not up to us to decide, unfortunately. Wikipedia has to accomodate the presence of a blogosphere. Perhaps Wikipedia could start up a Blog directory by the name of Wikiblogs?
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --tranquileye 19:26:27, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable linkcruft. *drew 07:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Soccer Team Is Stacked, Alex Couch, John Fowlkes, Jordan Morrison, Edward Speaker and Chris Anderson (TSTIS)

edit

Band vanity. Three Google hits, their website is a mypage. Zoe 06:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete Pretty good page for a non-notable band. Most notable bands don't have articles like this. Name is kind of funny, too. By the way, it's Myspace. :) Acetic Acid 07:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Whoops. I knew that.  :) Zoe 07:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Vanity. They do not deserve to be in an encyclopedia; they havent even released anything yet. They have no " Importance" Journalist (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. All you've got to do is take a look at the Wikipedia music guidelines. It's true though what Acetic said: not bad for a completely non-notable band. --Blackcap | talk 07:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would vote to keep it, but i guess that doesn't count... at least, apparently, i didnt suck, it was just virtually unknown. dammit, but oh well. although if my vote counts, i still vote yay....

--Rezurrxtionjoe, 2:33AM 8/24/05 (CST)Rezurrxtionjoe 07:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thayer Dining Hall

edit

Non-notable college dining hall. Zoe 07:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Reserve until someone has a good idea as to what should happen to it.
Which makes me wonder how many student would find their way to User:Dpbsmith/Dartmouth#Why avoid creating articles about small facets of Dartmouth life?, maybe we should get this in a place where they can't avoid it, like a temporary 'banner' at the top of Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia as they are told to read that before contributing> Alf 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The guide(s) weren't really done in time. I doubt that any of User:Pcw's students even saw it. But let's relax. Last year there were literally dozens of articles like this one. This year, I think there were only a handful. This makes me think that even though the written assignment doesn't mention it, the word must have gotten out anyway. If the ratio of good articles to problem articles is 100:1, as I think it is this year, I don't think we need to do anything special about it at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't be more relaxed if I tried : ), fair 'nuff, no worries then.Alf 18:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder what grade this student will get, considering their first two entries were copyvios. Zoe 05:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty 10:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Box Full of Sharp Objects

edit

Non notable song BrowardHick 07:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Will tag for cleanup.-Splash 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC spirit

edit

Personal research BrowardHick 07:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fernando Rizo and Agamemnon2. --Apyule 01:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a common expression and idea used by Australian politicians. The article is very poor but the concept has been extensively studied.Many see The Anzac spirit as an integral part of defining what it is to be Australian. Personally I believe it is a load of bollocks but it is a definite concept and should be allowed to run.--Porturology 11:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've got good old Marine Corps spirit, but note that mine is a red link. Subject doesn't strike me as encyclopedic, and if it is it can get a brief mention in ANZAC. Fernando Rizo TC 18:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect Trollderella 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every darn nation in the world has its version of this concept, will we add them all next? (us Finns have this thing called "sisu"). --Agamemnon2 21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commonly used term throughout Australia and New Zealand. Needs a rewrite, though. Grutness...wha? 02:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. Nandesuka 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a rewrite, but the concept seems notable enough Sam Vimes 21:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a rewrite and expansion, but it is noteworthy. PredatorX 12:28, 26 August 2005 (GMT+12)
  • Keep Needs some work, and in particular needs some references, but it is a passable starting point. GregorB 22:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the newly restored version is much better. I will add a good paper reference- it is not in public domain on the internet.
  • Delete as bullshit (I'm Australian, I can say that ;-). However, if it were rewritten entirely, I would suggest keep. I'd dispute the "right-wing" designation as well.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that as an Australian you have never heard John Howard speak of the Anzac Legend/Spirit? I see that you are at the University of Adelaide. Look up the referance and it will give you plenty to read. The main point of this Vfd is to decide if a thing is notable enough for an encyclopaedia. This subject will offend some people's POV no matter what is written but that needs to be sorted out on the article's discussion page, not at VFD --Porturology 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it exists, its studied at length in refereed journals, its part of Howard's common political rhetoric. Fifelfoo 06:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How does such rubbish get into Wiki[edia. The first sentence used the word mythology. The second sentence uses the word myth. Following that is bollocks presented as fact, such as During the 1950s and 1960s, due to lack of observance of ANZAC day in general society, the idea of a unique ANZAC spirit began to fade. What garbage. The Anzac parades in Sydney during those years were huge. Yes, there is an Anzac spirit, (see Kiwis and Aussies partying together in London) but this article is a crock. Moriori 21:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I will revert it to the requested version. -Splash 23:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian (slang)

edit

Rather nonsensical article, is this about the word British in Bulgaria or the word Bulgarian in English? Nothing found on Google other than wiki-mirrors BrowardHick 07:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cohesive Sports Net

edit

A rally cry used by a dodgeball team in a self-described "obscure unconventional sports league", non-notable BrowardHick 07:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albcomport

edit

Advertising for non-notable company BrowardHick 07:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conways

edit

Page on random nn bar in Dublin BrowardHick 07:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied per CSD#A1. Radiant 14:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sprankton

edit

This page was voted to be Speedy Deleted in November 2004 yet is still here BrowardHick 07:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Old discussion follows:

Sprankton was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to speedy delete.

Appears to be some sort of joke. I don't get it. --fvw* 12:11, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

  • Speed deleted as silly vandalism. Content was: Sprankton A noun. A disease you get from chewing too much etc. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikidictionary?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial de Santa Clara

edit

Non-notable/What? Santa Clara where? BrowardHick 07:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Aurora. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aroura

edit

Delete: Content essentially copied from khet and itrw, and same reasons for deleting as the previous score of articles on VfD from User:rktect (no need to repeat them here). -- Egil 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep The study of why and how the Greeks came to derive the Greek Orders of architecture from the proto Doric colonade of Hatshepsets chapel may be lost on Egil but it doesn't require a deletion to make it a good articleRktect 19:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone got an idea for a name which could encompass all ancient stuff derived from this hundred cubits thing? Someone, please leave User:Rktect a friendly message, telling him that spreading stuff over seperate articles and duplicating, isn't a good idea. - Mgm|

(talk) 08:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Answer: The proper place for bona fide material on this matter would be under the Ancient weights and measures umbrella, in this case Ancient Greek weights and measures. And don't worry, the user in question begun (and continues) his Blitzkrieg in those articles, so he certainly knows about them. My impression is that the 34 articles he has created is either an attempt to be left alone, or an attempt to exhaust his opponents. -- Egil 09:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be obsessed with trying to tell me what to write about. These pages aren't just talking about measures. In the case of the page on the Aroura we are talking about the differenc e between public and private architecture, the power of landholding, feudalism, Land Tenure in the time of the Ramesides, things about which you are clueless on every level. Why not go make your own contribution and leave mine alone? Rktect 02:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

    • Try reading some of these articles from the perspective that what I'm collecting is the set of things which influenced the development of architectureRktect 19:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Gene Nygaard 13:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC) * Delete per same reasons as the other entries. Repeating material (under new title with the arguemnt the same material is related to the new title). -- < drini | ∂drini > 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Aurora. Speedy because of criteria G4 in WP:CSD, and useful redirect for the common mispelling. [2] -- (drini|☕) 01:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this criterion is fullfilled, and if there is consensus, I believe it should also be applied to the following articles by the same author - they all seem to have been created for the same purpose, showing that the Egyptians et al around 3000 BC knew exactly how large the Earth was, and lets adjust facts and history to accomodate that:
    • It is probably not a good idea to delete articles because of speculation and opinion which is often wrong. Rktect 10:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • It really isn't about the fact that ancient civilizations from Mesopotamia and Egypt to Greece and Rome knew the size of the earth or for that matter that it wasn't flat. Its about the fact that they shared what they knew. That applies to boatbuilding, the construction of an arch, ideas about natural philosophy, the uses of unit fractions, agriculture, written laws and the form of contracts, architecture, canons of proportion, and how to make beer.Rktect 01:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mille PassusThe relation of the Roman Mile and stadia to geography and navigation results in there being Roman milestones all the way down the mountains along the east coast of the Erythrian sea from Abha to Khamis Mushat.
  • Mille passusComments by Herodotus, Aristotle Marinus, Ptolomy, Posidenus, Eratosthenes
  • MilliareThe Roman Mile and where it came from
  • Pous A discussion of the Greek orders of Architecture
  • Eratosthenes stadia Examination of which stadia Eratosthenes was using
  • Sos A discussion of the origion of standards of measure as definitions of property

and how the control of the water to irrigate the fields led to control of the land

  • Myle A discussion of Arnolds Customs references to a pre statute Myle of 8 furlongs
  • Milion Did the Greeks have a Mile? How was it defined
  • Khet A discussion of Measures used to find a formula for PI in the Rhind papyrus
  • Pes A discussion of how the Romans architecture came from the Greeks while their measures came from Egypt
  • Rope stretchers Ways in which surveyors were able to restablish boundaries after the innundation
  • Passus Vitruvious on Roman architecture
Some are already on Vfd, but not all. For a list of all past and present VfDs by this author, go here. -- Egil 10:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC
    • Egil has the belief that any discussion of measurements is pseudoscience, original research, pyramidiocy and weird. As an architect I work with measures every day and have a different perspective in that I find them interesting and sometimes pleasing when well proportioned so I study them. It would be nice if people would read the pages make comments on the discussion pages and work with me instead of against me. Rktect 19:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect → Aurora and give template ({{R from misspelling}}). --Mysidia (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misspelling? An Aroura is what the Greeks called the Egyptian 3kr or acre with side of 1 khet known as a st3t. An Aurora is an electromagnetic effect of photons passing through an electric field near the earths poles.Rktect 17:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I go through and look at the pages I'm working on I rarely find one that hasn't been tagged, then reverted and had images, content and references removed to give the impression that all are all about measures only, when they are definitely not. That sort of thing is just plain slimy and should not be encouraged by people voting for deletion without checking out the history. Egil claims I have created 34 articles since August 5. If thats true and all that remain are a dozen or so then it might be interesting to see what his contributions have been recently.Rktect 03:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

a dozen or so

NOTE: In the above, User:Rktect has sprinkled his edits all over the place, so it is now not easy to see who said what. I see that my last comment is now misrepresented. (Please don't ask me to clean it up, I really have spent far too much of my Wiki time cleaning up after this user). -- Egil 11:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have spent too much time attempting to destroy things you don't understand. I wouldn't object so much if you attempted to understand, asked questions and got answers, but your asumptions, speculations and opinions are so consistently wrong its getting ridiculous.Rktect 17:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cj mandrapilias

edit

NN winner of a 3-on-3 basketball tournament BrowardHick 08:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe if the tournament is notable it can be merged, but the guy certainly isn't notable enough for his own entry. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (changed vote from Comment - convinced by argument). (Claiming cultural ignorance) how notable is the 3-on-3 tournament? Alf 14:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be that notable, there's a concise description of the event and its history here, but the official site is www.macker.com. --TheMidnighters 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ariba

edit

Company advertising Dave.Dunford 08:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

College of Technology

edit

No information on WHICH college of technology this is or at what university, no real content BrowardHick 08:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.Woohookitty 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

College of Humanities

edit

Same as College of Technology BrowardHick 08:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

College of Creative Arts

edit

Same as College of Tech and Humanities BrowardHick 08:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Woohookitty 10:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film Unit

edit

Non-notable university student organization, vanity, first person, attempt at communication. Zoe 08:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per criterion A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Richard David Martell

edit

A tongue in cheek vanity page Dunemaire 08:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No assertion of notability at all. Speedy deletable under speedy criterion A7 (blatant vanity). - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junk Magazine

edit

Article is about a non-notable pornographic e-zine. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because insignificant - is not pornographic

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TINDOMH

edit

Admitted inside joke, and thus inherently non-notable. Zero Google hits. Not a speedy candidate, unfortunately. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Martin-King

edit

Appears to be a vanity page. Can't find anything notable on Google. Finbarr Saunders 10:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Installing MediaWiki on Solaris 9

edit

WP:NOT a howto-guide. Transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikisource provided this isn't a copyvio. Alphax τεχ 10:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Delete. Alphax τεχ 04:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's 65 episode policy

edit

A combination of fan speculation, very mild fancruft, original research, and opinions. Disney cartoons aren't specially singled out; nearly all network and syndicated animated shows stop after 65 episodes (because at 65, the studio have enough episodes to broadcast for each weekday for 13 weeks--a full season). I'd say to delete this article with no redirect, and make a mention of the policy at an article for television syndication. FuriousFreddy 10:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.175.91 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 August 2005
  • Delete as per FuriousFreddy. -- Kjkolb 12:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless appropriate text/references are provided regarding an identifiable DisneyCo policy. Industry economics make this a standard run for shows, but I think saying "nearly all" overstates its case. Monicasdude 19:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to just 65 episode policy. Topic is notable and need to be reserched futher Guerberj 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What more can be said besides providing the reasons why the shows are cancelled after 65 episodes that doesn't venture into fan speculation/wishing? Anything that can be said about the topic can be said in two sentences. There is no point to try and make a "list of network/syndicated cartoons canclled after 65 episodes" it would literally include 70% of all televison cartoons produced within the last twenty years. --FuriousFreddy 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Optichan 20:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Carnildo 22:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note general policy on Television syndication, and delete. --Apostrophe 17:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above - Tεxτurε 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant Delete i agree that it should be deleted but i despise the elitist anti "fancruft" philosophy of Freddy - i hate those people that want Wikipedia to only be about stuff like Shakespeare and nuclear physics. 143.238.233.214 10:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My use of "fancruft" here is to define the non-neutral speculation and blaiming for the shows' cancellation, as if there were some sort of a conspiracy for their cancelations, and the inherent non-neutral opinions and suppositions that new episodes should have continued to have been made. The article is not encyclopediaic, and it is not an encyclopediaic topic. No, Wikipedia doesn't have to be just about Shakespeare and nuclear physics, but it should treat all subjects in a scholarly manner, and not present articles about children's shows based upon fan speculation. --FuriousFreddy 14:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Article was rewritten before the VFD debate time expired. Therefore the "conditional" keep votes will be counted as "keep"s. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enocean

edit

Wall 'o text advertisement for a battery company. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Since there was previously a merge tag on it, I will leave it there although I can't do the merge myself or I would. -Splash 23:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xankəndi

edit

Partisan POV, contains text like "Armenian terrorists". Manik Raina 10:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Contains the following text which I find strongly POV and objectionable... "...The result of Nagorno-Garabagh conflict 1 000 000 azeri are refugees.20% Azerbaijan teritory are occupied by Armenian terrorists."
    • I had put a message to the author on his talk page but he reverted the edits so I'm asking you all to intervene. Manik Raina 10:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real city, valid subject. If you think someone's edits need to be intervened with, you need WP:RFC. - 131.211.210.12 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, forgot to sign. - Mgm|(talk) 12:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has a definite POV, but the city is both real and notable and so not appropriate for deletion. Try MacGyverMagic's suggestion above, WP:RFC -- Sliggy 15:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since I've edited out the objectionable material (in favor of neither side in the dispute).DS 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following DS's edit. Alf 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why is there a schwa in the title? Zoe 22:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Because Azerbaijani uses schwa as a Latin letter. Caerwine 18:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This being the English Wikipedia, we don't. Zoe 19:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Why not? 'Ə' is just as valid an extention to the Latin alphabet as 'Þ' and both are supported by the bar at the bottom of the editting window for easy entry. The fact that one was borrowed from the Cyrillic alphabet and the other from the Runic alphabet should make no difference. Caerwine 17:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DS's version as notable place. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 217.64.17.178 also removed the merge norice that has been on this page for a long time. Considering the way that user vandalized the page, that may have been because the consensus of the merge discussion, as given on the Stepanakert talk page is pretty much in favor of merging under Stepanakert. I've added back the notice and the map that was part of the article before the vandalism. While VfD's aren't supposed to be about settling merge discussions, since it's already here, let's go ahead and settle this one now by merging under Stepanakert. Caerwine 18:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Caerwine Sam Vimes 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, no firm decision on where to move. Please use the talk page and WP:RM to arrive at a consensus on renaming if this is desired. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cries of animals

edit

Marked as a speedy but doesn't fit anything on WP:CSD. I'm tempted to vote delete just so I can say, "WP:NOT a See 'n Say", but in all fairness I think this could be cleaned up into a decent article, after a page move to a better name. No vote, regardless as I'm just fulfilling the original intent of the speedy nominator. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Mario Party. Already done. Will apply the redirect. -Splash 23:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bandstand

edit

One mini-game from a whole series is not worthy of an article, it's also very short and there's no reason why it should be in an encyclopedia. Taylor 11:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired broken vfd2 substitution. --GraemeL (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy redirect to Mario Party, since I have already merged the contents of the one-sentence article. Brighterorange
  • speedy redirect. Optichan 21:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Thunderbrand 12:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik

edit

This person does not appear to be in any important, notary or indeed interesting and I see no reason for him to have an entry in any encyclopedia. Cdyson37 11:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OFFICIO ASSASSINORUM (Warhammer 40,000)

edit

Delete. This was obviously written by a fan of the game but is completely non-sensical to the average browser. I'd say merge to Warhammer 40,000 but that would at best consist of a single sentence which probably already exists; I don't think a sub-plot or sub-category in a sci-fi game deserves more than that Marskell 11:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Jasper

edit

I could not confirm any of the given information to be true with Google. Anyone else? feydey 11:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Keep the updated version, good work Doc, feydey 15:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Doc for taking the time to re-write the entry. --GraemeL (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The David Jasper you found may be worthy of an entry, but comparing his bio on the Glasgow University site to the article makes me doubt it's the same person. I strongly suspect a hoax. "Sir David is Married to Victoria" just screams David Beckham. Nothing in the article seems verifiable. If somebody wants to re-write the article to reference the David Jasper you found, I'll consider changing my vote. --GraemeL (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of {so fix it}, I have, so keep --Doc (?) 14:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aristar

edit

Non-notable band KeithD (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

edit

Advertisement for non-notable company. Created by anonymous user who posted only on this topic. See also David Hornik. Dlyons493 11:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E gameshow

edit

Mostly content-free article to give an excuse to post a link to an external site. Al 12:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Bad dic def which explains the obvious. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am totally ungrabbed by this. Alf 19:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Seems to be a recreation of "E-gameshow" which was up on VfD before. Sdedeo 20:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete The only way people will FIND this page is if they explicitly search for "e-gameshow". This page adequately (if primatively) describes what an e-gameshow is and furnishes an example of one that isn't mired with popups, as well as provides a link to the usage of the term in a news article. The definition of an "e-gameshow" is no more obvious than the definition of "e-mail". If someone is asking themselves "what is an e-gameshow" and they search on Wikipedia and can't find an answer, isn't that basically censorship and data-flow constriction? More effort should be put into improving the entry, but deleting it would be a pointless gesture. 11:40, 25 August 2005 (Unsigned from 68.126.252.150 which is the IP address of the author of the article in question.)
  • Do not delete the 3 arguements in favor of deleting it are "[it] explains the obvious", "I am ungrabbed by this", and it "seems to be a recreation of something else". The the definition is NOT any more obvious than any other defintion. 2) the wikipedia does not exist in order to "grab" people. 3) It's a word that has been used in multiple locations. 4) can you confirm that it is a recreation of the thing you mentioned before, or is this just wild speculation? I agree that it should be improved, not deleted. Wikipedia exists to expand knowledge, not limit it based on popular opinion. 1:56, 27 August 2005. (Unsigned comment from 69.232.56.215, whose only edits are this VfD.)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism and/or unheard of concept. --SuperDude 08:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Param Gati Swami

edit

This gentleman does not meet the standards of a notable entry 66.68.156.175 12:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Machines Of Desire

edit

Non-notable band. Only one Google hit. [4] KeithD (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, there was a second discussion about what to do with the content at: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_small_bands --Mysidia (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. No allmusic entry for either Machines of Desire or Ryan Arch Peever. Al 12:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all above is correct. feydey 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this article was renamed to List of small bands during this discussion by User:Ed Poor, who also removed the VFD notice from the article. We now have Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of small bands, as well. Uncle G 18:34:04, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
    • Gosh, you make it sound like a bad thing. If I messed up, why not simply undo it? Why all this fuss? Whatever happened to the wiki way? Since when must bold action be thwarted with 3-day and 7-day voting procedures? I'm not going to edit war over this. If there's a policy (or even a convention) that non-notable bands aren't worthy of an article, why is there even a vote? I'm an admin, just tell me to delete the page, for Pete's sake! (Instead of making a federal case out of it - and refusing to explain anything other than to say these are the rules and read the rules again. Do you think I'm too stupid to understand a simple explanation? Or what? Uncle Ed 19:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC))
      • I don't think Uncle G was having a go at you, simply explaining the situation to anyone who happened upon this VfD, because of the unconventional nature of these two particular VfDs. Also, I think there's a difference between being bold, and circumventing concensus-building. The reason for the vote is so that people can come to a concensus as to whether a band is notable or not. (Ed and I have been discussing the moving of VfD articles on his talk page, if anyone is interested). KeithD (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn. Best to speedy it. --Blackcap | talk 22:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dancom Online Services

edit

plus a redirect to it. Blatant first person advertising. -- RHaworth 12:28:57, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brittny

edit

The child of a notable person is not automatically also notable. Al 12:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete appearing in one TV show and having a famous last name does not a notable person make. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete because precedent from previous deletions has established that having famous family members nor appearing on TV by themselves are not legitimate claims to notability. --Quintin3265 13:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please reread the WP:CSD. Not being notable does not make a page speedyable. Only if there is no claim to notability is the page a speedy. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The requirements state that the assertion has to not be disputed or controversial. Since votes in the past have deleted articles with these same claims to notability many times over, I would argue that the assertion is not controversial. Then again your bringing up this topic is probably now controversial enough to require a vote. :) --Quintin3265 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of article is merged more often than it is deleted. Kappa 21:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This kind of article is redirected more often than it is merged (since there isn't much to merge in the first place). (delete & redir) Radiant_>|< 14:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Productions

edit

Non-notable. See also Machines Of Desire, the author's only other contribution. KeithD (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posse of One

edit

Even article says subject is not notable. Al 12:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podjacking

edit

Neologism. Al 13:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I think the differences between the various rename suggestions (including straight retention) are fairly moot, so I won't move it. You can take it WP:RM or just be bold. -Splash 00:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in which the lyrics are exclusively nonsensical words

edit

Really, how many of these could there possibly be? Al 13:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alert! Alert!

edit

Non-notable band. Al 13:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid number theory

edit

Hoax? Page creator doesn't seem to know the concept of modulus, and Google returns 1 hit for "invalid number theory", in a totally unrelated context . DS 13:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if this one goes, so too should the article on INT's purported creator, Michael Talks (a name inherently ungoogleable). DS 13:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 20:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music Directory

edit

Blatant advertising. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty twenty skateboards

edit

nn spam --Ryan Delaney talk 13:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and delete redirect. [[smoddy]] 20:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a raise

edit

Someone had a bad day at work did they? DJ Clayworth 13:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talks

edit

Creator of invalid number theory, currently on vfd. Not-notable and probably vanity. Brighterorange 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active Minds

edit

Non-notable band KeithD (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art crazy

edit

Someone stuck a VfD on this but did not finish the job. Judge for yourselves. -- RHaworth 15:00:54, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ads-Click/Temp

edit

Original article was deleted as a copyvio. Temp article asserts no notability, and is probably little more than spam. KeithD (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Spamvertising. Al 15:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I actually speedy nominated it a few weeks ago, but that disapeared from the history for some reason. SOMETHING happened because it ended up in my watchlist. - Chairboy 15:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vatamman

edit

del. Foreign language dicdef. Etymology not of common acceptance. mikka (t) 15:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete +5/-0

Adyanthaya

edit

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database KeithD (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ankara_dvd_kiralama

edit

Would appear to be advertising, but not in English. If you look at the creator's user page, it features the same text. Mark Lewis 15:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Lucibello

edit

Unknown(can't even google),POV, personal page J E Bailey 15:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete garbage - the "child" image even is badly photoshopped --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. (Ha at the photo though). KeithD (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to WHNU. Should be more about the radio station than the DJ, though. And the vfd tag was misapplied. Uncle Ed 16:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Misapplied how? It looks fine to me. And what part of You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. do you not understand? Your actions were highly inappropriate while there was an ongoing VfD vote. You could have voted here on what to do. And what happens when Damon Lucibello leaves WHNU? Zoe 23:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, moved back. Thanks for setting me straight. {{awesome}} --Uncle Ed 15:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 03:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. [[smoddy]] 19:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Aladdin Las Vegas

edit

Inconceivable that this could be of use in its current form; even if fixed, should be rolled into whatever band recorded it. Uucp 15:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G. Miffy

edit

Hizzoax. Bandity. Whatever you want to call it, it's not real. DS 15:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cluich

edit

A couple of neologisms that have occasionally reached attack status during editing. Only thing this article offers is an argument for expanding WP:CSD. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:39:43, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

  1. Delete yet another non-notable neologism --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.dividim.com

edit

I don't speak Turkish, but this looks like a blatant advertisement to me. Kurt Shaped Box 15:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete +3/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keertan Adyanthaya

edit

This person appears to be the VP of marketing in an Indian television channel. The page was created by the same IP address as Adyanthaya. Delete as nn. Martg76 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Africommerce Website

edit

Non-notable website KeithD (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Churling Doad

edit

Appears to be nonsense; can't confirm notability. 0 Google hits. Psychonaut 16:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robocore

edit

A Google search for "Robocore" returns 507 hits, most of which seem unrelated to music. Also, a Google search for "Bleeding Quinceanera" (supposedly a pioneer of the genere) returns only one hit - a myspace page. I assert that this is non-notable and possible bandcruft. Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GoTAIWO.org

edit

Advertising, non-notable site (65 Google hits). Kurt Shaped Box 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to zompist.com. [[smoddy]] 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zompist Bboard

edit

The article's about a board that has 856 members. 651 have posted more than once. - Home Row Keysplurge 16:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Keeps as of 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC) have been by board members ([5][6][7][8]) - Home Row Keysplurge 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So? Dewrad 01:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

JMR -- "Jesus Mighty Rock"

edit
  • This was tagged as a speedy for being spam without any rationale by anon. Based on their website and a lack of an allmusic entry I'd say delete, but maybe I'm missing something. I would especially like to know if they've got albums with a big label. - Mgm|(talk) 16:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of small bands

edit

Delete. A list of bands who aren't notable enough for their own Wikipedia article will be uncontrollably huge. What next, a list of people who aren't notable for their own article? KeithD (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, this was the second discussion about what to do with the content, the first was started at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machines Of Desire, as far as I could tell, no consensus had been reached to keep the content and merge it to a different article. --Mysidia (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probably even speedy --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Bands that shouldn't be in wikipedia should probably not be in wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changed to delete, after discussion) KeepInstead of wasting time listing a band article on vfd and voting on it, simply merge it with List of small bands, as I did with Machines of Desire. This will save us all a lot of time. Uncle Ed 16:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, by that logic, every single band in existence that fails the very clear WP:MUSIC guidelines can get advertisement inserted into wikipedia. Such a list only circumvents concensus and existing rules and guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 17:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely non-notable. --Blackcap | talk 16:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless list of unencyclopedic information —Wahoofive (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can always create a separate wiki if you desire to move small bands elsewhere. -- BD2412 talk 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that Machines Of Desire, currently listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machines Of Desire, was renamed here during that article's deletion discussion by User:Ed Poor, who also removed the VFD notice from the article. Uncle G 18:34:00, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
    • Why are you talking around me instead of *to* me? And why have you ignored the fact that I already mentioned the very thing you are supposedly informing everybody about (see my comment above). I mean, really! What part of merge it with List of small bands, as I did with Machines of Desire did you think the others here didn't understand? Uncle Ed 19:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • The difference is that in your comment, you were suggesting that people, instead of VfDing small bands, move the topic to List of small bands (which is a bad idea for the reason given by Mgm above); while Uncle G was letting us know that you had moved Machines of Desire, an article currently undergoing VfD, to List of small bands. Moving VfD articles is explicitly prohibited in the Guide to VfD page and even on the template. You were endorsing this action, Uncle G was not. Uncle G was just saying that this had happened, which is important because if this article is deleted it affects Machines of Desire. --Blackcap | talk 20:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Note that Ed Poor unilaterally moved Damon Lucibello and removed the VfD notice without consensus while the discussion was still going on. He's notorious for taking unilateral actions like this. We know his disdain for VfD in general. Zoe 23:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, Zoe, and I realized my mistake, thanks to Keith. I request that my "unilateral" action be undone, in accordance with consensus. Fair enough? BTW, welcome back, haven't seen you in a year! :-) Uncle Ed 15:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MGM. Editors (especially those recently smacked around for bad judgement in abuse of admin privileges) should please not remove VfD notices during the voting period, regardless of whether they also moved content without consensus. Mr. Poor, the preceding generalization also applies to you (mentioning this just to be using the second person singular tense rather than talking around you). Barno 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on both counts: (1) Deleting vfd was an error in judgment; (2) The rules *do* apply to me. And thanks for not talking "around" me. :-) Uncle Ed 15:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft, kinda stupid idea. Punkmorten 20:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Everybody please stop biting Ed. JDoorjam 21:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of minor people and delete. --Carnildo 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete:Okay, I read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and I believe Machines of Desire meets the criteria. Does anyone mind if I delete the article right away, or do you want to wait a full seven days to vote on whether it deservers a speedy delete? Sheesh! Uncle Ed 21:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What about the article (in its original form) meets the criteria for speedy deletion? The vanity guidelines, as I understand them, apply to people rather than bands. KeithD (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Oops. Your comment, and my reply, should have been at the Machines Of Desire VfD, not at the List of small bands VfD. That's exactly why VfD articles are supposed not to be moved. KeithD (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Keith completely. Thanks for explaining it all to me! Uncle Ed 15:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novack Cafe

edit

A minor restaurant on the campus of Dartmouth. I left a friendly note to Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students on the talk page of the anon who created it. Nothing to see here. Meelar (talk) 16:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Greenprint

edit

A minor printing service on the campus of Dartmouth. I left a friendly note to Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students on the talk page of the anon who created it. Nothing to see here. Doesn't deserve a redirect. Meelar (talk) 16:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Mighty Rock

edit

Band vanity. 1 Google hit. Kurt Shaped Box 16:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually funny. I just received an email to check this out. I am the founder of JMR Band. We ARE a real band. We have been playing a long time. We have played with some notable groups, but WE have never had a national hit record. Of course, that has never been our purpose. We have always been and always will be an indie group. We received some significant regional radio airplay on one of our songs, but that's about it. I hope this clears up the matter. [Joe / jmrband@hotmail.com]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. FCYTravis 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Manuedda

edit

Was previously deleted over a year ago. Still only gets four Google hits, one of which is the wikipedia deleteion log.

Not sure if I'm treating this correctly or not. If not, somebody clean it up for me. --GraemeL (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Previous VfD:

Seems non-notable. No google hits. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Remember to remove from 1988 births. Thue 18:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 22:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one younger than me should have their own entry. What, that's not a valid reason? Fine, delete for vanity. --Marlowe 23:37, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Dulce et Decorum Est. [[smoddy]] 17:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Gas Quick Boys

edit

Delete delete quick boys as band vanity. - Lucky 6.9 17:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Igmore

edit

Neologism. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sheppard

edit

Created by 69.69.217.67 who also created JMR -- "Jesus Mighty Rock" and Jesus Mighty Rock. Although there are some google hits, he doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Martg76 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! This guy is real! He was very popular and Bold textnotableBold text in Contemporary Christian Music back in the seventies and eighties. He does meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. He had major hit records. He was a signed recording artist (Benson / Greentree / Diadem). He also played with other notables, Dallas Holm and Phil Johnson! He toured all over the country. The reason his name is not highly known with the current young generation is because he has largely stopped major touring to raise a family. (Joe / jmrband@hotmail.com) -- Scratch JMR if you want, but don't scratch Tim Sheppard.
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PointCheck

edit

Advertisement for non notable software. Only 515 google results. NSR (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Duplicate articles, resolving with a history merge --Allen3 talk 12:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Solomon Bandaranaike

edit

This page contains identical information to the page Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike. There is no point having two articles for the same person, one using his full name and one just using a shortened form of his name. Because of this, I would suggest that this page is deletedVino s 18:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read Wikipedia:duplicate articles, which is there for exactly this situation. There is no requirement for articles to be deleted in this circumstance. Indeed, someone had already done the very work required until this edit undid it. You could simply have reverted Adam Carr (talk · contribs) in one edit instead of nominating the article for deletion in three. ☺ Uncle G 19:00:46, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Given that a Google search shows significantly more results for the shorter name rather than the longer one, I think we should look at having the longer name as a redirect to the shorter name. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the history shows a cut-and-paste move from this (the original) title to the longer one on Jan. 12, 2005. A history merge would probably me a good idea. Uppland 06:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When do we introduce computers to young people?

edit

Original Research -Satori (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- It's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Christy747 18:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my 1st attempt. I wish to place an article in the section Educational Challenges and for sure the subject is relevent. Is it possible to advise how I should edit the arguements to fit the Wikpedia format. Thank you Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.117.10 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-24 19:06:56 UTC
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, 62.0.117.10. Our articles are written from the neutral point of view. This means that they don't have first-person statements telling the reader what "my opinion is", or referring to things "as I state above", or saying what "young children should be" doing. Our articles are also verifiable, which means that, for just one example, where they state that the Surgeon General has warned about something, they should cite sources so that the reader can confirm that the Surgeon General has indeed given such a warning. Most importantly, as far as the nomination here is concerned, they must not be original research. Any article that states outright that "The process of introducing young children to computers is little understood and researched." and then goes on to expound upon the subject at length is, by its own admission, new research in the field. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing new research. Please do that in peer-reviewed journals, or somewhere else where peer review will be performed. Please come to Wikipedia with stuff that has been researched, published, peer-reviewed, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge already. Finally, our article titles conform to our naming conventions. Uncle G 20:21:17, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Christy747, but maybe, Joel, you could expand E-learning, E-mentoring and/or Blended-learning
  • When they learn to read things like NOP, IMO. Delete. Sdedeo 20:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletel POV essay --Dysepsion 00:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 16:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient reenactment groups

edit

Seems to have been created simply for the purpose of adding a single external link. And no mention of the SCA?! Al 18:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. [[smoddy]] 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hector trevino

edit

vanity, non-notable Christy747 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Cheramie Former Covington Lion

edit

This Guy was Evidently some kind of Football Player but he is Not Notable Enough! (1986-1989) 19:09, 24 August 1991 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. [[smoddy]] 17:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rent a car

edit

Article is advertising for a Romanian car rental company. NSR (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to birth. [[smoddy]] 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live birth

edit

Article is close to a dicdef and is redundant with childbirth, birth and the other pregnancy related articles. Tznkai 19:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. [[smoddy]] 17:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Par excellence

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keyside strike

edit

NN Band vanity; no presence on allmusic, no Google evidence of major label releases or tours. Delete unless noteability established. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:39:43, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 17:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry H. Parker

edit

Delete Seems like vanity to me. PhilipO

Delete this rubbish. A disgrace to Wikipedia.--Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Keep--Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)19:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC) (SOCK PUPPET) *Keep Seems pretty neutral to me (--Dorang12 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]], author of the article in question)[reply]

  • "We can only hope that he will continue to expand across the country, as there are many people who need to be fought for." is neutral?! Delete as advertising. Al 20:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This was a great article. I disagree with Phillip"0" (There is that sugarcoated enough?) --Sundevil4life 20:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sundevil4life has only 8 entries in edit history. --PhilipO 20:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Sundevil4life's above comment originally read: "Phillip0 is just that...a "0"! Get a life loser!! --". Fernando Rizo T/C 21:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on Google, I can see noteability being established as a brief mention in the history of really bad commercials, but The Man, The Myth, The Commercials is Vanitese for delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:15:09, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Delete This should be encyclopedia, not white/yellowpages S33k3r 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep the article seems fine. I live in Southern California and it doesn't look any more biased then some other articles on here. Besides, I've seen the commercials. Seems accurate.--Pete Mos$ 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first (and currently only) contribution to Wikipedia. --PhilipO 20:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep. I like it --Sinatra-iz-God 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first (and currently only) contribution to Wikipedia. --PhilipO 20:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

(SOCK PUPPET) *Those commercials are great. There's nothing wrong here. I say KEEP--Majutray 20:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote actually from Sinatra-iz-God. --PhilipO 20:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep I don't see the problem here. Did Larry Parker write this page himself? What would an article on Wikipedia do for him? Is he hurting for clients that bad? Unsigned edit by User:Dorang12. Third edit by user, made 5 minutes after first edit. Ground Zero 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

(SOCK PUPPET) Keep This article is factual, whether you "deletionists" like it or not.--LongDongHanks 21:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(SOCK PUPPET) *Commentthis article, perhaps, should be deleted. However, comparing it to Mein Kampf is ridiculous. agamemnon2, you owe the entire discussion an apology.--JohnF32 22:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(SOCK PUPPET) *QUESTION How can so many people be so passionate and emotional about an injury attorney?!? --JohnF32 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (SOCK PUPPET) *ANSWER That my friend is the real question here. Lots of LHP haters, I suppose--[[--Dorang12 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]] 22:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The PLO - (Puppet Litigation Organisation)! Alf 23:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remember kids - its only 99% of lawyers who are the bastards! --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete this vanity. It is hardly the most professional thing to say, but this site, and the accompanying, pathetic sock puppets, make my skin want to crawl. It is as though this guy wants some sort of recognition for his pathetic life, a sort of pale reflection, a sign that he matters to someone. I hate to be harsh, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. IINAG 00:41, 25th August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this attorney who seems to have a strong following in the sockpuppet community. Besides which, it is not a coherent article and parts of it seem to be a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete Delete this trash. Obviously this is an untrue article about Mr. Parker. I mean come on! There isn't even anything about his time in Asia curing sick orphans or how he was able to fight off the Nazi raiding parties when he was a corporal in the Great War! There is so much this article leaves out that I would have to call in to question the integrity of the author. Mr. Parker is a great man who has done more for the down and out than Mother "what's-her-name" the nun! Mr. Parker has been known to fly across the world going from house to house giving gifts to those who were nice and sueing the ones who were naughty, and of course let's not forget that even his bowel movements smell like flowers! User:Rocco_Melonchek 25th August 2005
  • Delete self-promoting, sock-puppet-supported lawyer vanity. --Etacar11 03:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sock drawer currently contains 23 socks. Does this count as delete 23 times? Tonywalton  | Talk 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising and not notable. -- DS1953 23:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, not notable. As an experiment, I have edited the article to remove POV, promotional language, and everything in it which is not notable. Here's what remained: Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Larry H. Parker (LHP) is an injury attorney in Long Beach, California with a staff of fifty, and a specialty of automobile and motorcycle law.
Before commercials mentioning dollar amounts were prohibited by California law, Parker was known locally for his TV commercials in which a man states, "Larry Parker got me $2.1 million and man am I enjoying it!"
  • Delete Laughable yes, notable no... maltmomma 01:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My personal opinion is that his original ads were pretty cheezy, but they were a very common sight on late night TV in Los Angeles for quite awhile, and they did cause a law to be written to eliminate the mention of the amount of legal settlements in lawyer advertising in California. The Parker Law Firm and this article should be merged together. BlankVerse ∅ 09:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm usually more of a deletionist, this is one case that deserves to be saved. I'm not going to campaign for it, but hopefully some people will change their vote. Or, with all the sockpuppet mess (and reaction to it), perhaps the article deserves a revote. BlankVerse ∅ 12:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think what BlankVerse said was pretty convincing. gren グレン 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Changed from Delete) I trust BlankVerse's judgement on this one Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think being known locally for annoying ads rises to the level of being encyclopedic. Comparisons are odious... but... we recently deleted an article on the late Ernie Boch, his sons, car dealership empire, philanthropies, etc. He had regional notability. In fact when I recently bought my car from Boch Toyota (2nd largest Toyota in the world), someone was there who had driven 200 miles from New Jersey because Boch had the car he wanted in stock and his local Toyota dealer was estimating a one year wait. Boch's ads in which he smashed car windows with sledgehammers screaming "Nobody smashes prices like Boch" and his catchphrase "Come on down!" were famous throughout the Boston area. He was of significant local economic importance, building a coalition of auto dealers in the Norwood area into a loose coalition and promoting the "Automile" as a car-shopping mecca. I live near the Automile and am a happy customer. I thought the article should be deleted, and that was the consensus. I really think the degree of notability between Boch and Parker is very comparable... and both fall short. Both individuals deserve brief mention as local notables in the articles on the cities where they did business, and that's all. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Parker Law Firm and stop this anti-SoCal madness! --fpo 21:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. (Ditto for Parker Law Firm.) - brenneman(t)(c) 15:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, and for the sock puppets. --tranquileye 19:34:42, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Keep the new version. I just edited the page. This is accurate and verified information. Larry H. Parker is actually a very noted injury attorney in Southern California. The first article (which was pretty funny) seemed to be written tongue in cheek. I went ahead an edited it to make it a legitmate article. Let's stop the debate now.--Sundevil4life 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also I agree that the Parker Law Firm article (also hillarious before being edited) should be merged
    • Removed the sock puppet label from my name. I have posted numerous articles on Wikipedia. User just did not like my comments about him.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete (9 delete, 3 valid keep). [[smoddy]] 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CUAS

edit

Campus organizations are not inherently noteable. No relevant Google hits found outside of the Cambridge domain (cam.ac.uk). Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:58:57, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

The CalTech example is a single page for the entire university, which puts it in a different context than a page about a single organization. I would have no objection to an equivalent page for Cambridge as a whole. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:20:23, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mentoring

edit

non-notable neologism, see the terrifying set of e-themed redlinks as well: e-coaching, etc. Sdedeo 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dwane

edit

Dwane the graphiti artist from 1984 in Sweeden seems like patent vanity nonsense to me Cloveious 20:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded to show notability. More than just a claim of being "one of the first graffiti artists." --Etacar11 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • His real name seems to be Tommy Filipowicz and he appears to have become an established (mostly commercial) artist and art director. His website (with CV, exhibitions etc.) is here. Not sure if he is notable enough, though. The graffiti scene is obviously somewhat of an an underground thing, and his reputation in that world dates to before the breakthrough of the Internet, so it probably requires someone familiar with that to write a proper article. Uppland 14:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im all in favor of moving the article, if the masses think its noteable to Tommy Filipowicz. I don't think Dwane is an appropriate title, and right now as the article stands it just seems silly with no indication of who he really is or refrences, and was waiting for a VFD. Grafiti Artists where I live are a dime a dozen, and a scourge more then anything. I looked through the website and anyone who creates advertising for the Red Cross or David Beckam seems worthy of a page.
  • Comment Many people claim to have been "one of the first graffiti artists". In some cases it might be true but it’s really hard to verify. Shortly after the genesis of 'Swedish graffiti' thousands of kids were out painting the walls. In Swedish hip hop I listed Dissey, who (together with Ziggy) is credited as being 'the first' to spraypaint walls with the colors & motifs that are characteristic of graffiti. These people were arrested on occasions and could consequently prove their claim to fame by showing their arrest sheets. They have also appeared in anthologies, newspaper articles, etc. I listed Mac One because he was a member of the somewhat successful group Treble n' Bass, and has talked about his graffiti days in interviews. Merley were well known within graffiti circles and to the police, he has also talked in interviews and has become infamous under his real name Liam Norberg; for movies and the biggest (?) heist in Swedish history. Later on, galleries for graffiti art were established. Some people were selling their (legal) art work, and hiding their identities became somewhat counterproductive. (decent article, in Swedish) I personally don't know that much about graffiti artists of Sweden. However, regarding Dwane, I think if he (Tommy Filipowicz) graduated elementary school in 1989 he seems a bit too young to have been seriously involved in the graffiti scene in 1983. --Tsaddik Dervish 15:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wereo

edit

Slang dictdef. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!(Unsigned edit by 207.251.232.173)

The term is used tens of thousands of times on usenet. It is worth including.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)

It's a word coined by a man trying to illegally sell a pirated music bootleg. The reason it is so common on usenet is that he spams prolifically trying to sell copies of his tapes. At best this is a Vanity Page, at worst it's an advert for illegal goods. Either way, delete.(Unsigned edit by 194.79.243.65)

I can't recall the man trying to sell the recordings of the "wereo." He just proclaims that he has them. The above message is an example of the types that would have it deleted for no good reason.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)

If the text of the entry is the problem, please someone edit that text. I am no expert on encyclopedic authoring. The most important facts are these: "The Wereo" is referenced over 23,800 times on usenet. "The Wereo" is not just a slang term but is itself an actual movement on usenet by several hundred people. "The Wereo" is more popular than many subjects that have listings on Wikipedia. Squidhammer(Unsigned edit by User:209.205.191.147')'

This is blatantly incorrect. Those "several hundred people" are one prolific troll and a small group of hangers-on who follow him around. A simple google search will verify that. This same troll like to use the word "awl" instead of "all" (along with many other such baby-talk spellings). Do you therefore suggest "awl" deserves a wiki page just because one man has used it 100,000 times in usenet posts? Ludicrous.(Unsigned edit by User:80.229.30.88')'

Awl does have a WP page. The Cockney rhyming slang usage seems rather apposite. Tonywalton   | Talk

Comment once again blanked by 205.188.116.72 Tonywalton   | Talk 22:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Total Anihilation

edit

Vanity page. Andrew pmk 21:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunyota Kohet

edit

Other than his published works, a google search indicates a lack of notability. Also, the article's purpose appears to be for the promotion of a religion. Cheese Sandwich 21:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh cricket problems

edit

Personal essay.-Aranel ("Sarah") 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but the author should be encouraged to ask neutral content to other articles about Bangladeshi cricket. Osomec 00:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I'll have a word with the bloke as he's evidently knowledgeable about cricket and just needs a bit of guidance about how we do things on here. Bangladeshi cricket is an area we're woefully weak on. Sam Vimes 21:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it is an interesting article but it needs a huge amount of work to make it Wiki-propriate. Eddie.willers 00:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 16:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish freedom fighters

edit

Categorize and delete - can never be fully POV and the list will never be complete Halibutt 21:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Heat

edit

Fictitious soccer team. Cheese Sandwich 21:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (After filtering through the edit history for new users, anons, and other questionable actions, I count 14 delete, 3 merge, and 1 redirect votes) --Allen3 talk 15:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Parker Law Firm

edit
- I ain't no sock, take a sniff. Alf 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(second time of removing sock puppetry from my vote) Alf 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were added to all the names, I assume by the author. Let's please get this over with. JDoorjam 00:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<s> tags from User:209.150.74.25 removed. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:43:00, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
  • Merge, agree with gren --fpo 21:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Www.Kerrydalestreet.co.uk

edit

Forum vanity. 17 distinct hits on Google. Kurt Shaped Box 22:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Hall of Shame

edit

Not 100% sure about this. Looks like some sort of trolling attempt. Thought I'd list it here for consensus. Kurt Shaped Box 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be bad if it's done right. I vote to keep it on a probationary status, but not if its sole purpose is to humiliate authors, but rather serves as a source of humor, interest, or examples of what not to do.22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)~~ This comment is by User:Jbrakatselos - user's 6th edit. FreplySpang (talk) 22:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • FWIW - The author has defended it on my user talk page: [10] It doesn't sound likely to be a serious encyclopedia-type article anyway, so delete. FreplySpang (talk) 22:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody, to the concerned person(s) above, first off, I an not a "troll" (whatever that means!) I work here at the Wiki on my own time as we all do!, I am a participant in the following group for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit and I just happen to be working on a subject in an article for Wikipedia, and yeah, while it is only a stub at this point in a few hours I hope it will be read and enjoyed by most with a smile and a wink at for my efforts at the worst. So please wont you all give me a few measurements of time to show you ???? I am a serious editor here at Wikipedia! (and I care!)

I thank you in advance Shalom! (Cathytreks 22:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Looks speediable to me, but what the heck. Delete. --fvw* 22:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Hall of Shame!

edit

Is a place where people who dont dare register their IP go, and also those who fail to check their facts first before they make an edit may reside as well! Hey guys who want to delete this remember.....This article is a stub. More ..much more to come...So please stand by for...The Wikipedia Hall of Shame! which will serves as a source for humor, interest, or examples of what not to do while editing here on The Wikipedia! come back and fee free to contribute and edit edit edit..in good fun and so please feel free to share your ideas, I'll be back later with a bunch of things. (btw, im not a troll either but love to help make things better around here) User:Cathytreks 22:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Here is my view on Wikipedia from the group im in here on reform of Wiki: "I too shall be glad to assist in helping to develop a standard of thoughful concensus building which shall not impose new censorship standards on the Wikipedia, save those self imposed ones that lay within ourselves. While the concept of "decency" may be POV on its face still, there should be some basic standard of decency that a community should strive to abide by, lest we suffer that result, which would undoubtedly be ...total anarchy." from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit

  • Move since User:Cathytreks, seems to think it important, to Wikipedia: or User: namespace or BJAODN. Does not belong in main namespace at all. -- RHaworth 23:16:29, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Delete, it certainly doesn't belong in the article space, and it looks like nothing but a bitch page. Zoe 23:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cathy is not a troll, and edits in good faith. This should, however, be in her user space. BJAODN stands for "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense," which is where a lot of examples of what not to do end up -- in other words, Cathy, I'm afraid someone has beat you to setting this sort of page up. If, however, you would like to keep a log of pages that serve as examples of what not to do, I'd again suggest setting that up connected to your user page. Cheers, JDoorjam 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Excuse me nice editors...I dont even know some/most of you people and yet you treat me as a vandal/troll!...why?..why are you to be sitting in judgement on me and saying those kinds of things, like im a bad person, give me a break, and just Who or what is a BAJOADN!? , anyway you guys arent even giving me a chance...so im going to just work on my piece and hope you will think differently when its no longer just a stub...Please give my article a chance!? I am a serious editor here and this is rediculous how rudely and wrongly I am treated by some of you. ..forshame on those who act so. :( please...and it is not original research! (Cathytreks 23:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • I say delete. Hey, Cathy, what you are writing is not an article. This is not a bunch of community pages; this is an encyclopædia. Much as I like personal camaraderie, I cannot really define that as belonging to an encyclopædia. IINAG 23:47, 24th August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not see why there should be a 'Wikipedia Hall of shame,' either in an article form, or as part of the communal community pages. Such a thing would be completely subjective, and would be both a cause of more friction than harmony, and, in a twisted way, a recognition of spammers' potency. Surely, we should not dedicate our space to those who try to bring this encyclopaedia down. IINAG 00:12, 25th August 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that's remotely the intent here, but I can understand why this may be better off as a user page than anywhere else. I see no reason to continue the VfD process for this one, though. There's no way this can end up existing in the article namespace. Friday (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a dream ...of a Wikipedia site where anyone who was lost or erred by accedent might come to a place of learning from those who messed up..in a good way...no name calling no baiting...just a place to pick up the pieces as editors to be after a gafaw...guess I made a mistake to think it would be an encyclopedic article worth merit and fun...as I slump in defeat over this I am sorry I wasted the idea at Wikipedia...this time, but please dont count either the idea or me out yet cuz..."I'll be back" lol ;-) (Cathytreks 01:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thank You Everybody

edit

Thank you all who wrote so kindly to me on my User Talk page and exsplained it all so well, I want to be an asset to the community and be of value, I'll be back with something of value to contribute I hope that you will be as kind again as you were on my user page after you learned I only meant good stuff! ...best to all Cathy!  :-) (Cathytreks 01:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mrath

edit

Neologism. A word that means nothing and can be used as a substitute for anything. Right... Delete RJH 22:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call the Medic

edit

One-year-old band from Chicago that allmusic.com hasn't heard of. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Joshua B

edit

Vanity? It's hard to tell without a last name to look up, but neither singing for the local hockey game (in Ohio, where hockey isn't particularly big) nor performing at the local amusement park are in and of themselves noteworthy. I can't find any hits on Google for either of the bands mentioned. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete because that was the virtually unanimous vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. This new posting is identical (at a quick glance) but without the extensive external links that the previous one had. -- RHaworth 00:04:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

List of Famous People with ADHD

edit

I am sure this is a reposting of something deleted a few days ago. The first entry in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of fictional characters with ADHD confirms my suspicion but I cannot find the precedent. Anyway - delete - original research / postumous psychiatric diagnosis / unverifiable. -- RHaworth 23:04:52, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 13:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

2d3

edit

nn company Dlyons493 23:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Teh B!b130rz

edit

A newly-created pseudo religion designed to make fun of computer newbies. Not encyclopedic, and seemingly without any impact beyond the amusement of its creators. "Its basicly just the Christian bible translated into 1337speak..." Joyous (talk) 23:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Janel_Loi

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Melodyme

edit

nn band, few songs, little Google Dlyons493 23:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

H4xopolis

edit

Not notable. --fvw* 23:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Note from Creator: Aww, man, why does it have to be deleted? Does it really matter if it's insignificant at this point?

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

This same person has now created a page in German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourosh_Ziabari My question is how to reactivate the deletion process.

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

The result of the debate was Userfy (discussion could have also supported a consensus for deletion, but userfying is the less drastic option) --Allen3 talk 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kourosh Ziabari

edit

This article, it seems, was written by Kourosh ziabari. There are a few hundred instances of him on the net; the 6 pages of his from the UK are basically him writing on blogs, though, and they don't particularly make sense. I skimmed over some of the Farsi links too, (although my grip on that language is not strong, to put it lightly,) and it seems that, on most of them, he is just bigging himself up. I highlight this for a votes for deletion because I am not sure whether his age and his 'acceptance' classified him as notable. If so, this article needs some deal of rewriting. If not, like I expect, then so be it. IINAG 23:43, 24th August 2005 (UTC)

  • I was just mulling over the page wondering what to do with it, and when I decided to add the VfD header it was already there. Good call. Delete unless sourced. --fvw* 23:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to be just a blogger... I say delete for now. Andre (talk) 00:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you too. In fact, with all the links to him that I have read, he talks about being a journalist, but there are no examples of journalism! I fear that this may be a case of Walter Mitty, but perhaps it is just childish imagination. He also claimed that he wrote for the Washington Post and the New York Times, but there are no links to his 'articles' for them at all IINAG 00:26, 25th August 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete unless proof of notability is provided. This is why we have WP:AUTO. ~~ N (t/c) 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Userfy. 16:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn autobio at this point. --Etacar11 03:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "World's youngest journalist" gets no relevant Google hits. As for the list of awards... I've won somewhere upwards of 25 regional, state and national honors for excellence in journalism, including five National Newspaper Pacemaker Awards - but that doesn't make me Wikipedia-worthy. From one journalist to another, best of luck in the future... but plumping yourself on Wikipedia isn't going to further your career. Best to get back to writing. Userfy per Alphax. FCYTravis 04:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Alphax τεχ 04:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. All the Google hits to "Kourosh Ziabari" point to his own blogs. He doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article. However, it will make a nice user page. — JIP | Talk 04:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Autobiography, vanity. jni 06:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be just a big-headed guy advertising himself. No source or citation. Delete unless cited. (Unsigned vote by 132.216.227.206 (talk · contribs))
  • Delete This person does not deserve to have a biography here. Compare his weblog last entry "What is cholera?" with this page or just simply google a sentence from his weblog. You will absolutely find an obvious case of plagiarism. Writing articles is different from copying and pasting other's works. (Unsigned vote by 70.52.6.179 (talk · contribs))
  • Dear spammer, Our problem is not cholera at this time dear spammer. Our problem is "Kourosh Ziabari" Unsigned vote by Kourosh Ziabari, who removed the above vote
    • Kourosh, you should not remove votes from VfD discussions. It constitutes vandalism. And the criticism is legit - you flat-out stole that article from the health guide website. You even included the headers before the actual article, not bothering to even try to make it look like you wrote it. If this is all your "journalism" amounts to, it is not journalism, it's theft. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An observation: There is a book by Elizabeth Laird titled "The House on the Hill," and I don't doubt it is a perfectly lovely book. However, acording to Amazon, it is aimed at children age 4 to 6. According to my local library catalog, it is 31 pages long, illustrated, and is intended as textbook for foreign speakers of English (part of MacMillan press' Heinemann system of guided readers). So I question its status as a "novel" as described on the page in question. It leads one to question the probable amount of exaggeration elsewhere in the page. Userfy. (On the other hand, Elizabeth Laird is a prolific author of children's books and probably deserves a Wiki page.) (Unsigned vote by Crypticfirefly (talk · contribs))
  • Just I was wondering how a 31 page Beginner Level story in a series could be called a novel. On the other hand, this is his translation of that 31 page. (At least, this was accessible through the internet). His translation is about 4000 words; therefore, I believe that Kourosh has just translated a part of that book , maybe one title and then has called it a novel. Am I right? Kourosh, don’t you think that you exaggerate everything (a little bit)? (64.229.132.61 (talk · contribs))
    • It could be a severely abridged version. Does someone actually understand Farsi, and can explain further about the translation? To me, Arabic script looks like gibberish. — JIP | Talk 18:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His few writings, if could be counted as article, are just sort of ordinary school-witings of a secondary school student, which make no contribution. Can not be taken serious even, nonsense to some extent in some instances.
Kourosh, your weblog is just two months old. How have you been writing in your weblog since 2002? How come?
Moreover, your claim to be "one of the most active persian Bloggers" makes no sense when you have posted only 13 entries so far.
  • In the sentence "he is one of the most active Persian bloggers", there are a couple of words missing: "spammers", and "among". So, we should have: "he is one of the most active spammers among Persian bloggers".
  • Warning! Do not let Kourosh Ziabari use Wikipedia for self advertising. This man is a very well known spammer (weblogs spam) among Persian bloggers. There is no need to even know Farsi; just try this google link, and see how he has posted same comments for different weblogs, same text full of self advertising and vanity. He is fake, very fake. Delete and not even Userfy. (Unsigned vote by 70.52.10.46 (talk · contribs))

A question

edit

You are right, world's youngest journalist returns no google hits but WORLD YOUNGEST JOURNALIST RETURNS MORE THAN 4 PAGES SEARCH RESULT OF GOOGLE. OK?

How can I prove that I am the world youngest journalist? Have I the ability or the permission to link all my 1000 articles?

Sure. ~~ N (t/c) 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT?! NO! Zoe 06:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Kourosh, the problem is not that people don't believe you are the youngest journalist. The problem is that Wikipedia has a rule against writing an article about yourself. However, you can put what you wrote on your user page. -- Reinyday
There are other young journalists, anyway. You're not all *that* young. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you seem to have done alot more that me or any other kid in my journalism class, but best of luck to you. You might see Maria Sansone. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question, all the boys and girls on this page Child prodigies are real genius and gifted talented personals, and just I am the problem? All the boys and girls on that page have unormal and special abilities and just I have not?

The trick is, you shouldn't put yourself there. Someone else really ought to. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again, Kourosh. Excuse me if I am curt, but I would not classify writing some web-logs as qualifying you as a prodigy. It is great to start typing something of value, but thousands upon thousands of people do it. Perhaps if you truly had written columns for the New York Times and the Washington Post, as you claimed elsewhere, you would have had our attention, already. IINAG 13:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you link to your articles, it would prove your claim. That's easy!

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 09:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MasterPaulAnne

edit

No google hits Samw 00:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_24&oldid=1234126728"