Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

[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 Keep. Redwolf24 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KPTY-FM

[edit]

This station is too localaized to be notable. 03:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)~~ unsigned nomination by 67.65.163.198 at 14:30, 28 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 00:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pull a brendan

[edit]

Delete - just some random junk, borderline abusive. See also Pull a jim. FreplySpang (talk) 00:08, July 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. Redwolf24 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Randock

[edit]

This appears to be a self-promotional CV for a real estate agent who is marketing a line of training courses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ad. (nominator's vote) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral this is an advert. However we may be able to NPOV it.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only because it is an advertisement, but also because the "school" (and it's founder by extension) is non-notable. - Thatdog 00:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. She's been accused of operating a series of diploma mills. She has some notability through notoriety. Pburka 03:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : NN/Vanity --Ragib 04:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article by a woman who allegedly runs diploma mills, and has already made legal threats against another Wikipedia editor. Rhobite 04:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a NPOV version of her biography, or merge it with Saint Regis University, the diploma mill she runs. This and its various allied "universities" appear rather notorious in this business and get several hits on news sites in connection with fake degree scandals. As we have articles on several of these interconnected Liberia-registered diploma mills, I find it completely reasonable to have articles on the people who actually run the scam. (If this exposes Wikipedia to the risk of being sued, I suggest we should let Jimbo take a decision on whether this is a significant enough risk to desist from writing about her.) Uppland 06:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Running a diploma mill isn't much of a personal accomplishment. The diploma mill might be worth an article, but not the proprietor. --Calton | Talk 06:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not an expert on this, but as I understand it, these diploma mills are rather ephemeral entities; as soon as one name gets too compromised, the business moves over to another one. They also work in fake "networks", complete with their own accreditation organizations, as a way of falsely reinforcing the image of respectability they strive to maintain. If anything, I would suggest an article on the proprietors is more motivated, whenever they may be identified, and we should have the various diploma mills and other scams they have been running merged and redirected to the biography. That would have the additional advantage of making monitoring for POV edits easier. Uppland 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The owner is not notable. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kurt Weber 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The diploma mill is noteworthy. The owner isn't. --Carnildo 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Diploma_mill. --Alan Au 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diploma mill. This is a vanity page. It should not be here but if the creator wants to have a page, it should redirect to a page that seems to fit what she allegedly does. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears to me that this person is a victim of mistaken identity. She has offered to send a copy of the settlement of the lawsuit, which she says acknowledges that her being named in it was an error: "As far as I can tell my name appeared in a domain registration a few years ago, of which I had no ownership. I owned a web hosting company and I believe that at one time an employee used my credit card to register a customer's domain. The information was corrected (about a week later) but ever since my name appeared on a domain I do not own I have been harassed, stalked, defamed and even threatened by certain misinformed individuals." I think based on this that she's clearly a victim of circumstances, and otherwise non-notable but respectable person. --Jimbo Wales 11:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity - Tεxτurε 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy. android79 03:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tom the Donut Guy's Later Adventures

[edit]

Delete; not notable (preceding unsigned comment by 24.110.232.53 humblefool® 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as hoax khaosworks 06:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sexiest Canadian

[edit]

This appears to be a hoax article (also POV and possibly original reasarch too)- while various radio stations and award ceremonies have awarded a "Sexiest Canadian" title, the Government hasn't. A google search suggests that Shane Kippel has never won the title [1] - if they had won it as often as claimed there would be at least one google hit about it. Thryduulf 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric "Inoxx" Florentino

[edit]

Delete. Granted I don't play any UT games, but seems Non-notable. Smells very heavily of vanity. DooMDrat 00:47, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lizardpunk

[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 Speedy Keep as indisputably bad-faith nomination by known vandal. android79 01:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Aquaman

[edit]

Aquaman is incredibly gay and a big fucking loser. We don't need his kind aroud here.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 23:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Saves the Day, Bumper Party Collection, Thomas: The Early Years, and Classic Collection Series 1

[edit]

Please see the related VfD that resulted in a deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peep Peep Hurray. These are all individual videos or episodes, which are not notable on their own. Delete them all. Dmcdevit·t 01:13, July 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. Redwolf24 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism (disambiguation)

[edit]
For other related VFD discussions, see:

The guideline says "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." [2] It does not serve that purpose. This article is a POV fork being used to exclude certain anarchist philosophies (in particular, anarcho-capitalism) from the Anarchism article.

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log --cesarb 01:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RJII 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC) (originator of vote)[reply]
  • Keep It does serve that purpose, that is why Nat Krause (who is sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism) originally created it and that is the form it has currently. RJ simply wants it removed because it goes against his plans to have the anarchism article overemphasize anarcho-capitalism. Kev 19:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is coming from a guy who deletes all mention of anarcho-capitalism from Anarchism [3]. RJII has never wanted anarcho-capitalism "overemphasized" but described briefly in Anarchism along with the other philosophies that oppose the existence of a state. Kevehs keeps putting up a header on the Anarchism article saying that the article is going to be POV (that is, it's only going to include anti-capitalist anarchist philosophies. Putting up such a header doesn't release an article from the NPOV rule.) RJII 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the header he's putting up: ":This article illustrates anarchism as it refers to philosophies and social movements that oppose hierarchy in all forms, such as the state and capitalism. There are other philosophies and movements that call themselves anarchist but differ from the definition given here. For other uses such as these, see anarchism (disambiguation). This is clearly not a legitimate disambiguation but an anti-capitalist POV attempt to monopolize the word "Anarchism." An NPOV article would not make such judgement calls on what anti-state philosophy is or is not anarchism. RJII 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make any judgement call on what is or is not anarchism. The disambiguation header explains that this is one usage of the term, and that other political philosophies use the term different, and that those other uses can be found on the disambiguation page. As for removing the AC section, there isn't any point for it once the article has been disambigated, because AC philosophy is no longer being described in it. I'm happy to put a reduced version of that section back, as Nat Krause agreed, if that was the limit of AC referance on the page. And I don't know what you want RJ, but you are in fact overemphasizing capitalism in the general article by including AC counterpoints and perspective throughout. Kev 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a disambiguation article. It does not serve the purpose of letting "the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." The title of the article says it's disambiguation, but it's not, at least not in accordance with guidelines. Also, therefore, there should be no link to it. I also helped create the so-called disambiguation page and supported it, but have come to the realization that its improper. The logic behind the guidline becomes clear when one sees what it's being used for, by anti-capitalist POV individuals such as Kevehs. The guideline is there for a reason and now we can cleary see what that reason is. The article is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia guidlines and should be deleted. RJII 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda funny how you never noticed that when Hogeye was shoving his POV into it, ah well. Anyway, but this article does "let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." It clearly directs the reader to both the anarchism page (under the anti-capitalist meaning which is far more predominate), and the anarcho-capitalism page (under the AC meaning). So, if you don't think this is directing the reader as described above, what exactly would? Kev 19:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand that guideline or are being purposely obtuse. It's saying that if there are other things that are called "Anarchism" then there can be a disambiguation page to direct people to those other meanings. For example, such a page would let the reader choose between "mutualism" the economic theory, or "mutualism" the biological phenomenon. "Anarcho-capitalism" is not another meaning of "anarchism." It's a TYPE of anarchism. Anarcha-feminism is not another meaning of "anarchism." It's a type of anarchism. Anarcho-primitivism is not another meaning of anarchism. It's a TYPE of anarchism. RJII 19:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already aware of that, and that is precisely the point of the page. It is there to refer not to anarcho-capitalism as another meaning of anarchism, but to the meaning of anarchism that anarcho-capitalists use. It is clear that they use a different meaning, because they feel anarchism entails things that none of the other anarchists do. Further, the standard anarchism definition has not been allowed to be used in the anarchism article because of objections solely coming from anarcho-capitalists, which again arise from the fact that they use the word anarchism to mean something else. And that is exactly what the disambiguation page makes clear right now, it shows both meanings and links to the articles that use them. Now perhaps you are suggesting that there should be a specific anarchism (capitalist) article to deal with their different understanding of anarchism. That is fine, then it should link to the disambiguation page and then provide links to the AC article from there. But either way is fine with me. Kev 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wasn't this (more or less) what Hogeye was fighting for earlier? I see RJ's points in that this isn't really a classic "disambiguation" case where there are two completely different meanings or contexts of a word; it would be nice if everybody could agree on one "broad tent" that could fairly encompass all the varieties of anarchism, capitalist and socialist alike. But it doesn't look like that is ever happening, and I, for one, have no desire for eternal edit wars. A disambig page, and sub-pages giving the definitions of anarchism as seen by the disparate movements that use the word, is the best that can be hoped for. Let's all at least agree on this, and then work to "tweak" all the pages into a state that fairly presents their subject matter. *Dan* 00:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC) On second thought, Delete... the latest edits to Anarchism have removed the need for this, so we should probably stick with that instead. *Dan* 01:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete article or Delete all but links does not serve function. POV mess. Amicuspublilius 22:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either: delete disambig page and merge the anarchism articles, or move current anarchism article to "Anarchism (anti-capitalist)" or some such. --Trovatore 05:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above vote was made before I found the section on anarcho-capitalism in the main anarchism article. That strikes me as reasonably satisfactory. The problematic thing, then, is that the link to the main anarchism article on the dab page reads "Anarchism (anti-capitalist)", when in fact it points to an article that is not entirely about anti-capitalist anarchism. That, plus the fact that the {{Anarchism}} template doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism. But if the main article points to the anarcho-capitalism article, we don't need the dab page. So: delete the dab page, and add anarcho-capitalism to the {{Anarchism}} template. --Trovatore 06:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The anarchism article and template change many times a day. The usefulness of a disambiguation page depends on the temporary state of the main article. In some configurations, the disambiguation page is the main article (Hogeye's suggestion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.54.56 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 July 2005
  • Delete -- there is a lot more in the supposed disambiguation page than disambiguation; there is no ambiguity between these two, Anarchism means anarchism per the manifesto, or more generally as supporting abolishment of all forms of government; there is a reason the word Anarcho-capitalist is used, the very use of that word implies a difference from Anarchism, and that it is not what users will be looking for when they want Anarchism: let Anarchism briefly explain the distinction and link to Anarcho-capitalism --Mysidia 02:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Mysidia. This page only serves to create ambiguity. --bainer (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the current version of Anarchism, this disambiguation page seems entirely unnecessary. There's a section that describes anarcho-capitalism briefly and links to it in the schools of thought section. I don't see what purpose this page serves other than to game the NPOV rules to support someone's agenda. It'd be a bit like saying that you can't give the skeptical response to paranormal phenomenon or CAM in their articles, but instead must have a disambiguation page for each of them. --FreelanceWizard 06:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:NOT soapbox, WP:NOR. Dunc|☺ 16:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit to comply with disambiguation standards We don't delete disambig pages, do we? This page needs to be edited severely to include links to all articles that might be expected to appear under the title Anarchism, but not deleted. I agree with the spirit of the delete votes, but there absolutely must be a page with this title, just not this page in its present form. Pedant 20:05, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's edited to be a proper disambiguation page, it will consist of a single link, pointing to Anarchism. --Carnildo 20:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page is unnecessary considering current state of Anarchism article. Xaa 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, which incidentally does not require VfD. All in all, this sounds a case for WP:RfC or possibly Arbcom... not for VfD. -- Visviva 03:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, page has nontrivial history. Ben Standeven 07:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any relevant content can be moved to anti-statism Saswann 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was expecting a disambiguation and found... not sure what but it doesn't belong. - Tεxτurε 17:03, 3 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 (by Geogre) Redwolf24 23:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TheBetween

[edit]

no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete Friday 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Sacrifice

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a playbill, and besides, after two weeks, this article will be dead in the water. Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

  • Question: what did the discussion about cricket matches decide? -Splash 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In two weeks this will become a full-fledged article about a pay-per-view that has occured, much in the same way as TNA Destination X, TNA Slammiversary, TNA No Surrender, TNA Turning Point, WrestleMania and its twenty-one individual event wiki articles, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, WWE Judgement Day, WWE No Way Out, StarrCade, The Great American Bash, WWE Backlash, WWE Vengeance, Survivor Series, and every other similar article. --Kitch 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It won't be "dead in the water", it'll be a valuable reference for those who want a comprehensive account of the event. McPhail 12:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kitch Youngamerican 14:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contains a start for a potentially informative article, after the event. Uber nemo 14:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: First, are you folks dipping into the forbidden cookies? "In the future" is not an argument about the article one way or another. In the future, it will be the future. At present, it's advertising, and, in case no one has read the deletion guidelines lately, that's a no-no. Secondly, if we do play that game and think of the future, this will be an article about a single iteration of an ongoing event -- a single wrastlin' happening. Only those with some significance, some impact, some effect on contexts other than fan delight are requiring an encyclopedia article. I surely wish folks would pay attention to the deletion guidelines every once in a while and not vote "keep" on anything that happens to square with their hobby. Geogre 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So by your logic, everything after 2005 in Category:Films by year has no right to exist until the day it is released, because until then it is nothing but shameless advertising. McPhail 17:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it doesn't exist, the article is speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it is not merely speculation, but hype, then it is advertising, so yes. What on earth is anyone doing thinking that there should be an encyclopedia discussion of something that doesn't even exist yet? Geogre 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My take: in the case of a film, it should have be decided on a case-by-case basis, but very few films should have articles about them before they are released. If a film were a) so important that it was being written about in mainstream newspapers in the news section, and b) the article stuck to verifiable facts about the state of the film at the time of writing. For example, if someone discovered a print of the famous lost 1926 movie version of The Great Gatsby, and it was in the process of being restored, that would deserve an article describing the circumstances of its discovery and its restoration. On the other hand, there is no reason in the world why we need an article on The Dukes of Hazzard prior to its release and review. Until then, fans can sate their curiosity at imdb or the studio's website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news medium. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre DES 15:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. --Scimitar parley 18:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --gkagan
  • Delete, wikipedia articles are not about future events. After the event happens or does not happen, it might be suitable for an article but at this point it's an advertisement. Pedant 20:10, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
    • Should articles on Olympics, elections, etc. also be deleted? Is there a codified answer to this problem? (note, I am not asking sarcastcally, I am just curious about a precedent that may exist that I am not familiar with.) Youngamerican 20:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There are areas of consensus and areas of controversy. A particular problem, to my way of thinking, is the use of Wikipedia to promote an upcoming event and create "buzz." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That link states that "future events...are not suitable topics for articles, unless...planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion". The event is definitely in the process of being planned and prepared, and it's an event that thousands of people will watch, so I'd argue it warrants inclusion. McPhail 15:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Your choice of advertising, crystal ball, or non-notable. --Carnildo 20:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all three reasons mentioned by Carnildo. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is not predicting the future it is placing scheduled matches (officially announced matches that are not speculation) and providing a background history to them, by the time this discussion is over this will have become a documented result of a sports entertainment supercard.--- Paulley 09:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.  Grue  13:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request Judgement from the admins. Even if it is deleted now, it will only show up again after the event. --Kitch 09:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Team 6

[edit]

As far as I know, no such naming system exists for Marine units (Google for "Marine Team 6" dredges up exactly 3 results. The author may be confused with Navy SEAL teams (who do have a numbered naming system), but it's more likely pure fantasy. Borderline speedy, in my opinion. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete'. The author probably means SEAL_Team_SIX. If not, then clarify with sources. The author has duplicated this link all over. Mmmbeer 01:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SEAL_Team_SIX, a much better article about the same subject. - Thatdog 01:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. No reason to perpetuate the wrong name. Friday 02:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE,IS A REAL ELITE UNIT!AND IS IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE WORLDS SPECIAL FORCES!!!!
  • Delete, redirect doesn't make sense as it's not a common mistake. --fvw* 06:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably nonsense, possibly fiction, certainly not notable, if this is incorrect, provide sources. Usrnme h8er 08:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, probably nonsense or fiction. jni 14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, even if it does exist the article says nothing except that it is secret. Uber nemo 14:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia readers do not have appropriate clearance. We don't have information on the secret orange epoxy undercoating used on US Naval submarines, and we shouldn't have information on secret special forces teams. When it becomes public knowlege, it might be suitable to write an article with unclassified material in it. At least that article will actually have information. I think it's pretty darn important that encyclopedia articles have information in them, don't you? Pedant 20:17, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  • IDIOTS! YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS,AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS FOR FINDING THINGS EVEN IF THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF INFO. MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST DELETE ALL THE SMALL ARTICLES ON THIS SITE!!JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT FIND IT ON GOOGLE DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT REAL ALMOST LIKE IF YOU CANT FIND IT ON WIKIPEDIA IT DOESNT MEAN ITS NOT REAL THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY AND BE UPDATED OVER TIME.THE REASON I CREATED THE PAGE ON MARINE TEAM 6 IS BECAUSE A FAMILY MEMBER OF MINE IS IN IT!!!IT IS A BRAND NEW UNIT WITH HIGHLY SPECIALIZED OPERATORS.MAYBE YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER??THANKS AGAIN
    • Calling us names doesn't help your case. Wikipedia's function is to present publicly verifiable information. It's true that the verification doesn't have to be online. If you can provide some document we can reference to verify this exists, let us know. If it's all secret, perhaps you should reconsider whether you want to be responsible for announcing its existence. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok i'm sorry i may have been out of hand with the 'name calling' but i still believe you should keep the article or allow it to be recreated if more info surface's
Wouldn't it be easier just to offer a reference to a 3rd party source for the information than worrying about whether the editors are enlightened or unenlightened people? Cite your sources, and the whole argument goes away. Geogre 13:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, someone's caps lock key got stuck. Delete unless references can be provided to show that this even exists, I'm finding absolutely nothing on them. Decapod73 08:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anybody want to stop by the Library of congress and check the book that he has cited? (Strike force : U.S. Marine Corps special operation by Von Hassell, Agostino VE23 .V65 1991) It kind of worries me that he says the sources have been reinterpreted. I also don't know why it would be in any of these books, as the article makes it sound pretty secretive. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Deckard

[edit]

Vanity page --Howcheng 19:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fun Stone

[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. Redwolf24 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Luan

[edit]

No relevant Google hits. Created by user that was also vandalizing. JamesTeterenko 02:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No google hits and disruptive behavior makes me think this is most definetly a hoax. Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:12, July 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. Redwolf24 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow dictionary

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Only 51 displayed hits, and most are just coincidental pairings of the two words. Of the few hits that are this usage, almost all are from a blurb about the book Sleeping with the Dictionary.[5] Niteowlneils 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The original version was an advertisement, and as Niteowlneils (whose name is really awkward to type) points out, what's left is a neologism at best. Joyous (talk) 02:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, tho maybe transwiki to wiktionary. most of the times ive come across this it's been in books on pre-communist china, but ive come across it often. terms like this and "mosquito press" have gone by the wayside, but are of historical interest. Nateji77 03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless referenced to be anything more than a neologism and then expanded to be anything more than a dictdef. --fvw* 06:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete from Wikipedia. If this is a valid archaism, then it can be in Wiktionary (although I don't know how they are on the subject of being an historical dictionary; it would be cool if they were, but I don't know that they are). Lexicography rather than encyclopedism. Geogre 15:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expansion: I should be clear that I'm in favor of Transwiki to Wiktionary, if Wiktionary has archaisms. About a year ago, Wiktionary was getting overrun with VfD transwiki-ing things they already had, and they didn't have a deletion mechanism like VfD. Since then, I've been cautious to vote transwiki without serious cause. Geogre 19:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. I have encourtered this term several times in historical novels. I think it was used in Shogun for example. I have also encountered the varient sleeping dictionary with the same meaning. DES 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking about Pillow book maybe? Pedant
no, a pillow book is a diary. pillows in say heian japan were made of wood and included a drawer-like hole-with-lid--you kept your diary in your pillow. the term's probably famous because of sei shonagon and the peter greenaway movie. a pillow dictionary is different, more opium war-era and after, i think. Nateji77 02:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Sure the concept exists, but so does "that awkward moment when two teenagers want to kiss each other but neither wants to initiate it", and that doesn't have (or need) a word or Wikipedia entry to discribe it.Decapod73 08:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hardly a neologism if it's over 100 years old. i find myself agreeing with Geogre that archaism is better label. Nateji77 04:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Redwolf24 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stockpile

[edit]

This appears to be a dicdef. Move to Wiktionary? --Alan Au 02:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article, please fill in the blanks I've missed. I think its entirely keepable now. Pedant 21:29, 2005 July 28 (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 (By a different admin) Redwolf24 23:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Barnes

[edit]

Not yet notable. Text ends with He has yet to make a serious impact on the jazz world, but most believe he will make it big someday. Best wishes to him but propose delete until he has made his serious impact. RJFJR 02:49, July 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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya Cooley

[edit]

Please tell me being a candidate on a reality show doesn't make one eligible for an article. Denni☯ 02:51, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Note: User has twelve article edits, the rest to talk, and a total of about 20. Geogre 23:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel quite embarassed to ask this but I still will: I'm an administrator, yet I don't know what smerge means. Someone please tell me? Redwolf24 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reality contestants appear and disappear like the summer grass. Until there is some argument that this person appears in some context other than the :15 of fame, the place to put adolescent tributes is on the Real World article, not a break away. Geogre 23:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... Sadly... We must follow precedent and remain consistant. See American Idol contestents for example. Although I hate reality shows a LOT, we must remain consistant with ourselves. Redwolf24 23:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with you about precedent and consistency, and I'd have pointed to the same thing: We ended up merging those contestants to X-X-Idol-Season-1 and Big-Brother-Season-X. I.e. the contestants weren't allowed to spin-off into the distance with stand alone, would-be biographies, but were largely merged into cast lists and season lists, except for those contestants who managed to do something or be something that got them attention outside of the show. The winners got articles, therefore (because they got record contracts), and any who got arrested or wagged their weenies at Paula Abdul, etc. Geogre 23:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are 1) Posed in Playboy at some point (when? is it out now? is it just posing, but not appearing yet) and 2) is going to be on a show on E! that has not been shown yet. Now, again, if there were no MTV reality show mentioned in the article, how would this be an article? "A person who posed for Playboy and who filmed a show that has not aired yet" would not be an article; i.e. the proper place for discussion is the Real World article. Geogre 04:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a grand total of three sentences in the article that are not related in some way to her participation in Real World and other shows. android79 00:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
  • Keep - She's a national TV personality, and is/will appear in a famous magazine (albeit undressed). --rob 16:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Sure, she's on reality television and most likely will fade away, but she could also become a house-hold name. She is popular with the reality television audience, and even if reality television has spawned numerous fade-away people, it's still worth noting, especially if they are building a name. -Courtkittie 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Just a reality show contestant. Indrian 16:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - Celebrity is what celebrity is. Otherwise, how do you explain Paris Hilton? - Tεxτurε 17:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this person has the notoriety of Paris Hilton, she can have an article too. Indrian 19:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep this page as she is one of the more popular people on Real Word/Road Rules challenge even though she is becoming kind of like the little boy who gets picked on by the bigger kids at school.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PC Check

[edit]

Advertisement for a software, sounds like taken from a magazine ad or from the company's web page.


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAKRO - Hypermarket

[edit]

Delete corporate ad Chuck 03:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scoutz

[edit]

Article lists the rules for play on a custom Counter-strike map. pwned. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 00:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wilder

[edit]

I don't think this is a speedy, but student activists, however noble, are pretty non-notable. humblefool® 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he is cool save — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malhala (talk • contribs) 04:50 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: User's first edit. --Ragib 04:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to stop by the VfD on the other contribution by 68.100.138.1 (talk · contribs): Mike wilder. drini ☎ 06:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prerenaturalism

[edit]

Obvious hoax. The word "prerenaturalism", and "prerenatural" (and all variants thereof) appear to be freshly coined gibberish with no presence whatsoever on Google. The text is convoluted and barely comprehensible, with no means for establishing context or notability. Binadot 03:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno - I get it. A fresh anti-green rant, but a rant nonetheless, and so delete. Denni☯ 03:40, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
    • More importantly, it's the product of original research and personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a repository for mini-essays. Even if this phenomenon were notable and well-documented (and it isn't), it would have to be entirely rewritten for POV and clarity. Binadot 03:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: to call this the product of original research is an insult to original research. -- Hoary 05:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense, hoax, rant, non notable. DavidH 03:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the author must have meant preternaturalism, but sadly that makes little more sense than the actual title. Wall 'o text rant. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this blather about a nonexistent subject. -- Hoary 05:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this pretentious and obvious hoax. --FreelanceWizard 05:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very poor article on incorrectly named topic. Capitalistroadster 07:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total bolox jamesgibbon 10:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The what now? the wub "?/!" 13:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for satisfying pretty much every VfD criterion. -EDM 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This is no hoax....It was discovered and first defined durring a long discussion on ethics and morality. Prerenaturalism may not be widely recognized, but it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.12.82 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 August 2005 (This is the IP address of the author, whose only edits are to this VfD, the page in question, and to add a possibly highly POV link to Marxism.)
  • Don't Delete To address the above concerns: Prerenaturalism is radically new, so yes, it does not exist on Google. My poor soul, there is a world outside your precious internet! It is not anti-green: you missed the point entirely! I will not address the preternatural comment. And if it does turn out to be a hoax, thank God. The article takes great care to discuss whether or not prerenaturalism exists, so I don't know why you so vehemently call it a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.12.82 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 August 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fu nukka klan

[edit]

"as far [away] as wisconsin" and "currently no plans to record a full-length LP." vanity. Nateji77 03:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Yadgaroff

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a hoax. "raphael yadgaroff" yields 6 Google hits, one of them being my user page, where I've had this listed as an article to clean up. Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since June 22; only edits since have been vandalism and the reversion of it. By the article's own admission, Yadgaroff has remained somewhat of an unknown figure in the scientific community. android79 03:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems unlikely that any American professor would have so few google hits. Usually they get at least a university page and a few publications. I suspect a hoax. Pburka 03:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete as a hoax: Harvard doesn't hire profs without publications, and publications that "form the basis" of research don't go without mentions that Google finds. We could dig deeper, but not much point. Geogre 19:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, he's not listed in the faculty on the Harvard physics dept. website. --Etacar11 23:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Robert Moore, III

[edit]

Non-notable, hoax/joke, and/or unverifiable. Neither Anthony Moore "Dixie Youth World Series" nor "Anthony Robert Moore" find anything relevant. Niteowlneils 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nigerians

[edit]

Completely unmaintainable list. Now if it were "List of Nigerians who have tangoed with the queen of Spain" we might just have a maintainable list Hansonc 03:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep perfectly legitimate article, we already have several lists of people by nationality, should split it only if it exceeds recommended size. PatGallacher 18:00, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Comment: to clarify, if I'd had the chance to vote on list of Alaskans, list of Chicagoans, or list of Martians, I would have voted delete on them too. They're just not encyclopedia articles; they're phone book pages, without any data, and they'll never be accurate because they won't be complete. WP is NOT a trivia game or a directory. IOW, the reasoning that there are other articles like this doesn't persuade me. DavidH 18:38, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.akaradio.com

[edit]

Clearly an advertisement Rentastrawberry 03:44, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cacke

[edit]

Gunbound guild-cruft. Borderline speedy, no information even worth smerging. Back that cacke up. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrnt

[edit]

The youngsters behind Cacke strike again. More Gunbound-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The Gunbound page's slang list was edited to include this word, so it'd probably be wise to revert the changes there if this page goes. --FreelanceWizard 05:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly referenced. --fvw* 06:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not in wide use, fanboi buddycruft. Unlink or delete from its parent page, too. Geogre 04:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote: Wrnt is the byproduct of me and my friends (Cacke), and it isn't in wide use yet (though we certainly are seeing the use expand). Deletion of this article is recommended until it's more widely known -- and I apologize for making this entry into Wikipedia too early. Satoshi 0:12, 02 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity / original work - Tεxτurε 17:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Chaos

[edit]

"an emo band that is just kicking it off" means "we haven't made it yet, please delete us!". Or, at least, there's hardly any Googles, and their official site doesn't even come up on the first page of the search. GarrettTalk 04:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zankou

[edit]

fancruft, had previously been merged with relevant article. 72.25.76.17 04:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • if it's all been merged, then delete - a simple case of "Zankou, and goodnight!" Grutness...wha? 04:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not quite clear on what the relevenat article is, but if there is one can't we just redirect it? --fvw* 06:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • In the history, it was merged and redirected, then someone added this text on a later date. It's kind of dumb to retain it, even as a redirect. Just my opinion, though.
  • If it has been merged, we must keep a redirect (or a disambiguation when appropriate) containing the history in order to remain compliant with the GFDL, requiring authorship to be attributed. Sorry, I don't know which article this was merged with, but we should redirect to that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was Charmed, where a far better description can be found than here. There was no need to bring this to VFD. 72.25.76.17 (talk · contribs) could have simply reverted to the earlier redirect. Revert to the Redirect. Uncle G 09:24:18, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks to me like somebody is trying to update and expand the Charmed article. There were 20 updates in the last week, mostly by one or more anonymous users. The Charmed article is 39kb in size and a request for cleanup has been made. Perhaps this new edit is a (slightly misguided) attempt to clean up the page.--Wolfling 14:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I saw this and thought of Zankou Chicken, a chain of Lebanese restaurants notable only for its mention in Beck's song Debra. -- MrBland 15:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra (Linux software)

[edit]

I can't find any verification of this anywhere. It sounds like original research. The closest links I can find are Orchestra on SourceForge, which is a system for doing musical composition, and Enea Orchestra, which is an embedded Linux environment. Neither of these seem to be what this program is, so unless someone can figure out what exactly this software is, I think the article should be deleted as non-notable, unverifiable, and probably original research. FreelanceWizard 04:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. Merge as per Agarax. However, I think most of the distributions in the list of distributions very much fall under non-notable and WP:NOT (not a crystal ball, and not a soapbox -- having every possible distribution there implies strongly a pro-Linux bias). Obviously, though, that's not a discussion for this VfD. ;) By the standard of what's already there, this article should be merged. --FreelanceWizard 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should Windows Vista and Windows Blackcomb be deleted, then? I'm not clear where this objection is coming from. Lupin 15:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After reading the SymphonyOS web site, a few things are now clear to me. First is that Orchestra is functionally equivalent to Microsoft's HTML Applications (now essentially dead); it uses an HTTP server to render the interface of what amounts to a CGI script, then displays it in a modified version of Gecko. Second is that it's nowhere near done, as evidenced by the lack of development documentation. Finally, the entire distribution is basically a Knoppix clone otherwise. It's not clear to me that this is a notable advance in computer science or even in Linux application design (any random Linux sysop can use Mozilla to render CGI apps hosted on a local computer), so I stand by my nomination. I think that the future versions of Windows are all but guaranteed to come out (Vista is approaching beta) and are highly notable besides, so it's not exactly predicting the future to talk about them. FreelanceWizard 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should be merged with Symphony_OS main article.--Agarax 00:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crockett

[edit]

Seems like non-notable vanity, but it's borderline so I VfD'd it.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 00:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Permanganate ion

[edit]
This was never put in the log. Dmcdevit·t 05:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to use Wikipedia for some general chem. research I wasn't able to find the molecule "permanganate." By creating this reference I was able to easily search for it. I would agree with the merge, it would be important to keep permanganate a searchable string.


plz leave it

  • I was going to suggest to kmno4 as that's the most common one as far as I'm aware, but if we actually have a proper article on the ion, all the better. Redirect per FreelanceWizard. --fvw* 06:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per FreelanceWizard. RJFJR 16:19, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as an invalid and vandalous nomination. FCYTravis 05:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire

[edit]

I am not involved in any disputes, this page should not even exist. Plautus satire 05:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do not delete completed RfCs. Snowspinner 05:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - concur with snowspinner. →Raul654 05:04, July 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. Redwolf24 00:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pesho

[edit]

Pesho does not appear to be a widely documented concept, can anyone confirm/deny, in order to decide whether to keep/delete? --Sgkay 14:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep it ! this show what bulgarians are the true power and is true that about peshoism \m/ 82.146.3.14 2005-05-13 14:34:36 according to edit history. Uncle G 09:28:50, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • Delete, zero Google hits for "peshoism" or "peshoist". Seems like a hoax. Vashti 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that the only note for support so far is from an anon user whose only edits have been to the page in question's talk page and here, and that the creator of the page has no user page and the page in question is his only edit outside of the Sandbox, this absolutely screams hoax to me. --FreelanceWizard 05:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, interestingly enough the only yahoo hit peshoism got was an entry from an encyclopedia copied from this article Uber nemo 00:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 17:14, 3 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 and redirect. Redwolf24 00:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al Funcoot

[edit]

An anagram that's mentioned in a novel. This is scraping the cruftbarrel, I think. Or is WP an anagram dictionary? -- Hoary 05:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

PS or merge, following Pedant's argument below. -- Hoary 08:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

STRONG MERGE and redirect to Count Olaf otherwise we will see this again and agnai and anaig... Instead of listing on VfD I suggest patrollers just merge and/or redirect these on sight. That's a simple edit that saves us all time, satisfies wikipedia's needs, and allows the cruftfan to search for the cruft, and keeps the page from reappearing. Pedant 21:56, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Bass

[edit]

NN, was deleted before. This guy is still in high school. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Institute

[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable entity, promoted by Dixie Randock (which is yet another vanity page, under vfd).


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

The result was Delete. Redwolf24 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution (biology)

[edit]

This is factually incorrect, it is not even an opposing view to evolution, a google search [6] shows only results regarding using the term in a branding type strategy and this wikipdia article. The fact that it is devoid of scientific merit is not even required since it's not a real opposition view. cohesion | talk 05:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Scientific merit is not required, not being original research is. --fvw* 06:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as OR. Even Devo's satirical philosophies made more sense than this. Brighterorange 18:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a pointless article, there is no proof of this in the Bible or elsewhere. Chakatzodiac 20:25, November 14 2024 (UTC)
  • This is interesting, as I've heard this term used before, but not necessarily in relation to biblical theory. It's been used to describe what happens to humans in the Vonnegut novel Galapagos, for example (in which humans de-evolve", basically into dolphins). It's not a valid scientific term because even evolution in which species "regress" to "lower" or more "primitive" states is still evolution (just like "reverse racism" is still racism). It's more theoretical than anything, I guess. I'm going to go with a tentative keep and cleanup. "Devolution" gets more than a million google hits, and I'm certainly not going to look through them all to see what's relevent and what isn't; nor am I sure on the best ways to limit a google search in this way. My father is an evolutionary biologist, so maybe I'll ask him if he's come across the word informally, next time I talk to him. i think this needs some more discussion. -R. fiend 23:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative keep but it needs a lot of work. The concept of devolution from a creationist perspective is incoherent with regard to evolution. Since evolution has no direction devolution is nonsensical so I agree with R. fiend above in this regard. Nevertheless, if it is a term used commonly by creationist then it should probably be included in the encylopedia. Devolution is also a political term. When Scotland was discussing the option with regard to getting a new parliament devolution was the buzzword at the time. David D. 08:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that devolution with regard to politics is already a page. I disagree strongly with this page being called devolution (biology). This implies that biologists use this term, they don't. Is it possible to move it to a page called devolution (religion)? Or something similar? David D. 08:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was sort of under the impression that it wasn't used so much by creationists, as they don't believe in evolution in either "direction", but more by people who don't fully understand evolution, and see it linearly, or as sort of a colloquial verbal shortcut to describe evolution that runs counter to the common perception of how it usually works. I'll try to look into this some more. (And we really should have a Galapagos (novel) article.) I do agree that the "biology" should be replaced with another word in the title. As I indicated, probably not "religion" though. -R. fiend 13:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with all creationism but your point is well taken that they believe in life being created 'as is'. I have seen arguments in creationism for high rates of mutation after the fall of Adam. I was wondering if they use devolution to describe this steady decline in fitness from the perfect creation to the a mutatted mess. As we know creationists believe all mutations have a detrimental effect. In this argument creationists can acknowledge mutations do exist in a population even if they ignore the nested hierarchy. Basically from a creationist perspective I have no idea how they use the term. talk origins may have an answer David D. 13:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I checked talk origins and they barely mention it in the whole archive: Darwinism is a theory of outcomes, and does not insist on progress. Species are seen as lineages that do whatever they do, and are not subject to "racial decay" or "devolution" or "drives to perfection".. If it is not debated in talk origins I suspect the term is rarely used by official creationists. David D. 14:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That they use the word at all shows that even if it is not a valid concept, it is at least a word in use. As such I think it belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, if it can be more than a dicdef, which I think it can. It might just need a few sentences in the evolution article (I haven't checked yet to see if it's mentioned there, but I suspect not), with some sort of link from the current devolution article, for those who try to search for it. Anyone want to look into the Inherit the Wind reference? -R. fiend 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of post from the talk origins usenet group. There were 70 hits for devolution, which is not many, but there does seem to be a definitive book on the subject by Michael Cremo. His book is actually referenced on one wikipedia page; OOPART.
[ New Evidence Challenges Darwin's Theory Best-selling Author Further Defies Evolutionists] San Diego, CA – Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory (Torchlight Publishing, September 2003), "If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?" Human Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo's definitive answer to this question. "We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit," says Cremo.
Also here is a from a message in the talk origins usenet archive. One of the problems with evolution not being taught in the schools is that the word hasn't got out to enough people that it doesn't need to be a step upwards to be evolution. Some people even think that there is something that they call "devolution", for a step down the ladder. David D. 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It doesn't seem like the term is used consistently even among creationists, beyond the fact it is used by people who don't know what evolution really is. Failing that, merge with Creationism, as a last resort rename 'devolution (creationism)' ("Devolution" makes no sense in biological terms. ) Peter Grey 09:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't stress this more, this is not a mainstream term in creationism, or evolutionary biology, I am fairly well versed in both. It doesn't belong in Creationism any more than it belongs in an actual scientific article. The word doesn't really mean any single thing as evidenced by the many uses quoted above. It is sometimes used in context to mean "backwards evolution" which is scientifically non-viable, and something creationists don't accept either. It's use and meaning is in no way standardized though because the word is not important to any theory or belief system. cohesion | talk 05:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The stub starts "In the context of biology" and ends with "the term is not used by biologists". The latter is certainly true, however with that definition it's not clear that wikipedia isn't describing a word of it's own creation. cohesion | talk 09:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is simply an abstract concept generated by semantic negation. There is no actual biological concept to which it applies and it represents a misunderstanding of a fundamental biological concept. Kill it and restrict the author to writing about Pokemon or tv shows. alteripse 10:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. I wouldn't even call the current article Original research as much as not quite coherent ramblings. It should have been speedy deleted as patent nonsense. BlankVerse ∅ 12:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a pass at cleaning up the cleanup. Looking better. Whoever closes this please keep in mind that the current version bares to real resemblace to the version nominated. Right now it's got a bit of a dicdef to it, but I think it goes beyond that enough. I googled devolution evolution (which should do a pretty good job of filtering out the political useage of the word) and got 154,000 hits. What I looked at seemed to relate to this concept, so I think there's ample proof that it is a word pretty often used. Probably should be renamed though. -R. fiend 00:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unverifiable. Robert McClenon 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is unverifiable about it? The term is used quite a lot. Check google if you don't believe me. It's not a scientifically valid term, but it's still a term often used. -R. fiend 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've heard of this concept before. Not real science, but if someone tries to look it up, I'd prefer if they were told that. It seems that everyone else here wants to dispose of this page as quickly as possible, though, so in that event we should at least redirect to evolution. Explodicle 22:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Tεxτurε 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic taiwan

[edit]

Advertisement. Non-notable. [7] Barfooz (talk) 02:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't tell what this article is about. Unless someone clarifies it so it makes sense, delete. Kelly Martin 23:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • We can quite happily delete Plastic Taiwan and it will still be here, like that german coin that looks like a nickel that keeps showing up in your pocket or change purse. Its about viral marketing of their own music. A paper flower without artifice, since its already inside your brain, and will come back to haunt you, it doesn't need to be kept here. Even without a mention on Wikipedia, Thick Shoe and Plastic Taiwan will remain as notable as they are, so no harm will be done by deleting their poster, which will show up in a different context and mean another different thing. Next time it will mean "these bricks cannot be resold as used bricks without removing the wheat paste" or "These shoes have been resoled without reference to the ordinary every day". Does that explain it? Well I tried. Pedant 22:20, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Robert A West 20:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly advertising. The author of the article also has spammed other pages with links, see their user contributions. Echidnae 15:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete Dunc|☺ 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike wilder

[edit]

it's a joke page. Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author's other contribution is also on VfD: Justin Wilder, don't forget to stop by. drini ☎ 05:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this one can be speedied, but if not, then a regular delete is fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged {delete} but stayed for hours. So I moved it up to VfD, as a sideeffect to call attention on the other contrib by 68.100.138.1 (talk · contribs) on vfD (he's done other vandalism today, however). drini ☎ 06:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (6 delete, 5 keep, 6 votes by new users or anons), so keep --Allen3 talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Hideout

[edit]

Local radio program, does not establish regional standard of notability EvilPhoenix talk 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Above comment is user's first edit. EvilPhoenix talk 22:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
IP address of page authorEvilPhoenix talk 04:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This IP address's first edit.EvilPhoenix talk 04:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Previous comments blanked by User:Fatbodyricardo [8]. EvilPhoenix talk 00:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bold textKeep great show lots of fans that would love to see this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbodyricardo (talk • contribs) 18:26, July 27, 2005

It was put on VfD: [9]

but I suspect the blanking of it may have removed it from being visible on VfD. EvilPhoenix talk 00:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Surprisingly, this doesn't appear to be copyvio. I've done some googling and can't find anything like it, though it is notable, perhaps, that the [page for this show] links into this page as information on its history. If the history is verifiable, though, this seems to be a show with a long history and might be considered notable especially given the set of programs not on vfd at category:radio programs (2 Sense especially comes to mind) and category:radio programme stubs. If Opie and Anthony on XM manage to land a spot there, a program on a major radio station in a city like Orlando would seem equally notable. While XM may have national coverage, its subscriber base isn't exactly massive. I personally don't feel that the criteria for non-notable has been met, but I'm not exactly convinced on the matter. --FreelanceWizard 06:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This show has a solid history and strong affiliations with legendary broadcast institutions such as WJFK FM, a heritage radio station in a top 10 radio market. This show is referenced repeatedly on shows like Ron and Fez, lending it further credibility. For the record, I am not a host or staff member on this show nor do I work for the radio station they are on or any other station they have graced. I am a follower of their careers however and this page should remain. Radiopeople 06:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (Note: Radiopeople (talk · contribs) has four contributions; three of them are to this VfD.)[reply]
  • Delete, nn local radio programme jamesgibbon 10:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this isn't a copyvio then I see nothing wrong with it. Agentsoo 10:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title sure seems familiar. Are you positive that this wasn't already VfD'd? ... hey yeah, I just checked the VfD history and this has been through before and prior votes have been deleted. Things that make you go hmm... — RJH 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is a copyvio -- the show as written in the article is fairly new and I doubt this much is written about it anywhere else. Besides, other radio shows have articles; this one's heard online and has callers from across the US (particularly DC, Texas, and Michigan), so where does 'local' radio become 'national' radio? Kutulu 01:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep,Has fans all over the country,good enough for an entry.BillyBob 16:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Above edit made by 24.165.249.72 --Allen3 talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. I have decided to redirect. Redwolf24 01:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket-O-Nothing

[edit]

The Bucket-O-Nothing is mentioned at random by a character on the ReBoot television programme. It is intended entirely as humour and has no real object. Such an article can never be longer than a dictionary entry. Adam Marx Squared 06:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Miesl

[edit]

Delete - Quite simply, fails the google test Sherurcij 05:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Comment - never submitted so here we go. --Woohookitty 06:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate Education Association

[edit]

Promotional/advertisement of non-notable group.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Caraher Jr.

[edit]

Unsourced, and I can't verify it myself. I'm assuming hoax or vanity. --fvw* 06:33, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Some kind od welcoming program, could be at a school or college, who knows? Delete.--nixie 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slore

[edit]

Nn neologism. --fvw* 06:47, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snapischeriet

[edit]

Unverifiable. --fvw* 06:52, July 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. Redwolf24 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hockeys Future

[edit]

Not notable (and what's worse, missing an apostrophe). --fvw* 07:08, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tark

[edit]

Nonsense. --fvw* 07:11, July 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xoxohth

[edit]

Note: Only votes voiced by registered users with a minimum number of outside edits count. This is done to prevent stuffing.

Current valid tally: 7 Deletes (fvw, h8er, Sasquatch, lotsofissues, DavidH, introvert, & nabla) , 2 Keeps (Anne & Exeunt)

  • Please take a look at Vfd/Precedents, in particular it is advised not to put tally boxes on vfd pages. There isn't a specific minimum number of edits to vote, and whether a particular vote is actually counted or not is decided by the closing admin. --Mysidia 08:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, nor a useful article. --fvw* 07:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • VERY STRONG Delete, CSD, Speedy. This is the Wikipedia, not a commercial, for-profit advertisement service. Are we not men? Let's guard our Wiki! Deeeh 02:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, or at least clean up. If this is relevant then it needs to be improved severely. 66,000 Google hits, but only 44 are displayed since the vast majority are from xoxoth own webpage xoxoth.com. Usrnme h8er 09:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User Graham Wellington, QC (talk · contribs), has edits only to Xoxohth and this vfd
True, but since 62,960 of these are from their own homepage I stilll dont think this is a very good result. I could design a massively interlinked website that automatically had a million hits on google. Or rather I could write a piece of software that did this for me... Not a single visitor... But a million hits...
  • Delete unless some notability can be shown. Alexa shows that this ranks below the 100,000 mark. We are not an advertising medium. that being said, good luck with your board. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There's an article for College Confidential, which is a similar site that also sells college admissions consulting services. It seems unfair to tilt the deck in favor of sites with a more profit-oriented focus. Amcfreely 13:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User Amcfreely (talk · contribs) has edits only to this vfd
I've actually made a number of other edits, but not logged in.
  • Keep It's in the process of being cleaned-up substantially. It's an important, useful, popular website, and its revised, added-to article could be a good contribution to Wikipedia. Anne M. Daniels 03:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the principle author of the new xoxohth entry, and I'm also a regular on the message board. While the site is not widely known in the public, it is widely known to law school applicants and law school students (and to a lesser degree, college students) and even some law professors (see Brian Leiter and Eugene Volokh). Exeunt 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though further information is lacking on Wikipedia, this board's influence is great among law school admissions committees and applicants. Graham Wellington, QC; Xoxohth regular 02:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(Preceding comment by 208.63.200.3 (talk · contribs)
  • comment probably not really notable enough in the Web world, but what's especially bad is the NPOV, including a list of posters, who certainly aren't notable or even real ("Sexpert - Garrison Keillor"). DavidH 02:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Website vanity, unlikely to ever be encyclopedic or NPOV. DavidH 04:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it weren't a bad joke already, it is advertisement, POV, and not encyclopedic. - Introvert talk 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UT
(Preceding user's first edit was to Xoxohth and on Aug 1: Uma.T (talk · contribs))

Comments from unsigned/unregistered users

  • Keep. Why are people saying "Wikipedia is not a commercial, for-profit advertisement service."? This is in no way a commmercial or for-profit website. The people running the website have no particular interest in getting more people to the site since virtually every law student at a big school is aware of it already. A ton of far less notable sites have unchallenged wikipedia entries because they deal with computer- or technology-related topics that wikipedia editors are typically more interested in. I have no affiliation with the site and thus no "vanity" interest - I'm just saying that this site is definitely well-known among a large group of people and is thus undoubtedly encyclopedic.
  • comment If Brian Leiter's Philosophy Gourmet deserves a page, this site surely deserves a page. The list of posters is a quick reference for posters new to the board who have trouble with the way the board works. Unlike other message boards, there are no avatars, no personal pages, no sigs, no images, nothing. It is helpful to have a place to find basic information about the most influential people on the board. As someone who has been using Xoxohth for most of its existence, I recognize many on the list of prolific posters. I would hardly expect this to be the case with new posters. The acronyms section is also indispensable to users who are new to the board. Otherwise, there's a steep learning curve to properly use and understand the board. 208.63.200.3 02:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Graham Wellington, QC [as above])[reply]
  • Keep. This website is an extremely valuable source of information for those either going to law school or thinking about going to law school. This website is starting to be mentioned by scholars (Posner, Leiter) and has been mentioned by the Dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. This website is growing and more people will be looking for information on it.
  • Very strong keep. This website is becoming a more and more important source of information to law students and even to admissions committees of law schools. As a result, people outside of XOXOHTH have begun taking notice of this site. The Dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania Law School has mentioned XOXO, as have legal scholars such as Brian Leiter. The relevance of this website is continually growing, and soon each of the 100,000+ prospective law students per year want to learn more about XOXO.
(Preceding comment unsigned by OralAdvocate (talk · contribs)
    • Strong keep. This board is well-connected to the law student community and beyond, and its educational purpose fits well with the mission of Wikipedia. Hazelrah; xoxo reader.128.59.88.160 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong strong keep. This is the indispensible board for hard information for law students. Admissions committees from law schools read it routinely to check out what law students are saying. Some cleanup is in order however. (preceding unsigned comment by 207.237.33.8 Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC))
  • Get rid of this thing. I can't believe they didn't even mention me as a prolific poster! (Madcat)
  • Strong keep. This is a very well known resource amongst law students, and is interesting for its contributions to the culture and the lexicon of LS admissions.
    • Keep, very helpful.
(Unsigned comment by 68.1.235.250 (talk · contribs))
    • Keep, probably the best I've ever known.
(Unsigned comment by 24.107.18.105 (talk · contribs))
  • Keep. Helped me get into a top 3 law school AND filled my working hours with fun, friends and amusement.
Unsigned comment by 24.61.5.224 (talk · contribs)
  • Strong keep. I met my wife on xoxohth!
Unsigned comment by 24.61.5.224 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep. How can you say this isn't notable enough when there are entries for sites like CollegeConfidential which have fewer hits, fewer posts, and fewer users?
(Preceding unsigned comment by 66.28.244.170 (talk · contribs))


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as repost. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoxohth

[edit]

Non-notable website, unverifiable. --M@thwiz2020 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (per A7) jni 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John_Kang

[edit]

This is not even remotely noteworthy Leadingbrand 08:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Unanimous Keep. Redwolf24 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gratification

[edit]

dictionary definition cohesion | talk 09:08, July 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. Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Gardener

[edit]

I created this page some months ago. William Gardener was my Great Grandfather and I have been asked by a family member to remove the page from Wikipedia, after a lot of discussison with this family member I with regret ask you to please remove it from your site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvernon (talk • contribs) 2005-07-28 09:10:16 UTC

  • Weak keep Not 100% sure he's notable enough, but the article is certainly quite nice and seems well-researched. JZ 09:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the 3 images on this article that assert "copyright ajv private collection", Image:Ajvtime.jpg, Image:Ajvwg.jpg, and Image:Ajvms.jpg, are now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Uncle G 09:48:58, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
    • The two photographs are so old that any copyright long expired. I retagged them as public domain-old. Please note that someone sloppily labeling every image on the page as copyrighted (including one used in other articles) is not proof of copyright. DreamGuy 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nice article, notable enough subject jamesgibbon 10:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; good article. Shame about the picture problems. Agentsoo 10:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wellwritten article but subject does not seem notable. Capitalistroadster 12:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Capitalistroadster. the wub "?/!" 13:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--royal servants aren't really notable. That man had some killer facial hair, however. Meelar (talk) 14:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — nn — RJH 16:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that notability is moot, and that this subject is simply too secret for Wikipedia. Reading in between the lines of the nomination by Johnvernon (talk · contribs) and taking into account that user's earlier edits to this article and the repeated mentions of a "private collection", my suspicion is that this article is derived, possibly in toto, from unpublished sources, namely the private papers of a royal servant, held by his family, or an unpublished biography written by a family member. So we have a very serious verifiability problem here. I've looked around for other sources, but cannot find this person mentioned anywhere. (The only person that I can find is a William Gardener who was an Admiral's Steward.) It seems that the famous U.K. tradition of royal servants keeping their mouths shut and staying out of the limelight has been upheld and upheld well in this case. The article is well written and laid out (I encourage User:Johnvernon to make other contributions to Wikipedia, on subjects where sources can be cited, if they will be like this.) and it is a shame to have to have to vote this way. Delete, unless sources are cited. Uncle G 16:09:38, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 16:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's request.Gateman1997 17:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given borderline notability and author's request. However, as a genealogist myself, I can say that Uncle G's comment that the information is "too secret" is not really the case. Even if it was taken from private records, almost all of the information (births, marriages, deaths, residences, etc...) for the periods covered in the article is of a type that is readily available in public records to anyone with access to a major genealogical collection - which includes almost anyone within driving distance of a major metropolitan area. Also, as to the author's assertion that a copyright of a 100+ year old photograph belongs to a "private collection", that is also incorrect. The fact that someone claims a copyright to a work that is clearly in the public domain due to its age should not cause us any concern. DS1953 23:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (although not for the nominator's reasons, which are irrelevant to Wikipedia). There's no evidence of this person being notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of geneological entries. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - No claim of notability - Tεxτurε 17:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peak human

[edit]

neologism cohesion | talk 09:58, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus (10 Keep 7 Delete) Redwolf24 01:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kulachi Hansraj Model School

[edit]

Not of sufficent notariety Usrnme h8er 09:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toonz Animation India (P) Ltd

[edit]

Delete. It's just an ad. Bubamara 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No information worth keeping or merging into Indian film or animation pages Tonywalton 16:00, July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirate With A Scarf

[edit]

Minor character in a relatively unknown book. No useful info about him either, just opinions. -- Marcika 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mint. music Toronto

[edit]

Delete nn band vanity/promo. No Allmusic page, no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC. TheMidnighters 10:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep or No Consensus on them ALL. Redwolf24 01:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rawang churches, Tujia Church, Parauk churches, Northern Zhuang churches, Mien churches, Manchu churches, Lisu Church, Hani churches, Dai Churches, Bai Church, Korean churches, Achang church, Lahu churches, Tulang Church, Wa Churches, Akha Church, Jesus Family, and any other near-identical article by Special:Contributions/Sarcelles

[edit]

Delete - not notable. The author has created several articles on churches with no established notability and most containing no substantive information other than geographic location and the fact that the church is growing. In the time it's taken me to put all the vfd tags on all these pages, Sarcelles has added 4 more of these articles. Bubamara 10:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, without specifics, "growing" isn't very meaningful, and in at least some cases probably has verifiability issues, as do some of the location citations. Not much other content in most of the articles. Niteowlneils 01:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rawang churches

[edit]

Tujia Church

[edit]

Parauk churches

[edit]

Northern Zhuang churches

[edit]

Keep and Move: Northern Zhuang churches to Zhuang churches [21] Scimitar

Mien churches

[edit]

Manchu churches

[edit]

Lisu Church

[edit]

Hani churches

[edit]

Dai Churches

[edit]

Bai Church

[edit]

Korean churches

[edit]

Achang church

[edit]

Lahu churches

[edit]

Tulang Church

[edit]

Wa Churches

[edit]

Hello i dont know what is wikipedia but im a hobo

Akha Church

[edit]

Jesus Family

[edit]

Vietnamese Church

[edit]

Kachin Church

[edit]

Nakhi Churches

[edit]

Maonan Church

[edit]

Miao Churches

[edit]

Puyi Church

[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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA

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

The result of the debate was 3 for delete, 6 for merge and direct, 4 Keep, and 1 transwiki. That qualifies for No Consensus. Redwolf24 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuffed crust pizza

[edit]

Trivial. Should be merged with pizza. 67.174.230.30 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popo

[edit]

Totally unverifiable. Delete. (Any shreds of credible fact should be added to Ken Jennings). Lupin 12:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it back and report the user as being a vandal? --OntarioQuizzer 01:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maddela

[edit]

I suggest that this page be deleted. It appears to be a vanity page with little to no general interest. Also, I believe it to be factually incorrect, as just by doing an internet search on Maddela a large number of indiviuals pop up, contradicting the article's claim. -- Ithacagorges 0:08 July 7 2005

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

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 02:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anisha Nicole

[edit]

Possibly notorious enough but only about 100 google hits. Page created by previous vanity poster. Usrnme h8er 13:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay_Kirtikar

[edit]

Damn, can we speedy obvious vanity pages yet? DS 13:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Styles and recolourations of Ashlee Simpson's hair

[edit]

Fancruft -- Longhair | Talk 13:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JesusMan

[edit]

del obscure, nonnotable, nonverifiable. "JesusMan" + webcomic 20 google hits. Produced by nonnotable Rubbersuit Studios.mikka (t) 14:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Again I ask what is needed for verification? This comic has been published fairly extensively in the North East US, and has recently coverted to the web. Again, being the one of the comics creators, I say don't delete. 16:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are articles for even less notable webcomics than this one. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the inclusion guidelines for WikiProject Webcomics.. Alexa gives no ranking information for the entire hosting domain, and as far as I can tell, it's only got 18 strips. --Carnildo 21:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the imput. For a bit of "explantion" the site is only 6 months old. JesusMan has been published in several alternative and undergroung magazines in MA, on and odd since 1987. Myself and Hex have begun the series anew on the net. It will have 100 pages by the end of the year. Your choice, again I was shocked when a fan pointed out that Rubbersuit Studios was listed here, so I just took the next step. Thanks again for the intro for this WikiNoob. 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Malach
  • Question would it be within Wiki's webcomic guidlines to list Stool Sample Webcomics, which is a subdirectory of [[Rubbersuit Studios], which contains 6+ original webcomics and is close to 100 pages? I would list it as Stool Sample WebComics, and a description of each title 15:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)~ Malach
    • I'd suggest waiting. Once your comics become popular enough, someone, probably a fan, will get around to writing up a Wikipedia article for it. --Carnildo 18:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carnildo, that is the main issue I have. I am not the one who put Rubbersuit Studios in Wiki. A fan pointed it out to me that someone had added it here. I thought it would be the next logical step to add JesusMan. JesusMan does not have a ton of fans from the web site but it was very popular in hard print. Anyways thanks again for the critcism. Malach 20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The so called "inclusion guidelines" are a proposal, nothing more. If Malach did not write the article himself, he is not self promoting. He has the minimum 3 month traffic anyhow. This seems more like censorship. Perhaps the title offends some of the supporters in the delete camp. It's not profane, it's not copywritten, and it was submitted by an outside party. I don't see the problem. Murk 12:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, clearly vanity. Dragonfiend 16:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - points have been made already. Come back later. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Inclusion Guidelines" are a proposal. Malach did not write the article himself and is not self promoting. He has the minimum 3 month traffic. The webcomic is an example of pop-culture and can be referenced for artistic ideology. Myko 10:17, 02 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 del. mikka (t) 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbersuit Studios

[edit]

del nonnotable. Nonverifiable. 7 google hits. mikka (t) 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I was very surprised when this was added to Wiki. It was not added by anyone I recognize that is assciated with this site. In terms of verification, what do you need? Tax ID number? Obviously, I am biased, but I vote not to delete. In terms of google hits, the site has been up since Feb and has recieved more than 250 google hits. It is also averaging 25,000 hits per week. 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Malach
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nzgames

[edit]

Non-notable forum/website. Alexa ranking 1,722,056. TheCoffee 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 02:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Exchange

[edit]

Ad, for a nn enterprise supplied by User:ProphetExchange. Unfortunately, I don't think this is speediable. --Doc (?) 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the bet exchange page it clearly shows sub categories for sites like Tradesports and Betfair. This entry is just as valid as these others. Prophet Exchange offers a significant change to the bet exchange system. (Unsigned contribution by User:209.34.235.6)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Stevenson

[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. jredmond 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — the fact that his supposed "magnum opus" is not even detailed leads me to question his notability. Nothing found to back up this page, except a link to a grad. school project. — RJH 15:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sir,

you are clearly of little expertise regarding the matter of ancient Igneous rocks. I suggest you do some homework on the basics of geology before resigning one of its most noteable dignitaries to the description "non-notable".

Yours Professor D. Hutton

This was posted by 147.188.209.51 (talk · contribs), and is that IP's first edit. (That IP is assigned to the University of Birmingham; other IPs in that address range overlap quite a few edits with the original author of the article in question here.) - jredmond 16:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Redwolf24 03:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puffy McMoonface

[edit]

Don't see that we need an article for a (presumably) obscure nickname. If the nickname was sufficiently known, a redirect would work. However apparently it's meant as an insult, so I'm not sure how appropriate that would be either. At any rate, Delete Friday 15:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people who have been stung by jellyfish

[edit]

Reason? 'Cos its bloody silly. A high proportion of people have been stung by a jelly fish at sometime. What is the point in this? The article promises that wasp stings are next ... joy! (Can't wait for nettles)--Doc (?) 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Redwolf24 03:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary (Holy Mary)

[edit]

This fictional character is not notable enough for a separate article. I tried to make it a redirect to Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights but was reverted. So... Delete or redirect. DES 15:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boobonic Boben Blaster & Captain Dairy Queen

[edit]

Unverifiable, nn, probable hoax, cruft --Doc (?) 15:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Buckley

[edit]

I suspect vanity. Could also be a tribute, perhaps from a child. Doesn't seem notable, anyway. [[smoddy]] 15:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Dibdahl

[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page. With respect to Ms Dibdahl, the article does not appear to fulfil the criteria for remaining on Wikipedia. Tonywalton 15:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC) Appears to be a vanity page Tonywalton 15:50, July 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna longbrake

[edit]

Tribute article (I removed a "Written by" and the subject's email address). She is not notable. [[smoddy]] 15:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Thompson

[edit]

Not yet notanble. Tribute article. By the same author as Brianna longbrake, listed for deletion above. [[smoddy]] 16:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project REPEAL

[edit]

a non-notable student pressure group. 140 Google hits DJ Clayworth 16:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Joyous (talk) 21:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

List of things the cat dragged in

[edit]

I haven't worked out if this is a joke or just someone with too little to do. Either way it should go. See also recent articles by the same author.DJ Clayworth 16:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WANTED:HERO

[edit]

Sorry but unwanted - ad for Jaime Buckley's (see above) comic project, nn vanity delete --Doc (?) 17:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Railways Online

[edit]

nn website, Alexa rank over 2 million Pyroclastic 17:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Reluctantly Delete. Even as a railfan myself, I am unfamiliar with the names mentioned in the article, which as it stands now is scarcely encyclopedic. Decribing a website less than a month after it was created doesn't make it notable, and the article itself doesn't assert enough notability for the site. slambo 17:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oops, misread the creation date in the article text. No change in vote (yet). slambo 17:45, July 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Aihamsmayhem

[edit]

This is a brief article about a blog. Google returns eleven non-duplicated hits for the website name. The article itself contains incomprehensible content. A review of the blog shows nothing encyclopedic or notable. This article qualifies for deletion as: not notable and the "Wikipedia is not a web directory" policy. Tobycat 17:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an attak page, since it claims the subject is an "online community comprising of members from a certain fascist school." DES 17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tea bags and brew strength

[edit]

Original research?? --Doc (?) 17:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merging and deleting infringes wikipedia's license and would be grossly illegal and make the perpetrator a vile criminal of the highest order, standing outside the long arm of the law and prosecutable in court to be sentenced to some horrible, demeaning punishment for an endless and enternal period of hell, or possibly a little bit less. Read the Licence. It is only possible to merge and redirect.
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and interesting article which is not covered anywhere else. (unsigned by User: 62.252.0.6)
  • Delete. Ken 21:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another silly article by this user. Joyous (talk) 21:15, July 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 keep'. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JavaTV

[edit]

This is a crummy substub about a topic that IMO doesn't reach the notability threshold. Although google amazingly reports 100,000 hits for JavaTV, only 43 show up because the vast vast majority are duplications of the same page or forum indices. Sun's own forum has less than 2,000 posts and only 3,300 views. Brighterorange 18:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but only if expanded into at least a stub. There's not enough to the article to IMO warrant deleting at this early stage. 23skidoo 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It seems like a worthy topic, although (as a professional Java programmer) I can't confirm if it even exists as a technology as opposed to something still under development. (Okay, I didn't try that hard, but still...) Peter Grey 10:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete both. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Whitley and Virginia Louise Helena Whitley

[edit]

Non-notable genealogical articles about a sister and brother. Their father Norman Whitley has an article but is clearly notable for his army service. David | Talk 18:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Walters

[edit]

NominationIt appears to be false vanity. Claims great accomplishments without stating what they are, claims expertise in "life and how the Universe really works", refers to Mr. Walters as an author but implies first book is as-yet unfinished (and unpublished). Claims of contributions to fields of physics and cosmology not backed up by searching authors of articles in the following journals: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics since 1993, International Journal of Modern Physics A: Particles and Fields, Gravitation, Cosmology and Nuclear Physics since 1986 or International Journal of Modern Physics D: Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology since 1992, Progress of Theoretical Physics since 1992, Physics Reports from 1971 to 1994, or Contemporary Physics since 1997. Also no publication in Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology (Previously Techné: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology) during the 1996-2003 period. The Literate Engineer 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED. Splash 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Master Ching Hai

[edit]

This version describes Supreme Master Ching Hai and her teachings as if it were a matter of fact. Also, there is already a page on Supreme Master Ching Hai; the text of the original article is exactly the same as this article, only without the criticism. Tktruong2 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue tiger

[edit]

Page is posted on en but is not in English Usrnme h8er 10:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm just creating this page, the reason is, it's a hoax animal inexistent animal I've done the initial translation. Delete drini ☎ 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand, this entry along with Rana lechuza are both made up animals, this entry admits it so. I think this is the same author than once created the hoax article on Bambachos (also was in spanish, similar geographical references). Please look at both entries when considering the deletion. drini ☎ 18:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Province of the Carolanas

[edit]

This page is some kind of weird hoax/original research. Please see talk page for details. This article should be deleted since most of it is pure bunk. A brief mention of the one true thing in it (the Heath patent) should be put on Province of Carolina. This page is connected to other pages that I strongly suspect of vanity/non-notable/original research, including: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute (all of these pages were created by User:MPLX). --JW1805 18:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)
It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of a right-wing idiots.
It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.
It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.
Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]


That's interesting about the other website. I would be interested to know exactly what they said, and who this "local historian" is. Honestly, on the face of it, it seems a huge interpolation to link some graves found in Houston to Heath, who is regarded as an historical footnote who had a claim to Carolina but never tried to colonize it. The notion that he decided to plant a colony in Texas is quite a stretch, and doesn't seem to have been written about by "legitimate" historians. That's why I would consider this "original research". --JW1805 16:20, 4 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 deleted. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin spoof

[edit]

hoax (this author (User:200.73.180.22 ) has repeatedly added hoaxes into wikipedia, look at Blue tiger and Rana lechuza, Vandera, etc. see his talk page drini ☎ 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 17:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yue

[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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Jianghua

[edit]

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Ming Ming

[edit]

*weak delete keep it if the article can be verified and expanded otherwise it should be deleted. keep users are making a genuine effort to expand the article and add more information. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. A google search suggests that the information in the article is correct—however, it appears that he didn't make the draft so the claims of being the next Yao Ming seem a bit premature. JeremyA (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He's very big in China. -- BD2412 talk 17:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability into the article then, please. Height is not enough. mikka (t) 18:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken - I'll see what I can find! -- BD2412 talk 18:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, in this case height might be enough - the subject of this article "might be the tallest living person on the planet."[33] -- BD2412 talk 21:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He is big in China. He might be big in the US soon.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Li

[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. mikka (t) 17:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Santamarina

[edit]

Page of non-important Argentine club by know Hoax fan [ 200.73.180.22/contrib ]. (see:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rana lechuza, or his 3 meter long Blue tiger)

Even though the club exists, and played 9 matches of the Nacional 1985 Argentine championship with 2 wins and 2 ties, the results claimed in the article are not true.

Information on the Nacional 1985 can be found in a reliable source, and in the Argentina All-Time Table it can be seen that it played no other matches in first division.

Since the club is very small and really not notable, I propose to delete it. -Mariano 15:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American Campus Ministry

[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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jester Dormitory

[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 deleted. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of abbreviations that contain the same number of non-whitespace characters as the words they abbreviate

[edit]

Non-notable, un-maintainable, obvious.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 17:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral dynamics

[edit]

Nonencyclopedic, factual inaccuracy, original research, no references, self-promotion, pseudoscience, external link spam Pedant 19:23, 2005 July 28 (UTC) This article, written and edited by those with a self-claimed 'professional interest in the subject, simply reeks of pseudoscience, is subject to an ongoing edit war from people claiming to have a connection to the so-called theory, is not encyclopedic, and is a vanity article of sorts. Blatant promotion of a quacky theory, article as it stands is not sound or encyclopedic, and looks to be trouble all the way to the core. Apparently (from the email I received) the article is being edited by the author, co-author and opponents of the author's theories... all hanging on flimsy references, mostly references to the book that is being promoted using wikipedia as a tool.

Plus the spam:

I received the following email relating to this topic, UNSOLICITED, and with no previous attempt to contact me on my talk page: 

Subject: Disputing the Factual Accuracy of a Wikipedia entry: Spiral Dynamics and Don Beck
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:30:28 -0700

(redacted info, contact me if you need it for some reason) 

Message-Id: <005401c5930b$9136faf0$220110ac@your4f1261a8e5>
Organization: Spiral Dynamics
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01C592D0.E4D822F0"
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X- Msmail-Priority: Normal
Show Basic Headers 	Back To [INBOX]
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Pedant,

I've been browsing Wikipedia for some information and 
decided to take a look to see if Spiral   Dynamics was
being discussed. I was surprised to see that it was included
in your online mentions; thus, I did a little tweaking to
improve the accuracy (FYI this is a model my partner
Chris Cowan, coauthor of Spiral Dynamics, and I work
with - please see our web references below.) Thus, I
believe we are qualified to make adjustments to the definition.

The reason I am writing to you is the factual accuracy
of our competitor's bio (Don Beck) and the content of the current Spiral Dynamics definition on Wikipedia. I've copied the bio below and inserted notes
as to the questionable entries. Your site suggests that
if 5 or more items are incorrect to insert a dispute.
I have done that and the warning has been eliminated.
You will find the disputed items below under "Issues"
where I have itemized statements requiring fact checking.
In essence, yes, we have a professional interest in this,
thus disclosure applies (we are rather fierce competitors).
At the same time, I feel that the reputation of this work
can stand only on fact and accuracy, which is what I am
seeking by contacting you.

The current definition of Spiral Dynamics suffers from
some inaccuracies which I attempted to fix; it was reverted
to an earlier version. For example, there is no credible
evidence of "the Mean Green meme" under the Pathologies
section. I have reason to believe that the person making
adjustments to the current entries has some interest in
skewing this due to his/her affiliations. To make matters
more complex, and more sensitive, we are involved in a
legal dispute with our former partner, Don Beck. This
matter could get quite antagonistic if it isn't handled well,
which is why I am contacting you. Your description suggested
I could count on your discretion in a sensitive matter. 

Could you please advise as to how to proceed? 

Kind Regards,
Natasha

PS. See below ...



Don Beck is an American management consultant
involved in the theory known as Spiral Dynamics.

Issues:
1) The term "integral theory" is a marketing term
designed for promotion which a number of people 
are attempting to legitimize and using Wikipedia to do so
2) Greater accuracy would be "coauthor of the book, Spiral Dynamics"
3) Spiral Dynamics is a trademark and refers to training, 
a book, and a popularization of a model of adult development (not a theory)

==Overview==

Beck has elaborated upon the work of his mentor, 
Clare Graves, to develop a
multidimensional model for
understanding the transformation of human values
and cultures. As cofounder of the
National Values Center in Denton, Texas, and
CEO of the Spiral
Dynamics Group, Inc., Beck is employing the
Spiral Dynamics model to effect large-scale
systems change in and among various sectors and
societies of the world.


Issues:
1) 95% of Spiral Dynamics is derived directly from
the work of Clare W. Graves; there is no elaboration
to it other than some conjecture and the link to
memetics - in fact, Spiral Dynamics is a popularization
and simplification of the work or Graves designed to
appeal to a broader market - it's a contraction rather
than an expansion.
2) The non-marketing definition of this model is as a
'psycho-social developmental model' -  
3) The final line has no supporting evidence other
than marketing claims, a fact check is required.

==Career ==

Beck's consulting career
has taken him to such diverse settings as 10 Downing Street
to consult with Tony Blair's Policy Unit;
the south side of Chicago to address
the problems faced by inner-city schools; the World Bank
to consider the future of Afghanistan; and
the boardrooms of major banks, energy companies, airlines,
and government agencies. Following 63 consulting trips to
South Africa between 1981 and 1988,
he wrote The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future (1991) with Graham Linscott.

Beck taught for twenty years at the University of North Texas.
He served as team psychologist for The South African Springboks,
winners of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and associated with the
Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans  Saints, the
Texas Rangers (baseball), and the U.S. Olympic
Committee for Men's Track and Field. He writes a
“sports values” column for the Dallas Morning News. He lives in Denton, Texas.

Issues:
1) The first line claims that this person has consulted
to the Blair government, this requires a fact check
2) The item with the south side of Chicago has not been verified
3) The World Bank item is being put across as consulting
to the WB - does a single 1.5 hour presentation where
he was not invited back consist of consulting?
4) Consulting to various boardrooms - there is no evidence
to support this other than claims on his website - a fact check is required
5) How can a person without a degree in psychology serve
as team psychologist?

(the part about consulting to the Springboks also requires a fact check)
6) Have the claims for the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints,
Texas Rangers, and US Olympic committee for Men's Track
and Field been verified - we've checked and have been unable
to confirm any of these claims.
7) The "sports values" column would be accurate with the
start and finish dates, which were some years ago and not very long lived. 


==Bibliography==

* Don Beck and Christopher Cowan,
Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, 1996
* Don Beck and Graham Linscott,
The Crucible: Forging South Africa’s Future, 1991

==External Links==

* [http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=12&cat=&a=17/
Free video clip of Don Beck at Big Picture TV]
* [http://www.spiraldynamics.net/
Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics Integral site]
* [http://www.globalvaluesnetwork.com/
Global Values Network]
* [http://www.humanemergence.org/
Centre for Human Emergence]

....................................................................................
Dr. Natasha Todorovic MBA
National Values Center & NVC Consulting
"The Spiral Dynamics People"
PO Box 42212
Santa Barbara, CA 93140

TEL: (805) 962-0366
FAX: (805) 962-0306
E-mail: natasha@spiraldynamics.org
WEB:  http://www.spiraldynamics.org   http://www/clarewgraves.com


Sign up for the FREE Newsletter at http://www.spiraldynamics.org/forms/signup.htm [/quote]

I think this is advertising as well, self-promotion. The text is gibberish and contains no references except to works by, apparently, the original author of the book being promoted, this seems to be promotional in nature and original research to boot. And the above spam is enough to bat it out of the park in my opinion.Pedant 19:04, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

  • Keep. That you don't like a book or a theory doesn't mean that it is non-notable. google lists 30,300 hits for the exact phrase "spiral dynamics", at least the first several pages of which refer to the subject at hand. I reverted an anonymous user's edits. That anonymous user now appears to be Natasha Todorovic, the partner of Chris Cowan, one of the co-authors of the book. Her edits were POV, poorly written, and evinced little understanding of what Wikipedia is all about. That's why I reverted them, not for ideological reasons. I invite her to make more appropriate contributions to the article. --goethean ॐ 19:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable kookery and snake oil. Requires heavy NPOV. mikka (t) 20:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pseudoscience is completely legit encyclopedia material, theres a wikiproject called pseudoscience. Also it is obviously a real theory, 480,000 yahoo hits is enough to prove that. The writer of this article is an expert on the subject, but it is not the writer's theory, he just writes about it. Clare Graves seemed to have came up with the theory, but she's not writing the article. Does need NPOV editing though. Uber nemo 20:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as pseudoscience. Fix the content. Mmmbeer 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as legitimate theory of human development. Slark 00:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It would appear that the entire world of Template:Integral theory could use some POV policing and contextualization in order to avoid commercial promotion. Some effort should be put into finding views from outside the "Integral theory" universe to cite and then keeping vigilant over the inevitable revert wars. I wish I had the stomach for it myself. Dystopos 02:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as important element in the nascent "Integral movement", but address views and disputes of both factions (Beck and Cowan) in NPOV manner M Alan Kazlev 05:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – no valid reasons given for deletion. Contrary PoV to an article isn't cause for removal. They should contribute to improving it, such as providing the needed references. The subject is notable and a candidate for encyclopedic coverage, even if in the current state it needs improvement. Clearly a topic with published works is not original research to Wikipedia as was charged. Nominations that bold the words so liberally should be encouraged to delay a bit to enable more cogent reasoning. (It's not the nature of a topic that renders it non-notable, it is the unpublished work of a single person or few people not widely known— not the case here) --Blainster 11:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rewrite. I've placed an NPOV tag on the page. Stirling Newberry 21:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was User:Akhu has emailed me about this page and has stated it is copyrighted by his company and that he was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policiy on how do deal with it as a Copyvio. He has requested the page for immediate deletion and I fully intend to do so. Any further comments can be made at my talk page. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

MusicNovatory

[edit]

I was hoping I could get a second opinion on this matter regarding edits to this page, related to edits by this IP who created this account. I have been monitoring the edits associated with this account since July 15, and of late, I have become increasingly skeptical of the intentions of this Wikipedian's edits. I have been very patient with this Wikipedian since the beginning, writing extensively in an encouraging manner how edits to Wikipedia should be made. Although I have been skeptical from the beginning, I decided to "assume good faith" and was hoping that the user would understand that his or her editing style will need to be modulated to resonably expect any of their content to remain on Wikipedia. (See the extensive disscusions on the user and article's talk pages for example.) However, recently I noticed that the exact same content was being duplicated on French Wikipedia. See for example [41]. In fact, in French Wikipedia the article was placed up for deletion, and I am inclined to feel that this should be done here as well. The site has some content that is meritable, but perhaps not encyclopedic enough to warrant an article. At the moment, the page seems only to be more geared towards promoting the content of the external site. I'd appreciate any thoughts or opinions on this VfD here. Thanks! HappyCamper 19:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. nonnotable website. mikka (t) 20:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm from the french wikipedia and today I have propose to delete this article (it's exactly the same in french, just translated, see [42], if you want, you can follow the french votes here [43]. I think that both english and french wikipedia should do the same thing about this article (keep or delete). My talk page [44]
  • delete reluctantly. I think 2 weeks of worth of ample dialogue was more than enough time for the article to be fixed up. I just hope this vote doesn't scare away the editor, because there is a lot of potentially useful information that could have been made very useful for Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 20:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. non-notable website. The content of the site itself may be encyclopedic, but the site itself is not. Mmmbeer 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Dawg in the 77th Century

[edit]

Delete, wholly fictional. Dirty South space opera! FreplySpang (talk) 20:02, July 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.humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonz Xylophone

[edit]

nn band vanity. Delete. Ken 20:51, July 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 deleted. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs under one and one third of a minute in length

[edit]

Just one of a series of silly "list of..." articles created by User:62.252.0.6. Arbitrary subject (one and a third minutes???) Joyous (talk) 20:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. All units of time are arbitrary. As a third of a minutes is 20 seconds, a very commonly expressed time, the criterion for this article is no more arbitrary that the list of songs under one minute, two minutes and all the rest. unsigned vote by user 62.252.0.6. Ken
  • Question So why make this list if you did not immediately add songs between 1:00 and 1:20? There must have been some point? hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 21:00, July 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 undecided, kept.mikka (t) 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Only Inn

[edit]

Previous vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elf Only Inn.

  • del. Rewritten into a huge page, but no notability presented. mikka (t) 20:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems nn. Delete. Agentsoo 21:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Webcomic. Alexa rank quite low. Apparently not even in operation anymore, according to article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • What, this again? Delete. android79 01:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.  Grue  14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep So just because something is taking a break we should forget it ever existed? What's the big deal with letting a decent article stay? GTJoe
    • Wikipedia is not a memorial. The issue is notability. If it is doomed to be forgotten without wikipedia article, farewell. mikka (t) 18:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So lets go and delete entries for extinct animals, old TV shows, and the deceased, because who cares, right? You say it's doomed to be forgotten, yet it keeps being brought up. It's only doomed because you guys keep deleting the articles we write over and over again. As for notability, enterthedream.net [45] hosts reviews for EOI and Penny Arcade did a legitimate crossover [46] with them. Anyway, I'm not sure where you get off deleting things for their lack of popularity- look at half the stuff you wiki. GTJoe
        • Extinct animals are not forgotten. Being deceased or killed is not the reason for encyclopedia, neither for exclusion. Please stop playing word games. "We guys" request proofs of notability (i.e., reason why other people would want to read the article); e.g., a review somewhere. Please see Talk:Elf Only Inn for more discussion. mikka (t) 20:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this article's defense, I like to note that according to The Notability and Inclusion Guidelines, a webcomic need only comply with the Alternate Proposal to be considered acceptable. I counted weeks of comic strips, and came up with roughly 80 weeks, doing random sampling per month to ensure there weren't bouts of guest strips. That more than surpasses the 33-week requirement. I have not yet counted the number of strips in the EOF archive, but the first few months were every other day upates, the remaining months were sporatic updates; usually 3 a week. I could count 100 strips without breaking a sweat. As to the author of this article, I honestly don't know if it is Josh Sortelli or not, but I doubt he would return from hiatus to write a wiki article and not update his comic. Regardless, if there are suspicions I'll be happy to re-write it myself. Saxon 05:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (GTJoe, just figured out how to sign things)[reply]

  • Delete. Still not a webcomic of any import. Remember, the WP:COMIC conditions are a minimum to qualify as encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine! I give up. I've proven this comic meets the notability requirement. The author and I have both mentioned this comic won an annual webcomic category award and was nominated for another. I've provided a list of links with reviews. Since I know I've done more research than any of you and still no one's mind can be changed, I change my vote to delete. Now we just have to go through every single other webcomic on the list and delete the ones that don't fall into these lofty, unwritten standards you all have. I simply find it ridiculous this particular comic is being singled out while hordes of lesser comics and their stubs abound, so lets make sure we don't leave the purging unfinished. Saxon 07:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Web Cartoonist Choice awards are a joke even in the webcomic community. And, incidentally, I did put a couple of webcomics that fell below the bar on VFD just today, so, at least in my case, your veiled accusations of hypocricy ring false. If there are webcomic articles that legitimately need to be put on VFD, by all means do so. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The comic is best known for having stopped updating almost as soon as it was invited to Keenspot. --Carnildo 09:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I'm not a fan of this particular comic, the article seems sound to me, and I have added some minor improvements. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:06, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Keep. No matter how much the WCCA's are ridiculed, it's the only real mark of notability less-popular comics have. Nifboy 00:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Megachurch. Splash 18:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-church

[edit]

I've never heard of this. I can't believe it's in common usage. Deb 21:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Corleone-Tarvioso, Santino Corleone-Tarvioso

[edit]

Hoax. Zero google hits. Anon users have also vandalized Tarvisio and Hanson (town), Massachusetts with information about this alleged mafia. Martg76 21:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Tree Project

[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 it got hit with copyvio, will get deleted. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Civilian

[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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Machine Music (game)

[edit]

nn site, majority of edits to this page have been either vandalism, blanking, or reversion of blanking see:talk:Metal Machine Music (game) for more info regarding previous blankings. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Reads like an advert. Delete. Agentsoo 22:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the owner of the site, this article needs to be deleted. People who are far to cowardly to discuss their problems with the site openly have used the article to openly attack us, and the moderators here have allowed it to occur. Deletion is the only solution we can settle for at this point, my staff agrees to this point, and so do my members. If this is what the owners of Wikipedia consider "fair and balanced", I pity anybody who has to endure their services being listed here. Delete - Don McGunigale
  • As a staffer on MMM, I agree that this wiki should be deleted. It was a good idea at first, and while I can perfectly respect criticism, the edits done to the article went past that. Given the choice, I`d personally try to rewrite that to reflect all sides in an unbiased manner, but ce la vie. Let the thing die and rest in peace. Delete - The Sh33p
  • The so-called "Vandalisim" has actually been a desire to present a more fair and balanced point of view. However, as MMM's staff can't stand criticisim, they won't be happy unless they can control this article. So I say Delete in order to avoid furhter controversy. unsigned vote by user:202.92.76.129 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the previous unsigned user was the person who threw in the erroneous information in the first place. Note also that they have a record of vandalism. Doesn't sound like "fair and balanced" to me. I vote Delete simply so that we don't have to deal with people like that anymore. ~AA
  • This computer is a part of an office network - as such there are numerous users under the one IP adress. As such, the "vandal" is just one of many users who would register under the one IP.

That being said, veiwing the article from a neutral outside viewpoint does leave me with a desire to comment. The "clean" version of the entry reads more like an andvertisment or blantant promotion then an encylcopedic entry. The "vandalised" version reads like the work of somone with a personal grudge. I would say Delete, but I would also add that the article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. --202.92.76.129 22:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (But not the same one as above)[reply]

  • As another user on the same network as the previous poster, I feel that its worth mentioning that someone on this IP knows a lot aobut Zoids - check the other edits by the same IP address for proof. All the other articles they've created or edited on Zoids thus far have been well done and, in my opinion, free form any bias or the like. Having no experience with "MMM" thus far and not knowing anything aobut Zoids, I can only assume that they are rather knowledgable on the subject, and that their statements on the subject in the other articles are reasonably informed. Of course, that proves nothing, as it could be the work of two differnt people, both of whom are knoledgeable on the subject (But with one of them having a considerable grudge or possibly a vaild reason for his edits to the article). At any rate, I agree that htis article is not encyclopedic in nature and more pormotional, and should be Deleted --202.92.76.129 02:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Delete for non-notability, but "weak" because I don't like what I see as being the stronger motivation behind this deletion - i.e., someone connected with this particular subject is basically not comfortable with it appearing in a wiki. I do realize this has become an unmanageable nuisance for those involved, but look at it this way: What if, say, Karl Rove decided he didn't like what people were writing about him on Wikipedia? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tracked the IP to a member of our forums, and from there, we tracked that name to another forum where personal grudges against our site run rampant. Just for the record. ~AA
  • Delete. To put it one way, the article is not something you would find in an encyclopedia. Just because you have a personal grudge against a site doesn't mean that you should be using something akin to an encyclopedia as a soapbox for your cause. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it shouldn't be taken too far. -- Pkninja
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedic entry; it alternatively reads like blatant propmotion or blatant whinging. Either way, it should go. --144.138.25.8 22:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the authour of the Various Zoids articles done on this IP, I do feel the need to comment here (Yes, I have no connection to the others in this IP above). I was not responsible for the "vandalisim" to the MMM article; while I have had some overly negative experiences with the MMM staff, at the same time I would not stoop to the level of defecing a Wikopedia entry on them as a measure of revenge or similar. Despite this, I must agree with the earlier comments; this article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place and should be Deleted, not for the reasonss of Vandalisim or the like, but because it simply is not encyclopedic and the original article was more likely an attempt at free promotion. I must also agree with Gyrofrog ; I feel the MMM staff are being too thin-skinned about this; they must understand that in an article like this, critcisim is a possiblity and they should not try to "control" what is said aobut them. --202.92.76.129 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that said criticism is actually completely erroneous- we have proof- and stemming from a site with a history of disliking us? Last I heard, this was a site for disseminating correct information, hrm? Don't add things that you obviously have no real knowledge in!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirth of the Temple

[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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template monster

[edit]

Ad. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteHorn TFTP

[edit]

Ad. Wikipedia is not FreshMeat. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athought it is a very nice piece of software, but this is not SourceForge, i.e. if we don't allow Free software listing

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilder (professor)

[edit]

Vanity and/or non-notable person. This article is connected to two other suspicions pages: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute. --JW1805 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A FOOTNOTE

[edit]
I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)
It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of a right-wing idiots.
It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.
It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.
Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]

  • Note to admins: if this page goes, make sure to also delete Dr. Eric Gilder, which redirects here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neefaball

[edit]

Zero Google hits. Vanity/hoax/Gungan-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morphine Nation

[edit]
  • DO NOT DELETE. This article deserves to be here more than all the pages on every bus stop in the city of Ottawa. The Lycée Claudel station? Come on. It's a worthy article. PeterAbelard 19:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 1 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics) (etc)

[edit]

This is one of several articles on religious calendars. But what on earth is there here than can't be put in April 1? The whole lot of 'em need merging. Dunc|☺ 22:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've encountered these before and wondered what the point of them was. I think merging them all would be smart, so let's start by deleting this one. Agentsoo 22:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect for all of them. Deletion is not an option when merging, as stated in WP:GVFD, since the GFDL requires the edit history to be kept. Jaxl 23:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. There are too many religious calendars to merge into the day pages. - SimonP 00:54, July 29, 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. Dmcdevit·t 00:05, July 29, 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. But anyone can of course be BOLD and redirect anytime they like. -Splash 18:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop band

[edit]

Dict def. I'd say redirect to hip hop music, no merge neccessary. --FuriousFreddy 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Auto Shop's Daughter

[edit]

nn band vanity. Delete. Ken 22:40, July 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth aknias

[edit]

Delete nn fancruft. Ken 22:49, July 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Obscene image

[edit]

This is a fake policy (the proposed policy tag was added later) made up by User:SuperDude115. This user also created Template:Speedyimage and the categories Category:Obscene images and Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion, which are also listed for deletion. Delete. ulayiti (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. It has a proposed template on it now, so I suppose I'd be OK with it staying to allow discussion as long as the template and categories go. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This proposed 'policy' severely contradicts WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not censored). I don't think there's much useful discussion to be had from a policy proposal that is against some of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, the only reason I'm not a "delete" is that I feel a little uneasy about deleting a policy proposal, however misguided, when we could also just slap a "rejected policy proposal" tag on it and keep it for the record. We could also just userfy it as we've done with other such unpolished proposals. Just a little uneasy about an out and out delete is all, this is definitely not a a full keep vote though. Dmcdevit·t 05:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case, this is not so much a proposed policy; it's more of a declaration of intent by a single user. SuperDude didn't apply the {{proposed}} tag to it. I wouldn't oppose the "rejected"/userfy idea you propose, but only if SuperDude supports it. Surprisingly, he hasn't chimed in yet. android79 13:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete because the intent of the policy as stated is already a settled matter: "unwanted" is not obscene, WP:NOT censored for anyone. My weakness stems from not wanting to stifle debate. However, the debate is so clearly going to fail that there is little point keeping the policy page; it would have been much better to start at the Village Pump. -Splash 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Policy created without consensus, and against WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not censored). --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If policy concerning images and censorship needs discussion, it can take place at WP:NOT where it will receive much more attention. android79 02:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Discussion already exists at m:Potentially offensive images and other places. Angela. 02:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angela.-Poli (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angela K1Bond007 04:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proposed policy would be better placed on WP:NOT so it's repetitive. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Sam Hocevar 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Nice try SuperDude115. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not censored. Also, anything pornographic would probably get listed and WP:IFDed anyway due to copyright issues. Thus rendering this alleged polciy needlessly redundant. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One person's windmill-tilting does not Wikipedia policy make. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Particularly since this "policy" was linked to from an purported "speedy-deletion" template, which was used to tag images for speedy deletion under this alleged "policy". This is at best a profound misunderstanding of how policy making works here. DES 05:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an attempt to bypass the established methodology for policy creation, and existing Wiki copyright rules already prohibit porn if the policy is followed. Modern porn images aren't PD, after all. Xaa 05:12, 6 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 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big bad (forum)

[edit]

This is a dicdef, and, I suspect a non-notable one at that. CDC (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impeach Blair campaign

[edit]

This article should be completely merged into Tony Blair as a very small footnote. Larryfooter 03:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podchive

[edit]

Spam. 4 results on google for "podchive". Article was created by User:Idastudios and if you go to the top google result for podchive it says the page website is from "INDEPENDNET [sic] DIGITAL ARTISTS". Aside from this obvious spam and self promotion, the article itself says stuff like podchiving "became popular in late 2005", and in conjunction with the 4 total google hits, it doesn't meet notability requirements. CryptoDerk 00:08, July 29, 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mothership Locater

[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_28&oldid=1081092199"