Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23

[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. There were several suggestions that the article should be merged. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

Thai_immigration_to_the_United_States

[edit]

What is the point of this page? Thai immigrants in US are relatively SMALL number compared to other nationals. If you want to talk about In-Chan, then creat a page about them. There is no Thai official record about Mr. He Thien whom the author claimed to be the first student to immigrate from Thailand. The number of Thai immigrants to US that the author provided does not have any reference. If you want to put this page on, you have to do more in-depth with reliable FACTS, not something you guess. And again, what is the point of talking about Thai immigrants in US which are relatively VERY SMALL number compared to other nationals. Dhanakorn 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 30 June 2005 04:54 (UTC)

Paul Stojanovich

[edit]

For the record, he WAS the creator of COPS. He WAS the creator of "World's Wildest Police Chases too along with Narco and was a 20/20 segment producer." Also, filmographer in Natual Born Killers with Woody Harilson...

It's sad this person fell off a cliff and died, but that doesn't establish notability. Gentgeen 00:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep He was the producer of Cops among other shows I believe he was notable enough. Besides there are a lot of google hits on him. Falphin 00:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems quite notable. --Sn0wflake 00:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep BUT add Stub block. Google hits suggest notability, so there has to be more than this out there; someone with some knowledge will fill it in. Kevin/Last1in 00:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable enough [1]. — Ливай | ☺ 02:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. With respect, I think he got an article because he was the producer of notable television, not because he fell of a cliff. CanadianCaesar 02:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He produced two long-running TV shows. --Luspari 03:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as written. But I'd like to see some expansion of it... -- Grev -- Talk 05:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that Stojanovich's significance has been established, I agree, it should stay. But, it should be expanded. Gentgeen 05:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable TV producer. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable producer. - Mgm|(talk) 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unusually for such an article, notability has actually been established.-Splash 21:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfect stub --Phroziac (talk) 18:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Producer of notable TV shows, which makes him notable. Wikiacc (talk) 20:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please he is perfectly notable what are you talking about Yuckfoo 18:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was the result of this debate is delete, even with all of the sockpuppets. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Hongfire

[edit]

This article doesn't contain useful facts of any kinds, it's just a disguised ad. Please refrain to make a wiki entry for every asian site around. If it's about subculture write an article about it. -Oink- People don't start signing others comment with fictious names, or I'll have to register (the history shows your IP anyway mmmkl, you dimwit )82.231.37.93 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.37.93 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2005 Jun 22

  • I vote for deletion. this article doesn't fit in the "encyclopedia" wikipedia. also the edit war would never end if the article remains cause there are different views on some topics where none of both sides want to lose (see edit-history on loli-terms). -Atachi:- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.89.50 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 2005 Jun 22
  • I vote for deletion as it has nothing to do with factual, fair and neutral portrayal of facts. -maohayato- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.90.200 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 2005 Jun 22
  • "All your base are belong to us!" -BOiNG!- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.221.54 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2005 Jun 22
  • Delete. Superfluous article. It is on yellow press-, but not Wikipedia-level. KidSteel 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Misinformation -The Bug- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.223.4 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2005 Jun 22
  • Vote for deletion, if he/she or they want to discuss about us in other forums we have no problem, but not here, though those kind of articles is somehow always bias based or lead to edit war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmonthes (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2005 Jun 22
  • its literary art deleting this would be a crime, the poster is an extreme good writer why cant you see that. just because it doesnt pamper everyone doesnt mean its not true indeed he put hs own views but then again it gave the article a lively touch it was thereby given character which isnt a bad thing and if someone would write it the guy that wrote it would be the best candidate. you have to accept that the dude has talent. so i am against the deletiton of this article. -zerebubuth- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerebubuth (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2005 Jun 22
  • Your literary art is another one's garbage. Wikipedia is about informative topics. There is none in this article, except for the ones already part of HF. Like I said, don't make a freaking wikipedia article for every website with a forum and torrents, no matter how lively you think it is. It's not about HF, it's about putting some quality in the place where you're writing this article -Oink- 82.231.37.93 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.37.93 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2005 Jun 22
  • I vote (haha...democracy at work...) pointless. is that on the ballot? -chompy- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.163.63 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2005 Jun 23
  • Delete The article is neither objective nor unbiased. But if you remove the biased parts, all that will be left is an advertising. -Soran(Hongfire screen name) Hayami 03:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, non-encyclopaedic. Any particular reason no one is signing posts in this vote? Kevin/Last1in 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I smell a crapflood/invasion/vendetta! GNAA or Something Awful Forums? Anyway, yes, delete the article, since it's biggest claim to fame for most people who have heard of it would be it's torents section, and that's been down for a while (and the forseeable future). humblefool® 02:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. And yes, it seems all the unsigned voters have suspiciously similar writing styles. — Ливай | ☺ 02:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Too many sockpuppets. Gamaliel 02:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As comes up with Alexa rating of 22 271 and is just a BitTorrent site. Wikipedia is not a web directory and this network has yet to achieve any notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for deletion. Hongfire is a file-sharing site. Having a encyclopedic notoriety would only make matters worse. -Adust Wanderer- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.108 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2005 Jun 23
  • Delete.This article got too much inaccurate informations,it just don't fit in encyklopedia entry. Mmmkl 06:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established, wikipedia is not a web directory. JamesBurns 10:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a web directory, and notability not established.-Splash 15:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, and then delete the sockpuppets. --Scimitar 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete mmmm i'm having sockpuppets for dinner tonight! --Phroziac (talk) 18:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wikiacc (talk) 21:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - rubbish endorsed by either sockpuppets or intentional vandalism? - Skysmith 08:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Count the sock-puppet votes, friend. They want to delete the article. --Scimitar 13:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So noted (must have been too tired...) Still, delete. Block the sockpuppets no matter what they do - Skysmith 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least delete the original article : it was a vandal article or simply calumny not "ad" propaganda.The "Delete" votes of members of a community should be treated differently, if the article seems to be pure calumny.The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets... --Neuromancien June 28, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 30 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Maths: Addition

[edit]

video game instructions Denni☯ 01:05, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 30 June 2005 05:03 (UTC)

Frogfighters

[edit]

Delete- vanity page MakeRocketGoNow 01:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable personal project. — Ливай | ☺ 02:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 10:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and not-notable subject. -Splash 16:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable.--Poli 19:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, non-notable, advertising. Wikiacc (talk) 21:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad that borders on nonsense. --Etacar11 22:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement, and complete waste of internet --Deemo 28 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:26 (UTC)

SCNR

[edit]

Unencyclopedic stub explaining an acronym used on the Internet. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not an Internet slang dictionary. — Ливай | ☺ 01:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge with Internet slang. LOL (Internet slang) has its own article so I could see it either way . Falphin 01:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I see the term is already on Internet slang. I suppose a redirect would be all right, but I certainly don't think this should stay as its own article. How could it possibly be expanded past a dicdef? — Ливай | ☺ 02:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry I only saw the short list at the top not the rest. So I change my vote to Keep or Redirect. Its possible that the article could develop like LOL beyond a stub. Falphin 02:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet slang. --Sn0wflake 02:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. humblefool® 02:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redir as above. — mark ✎ 08:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Internet slang. JamesBurns 10:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above, I suppose, but barely since the search would pick it up anyway.-Splash 16:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Wikiacc (talk) 21:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Escude

[edit]

No content, just obscure vanity. I tried to speedy delete this, calling it vanity. It was rejected as not speediable, but I can't imagine that this wouldn't fall into that category. What could I label it to pass muster as a speedy?Atomiktoaster 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. It's also a very short article with little or no context if you ask me. — Ливай | ☺ 01:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, nn. Falphin 01:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The game's not even notable! humblefool® 02:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no existing speedy deletion criterion that covers this. Vanity is not a speedy deletion criterion. The proposal to make "blatant vanity" a speedy deletion criterion was rejected. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 03:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nnanity, and pity the 'pedia for turning away the opportunity at speedying these things. -Splash 16:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. CanadianCaesar 20:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Wikiacc (talk) 21:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it could be argued that this could be covered under WP:CSD section 1.2.1. --Xcali 22:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity with no content. --Etacar11 22:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete (performed by Filiocht). Deathphoenix 13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brendan Farr-Gaynor

[edit]

Vanity - see edit history. Denni☯ 02:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity, non-notable. — Ливай | ☺ 02:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, non-notable. His web site does not even make one of the four Google hits on his name. Also see Votes for deletion/Resolution Interactive Media Inc. for the VfD on the company he founded. -- JamesTeterenko 02:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For somebody in the advertising biz, his writing is stunningly bad. Still, I suppose it's reassuring to learn that he was born to a father and a mother. Delete this (incompetent) vanity article. -- Hoary 02:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Userfy to Brendanfarrgaynor if he makes any other contributions, otherwise, delete (non-notable vanity). --Deathphoenix 02:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per Captain Disdain, below. --Deathphoenix 15:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy, as Deathphoenix suggests. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, non-notable. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Page now reads "This article has been removed by the author, my apologies for the vanity spot.". -- Captain Disdain 14:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as requested by the creator.-Poli 19:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Wikiacc (talk) 21:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have deleted as a clear speedy candidate given the author's latest edit. Filiocht | Talk 10:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Jim Luckman

[edit]

Not notable and therefore unverifiable. 0 Google hits for Jim Luckman "unknown show" -- JamesTeterenko 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone can provide a reference establishing notability. Pburka 02:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the Unknown Show is such a smash hit, why does it not pick up relevant Google hits? Non notable. CanadianCaesar 02:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notability does not imply unverifiability. One can verify an article that states that 1679+22=1701, for example. Unverifiability makes questions of notability moot, of course. Since this Jim Luckman is unverifiable (I cannot find anything, either, and this biographical article cites no sources, of course.), the question of his notability does not arise. Delete. Uncle G 03:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
I believe that for a biography, non-notability does cause anything more than a stub to be unverifiable without original research. I agree that this implication is not true for all potential articles and I will be more careful in my wording in future VfD nominations. I prefer putting both reasons in the nomination because I want the reasoning to hold true even if someone was able to verify the unimportant information. -- JamesTeterenko 20:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proven notable.-Poli 19:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. A "hit" on public access?? --Etacar11 23:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Resolution Interactive Media Inc.

[edit]

Self promotion of non-notable company incorporated this month. Also see Votes for deletion/Brendan Farr-Gaynor for the VfD of its Director of Services -- JamesTeterenko 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:38 (UTC)

The jesters

[edit]

Delete. Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC. I quote: the jesters have never performed live, nor do they play any actual instruments, they have released one album [...] and only 6 coppies were distributed. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete they actually do claim one album, but you have to have two, and they fail the other standards as well. Vanity. CanadianCaesar 03:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Self-released albums, especially those that only produce 6 copies, certainly don't count anyway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely non-notable. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unashamed band vanity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 06:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant band vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 10:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nnanity band. The most notable thing they've got is a VfD about their Wikipedia article.-Splash 16:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedia material.-Poli 19:41, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete nnband vanity. --Etacar11 23:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

Bewick Cory

[edit]

Delete. This is absolute nonsense, and I tagged it for speedy, but I guess it might be too long and appear to be too coherent to really qualify. Not funny enough for BJAODN, either. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm having trouble deciding whether this is vanity or patent nonsense. The only real claim to notability I can see is the declaration that he's a "world famous political commentator." Whatever it is, it needs to be deleted. Scott5114 07:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nearly-patent nonsense — this ought to be speediable but I fear it probably isn't in a strict sense.-Splash 16:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP THIS I think it is hilarious, and I feel we should keep it based on that alone.
left by 70.84.160.84 --Tznkai 16:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP THIS Unless we can prove that it is nonsense, we've got to let it stay.
Left by 67.128.60.1 --Tznkai 16:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT As unrealistic as they may seem, these are all true events and many people have inquiries to who Bewick Cory is. This provides needed information as to the profile of this individual no matter how unbelivable. Feel free to google his name to see what I mean.
Left by 67.128.60.1 --Tznkai 16:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Struck out duplicate vote. — Phil Welch 05:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It was not a duplicate vote. They are both from the same IP address because we posted from the same office building. I am sure you are aware of Routers and NAT? (unsigned comment by 67.128.60.1)
    • Google returns 14 [2] hits for "Bewick Cory" one of which is this article and most of the rest of which are from a single site which seems to be a blog-type thing to which he contributes. - Splash 21:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you look closely at those results, you will see multiple blogs and discussions that he contributes. Also, he is a published author with a book to be released soon.

Excuse me, another book to be released soon :) — (Unsigned comment by 67.128.60.1; user's 6th edit.)

          • "published author with a book to be released soon" is a contradiction in terms. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN--Tznkai 16:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Garbage. (Blatant vanity bordering on patent nonsense.) Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 17:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Carnildo 20:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Right on top of the line between cohesion and nonsense, which is a little too "close for comfort". Wikiacc (talk) 21:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 22:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN 68.116.215.116|3rd

Sorry, didn't know about signing. I'm new at this. -- 68.116.215.116

  • Delete nn vanity bordering on nonsense. --Etacar11 23:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep it!

  • Delete and remind that this page is used to form a consensus of intelligent editors,. It is not a Diebold electronic voting machine. We can see through pointless arguments and sockpuppets. Dystopos 03:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanity/nonsense. Sockpoppets always draw more countervotes than they unsuccessfully try to forge. Xoloz 03:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be a senseless argument, but sockpuppets are not going on here. (unsigned comment by 67.128.60.1)
    • Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, what's the difference? (See WP:SOCK, at the bottom) --Etacar11 14:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Fecal Jesus

[edit]

Non notable. Too few relevant Google hits. Seems to be a one-time joke on a television show. Borders on vandalism because it's twice been nominated for speedy deletion, and the person who started the article has twice removed it.CanadianCaesar 03:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • can you say "work in progress"? the deletion nomination occured while i was still adding content, and since the speedy deletion was due to "too short" and i was adding the initial content, I felt the tag was unwarrented. IreverentReverend 03:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Increased use of the "show preview" button usually staves off such problems. Uncle G 03:47, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. Fuzheado | Talk 03:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Tabor 03:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is scope for a short article about "the slice of bread with x's face in it" phenomenon - recommend the author resubmit with an erudite sounding but less scatalogical title. -- RHaworth 05:09, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I remember that, and it was really just one joke in a sketch. Google results of 29 hits show that it hasn't become a popular term since then, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One shot gag. -- BD2412 talk 13:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Lee Hunter 17:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. --Flex 18:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete disgusting blasphemous title Anthony Appleyard 21:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: There's lots of material that's blasphemous on wikipedia, no doubt. How is that relevent to it's deleteworthyness? - rernst 13:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's enough similar material to produce a page on random religious icons, then merge with that, otherwise Delete as nonnotable - rernst 13:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable.--Melissadolbeer 04:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)Melissadolbeer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 2, 2005 00:00 (UTC)

John Kowal

[edit]

This is a vanity page created by anon IPs, likely its subject. Non-notable, no third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Malathion 03:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I nominated it, I should probably vote. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think your nomination is usually considered to be a vote to delete.-Splash 16:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nnaity.-Splash 16:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - jamesgibbon 20:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 03:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:33 (UTC)

Hooley

[edit]
Note: original version when nominated was [3].

Dictdef at best Gblaz 03:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neoligism. Pburka 04:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the new version. Pburka 17:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No action required. The state of Hooley as I have left it, is, I hope, perfectly acceptable. (see Spooge below from the same stable) -- RHaworth 06:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep current version about the city in England. — Ливай | ☺ 06:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not actually a city, as it doesn't have a cathedral. -Splash 16:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep current version of course. — mark ✎ 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. The original definition was wrong, as well - "hooley" is a long-established Irish word for a social event with dance, music, and alcohol. Grutness...wha? 09:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version I suppose, but the most it's got is a petrol station. -Splash 16:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep English village as real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 17:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems good now.-Poli 19:42, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite and the rewrite only. Wikiacc (talk) 21:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Spooge

[edit]

Nonsense. From the person who brought you the first version of Hooley - see above. -- RHaworth 06:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Vineyard. Done. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 02:36 (UTC)


Vinyard

[edit]

I can't find any evidence that they have put out an album. Please correct me if I'm mistaken This link is Broken 03:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Are they in any way related to Vineyard Music? If not, I've never heard of them on the Christian circuit... But Vineyard Music is pretty big. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and create a redirect to Vineyard (a common misspelling). - Mgm|(talk) 08:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per User:Mgm. JamesBurns 10:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and make a redirect to Vineyard, per Mgm. -- BD2412 talk 13:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Mgm. I don't like leaving misspellings lying around, but I guess this one is so common it should stay.-Splash 16:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Bufah

[edit]

nonverifiable dicdef Pburka 04:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Besides being a dicdef and having no relevant Google hits, this seems to describe more of a sound than a word. — Ливай | ☺ 06:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

Passive Aggressive (band)

[edit]

High school band that played a few shows a broke up, Delete--nixie 04:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable ex-garage band. — Ливай | ☺ 06:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable garage band. JamesBurns 10:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proven WP:MUSIC.-Poli 19:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete no significance jamesgibbon 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:25 (UTC)

February 16,

[edit]

Originally created as a misdirected link due to the fact that someone put a comma in the two square brackets hence creating a link to this very misnamed page. Besides the fact that it serves no purpose as February 16 already exists, I don't know what to do with the information. It doesn't really seem important enough to justify putting it on the February 16 article in my opinion so I say just delete it Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't be a useful redirect, delete. --W(t) 04:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Redirect to February 16, as a useful article is unlikely ever to come out of it. Could be useful if someone makes a typo. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 06:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirects are useful but common misspellings, but I don't think appending a comma counts as a common misspelling. --W(t) 06:48, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, not important enough to merge with February 16, and not a useful enough redirect (such typo redirects are speedy deleted all the time). — Ливай | ☺ 06:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a common misspelling. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Weyes. --FCYTravis 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Weyes. JamesBurns 10:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not a common misspelling by virtue of not being a misspelling. -Splash 16:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect --Tothebarricades 00:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NO redirect. I'm a fan of redirects for many things, but not random punctuation. Xoloz 03:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Internet wrestling community

[edit]

Souds like most internet communities - unencyclopedic, delete --nixie 04:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as site vanity. Site is nn. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and cleanup - notable term in professional wrestling. Proto 09:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 10:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - what website? The Internet Wrestling Community refers to all 'smart' wrestling fans on the internet. Please read the article. Proto 10:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Smark (professional wrestling). McPhail 10:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per McPhail--Scimitar 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 21:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --GrandCru 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm almost ashamed to admit knowing this, but the term is notable and generic among wrestling fans. A redirect to Smark would NOT be in order, because smarks are not necessarily internet-aware. Xoloz 04:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Internet wrestling community shouldn't be confused with e-wrestling. Hedley 18:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Xoloz. — Phil Welch 20:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This denotes a notable section of the wrestling fanbase. It is also not advertising for any particular site or sites, unlike what several other people have said (most likely without reading the article in question). --HBK 23:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. This is not talking about any particular site(s), but rather a Net-aware portion of the overall professional wrestling fanbase. I second Xoloz' comment about smarks not necessarily being Net-aware. Dale Arnett 28 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)
  • Merge with Smark (professional wrestling). "Internet Wrestling Community" is indeed a phrase often used in wrestling to refer to a distinct fan group. Although I suppose not literally every "smark" is internet-aware, it's really hard to imagine there are many who are not, given that the 'Net is both where you would get the news and where you would discuss it, these days. Practically speaking, it's hard to imagine any significant difference between the content of the two entries. Dcarrano 19:52, 28 June 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Child evangelism fellowship

[edit]

Wikispam for the said organisation. Delete --nixie 04:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cyberjunkie TALK 11:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike the do-not-call Act, Wikipedia has no exception for religious spam. -- BD2412 talk 18:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Merge to a general evangalism page. --GrandCru 23:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Tanooki board

[edit]

Wikispam for a messageboard of no note, delete--nixie 04:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 10:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete some online forum CDC (talk) 22:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. Rentastrawberry 21:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Cutler (patent nonsense). Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sniffer cats

[edit]

Nonsense. -- RHaworth 05:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • And patent at that. Strong delete. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 10:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - patent nonsense. --FCYTravis 10:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly speedy for patent nonsense? Firestorm 17:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolute pants jamesgibbon 20:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. but before you do read this bbc news story from 2003 for a real (but non-notable) sniffer cat! -- pcrtalk 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I read it; I speed deleted it as patent nonsense. Cutler 00:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:41 (UTC)

This Comic Sucks

[edit]

Webcomic with an alexa rating 800000+, delete --nixie 05:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, substub, not noteworthy, possible advertising, nearly only an external link. - Mgm|(talk) 08:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 10:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. --Carnildo 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnotable webcomic. Nestea 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It does suck, it does get deleted. Hedley 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:44 (UTC)

The mkh

[edit]

Were a high school band in 2002, delete--nixie 05:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete band vanity. Leithp 09:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 10:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete boring vanity drini ☎ 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Usefullness shows when someone OTHER than the band members write the page. Aleron235 05:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not about very everything. Mykhal 28 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Ted Kowalsky

[edit]

Seems to have written an article for the bureau of treasurys newsletter Financial Connection [4] (also where he works), delete as vanity and self promotion. --nixie 05:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Pburka 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established. Samw 23:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:50 (UTC)

Peopleshow

[edit]

Personal weblog, no Alexa rating, delete--nixie 05:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising for a non notable blog. JamesBurns 10:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - before people start to think of Wikipedia as a place to advertise their personal blogs. Oh, wait, they're already doing that. Never mind. --FCYTravis 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam drini ☎ 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Pilot-to-scale

[edit]

Business neologism coined in 2005, delete--nixie 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Read WP:WIN for official policy on neologisms and slang drini ☎ 21:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Be like dad

[edit]

Band from wales, have made 2 demos [5] delete --nixie 05:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails wiki music guidelines. JamesBurns 10:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- BD2412 talk 18:12, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Keep mum (famous UK WWII slogan be like dad - keep mum). ~~~~ 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity (with no content). --Etacar11 23:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete boring vanity drini ☎ 21:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 09:55 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:36 (UTC)

Basil White

[edit]

Stand up comedian, I'm usure if there are criteria for this kind of performer, but this guy does not seem notable, delete --nixie 05:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's just a vanity page, and seems to be nearly just an external link. Modular 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, website advertising. JamesBurns 10:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy section 1.2.3 --Xcali 22:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • He's all over the web. If he's a comedian, searchers for 'Basil White' get Googled to here, so maybe this is what 'disambiguation' is for? Maybe Wiki should redirect entertainers to their own taxonomy? Mod4Mod 13:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:39 (UTC)

List of Highway designations that coincide termini

[edit]

Potential to become very large, not all that interesting, poorly laid out. Delete --SPUI (talk) 06:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know much anything about the subject, so I'm not voting, but none of your three reasons qualify an article for deletion. If it gets large, so what? We have articles that are huge, and when they get huge, we split them up. Whether you personally find it interesting is irrelevant, somebody might and probably would, and a page that's poorly laid out (this one isn't that bad in any case) is a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. {unsigned by User:Jamyskis}
  • Delete. Could someone please translate the title and the introduction into English? Not notable information. -- RHaworth 07:08, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears to be a page that's listing instances where two highways end at the same spot. It's not really useful, but a bit informative.
    • Whoops, sorry for the unsigned edit. Scott5114 07:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another non-encyclopedic random list from SamuraiClinton. Niteowlneils 09:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 10:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 14:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete (Count was 4 delete, 1 keep, 3 votes by new accounts, and 14 anonymous votes) --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:48 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

A Wilhelm Scream (band)

[edit]

Deletion Nomination Suspected of advertising/original research due to pervasive POV throughout article coupled with vanity nature of page and lack of reference for information that includes multiple quotes attributed to band members. (Listed link to fansite www.mute-print.com is now a browser redirect to the band's official website, the other listed link.) The Literate Engineer 07:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and Cleanup, although a borderline case per WP:MUSIC. Band has toured the whole U.S. and Japan, they've got a slot on the 2005 Warped Tour and their label Nitro Records is not insignificant. Most of the ad-type stuff is straight copy from the label's press release, which may be copyvio. (Sorry, I still haven't gotten it straight whether press releases qualify as copyvio listings.) I like that their music "keeps the listener on the edge of their seats" since hardcore punk audiences are well-known for staying seated during shows. . . . . . . Soundguy99 07:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Band is notable and warrants an article, but this is not it. Aecis 09:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a cut and paste from [6]. Not sure if the anon author has permission. JamesBurns 10:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Does that mean I need to withdraw the deletion nomination and send it over to the Copyright Problems page for them to sort out (after which it's either deleted or gets shipped over to Cleanup for encyclopedizing)? The Literate Engineer 21:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, just place a copyvio tag on it and list it at copyright problems if you feel it violates copyright. Leave the VfD tag on if they decide it isnt. JamesBurns 06:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable band. Pretty good, too. I cleaned it up a bit. --Tothebarricades 00:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as meeting Wikimusic Project guidelines providing it is not a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm changing my vote (withdrawing my nomination?) due to edits by Tothebarricades. The Literate Engineer 02:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (gibberish). Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Machaela

[edit]

Neologism. Hits on google seem to refer to people named Machaela rather than the word. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. High school prank. Aecis 09:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apparently this article was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense by FCYTravis (talk · contribs), but the tag was removed by GhostCow (talk · contribs), with no explanation given. Aecis 09:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not patent nonsense (see the criteria), so it should not be speedy deleted, but it is apparently a joke, so I think we should delete it anyway (via VfD). Sietse 09:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but in that case: is it up to GhostCow to remove the speedy tag? Isn't that something only admins can do? Aecis 12:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Read the tag. It says anyone who disagrees with the speedy may remove it, excepting only the creator. --MarSch 14:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I'll bet 10 wikidollars right now that this is merely an attack page against someone with that name. -- BD2412 talk 14:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • I definately thought it was some nonsense about someone named Machaela. del--MarSch 14:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense and probable attack.-Splash 16:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete. patent nonsense. Firestorm 17:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as gibberish. I couldn't make any sense of it, although the words seemed to be English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

WordClock

[edit]

Vanity page, not notable. Apparently self-promotion by the owner of the Global Language Monitor who wants more links to his site. DELETE. Macrakis 07:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Scholars agree that it is nearly impossible to define what exactly constitiutes [sic] a word (does 'go,' 'goes,' and 'going,' constitute one word or three?). The first half of that is OK, but the sum of the words in the example is one. Chuck in "gone" for good measure and you still have one. Add "goner" ("Two bullets in his brain? He's a goner") and you have two. Pluralize it ("goners") and you still have two. It's a matter of inflectional morphology, baby: you have two lexemes. Linguistically underinformed self-promotion. Delete. -- Hoary 11:02, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, with a few four-grapheme words thrown at Hoary for beating me to it ;). -- Jonel | Speak 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author me [[User:PJJP|PJJP] who is definitely not anonymous and created a PJJP some time ago.

You apparently weren't logged in when you created the article, because the edit is identified by your IP address. --Macrakis 16:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the number of words in the English Language: this is applauded by serious linguists who are tired of the games that are played over words; the number of which can never be cited for the reasons you cite. However academics in other disciplines fail to understand how scientists can estimate the number of stars, galaxies and even atomic particles in the Universe, the number of neurons in a human brain, the number of people on the planet, but cannot provide even a rough estimate of the number of words in the language. The estimate is used worldover as a starting point for discussions. If you feel you must delete, then sobeit; I've had my say. PJJP

Please provide evidence of worldwide usage. -- Jonel | Speak 01:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obviously it is possible to estimate the number of words used in a language, by any of a number of criteria. But that is not the issue in the proposed deletion of the article. The question here is whether your WordClock web page deserves an entry in the Wikipedia. There is a separate discussion on Number of words in English. --Macrakis 16:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 6 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

Paul JJ Payack

[edit]

Vanity page, not notable. All substantive edits from the same anonymous IP address as other pages related to Payack: WordClock, Global Language Monitor, etc. Payack's main activity on Wikipedia appears to be generating pointers to his Web site. The books referenced in the article are all published by vanity presses (iUniverse). Googling "Mythomania Payack" finds only Wikipedia mirrors. Contemporary Authors, which he cites, publishes authors' self-descriptions. DELETE. Macrakis 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Cleanup - His link to the Global Language Monitor may be notable, gets some Google hits - but the vanity press bookcruft can go away posthaste. --FCYTravis 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Pjjp or delete. -- Hoary 10:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • The author me PJJP who is definitely not anonymous and created a PJJP some time ago has had over 400 works published in such well-known and established pubs as The Paris Review (5 works), Boulevard, New Letters (24 works), etc. I am the creator and president of one of the most respected language sites in the world (yourDictionary.com) which has links to thousands of Academic institutions worldwide (check our board of Advisors for a who's who of the world's linguists); while the C is one of the most respected analytical media tools globally. The BBC interviewed me twice in the last six months, CNN over two dozen times, PBS twice in the last ninety days. The vanity pubs you cite (iUniverse) are merely me collecting my previously published works. BTW, Mythomania, was published in '76 and is out of print, hence the mirrors. Check Bowkers for definitive lists of books in print from the past (I have some dozen between '73 and '87 that are now out of print.) My bio appears in scores of pubs of which the Contemp Authors is one of the most accurate because the author can correct it (but it usually runs 2 years behind reality.) As for the number of words in the English Language: this is applauded by serious linguists who are tired of the games that are played over words; the number of which can never be cited for the reasons you cite. However academics in other disciplines fail to understand how scientists can estimate the number of stars, galaxies and even atomic particles in the Universe, the number of neurons in a human brain, the number of people on the planet, but cannot provide even a rough estimate of the number of words in the language. The estimate is used worldover as a starting point for discussions. If you feel you must delete, then sobeit; I've had my say. PJJP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.128.16.20 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2005 Jun 23
Apparently you were not logged in when you edited the article; that makes your edits anonymous. I did look in the Paris Review--using their search function, I could only find one poem by you, published in 1976--or is Peter Payack also you? You are clearly very successful at public relations and have succeeded in getting your Global Language Monitor quoted by the press. You have also succeeded in getting Google to rank your site well, perhaps partly by the linkspammy links in the Wikipedia which you have inserted: they generally point to articles with very little substantive content. The board of advisors of yourDictionary is impressive, I agree. I still think that, as another contributor says, "If you have to write your own article you're not notable." --Macrakis 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re the "previously published works", I can't find them in a few major library catalogs (Boston Public, Library of Congress, Harvard...) I checked. And on bookfinder.com, all the listings of your books are from the vanity presses, none from the original non-vanity publishers. Interesting.
About yourdictionary.com, you say of it that you are "the creator" (my emphasis); according to the Library of Congress record, it was created by Robert Beard; is that incorrect?
About Contemp Authors, the point is that you quote what it says about your work as though it was an outside resource; but in fact you wrote that quote yourself, which seems a bit like what you're doing here on Wikipedia, adding links to yourself in various places.
About "applauded by serious linguists" — can you document this?--Macrakis 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • usefy If you have to write your own article your not notable--Porturology 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. CDC (talk) 14:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable vanity. --Kevin 18:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

FatBottomLine

[edit]

Blatant, first person advertising by a non-notable company. -- RHaworth 08:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete --GrandCru 17:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising for a non notable company. JamesBurns 10:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously an advertisment. I also request that this "company" be taken of of List of United States companies. Rentastrawberry 04:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. The author appears to have removed the advert, and I removed his comment, and now there's only one line. Falcon 18:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with GameFAQs message boards. Merge notice attached to article. Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Lue online

[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 08:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 10:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the LUE section of GameFAQs message boards. — Kjammer ⌂ 17:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move the first paragraph to the article Kjammer suggested and delete the rest as non-notable cruft. Wipe 17:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge w/GameFAQs section. 15:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge into GameFAQs message boards. I'm not sure if this is even worth a passing mention there. - Thatdog 30 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Dunlop Public School

[edit]

I hate to do this, given that I'm a school-inclusionist, but this one is a problem. Technically, it could possibly be speedied - no context at all (where is this school?) - but by listing it here at least there's a chance that someone will be able to do something to stop it being consigned to the viod. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing to a weak keep after the rewrite. But there are enough dissenting votes here to keep the vfd process going, even though the nominator has changed his opinion. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and now to a definite keep. Well done DoubleBlue - feel like tackling a couple o'hundred more school stubs? :) Grutness...wha? 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could spend some time cleaning up and expanding the school stubs in a proper and thoughtful way rather than hurriedly adding what can be found to save an article in VfD. Could we agree to tag poor articles with a {{cleanup-school}} or {{school-stub}} rather than {{vfd}} from here on?, said DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) in a hopeful tone.

*Delete unless it can be expanded upon.-- Cyberjunkie TALK 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to Keep. Great rewrite Double Blue.-- Cyberjunkie TALK 09:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, worthless. Proto 09:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A quick on hunt tells me it seems to be in Ottawa, but I stand by my vote. Primary schools are non-notable. Proto 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as substub unless expanded to have a significant BEEFSTEW score. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • At the time that this article was listed, it was a stub, not a substub. What's more, it was a very expandable stub, as shown by its current state. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sppedy delete no context. Dunc|☺ 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Delete primary school.Dunc|☺ 19:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded the article a little bit (including location and external link). Pburka 13:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Primary school? That's pushing it. What about kindergartens? Delete. Radiant_>|< 14:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, failing that merge somewhere. Thanks Pburka. I can't believe User:Radiant! has never seen a primary school article on wp before. Kappa 14:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course I have. And I still think they're pushing it. Btw if you suggest merging, you might at least give an idea where to. Radiant_>|< 18:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Most schools are not notable. --Xcali 15:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most primary schools aren't notable. --Scimitar 16:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN school.--Nabla 16:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly has context now. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Merge into a school district article. — RJH 17:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ottawa, or into an article on this school district if established, per WP policy on schools lacking individual notability. (Note: not "merge somewhere".) Good to see improvements in context, but there's still nothing indicating any significance beyond thousands of primary schools. Barno 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I knew I could rely on someone else to figure out the best place. Kappa 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 21:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that moving the information from this article to Ottawa would be a bad idea. There are a lot of things in Ottawa, and having separate articles for them makes it easier to find what you're looking for on Wikipedia. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 21:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all non-notable schools Columbia 03:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are notable. -- Visviva 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • All schools are notable? What about that elementary school that I visited in South Dakota? The one that only had four students and one teacher. ‡ Jarlaxle 03:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds interesting. Tell me more. How did such a school come to be? How long has it been there? Was it always so small? Why is located where it is? What kind of students study there? What are the prospects for its survival/expansion? How is a one teacher-school managed? What qualifications does the teacher have? How many years do the students have that same teacher? What school do they graduate to and how different an experience is it? How does the school and teacher raise the funds to survive? What challenges/advantages do they have with so few students? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That's a good point. I was hoping for a response like that. ‡ Jarlaxle 07:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have expanded the article further. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Very nice work. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • All schools are not notable for me. Likewise I feel you need something more then verifiable and NPOV. This last rewrite, while still needing more cleanup, should be a Keep. Vegaswikian 07:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no need to delete it. It's a legitimate article, and there's no waste of paper here. Or room, for that matter. ‡ Jarlaxle 07:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current version of the article is informative and establishes context. Factitious 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks again, DoubleBlue! --Unfocused 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep the article has made some major changes and would make jimbo proud. good job double blue! Yuckfoo 18:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Otserv

[edit]

This was speedied last time I spotted it, but it has been re-added. It is now more comprehensive, but it remains un-encyclopædic and it seems to be an advert. So, delete Cyberjunkie TALK 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This refer to Tibia open server that violates copyrights of CipSoft Gmbh over the original game Tibia since it uses the game original source code, and have not been authorized. Delete Baruk 20:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not true, OTServ does not contain any code written by CipSoft. Everything was written from scratch and no Cip copyright is harmed. But the article itself is not very good. Tliff 22:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually what was written from scratch are the maps but the main source code is the very same used on Tibia (it even uses an old client version of the game), so yes, it violates copyrighted material. and the article is not very good :p. So delete 200.20.118.197 23:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No it does not, I wrote a lot of the code and i have never ever seen a single line of the original Cip cide Tliff 00:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So that would explain why you would never admit that it does violate copyrighted material ... and i dont think the creators of the game (known as the Tibian Gods - Guido, Steve, Durin) and the Senior Game masters would say that it do violate Cipsoft copyright if it didnt. Even that it didnt use (what it does) the game main source code, it uses a modified Tibia client to give players acess to the game. delete 200.20.118.197 28 June 2005 18:43 (UTC)
        • Which shows that you did not understand the topic at all. There is no such thing as an OTServ client. OTServ has no client, and never had. The only thing OTServ does is to provide a server implemenation. (In fact it was stated on the Tutor board by a Senio Gamemaster, that OTServ itself is in fact legal) Tliff 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 10 "deletes", 7 "keeps" and one too ambiguous to call. I'll add my own vote that I do not believe he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.

However, even with my own opinion, this fails to rise to the level of concensus necessary for deletion. I am going to close this as a "no concensus" decision. Rossami (talk) 8 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

Dr Ong Teck Chin

[edit]

This apparently is the principal of a school in Singapore. No further evidence of notability. Aecis 09:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. You don't realise do you? I'll add stuff later, I have been working on other articles, and not my school, but he's the incumbent principal of Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)...for those that don't know, this generally evokes gasps/awes among the Singaporean population, or at least on one's PSLE slip after graduating from primary school (for joy factor at least). Seeing how he's the one that's going to pioneer some radical programs, I think notability IS established. This is way too far, do you mind actually finding which schools happen to be prominent first, aka mentioned constantly in the Straits Times that is read by millions? Maybe you'd actually DO SOME RESEARCH, first? [7] [8] What's next, you're going to start deleting articles on our GRC ministers and electoral candidates just because its not documented on google? This is systemic bias at its worst, and intolerance of something that could change that, as well. Oh, something else, the school is uniquely (legally) a corporation, and he played a hand in that. -- Natalinasmpf 11:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So what? School principals arent inherently notable. Hell, even associate professors and professors of larger universities get deleted on Wikipedia. The school maybe notable, but he isnt.. as I've said countless of times before - being associated with X does not make Y notable. The school isnt up for VfD - he is. JamesBurns 06:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but this is basically the leader of a pioneering programme currently being comitted by the school, being responsible for a host of new things. FYI, he's the school's second principal, and considering generally how its advanced over the past decade, and how those improvements could be attributed to him....-- Natalinasmpf 06:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Calm down, natalina. I understand that you care about this subject, otherwise you wouldn't have created this article. But accusing users of systemic bias and intolerance won't get you far. The issue is not whether the Anglo-Chinese School is notable (I believe it is). The issue is also not whether dr. Ong Teck Chin has played an important role in the history of the school (I'm sure he has). The issue is whether that makes him notable enough to be on Wikipedia. A major problem with this article is that it simply states that Dr. Ong Teck Chin is the principal of the ACS. No mention is made of all the valuable information you have posted here. Also keep in mind that three weeks have gone by since the creation of this article. In that period of time, there have been no serious edits to this article, only some minor copyediting and some stub-tagging. That's it. That of course doesn't make Dr. Ong Teck Chin non-notable, but it doesn't plead in his advantage either. This article doesn't give a shred of proof of notability. Aecis 11:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS. Planning to do something doesn't make someone notable, it's doing something that makes someone notable.)
  • Delete until more information is given. I have no doubt Dr Chin is notable but why have an article that just says he was appointed in 1994. This is an insult to Dr Chin and the readers of Wikipedia. It would have taken very little effort to include the above information. Did you put this sub stub on just so you could put another notch on your belt to say how many articles you had 'written'? --Porturology 11:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wrote it because I didn't want a red link, not to "put a notch on my belt". Note, I boast very little on my user page, maybe counting all the articles you write is something you do. I myself isn't a student of ACS(I), I was expecting Wikipedians who go to that school (which I think there are two or three) to write up about it. I will include more information when I finish writing some other articles first. -- Natalinasmpf 12:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you didnt want a red link then dont create a link. The red links aren't there for article creation - they're there because someone was sloppy enough not to preview their article and remove the link before submitting an article. JamesBurns 06:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete School principal. No claim to notability given in article. Google (76 hits) reveals nothing that couldn't be said of any other school principal on the planet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Did you read anything? Its far more than 76, and furthermore, does "any other school principal" teach in three NATIONAL universities, most notably in the medical faculty, administrate a school like a corporation in addition to the style as an academic institution, be a pioneer of reform in an Asian education system (which is noted for rigidity and high stress) and a principal of the school that won the Odyssey of the Mind competition in 2002, as well as a host of other NATIONAL DISTINCTIONS? CAN YOU ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH FIRST? Furthermore, google is not omniscient - and actually there are a bunch of other pages that mention him, but their robots.txt prevent google from indexing it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Give him a mention on Anglo-Chinese School. --Xcali 15:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Xcali.--Nabla 16:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete and mention in school article, unless article author wishes to expand article at least enough to make a plausible claim of notability for the subject. --FCYTravis 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't you be more patient? I was inevitably going to work on it, you deletionists. And here it is, and more to come, how far does this have to go? -- Natalinasmpf 21:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I must say that this is the best improvement of a VfD'ed article I've ever seen. The article itself is now definitely up to Wikipedia standards. I'm still not convinced of Ong Teck Chin's notability though. I don't know what can convince me either. If this article indeed will be deleted, I hope that the content will first be added to Natalina's user talk page or somewhere else. This is too much of an improvement to go by unnoticed. Aecis 22:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Patient? Well, you've got five days until the vote actually closes to make the improvements. I don't think voting delete until improved is being impatient. Oh yeah, zomg, im a deletionist, I'm eeeeeeeeevil. --FCYTravis 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What about this page? (See bottom). [9] PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEW VERSION, NOT THE OLD.
  • Move to Ong Teck Chin, as having Dr. in the title is, I believe, against our naming conventions.--Scimitar 22:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Ong Teck Chin --GrandCru 23:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. ALSO NOTE ALL THE REFERENCES I HAVE CITED. IS THIS ENOUGH FOR SOMEONE TO BE SENSIBLE AND ACTUALLY REMOVE THE BLOODY "NO REFERENCES" TAG FROM THE PAGE? This is way too far. How many references have I cited, and how many things must I add, and you still want to delete it?! -- Natalinasmpf 22:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know exactly how far a principal has to go to become notable but it seems to me that the article establishes that he is more notable than an average principal. Playing into my judgement, to some degree, is that the author has over 500 edits in the last week and seems to have a very good grasp of what Wikipedia is about. For me to sit here in Chicago and say that a principal is not notable is very difficult. Here, the former head of the Chicago Public Schools was so notable that he ran a very viable campaign for governor in the last Democratic primary. Wikipedia is not paper and I think we have a new bytes to spare for Dr. Chin. DS1953 00:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Ong, you mean. Its a Chinese name, the surname comes first. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 00:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - after schools the flood of teachers - Skysmith 09:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - its hardly a flood of teachers. I mean, its not just any principal either. Did you bother to check out the references? -- Natalinasmpf 09:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, not this article. Modifying vote, could need clarification - Skysmith 09:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Not an average principal, and I really don't think principal's on the whole should be included, but he seems notable. --Scimitar 14:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable principal of notable school. -- Vsion 04:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DS1953, fixing article title as appropriate. Jgm 29 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, I see no birthdates. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 06:17 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep After reviewing print and online documentation, appears to have an unusual constellation of personal achievements including 'Best Actor' in the local Youth Festival, several military awards, a PhD in Biochemistry and a Rhodes scholarship. Autolycus 30 June 2005
  • Delete. I've discovered Wikipedia fairly recently and, coming from Singapore myself, I was surprised and interested to discover this article about Dr. Ong Teck Chin at its consideration for deletion. I agree with what's been said above about being the principal of a well-known school not being sufficient criteria for an entry in an encylopaedia, unless the circumstances are exceptional. I think this article as it currently exists is very biased and reflects the propaganda at this school (and supportive elements in the press) would like people to believe rather than the reality. ACS (Independent) was not the first school in Singapore to introduce a 4-year integrated programme. It was the first local school to take a firm decision to use the International Baccalaureate, but others are considering this too. Deciding to use the IB is not as "pioneering" as this article makes out. It's a major international exam curriculum which has been used at schools around the world for decades, including at a number of the international schools in Singapore. Fundraising is something all schools in Singapore do, and that independent schools particularly try to push. The school's achievements in these areas are not that remarkable. If this article is kept, people associated with all the other leading schools in Singapore (and probably many other schools around the world) will be encouraged to also put trumped-up articles about their principals in this encyclopaedia. Singopo 6 July 2005
  • Checking with IBO shows that this is the first Singapore-system school to be authorised to use the IB Diploma Programme. Suggest you tone down the inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. 'trumped-up') and be more concise as to your grounds of objection. Brythain 6 July 2005
    • I know it's the first local-system school in Singapore to adopt the IB (I already noted that above). But that in itself is not a "pioneering" move. A number of other schools in Singapore are also considering doing so. This article currently implies that Dr. Ong is responsible for doing something revolutionary, and in my opinion that is "trumping-up" his significance. Singopo 6 July 2005
      • It's the first such school to be authorised in Singapore. Not pioneering enough? To clarify, it is the first local-system school in Singapore (known internationally for its education system) to actually offer its students a different terminal qualification from the GCE-Cambridge system (as opposed to 'considering' doing so). Considering that every single one of the other 179 Singapore secondary schools and junior colleges offers GCE terminal qualifications, this is revolutionary enough, surely.Brythain 7 July 2005
        • The school was not the first to start a 4-year integrated programme, just the first to choose to have the students sit IB instead of A-Level exams at the end of it. I DO think that's significant enough to note on the page about the school on Wikipedia. But I DON'T think it's enough to mean that its principal merits an individual page in an international encyclopaedia. Singopo 7 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
  • Delete. The programme is notable, not him. The programme ought to merit a mention in the school's main article, but it's hard to see where he takes credit except as being the principal. The idea might not even come from him; he just implements it because he is the head of the school. Mandel 07:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 01:44 (UTC)

Welding Man (Television)

[edit]

Character from a Flash comic that has no Wikipedia article (which itself doesn't seem particularly notable). Only 6 displayed hits for "Welding Man" "burnt face man". If kept, it should be moved back to Welding Man, since there doesn't seem to be a need for disambiguation, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with television. Niteowlneils 09:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is a notable web cartoon, but does a single character and his corresponding episode summary really need an article? No. Modular 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)y
  • Delete non notable flash. JamesBurns 10:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Blankfaze (no context). Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James murray drake

[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 09:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:02 (UTC)

The droids

[edit]

Non-notable band that hasn't produced an album (just two demos), and based on their website hasn't played any gigs other than a couple dozen last summer in the greater Seattle area. Only 5 displayed hits for "The droids" "twenty cart pileup".D'oh, wrong "The Droids"--Zero hits for"The droids" "adam Nadeau". No allmusic listing. Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Niteowlneils 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable - probable vanity page put up by a band member Jez 13:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. -- BD2412 talk 13:58, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Ashley Penney

[edit]

Blatant vanity. Would loved to have speedied it, but I can't. :( Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately Vanity. Sundar 11:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm embarrassed that I have friends so stupid they thought this was either funny or clever. Someone please remove this nonsense, as it's referring to me. I'm not even sure who's responsible, but I'll suggest they stop attempting to be funny, they aren't. --Ashp 12:15, Jun 28 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all articles - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Zillions games by Karlscherer3

[edit]

Includes (but isn't limited) to the following: Bad Neighbors (Zillions game), Bubbles (Zillions game), Bubbles II, Bump (Zillions game), Butterflies (Zillions game), Cat & Mouse II, Cat & Mouse III, Cleanup (Zillions game), Cleanup II, Cleanup III, Clingon (redirected), Clingon III, Crisscross (Zillions game), Domina 4, Domino Puzzles (Zillions game), Doors III, Doughnuts (Zillions game), Drop (Zillions game), Dropmania, Fruit (Zillions game), Fruit Basket (Zillions game), Fruit II, Harry (Zillions game), Hearts (Zillions game), Jugs (Zillions game), Jugs II, Liars (Zillions game), Marbles (Zillions game), Marbles II, Marbles III, Matchsticks (Zillions game), Matchsticks II, Max Solver, Mem (Zillions game), Mem II, Nutts Solver, Pancakes (Zillions game), Pento Solver, Quadrilles (Zillions game), Rabbits (Zillions game), Row (Zillions game), Saltwater (Zillions game), Spaghetti (Zillions game), Tetrasticks (Zillions game), Triki, and Unplay Chess.

Were mass tagged by User:-Ril- as a speedy for advertising, but doesn't qualify by the criteria. I think that at least th e variants of the same game need to go. Still, not every game is notable in itself. Delete the lot. An article about the collection as a whole is IMO acceptable. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Karlscherer3 has created literally hundreds of articles which can be seen as spam advertising his website. N.b. apart from the 40 or so listed above there are at least 104 articles of this form. This is a place to consider deletion of all of them as a collection. The list is available at Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer

  • Delete wikipedia is not a product catalogue. ~~~~ 10:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, JPat
  • Delete, this is overarticlization. Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Judging by the non-catchy names this is the contents of one of those "1001 Awesome Games for Windows" packs. The pack itself is not notable, let alone the minigames contained within. Master Thief GarrettTalk 10:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All I'm in favour of keeping all released games, even obscure ones. However, freeware mini-games made with the Zillions of Games engine and released online don't really count. If we're being really nice I suppose these could be merged into a list, but even that's pushing it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This user (Karlscherer3) has also edited many puzzle-related articles, on occasion making vanity edits, and re-structuring them to suit how his Zillions games are organised. ~~~~ 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In addition to Zillions-Games related articles, this user (Karlscherer3) also seems to be adding articles suiting his own personal mathematical theories and terminology, rather than standard terms or theories. ~~~~ 11:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All, Karl Scherer is obviously not aware about Wikipedia policy not publish own inventions and original research (Wikipedia:No_original_research). Andreas Kaufmann 12:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete the lot of them as spamvertizing, and send Karlscherer3 a shot across the bow with respect to future activities along these lines. -- BD2412 talk 12:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete all - probably spamvertising, definitely nn. OpenToppedBus - Talk 12:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • "probably advertising" ? how do you know without researching the truth? There is no advertising in this at all, and I make no money witrh this. Please don't spread half-truths or liews without knowing what is going on, thanks. I was asked to write an article for each game by administrator Silke two. I onloy started doing this AFTER it was suggested to me by an administor. If you now want to delete them I suggest, you sit together and agree on your policies. That I document only my own games, has simple reasons like shear workload associated with it etc. I have asked other Zillions game to document their game in Wiki accordingly. Since these are many, I am not willing to document their games. I have doiscussed all that in length with admin Silke2 already, and we agreed on the important subjects.
Regarding maths: yes, some definitions have been invented by me about 20 years ago, since in the area of tilings there was no word for the property of neat and nowhere-neat tilings then.
I'm just going to interrupt here, to point out continuous tiling, and its opposite, dis-continuous tiling. ~~~~ 15:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But this and other definitions have meanwhile (over the last 2 decades) become used more and more amongst people who research in these and similar tilings, see Journal of Recreational mathematics. Special areas of maths have their special language; this makes it much easier to communicate.
Therefore, (with the exception maybe on the article of 'slices'), I think the documentation of everything else is well justified.
The area of tilings and puzzles has undergone quite a lot of blossoming the last two decades (maybe widely unknown to the ordinary public or even to mathematicians who do not read journals like JRM).
Cheers, Karl (unsigned comments by User:Karlscherer3)
Karl, we are discussing both the game articles, and your edits to puzzle related articles. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and you should certainly not be adding your own name and claimed achievements into Wikipedia. See Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer for the full list of articles in question. ~~~~ 13:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to point out the fact that recreational mathematicians are not professional mathematicians. And the terminology of mathematics is generally regarded as being decided by the professional, rather than amateur, mathematicians. ~~~~
  • It doesn't matter whether it is commercial or not, it is still a flood of articles intended to promote the author. Delete. Morwen - Talk 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apartr from that, I have no qualms if you delete or edit any of my stuff; I already said that to Silke2. You admins know better than me what you want in wikipedia and not. I will not take perosnal any of that, I only try to share information and increase knowledge. indeed was not aware that scientif results are not wanted in Wikipedia. I apologize therefore if I did not fulfill your guidelines, but it was unintended. Keep up the great work!!! Karl (unsigned by User:Karlscherer3, tidied by ~~~~)

By the way, Zillions games are without violence, blood splatter, horror,etc, but thinking, intelligence games without time pressure and stress. They represent a much more healthy way to enjoy games that the point-and-shoot arcade games etc. Yes, they deserve more publication because they can help people increase their mind power and teach cids better skill than shooting well. I hope you can see these aspects and appreciate them. Let us foster the good! Karlscherer3 13:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (sorry for not signing properly last time);I dont talk much usually; use my time more for creative work. Karlscherer3 13:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a publicity company, or an arbiter of public morals. Please bear that in mind. ~~~~ 14:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it is generally accepted here that if you or your creations (e.g. the games) are famous, someone else will write an article on them. Hence, they are sometimes called self-promotion, or vanity. Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. --Xcali 15:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Oleg Alexandrov 15:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, and tell the user to stop it.-Splash 16:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all and lay the smack down on User:Karlscherer3 Tom k&e 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them but Tom k&e should be careful not to bite the newbies... If you read his comments, he just seems not to know WP policy to well. Try to be nice. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
He is not a newbie. User:Karlscherer3 is also User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17 (see edits to Turing Machine), and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58. These edits go back to at least 2002. ~~~~ 20:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Being a newbie has more to do with how aware you are of policy than with how long you've been here (apparently a brief time 3 years ago) Slike2 20:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete all Dunc|☺ 19:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, not encyclopedically notable and no potential to become so. Barno 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this discussion refers to zillions games. Please remove from your category or specify articles which are not games. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer. Slike2 20:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, this refers to all of them. The title of this VFD originates from merging two seperate VFDs. ~~~~ 20:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Almost 100% of the edits he has made to puzzle related articles which are not explicitely about the games, are to add links to his zillions website, and introduce terms and ideas he himself (above) admits he made up (i.e. original research), into a field of mathematics that, apart from him and a small group of his (non-professional) friends, does not use them.
Apart from this, his edits are to add things such as "Karl Scherer [i.e. him] solved this maths problem on date X, with the following theorem", which is both original research, and definitely non-neutral, as well as vanity.
The articles will remain in the category for the duration of this VFD. ~~~~ 20:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most of the reasons given for deletion here are based on the assumption that these articles are ads for non-notable games. I agree that those articles should be deleted, but if I vote to delete, will my vote be interpreted to apply to other unrelated articles that I haven't even seen? Factitious 23:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe the assumption was made that they were ads, just that they were non-notable. I think it's stupid to delete clearly factual information about anything, no matter how obscure, but most people seem to disagree. Unfortunate. Slike2 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In that case, Extremely strong keep on articles that are not zillins games. This vote is clearly marked 'zillions games', and all examples given are zillions games. There has been nothing on this page to indicate that some of the articles listed have not been created by other people, edited by other people, and so on. It would be a complete violation of process if an admin were to delete them. Slike2 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The other non-zillions-games articles are attempts by Karl Scherer to promote his own personal categorisation and terminology. These things are not notable usage, mathematicians and others do not use his terms. Also, many of them are simply an attempt to justify adding all zillions games as links - by splitting the games up into very small categorisations, creating an article for each category, and then adding external links to the games in each article. It is a massive abuse of Wikipedia. This is why I am including them in the deletion and urge an Extremely strong delete (n.b. I have voted elsewhere, so this vote should not count in addition to my earlier vote). ~~~~ 07:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here, it sounds like you're saying "delete everything listed"; below, you exclude pre-existing articles like tiling. So it seems vital to clarify the intent, and to ask what care has been taken to separate edits from new article creations. In any case, do we have prior history with Karl Scherer that suggests intentional bad behavior? He claims he was asked to create articles by an administrator (presumably Slike2, misspelled); is that disputed, or was it misunderstood, or what? Yes, we need a massive deletion of all the separate games articles, perhaps accompanied by a merging of the content into a single article. Yes, we need to educate the author about what's expected in Wikipedia. What I see is a somewhat misguided attempt to contribute, not a deliberate attempt to spam or to distort mathematics and games terminology — unless I hear facts to the contrary. But this proposed vote is not clearly enough limited in scope. It strikes me as excessive on the part of -Ril-, more of an angry rant than a reasoned response. In fact, with a little guidance Karl might happily do most of the cleanup work himself, sparing the need for this debate and vote. Otherwise, Niteowlneils seems to have it about right. (And yes, I've heard of Pollyanna and read Candide.) KSmrq 10:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you check the category, you will see that tiling is not in it(, and never was). ~~~~ 21:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check his talk page, you'll see our discussion, and his completely reasonable and polite responses. And -Ril-'s not-quite-so-reasonable comments. He had his games linked from one of the pages, I informed him that editors don't tolerate external links of that sort, and that they would only make sense if there was an article about them directly. I also pointed out that some people don't like to have what they deem is 'minor' information in wikipedea, and noted that he should try to put them in one big article. I doubt his intent was to advertise, only to inform people about the things he knew the most about and was most enthusiastic about. I find this whole process sad to see, it should have been handled in another way first, considering the user's positive attitude. Slike2 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is really sad in reading his talk page is that he seems to have begun creating all the Zillions pages because he believes that's what you recommended! Yet, despite that, -Ril- launches an assault. Karl claims to have a doctorate in mathematics, which is prima facie evidence that he may be a bit strange (said tongue in cheek), but not that he is unwilling or unable to place nicely with others. Yes, I believe adding numerous links on WP pages to one's own work shows a certain lack of professional and social awareness; it is inappropriate, disturbing, and creates a bad impression. We can only hope our own gaffes are treated more helpfully and with more compassion. KSmrq 16:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you check the contributions he made before that, you will note that almost 100% of articles he created are either
(a) articles describing a classification which he created, and is not used by professional mathematicians. I.e. it is original, and very non-standard, non-notable, research. or
almost 100% of which list many zillions games as external links
exactly as if the entire set of articles is designed to create enough articles to spread the games accross, so that all of them can be listed without there being a huge list of external links in any one article. This is an appalling abuse of Wikipedia. It seems to be designed to function as a zillions games catalogue, for spreading accross Wikipedia mirrors, and causing google-bombing. If this is the case it is to be condemned in the strongest terms.
(b) are articles describing friends of his, which is also original research, not NPOV, and non-notable
On top of that, many of his edits to pre-existing articles are to insert claims that he (i.e. Karl Scherer) has solved such-and-such a maths problem. Which is (a) not verified, (b) not NPOV, (c) original research (as it is him doing the insertion), and (d) a massive vanity edit
This users edits over the past 2.5 years constitute nothing but these, and consequently I can see him only as a massive problem. His behaviour is an abuse of Wikipedia, and even a newbie in their first edit would know that they aren't supposed to behave like this. ~~~~ 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I linked to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on your talk page, obviously you havn't read it, which is too bad. Read what KSmrq said. You have absolutely no reason to act as you are acting, considering his polite replies to even your criticism. What are you basing your hostility on? An explanation would have sufficed, instead of an immediate rfd and the crap you left on his user page. Slike2 22:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The indents were getting a bit deep for me, so I'm responding to -Ril- at the same level as my previous comment. We agree on two key points. (1) Yes, his edits look a bit egocentric. (2) The Zillions proliferation is over-the-top. We also agree that if he is deliberately google-bombing that is abusive and to be condemned. We disagree that such is the case. We also disagree, apparently, about the best means to resolve these difficulties. Read his own words on his talk page; they do not support your position that his behavior is a manifestation of evil intent. Nor can I agree that "a newbie in their first edit would know". By all means, we seem to be reaching a massive concensus that the behavior and its artifacts need correcting, so some action is called for. However, at this point we do not have concensus that we need an overreaching deletion to accomplish this, nor do we have consensus that the person (not the behavior) is to be attacked. Can we please first try educating the guy? After all, what kinds of social skills can we expect of someone living in a country with more sheep than humans (tongue firmly in cheek)? Also, I understand (and sympathize) that you are upset because the boor spilled red wine on your beautiful white Wikipedia carpet; but please turn down the flames, at least reserving boldface for votes. The mess can be cleaned up, and we might as well be civil in doing it. It was a very good catch spotting the problem contributions; it's a pity they couldn't have been corrected sooner and more calmly. KSmrq 05:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Red wine stains are easy to remove from a white carpet. Due to useful feature of chemistry, if poured on top immediately, they can be removed by white wine. ~~~~ 10:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KSmrq, could you please remove the referance to red wine above? It is incredibly superfluous, yet it's apparently making it incredibly difficult for -Ril- to acknowledge every single point you've made in your edit. Slike2 17:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The references are a metaphor rather than superflous nebulosity. ~~~~ 23:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He said the equivelant of "I understand that think he's a boor and messed up something you like, but please stop being so rude, and reserve boldface for votes", and you answered with "the solution to the problem is a vfd", which is not a reply to any part of his message. Yes, fine, you think this deserves a vfd. That's not his point. His point is, if I may offer a blunt translation - or rather, lets just say that this is my point - considering Karlscherer3's reasonable responses, an alternate solution may have been to talk to him first, and that even if you do decide to vfd some of his articles, there's no need to be a righteous bastard about it. Slike2 01:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Curious, how perceptions differ. The white wine suggestion made me smile. I took it as a tacit acknowledgement of my diagnosis, and a hopeful sign of a more productive tone. At the end of the day, style and personality aside, we all want a better Wikipedia. Red wine is a metaphor, and (at the risk of speaking for -Ril-) white wine might be taken as an alternative to ripping out the carpet. Is either of you two (Slike2 or -Ril-) experienced Wikipedians willing to guide Karl through the nuances of what is and is not an appropriate contribution? Shall we first give him a chance to clean up his own mess, perhaps also assisted by a targeted delete of only the Zillions sprawl, leaving him to back out the vanity edits? (And I use "vanity" in the Wikipedia sense, with no interpretation of user intent.) That would seem to agree with the opinions collected in this discussion, and let us return to building better pages! KSmrq 2005 June 28 08:11 (UTC)
It doesn't seem curious to me :) My expectations of -Ril-'s good will being not as high as yours may account for the difference. In regards to the metaphor, I fear it's lost on me - I have no idea which action correlates with ripping out the carpet, and there seems to be no mention of "having the spiller himself clean out the carpet" (and it wouldn't seem to be red wine, because these 'stains' are really quite easy to get out). I don't know how well your suggestion would work at this point, but asking him to clean it is worth a try, though I doubt it'll do much: he seems to have been discouraged to the point of leaving [10], thanks to -Ril-'s absolutely innapropriate behaviour (I'm not talking about the vfd). I'm afraid I'm no mentor as to wikipedia policy, as I've stated before. If someone could name all the policies that apply, I would be able to, well, copy them to his user page. Slike2 28 June 2005 11:47 (UTC)
I am personally of the opinion that Karl Scherer is still here, but using a sockpuppet. Not being a Developer, I am unable to test my strong suspicion as to who it is, I have asked for a check to provide potential evidence, but it has not yet been carried out as far as I know. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
Could you fill us in? Slike2
Of course, I could. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them, not what this place is for jamesgibbon 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh crumbs, what an accumulation of adcruft. Send this in and clean the whole lot out. Anthony Appleyard 21:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all! I'm afraid most of the games don't have any potential to once become known and famous enough to give enough material for good articles about all of them. — Pt (T) 22:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete These are not notable now, and will be singularly non-notable in ten years. One thing an encyclopedia is about is posterity. These games are not worthy. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Notability not established. — Ливай | ☺ 05:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Notability not established. JamesBurns 06:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all game articles and any pure original research topical articles; cleanup other affected topical articles to reduce inappropriate original research and self-promotion of contributor's personal website and projects. Niteowlneils 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hedley 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all drini ☎ 21:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot. --W(t) 23:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about Puzzling object? There could be arguments for its deletion, but it doesn't look like advertising, and being created by someone who made many deletion-worthy articles does not qualify it for deletion. I think we should be careful about mass deleting articles without checking whether they all should actually be deleted. Perhaps this could be limited to the (many) articles mentioning Zillions? I haven't looked through the hundreds of articles being discussed here, so I'm not sure what the best way of sifting through them would be, but I am concerned that a few legitimate ones will be deleted because of the others. Factitious 23:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It has been created by someone who wishes to promote his own categorisation of puzzles. Look at the "mechanical class:XYZ" aspect. There is very little else in content terms. ~~~~ 07:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a useful article, yes. However, it is not an advertisement, nor is it about a game, and the arguments on this page simply do not apply to it. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tiling is one of the articles tagged with this VfD notice. Is anyone seriously proposing that it be deleted? That article has been around for years, and contains very useful information. Please, limit this to Zillions games. Factitious 00:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. No it isn't. Please look carefully. It is a different tag, indicating that the Tiling article has been subjected to much editing by Karl Scherer and needs to be cleaned up and verified in consequence. It is also a different colour (the deletion tags are light blue, the one at Tiling is a form of dark purple). ~~~~ 07:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't check the tag carefully enough on that one. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I support the deletion of Text based adventure game, because it provides no information not already present in Interactive fiction. It should be made into a redirect. However, none of the delete votes above seem to apply to it. It's not an ad, original research, a neologism, or even non-notable. It should not be included in this VfD listing. Factitious 00:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: removed Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game (suggested merge), Puzzle jewelry/Puzzle box (both may be googled, and images of both may be found). Others that are clearly exempt from this vfd may exist. Slike2 02:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:I have put Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game back into the category. They duplicate material at Adventure game, to suit Karl Scherer's own categorisation. ~~~~ 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Many people on this page appear to have been voting based on the misconception that the pages under discussion were ads for Zillions games. It is unreasonable to try to make those votes apply to Text based adventure game. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I've removed them again, putting the non-redundant part of the articles into the adventure games discission section. Slike2 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE ALL. I've read about one third of them and can't stand it any more. First year programming assignments at best. bjd
  • I vote to delete the articles about Zillions games. I vote to keep the other articles under consideration here, until they can be discussed on their own terms. When that happens, I'll probably vote to delete or merge them, depending on the case. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the games. Abstain on the others. — P Ingerson (talk) 13:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. My opinion as a mathematician is that Tetrad (tiling) is non-notable / original research, and that Karl Scherer doesn't pass the professor test. (By the way, the definition of "Tetrad" in the opening paragraph of that article is wrong. Boundaries have measure 0.) dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)
  • Comment: Puritile and Pure tiling fall in the same category. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mechanical puzzle, Topological puzzle, Routefinding puzzle, Disentanglement puzzle, etc., seem to be legitimate topics. They ought to at least have a separate VfD discussion, since they weren't listed explicitly above. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)
    • The 3rd paragraph of the 3 that introduce this VfD is N.b. apart from the 40 or so listed above there are at least 104 articles of this form. This is a place to consider deletion of all of them as a collection. The list is available at Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer. The first 4 words of the first paragraph are Includes (but isn't limited), before listing 40 of the articles. This clearly indicates that this VfD includes all the articles in the category. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)
  • Delete all "He who talks doesn't know. He who knows doesn't talk." --Lao Tzu i.e. Self-promotion is not neccessary for work of true notability. Therefore, Wikipedia:No original research. Psora 29 June 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Comment this VfD has been open for 6 days now. I thought they ended after 5? There seems to me a clear majority for deletion of all the articles from the votes cast so-far. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • Comment N.b. the current voting state is 1 to Keep, 1 to Keep the non-game articles but delete the rest, 1 to abstain about the non-game articles, but delete the rest, and 30 to delete all the articles. This constitutes a 90% majority to delete all. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)
  • Well, in case it doesn't yet -- Delete all. Uttaddmb 30 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)
  • Delete all --Wetman 29 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in a deletion review, if it does not; or below this section.
I have created a list of the articles that were in the category (which is now empty as the articles were deleted), so that this VfD archive may be understood. The list is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games/list. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Eugene Scott. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Betty Ann Frazer

[edit]

High school sweatheart of television evangelist. Delete. (see below) - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Gene Scott, her ex-husband who does have an article. 209.106.0.250 15:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since they married: Merge into Eugene Scott (we do have an article, just differently named - that's why I didn't find it before.) - Mgm|(talk) 21:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Blikey

[edit]

Article reads in full: This is a person of a double ethnic minority as a member of the travelling community and of dark skin. So for a start, it looks like a dicdef. However, searching Google for both "blikey" and any one of "traveller", "travelling", "traveler", and "traveling" brings no evidence whatever that it is so used. Hoax or neologism; delete. -- Hoary 10:47, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - No context, no hope of becoming encyclopedic. Word gets all of 160 Google hits. --FCYTravis 10:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Moreover, I think you'll find that the great majority of these 160 are irrelevant. -- Hoary 13:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Comment: This looks like a portmanteau of "black" and "pikey". Kappa 14:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy per FCYTravis --Xcali 15:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del--MarSch 16:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:07 (UTC)

Global Language Monitor

[edit]

Advertising for website. WP is not a web directory. -- Hoary 10:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising. Michael 12:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising and per nomination.-Splash 16:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. humblefool® 00:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Macrakis 16:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 01:04 (UTC)

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

[edit]

No real content other than the list of chapters which cannot possibly be each described as a section given time. Also it arguably falls under What Wikipedia is not since it's akin to a list of facts or links. But even without the TOC list, the book does not seem especially noteworthy (~5000 Googles). Master Thief GarrettTalk 10:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the contents and redirect the title to the book's author Robert Spencer until someone is prepared to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about the book. But in case that counts as a keep vote under VfD rules, my vote is delete the title too. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are 199 articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the author article is worthy of retention, then it is a fairly natural progression to wikify his book titles. These red links then cry out for articles. It would be silly for these to be redirects back to the author page. That's how Wikipedia grows, or at least one of the ways. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for listing its article here; in fact it is a very bad reason. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    The reason I'm voting delete is that the author of this article has created a bunch of POV stubs, including only publishers' blurbs, chapter lists, sometimes quotes from the authors, and pictures of the book covers. They're free advertising for the publishers and hopelessly POV data dumps: violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. They could be made to conform to NPOV, but it would be a lot of work for someone. It therefore makes sense to redirect the title to the author's page until an editor actually wants to write a neutral article about the book. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    How is a contents list of a book in breach of our POV policy? Granted the chapter titles reflect the POV of the book, but that is an entirely different matter. I cannot see any merit to this argument, I'm afraid. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is POV because it is lacking a paragraph critiquing the views in the book. Radiant_>|< 12:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    It's the lack of any balancing material that's the problem. If it were a neutral article that just happened to list the TOC at the end, it would be okay, but when the TOC's the only thing, and the chapter titles are things like "A Muslim by any other name blows up just the same" (this is from one of the Ann Coulter titles), there's a serious POV issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that an article is POV is not a valid reason to list here. If it is impossible for it ever to become NPOV, that would be different. This is not the case here. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Hence my vote to blank the page and redirect the title to the author's page until someone wants to create an encyclopedic article about the book. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia.--CltFn 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    CltFn is the author of these pages. I agree that good book pages are essential to Wikipedia, but you're not writing good ones. In fact, you're not writing anything. You're copying publishers' blurbs and essentially producing free commercials. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete content, for starters, since copy/pasting a table of contents is copyvio, not to mention unencyclopedic. Redirect to author for the time being. Radiant_>|< 12:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • (by which I mean that an article about the book would be encyclopedic, but this is not that article, or indeed an article at all). Radiant_>|< 12:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep but also cleanup. WP needs an article, not a table of contents. Book is certainly notable, with a noteworthy author, a real publisher, and a decent Amazon rank (~15,000). The book itself might be POV, but there's no reason that an article on it must be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article on the author, for whom the creation of books on Muslim bogeymen seems to be a cottage industry. -- Hoary 13:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete the table of contents listing for starters. Sadly, I believe it's notable, but I'll see about adding some useful content. Keep the book.--Scimitar 14:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the book. Kappa 14:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, besides the controversial content, and non-notability, the article is atrociously written. ~~~~ 14:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup by first losing the list of chapters then providing a more lengthy summary of the central argument. Valid encyclopaedia topic. David | Talk 14:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the contents, merge anything useful that's left into Robert Spencer, and redirect. — Ливай | ☺ 15:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect until some decent content appears. Saswann 16:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly, Keep notable book, let the process work. Jgm 16:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article as unencyclopedic. If someone wants to write an encyclopedia article about this book, that would be fine, but I see no benefit either for them or for Wikipedia in having this lying around. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable book. Capitalistroadster 17:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, should be cleaned up, not deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep if article is cleaned up and expanded. --Alabamaboy 18:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep without any "if"s. There is nothing to cleanup. It is vanilla neutral in its shortness. An even in this form it is informative: the article clearly says what the book about and what opponents think about it. And of course it is notable, since it causes heated discussions, not to say about over 5,000 google hits. mikka (t) 20:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Look at the article history to see when it was not always so. David | Talk 10:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • However, it could be argued that an article that could be improved so quickly should never have been listed here at all. Filiocht | Talk 12:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL! Yes, but that would require that me to have incredible foresight which, I'm afraid to say, I do not have (as exemplified by my exam I am supposed to be sitting today). And this is probably the first "prime Vfd candidate" that's changed so quickly after my nomination, so I didn't exactly have any track record to go by to "give it a chance". But I'll be happy with whatever the Vfd brings. Indeed in many cases a Vfd is the only way to get an article improved, whereas before (and, as a rule, after) it languishes in mediocrity for all of (forseeable) eternity. Master Thief GarrettTalk 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly jamesgibbon 21:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested by SlimVirgin. Lists of chapter titles are not articles on books. Grace Note 23:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to redirect because when articles are redirected they tend to have a harder time expanding, IMHO. Falphin 00:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable book. JamesBurns 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. --MikeJ9919 15:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please do not let your personal biases sway your votes that is not the wiki way Yuckfoo 18:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have seen MUCH worse things on a random jaunt through the wiki, and i recall seeing this on major news outlets a while back
  • Keep Although critical comments are urgently called for. PatGallacher 2005 June 28 16:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:10 (UTC)

David Sankidze

[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted

unsourced, zero google-hits.--Fenice 11:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax.  Grue  16:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 23:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Leon Goldstein High School for Sciences

[edit]

Not enough information to justify an article, non-notable, delete if not expanded Proto 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, covering high schools is necessary to coverage of education, and this article establishes even greater notability than that of a typical high school. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 14:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Covering high schools is *not* necessary to coverage of education. If I want to understand education in some country I do not want to read a thousand articles on similar schools but one that shows a global picture of the subject, probably pointing to a few notable good/bad examples.--Nabla 16:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
      • But what if you want to know about education in a particular town? Kappa 02:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Look at the town's article? Many (most?) of them don't even mention the existence of a school. Why? Maybe because it is not relevant for the towns article as it is just another school. Yet the main point is we have to stop at some level, as the only way to have the whole picture on education (or anything, for that matter), is to have an article on every thing and every one involved. Every building, every teacher, every student, every household, etc.. They are all important, they are all related. I bet you don't want that, so we simply disagree on where to draw the line, which is fine by me.--Nabla 15:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa, though it seems that the main page should be the one without the "The" and not a redirect. DS1953 16:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually the school site includes the "The" in the name but other sources do not. So maybe the article has the correct name. Vegaswikian 07:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless some notability is established, being just another school is not enough.--Nabla 16:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep — more notable than many of the umpteen train station articles, &c. — RJH 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems prestigious enough (this is the kind of article that should be kept rather than just "X is a comprehensive school in Y. Amazingly it has pupils"). Try to identify some old boys though. Dunc|☺ 18:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa, but retitle per DS1953. --Unfocused 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 21:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks fairly notable. As a comment on the "not enough information to justify an article" concern, the wiki way of fixing that problem is to improve the article by adding information. Which is, of course, exactly what other people have done. Factitious 09:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep but please fix the double redirects Yuckfoo 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well written and referenced article on a notable school. I think I've seen small articles in print media about this school so I'm sure it can expand. JYolkowski // talk 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A good start. CalJW 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP NSR 1 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Waterproofing

[edit]
  • There's a lot more to be done here.

Dicdef. Couldn't really be expanded, I don't think. smoddy 12:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • At present a dicdef yes. But I think there is some possibility for expansion (methods of waterproofing for instance). I will vote a weak keep on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for same reasons as listed in the vote above. Jtkiefer 12:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extreme potential for expansion. I wonder how many patents have been granted in this field. Kappa 14:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'd be willing to bet that a lot of waterproofing patents have been issued. The USPTO grants many patents, many of which should be invalidated because of prior art, basic scientific error, technical infeasibility, or simply not being legitimate subject for patents (e.g. basic software interaction methods). Nonetheless, such a search would support the implied point that waterproofing is an area widely considered significant and worthy of attention. Meaningful things beyond a dicdef can be written and verified. Keep and expand. Barno 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Sjakkalle. 209.106.0.250 15:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, can certainly be expanded but would need a tag to encourage this. Being of technical mind, I can see an opening for ingress protection for example. -Splash 16:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Definite potential for expansion such as methods of waterproofing and applications. Capitalistroadster 18:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Capitalstroadster. Falphin 00:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 06:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and expansify Yuckfoo 18:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

User:Panda of doom

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place to put comparison tables of cable services, even in User:. smoddy 12:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete after reviewing page, Wikipedia is not a place to post such material, since none wikipedic it may fall under personal spaces provision and definately of questionable copyright status. Jtkiefer 12:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia isn't a webhost. These are the user's only edits and (s)he hasn't shown any interest in the actual project. Maybe a welcome and a clarification about our goals is in order. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. only edits to own user page. Dunc|☺ 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Carnildo 21:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this attempt at free hosting and advertising. humblefool® 00:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Attempt at free hosting? This is a page trying to help NZ'ers get the best deal for internet possible. I have checked the copyright also and nothing questionable. Simply relaying information in a easier form than trying to contact every ISP. Get over it. (Unsigned note by User:203.173.144.192/User:NZ User)
    • Which makes its commercial advocacy. Delete - Skysmith 09:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a webhost. JamesBurns 06:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Wovle

[edit]

Marketing for Woolworths in Australia. A very odd article, perhaps it is an in-company review page? I couldn't find a copyvio, though it does feel like one. smoddy 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if this is advertising or not, but there already exists an article for Woolworths Limited, so this one is really redundant. I dunno if "Wovle" is a slang term for Woolworths or something. If it is, a simple redirect should do the trick (I don't think there's any information in the article that needs preserving). If not, delete. -- Captain Disdain 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick delete is more aproporate. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag. smoddy 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Exterminate! as soon as possible. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del I have no idea what a wovle is and this article doesn't contain that string. --MarSch 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm Australian, the word "wovle" isn't used at all, reads like an advertising screed.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Levocetirizine

[edit]

Tagged for speedy, and I will grant that this is a one-sentence substub. But there is one piece of information in the article: Levocetirizine is an antihistamine. Remember, we keep articles of the type "xxx is a village in yyy" without blinking. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Do we have a list of antihistamines? I'll try to expand it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because: 10 400 Google hits; Levocetirizine is an important step in the development of antihistamines. It's a fairly new substance. If it doesn't merit an article of its own, merge with cetirizine or something. Wipe 12:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable antihistimine. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 14:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wipe. 209.106.0.250 15:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a massive expansion takes place very soon. I don't think one sentence articles are useful in the majority of cases, and we don't really lose anything by deleting them. --Xcali 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How big would a "massive expansion" be? Either an article is one sentence long or it isn't. Right now this one isn't since I rewrote it. Wipe 19:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll take that one. Keep for now. --Xcali 21:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable drug. Capitalistroadster 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — notable. — RJH 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable pharmaceutical. JamesBurns 06:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Jill Pike

[edit]

A co-host of a local talkshow. This must have been written by a great fan. Delete even though Jill Pike is a ravishing goddess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, we all know that the world could use more ravishing goddesses, but delete anyway. --Scimitar 16:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. If only all of us ravishing goddesses could have our own pages... ;) --Etacar11 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 13:58 (UTC)

Inner mucosa

[edit]

This article is redundant. Foreskin already covers the topic.

  • Keep, Foreskin doesn't even mention the word. Kappa 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes it does. See the very first line: "In humans, the foreskin, a part of the penis, is a double-folded tube of skin and mucous membrane" - Jakew 15:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • None of that says "Inner mucosa" or explains what it means. Kappa 16:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written article about a piece of anatomy which is not covered in this detail elsewhere. Pburka 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable anatomy. Also, nomination is presently unsigned, and thus, presently invalid. Xoloz 04:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

Sheeth

[edit]

Delete - Vanity page. Hardly anything on Google. In any case, badly written and POV MyNameIsClare talk 12:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn band vanity. Nothing in allmusic. --Etacar11 23:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete and then redirect → Lap dance --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 01:52 (UTC)

Lap Dancer

[edit]

Lap Dancer is a solo noise project originally from America, but currently operating out of Ibaraki,Japan. Uh-huh. Ibaraki is also spelled Ibaragi; Google gives as the total number of hits for the string "lap dancer" together with either "ibaraki" or "ibaragi": zero. Unverifiable. Some more googling around for "lap dancer" together with such buzzphrases as "solo noise project" (which I think means "guy with a laptop") takes us here, which tells us that "Lap Dancer is the solo project of Jamie Grefe" and also seems to say that he has a grand total of zero albums so far. Doesn't appear to follow Notability and Music Guidelines; delete. -- Hoary 13:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete and then recreate as a redirect to lapdance. -- BD2412 talk 18:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • No vote The Myspace link isn't 100% clear on whether he has releases or not. He has music available for download through a Brazilian label, so that would suggest a release. With the move by many indie groups to Internet distribution of music, the actual release of a CD is no longer IMO an indicator of notability. That said, if kept the article should be renamed Lap Dancer (band) and the actual phrase lap dance be redirected to Lap dance. 23skidoo 18:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then create the obvious redirect. humblefool® 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Lege

[edit]

Well, google tells me that lege and "Irish slang" gets 2 hits, which seem unconnected, and as far as I can tell this is either someone's private term or in very limited usage. Also there is some question as to whether it is even encyclopedic. Delete Scimitar 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It's all true, I tells ya. Leave it be.
  • Dictionary definition, even if true. Delete. Morwen - Talk 13:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's apparently a Latin word, a Romanian word, a Norwegian word, a Danish word, and a common abbreviation for "legislature" — all good fodder for Wiktionary:lege. There doesn't appear to be a person/place/concept/event/thing by this name to rewrite about. Delete. Uncle G 15:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary anyone? - Mgm|(talk) 21:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary already has it, in better shape than this, and had it before Wikipedia did. I refer you to the interwiki links given above. ☺ Uncle G 23:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Cutler (patent nonsense). Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uli-the-Grasso

[edit]

The article itself is clearly rubbish/vanity and the link is broken. Although there are a fair number of google/yahoo hits, I couldn't really establish any notability. Deleti-the-pago ? Bobbis 14:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. This looks like user page material, so I would vote to userfy but the original contributor was an anon. — Ливай | ☺ 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - he's a man from Germany is about as little a context as it is possible to have. -Splash 21:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Does this make us spooks of the new world order? --Etacar11 23:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed delete - patent nonsense - done Cutler 00:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Urban75

[edit]

The subject of a seemingly endless revert war, is this really worth keeping? Smileyrepublic 14:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article was listed for deletion earlier this month. The deletion discussion was closed here ten days before this nomination, and the result was keep.
  • Abstain (for now). How popular is this site? Is the user community as large as say Something Awful or the Straight Dope Message Board? A website has to show some serious notability to be included in the Wikipedia, and after a cursory look at the site I see a lot of activity going on, and 190,000 Google hits is nothing to shake a stick at. Also, we have to consider that if it has a really large user base, this article is likely just going to keep getting re-created, especially if people are already warring over it. — Ливай | ☺ 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as per Mgm below. — Ливай | ☺ 03:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa rank ~64,000. (For comparison, the sites mentioned above have a rank better than 7000.) A large portion of the Google hits come from the site, blogs, or from/about unrelated sites of similar names (urban75.org, urban75.net). --Xcali
    • Comment - urban75.org and urban75.net are part of the same site. Smileyrepublic 16:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - As I said on the previous VfD, Emotion Eric, which also has an entry on WP, has an Alexa rank of 98,544, much much lower than Urban75. Should that be therefore deleted too? Thenugga 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a perfectly good article about an encyclopedic website. It's difficult to take a second nomination seriously when it's barely a week after the first was closed. If there were an "endless revert war", this suggests that the article should be protected, not destroyed. As it happens, there doesn't seem to be significantly more revert warring than on comparable articles. However, the nominator, User:Smileyrepublic, seems to have been engaged in a pointless edit war in the past day or two. I'm issuing a warning to him to stop. He's gone way over the 3RR, and I've issued a formal (final) warning on his user talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll assume good faith and think the nominator was unaware of the previous vfd. But I don't see how another discussion is warranted so short after the earlier vfd. - Mgm|(talk) 21:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per TonySideway. Falphin 00:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep for integrity of process -- renomination too soon. Xoloz 04:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: wasn't this page on VfD short time ago (and survived)? Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Renominated 10 days after we decided, 13 to 4 (disregarding sockpuppet/anon votes), that it should be kept. We should go ahead and speedy-keep this article, before we end up with a flood of vandalism on the VfD like we had last time. --Idont Havaname 23:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; encyclopaedic, survived recent vote. Warofdreams 28 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 13:35 (UTC)

I'm So Crap, Sam Arksey, Dominic Kesterton, Dan Ashurst

[edit]

Delete vanity page, or if not,certainly non-notable. Also includes three 'band members' pages created at same time which should enjoy the same fate. Naturenet 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all these articles, including band members. --Scimitar 15:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable garage band. I got 7 unique Google hits for emo "I'm so crap", all irrelevant. — Ливай | ☺ 15:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - combined vfd's for efficiency, as this was possible without disrupting votes already cast (Ливай | ☺ had voted to delete each individually). -- BD2412 talk 15:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea! Naturenet 20:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, by the way. -- BD2412 talk 15:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete all nn. -Splash 16:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 06:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 13:38 (UTC)

Comberton antiques and interiors

[edit]

(+ Redirect pages which point to it.) This seems like an advertisement for a non-notable small business. Delete Scimitar 15:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertisement/non-notable company. I got 44 unique Google hits for "Comberton antiques", and most of the hits seem to be either directories of antique businesses or directories of local businesses of the region. — Ливай | ☺ 15:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. -- RHaworth 17:29, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Ben Leard

[edit]

phonebook entry Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:43, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • delete Appears to be a very short vanity article for some college-level American football player. Dunc|☺ 18:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Cutler (patent nonsense). Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harris Envelope, Webber Envelope, Wikipedia:Webber Envelope, McGee formula

[edit]

Neologisms describing the same sort of thing, all by the same author. 0 relevant Google hits. --Xcali 15:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. KFP 15:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all - non-notable silliness. -- BD2412 talk 16:05, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete all - no relevance - silliness . Alf 16:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism. Delete, candidates for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have speed deleted the lot. - patent nonsense Cutler 00:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Amaja Inti

[edit]

I beleive this is a fake article. Google search returns no entries. Jgritz 16:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you think she is fake? She is real, she is simply forgotten by the Spanish, she was a woman, and the Spanish didn't know in a strange way and weird circumcances she was a Sapa Inca, this is a way to get her in the history books...

She may be perfectly real, but Wikipedia needs proof. Perhaps if you offer some, the VfD will be dismissed entirely. --Jemiller226 02:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what means VfD?

VfD = Votes For Deletion. You'll have to come up with some evidence of this person to enable this article to remain. I checked my copy of "Conquest of the Inca" last night, and found no mention of this person. "Inti" is quechuan for sun god. There is also a festival called Inti Raymi, but no Amaja Inti. Maybe create an account and put this on your user page people can read your opinions, as opposed to an article. Jgritz 08:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will make a account, tomorrow, because today I'm really busy.

  • No Google hits for "Amaja Inti", except Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article is extremely badly written. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as nonsense. In the unlikely case the article is not a hoax (the name may be misspelled as well), it should be started again from the scratch. - Mike Rosoft 16:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete This may be real; I'm no expert at Incan theology... --Adun 05:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is real, if he/she would make a fake article he/she woulden't bother to answer on this page again... and let him/her edit the article again to detailled article ? and a lot of people are forgotten ... (unsigned comment by Muzz, user's first edit)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:07 (UTC)

"Reactions of Mets"

[edit]

Vanity, a student project, I'm assuming from the same ones who brought us Doctor cowie. --Etacar11 16:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE - reads as nonsense. Zosodada 16:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy as patent nonsense. Can't make head nor tail of it. Wikiacc (talk) 19:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy nonsense You (Talk) 21:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I think it falls short of the speedy criteria.-Splash 21:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

Regis Masset

[edit]

Not notable, most of the google hits are mirrors. Leithp 16:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete just some travel agent. CDC (talk) 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Xezbeth. Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scott Anderson

[edit]

No evidence of notablity, probably vanity. You (Talk) 16:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • I deleted it. Content was "This man is a genuine human being. He's very smart, and witty. I love him very much.". —Xezbeth 16:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 deleted by Cutler (patent nonsense). Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Round Faced Asian

[edit]

Neologism You (Talk) 16:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --GrandCru 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the product of someone with too much time on their hands jamesgibbon 20:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - childish neologism CDC (talk) 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism with an article that is inherently POV and shows no obvious sign of improving.-Splash 21:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless neologism. Nestea 22:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You are all too generous - this is a speedy delete on the grounds of patent nonsense. Cutler 00:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Yale Precision Marching Band

[edit]

Tagged on May 4 but never listed on VfD. No vote.--Nabla 16:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete. Without any content, is just a vanity / advertisement site. --Sgkay 16:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The YPMB is a major player in the scramble band subculture. "If Yale is the Mercedes of American universities, the Yale Precision Marching Band is the Edsel of marching bands, a little bizarre and, always, a little out of step," said the New York Times ("At Yale, Wedding Band Takes On a New Meaning", October 10, 1992). Bbpen 16:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As said by bpen, the yale marching band is a real phenomenon of significance on campus and some significance beyond, as described in the new york times, and there are peole out there who have concerns about bands. In fact I'm glad somebody got around to starting this article, otherwise i would have been forced to. Gzuckier 17:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apologies to sgkay - I created the page before I had figured out how to put information on it. I appreciate Bbpen's and Gzuckier's support for this as a real topic of interest. Also I point out that Stanford Band, Virginia Pep Band, the Marching Owl Band, and Penn Band all have their own entries. Surely the YPMB is of equal caliber with these bands. --Veggiesattva 19:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, going through the page's history, I can see why Sgkay plopped a VFD tag on it when he did. Perhaps the content will change his mind.Bbpen 19:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a history spanning longer than that of many colleges, the YPMB deserves an article listing. Furthermore, as one of only a few bands left of its type, it is unique enough to merit its own recognition. --Talos726 21:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bbpen. DS1953 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the newly expanded version.-Splash 21:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per its all good. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --GrandCru 23:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article is already beyond a stub and with a little Cleanup is a perfectly good article. Falphin 00:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable marching band with lengthy history. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. - Mustafaa 01:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, though evil. Xoloz 04:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' this too please Yuckfoo 18:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus defaulting to keep. Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 21:53 (UTC)

Kamboh

[edit]

Stub about a family name without evidence of notability. --Lee Hunter 17:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Kambojas. Ditto for Kamboj. Pburka 19:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable genealogy. JamesBurns 06:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's quite notable. Kamboh as a lastname is frequently used by Muslims Kamboj population of Pakistan. So it's relevant piece of information. Further, it refers the reader to Kamboj (the main entry). May be, the stub needs to be removed (KLS).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Universities in Africa

[edit]

All lists of Universities seem to be done by country, see List of universities in South Africa as an example. I don't think this page is going to go anywhere as individual lists exist elsewhere so delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite seems good to me but still kind of skeptical. Though the article is shaping out pretty good so I'll change my vote to keep. I should probably get started on Universities in North America or something... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • But this seems like a good way to group the lists... Kappa 17:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It appears that this is not merely a "list of", but rather the seedling for an article on the particular challenges faced by institutions of higher education in the region. -- BD2412 talk 18:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep Has real potential as a signpost for people seeking information on tertiary education in Africa. Capitalistroadster 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the nominator, prior to Kappa's rewrite, there was only one sentence in the article. Keep the rewrite. --Scimitar 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this version. We also have British universities for example. -Splash 21:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Banana Dance

[edit]

Completing VfD process. Currently no vote. Wikibofh 17:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a legitamite dance! Why should it be deleted? User:130.58.248.78
  • I added the VFD, which was then removed. I then changed my mind and decided not to re-add it (largely because I found a music album with the same name). However it was re-added. Let's let the nomination stand and see what people think. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup because it looks to be a useful disambiguation page. Transwiki the lyrics and dance to wikisource. Wikibofh 17:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as Manny Valenz appears to be un-notable having only released 2 albums [11] (one being a "Greatest Hits" album) and the dance seems non-notable so nothing worth salvaging on this page. All google hits appear related to a flash animation rather than the dance. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, two albums including a "greatest hits" makes him notable. Kappa 17:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Some friends of mine have one album released, titled "Coopertones Greatest Hits Vol. 1". Does that make their band notable?? Barno 19:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Is it listed on amazon.com? Kappa 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Upon further research, I have yet to find a label under which the first album ws released... either way, this is borderline notability... until someone actually makes a page for the artist first, I see no reason to have the album listed without the artist... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Barno. --Xcali 21:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep its a useful disambig page.(should be marked though). Falphin 00:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Barno. JamesBurns 06:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It should be reorganized, but other than that it is perfectly fine.
  • keep this per barno Yuckfoo 18:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the various versions are notable. --Tysto 20:06, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have turned this into a disambig. Wikisourced the lyrics and dance moves included, and added a few more interesting items for the disambig. Wikibofh 16:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all. – ABCD 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Soul Mate and other

[edit]

This and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/You Scared the Lovin' Outta Me were tagged on Jun 15 but not listed on VfD.

The same reasoning would certainly apply for nominating the other similar articles on songs of the same album: Comin' Round the Mountain, Smokey, If You Got Funk, You Got Style, and Adolescent Funk. So I nominate this other 4 articles too. No vote here.--Nabla 17:30, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Same articles as the nominated also deletion candidates:

Atmosphere (song), Baby I Owe You Something Good, Balance (song), Be My Beach, Better by the Pound, Cholly (Funk Getting Ready to Roll), Field Maneuvers, Foot Soldiers (Star Spangled Funky), Freak of the Week, Get off Your Ass and Jam, Good to Your Earhole, Grooveallegiance, Holly Wants to Go to California, I'm Never Gonna Tell It, Into You, Lunchmeatophobia (Think!...It Ain't Illegal Yet!), No Head No Backstage Pass, (Not Just) Knee Deep, One Nation Under a Groove (song), Stuffs And Things, Take Your Dead Ass Home! (Say Som'n Nasty), The Song Is Familiar, Uncle Jam, Who Says a Funk Band Can't Play Rock?

This list posted by User:JamesBurns at 2005-06-29 06:06:44 not by me.--Nabla 2005-06-29 18:46:16 (UTC)
  • IMO you should make another nomination for those articles. Adding them here 6 days after the voting started doesn't look right to me, since most voters only considered the initial 6 nominated articles, not these.--Nabla 2005-06-29 18:46:16 (UTC)
    • They are exactly same type of article relating to the same criteria. They were already marked for VfD days ago. You could check their histories to verify this. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:04 (UTC)
      • OK. I'll vote to delete these too (so far they have 2/0 to delete), and request that the admin closing this waits a couple days more, to give a chance to others.--Nabla 2005-06-30 15:20:46 (UTC)


This page was created nearly three years ago and has had no substantial updates since then. It is incomplete, does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and contains little useful information. It should be deleted. DanMS 02:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect all. All relevant information already at Hardcore Jollies, the album article. Smokey may be a more relevant redirect to something else.--Nabla 17:30, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete all, duplicate content, unencyclopedic non notable songs. JamesBurns 06:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, because their content is mainly duplicate and consisting of a critique, and none of them are notable. Falcon 16:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all - POV, notability not established, check out the formatting - looks suspiciously like a cut and paste from some review site.... Leanne 02:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, POV, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. -- Toytoy 18:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think some time ago User:TUF-KAT made these bad articles for all Funkadelic/Parliament/George Clinton songs. I took a handful of the most unsalvageable ones and turned them into redirects to their albums (I didn't want to bring them to VfD as I expected a big fight over this; maybe it's coming). Such redirects would be acceptable to me, though perhaps deletion is better. I would, however, like to note that, although it's not listed here, One Nation Under a Groove (song) is part of this VfD, and as it was on List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, I decided to clean it up last week. I probably didn't remove all the POV (as there wasn't too much else there), but it's substantially better than the others, and could perhaps warrant keeping (with a bit more cleaning). -R. fiend 03:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding on a given subject or cultural matter need not result in deletion or change. A vote of NO needs to be placed here until you can accept that you are not at all familiar with the art of George Clinton.

  • anonymous user65.17.190.169 only second edit JamesBurns 06:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep/merge. Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Singulair

[edit]

Strong Keep. Singulair was first marketed as a preventative asthma medication, and after some time doctors began prescribing it for generic allergy prevention, and is now being marketed as such. Also, some patients have found it to reduce the severity of eczema. Genetic research has also begun to find evidence that all three of these conditions are linked, and oftentimes inherited together. If necessary the article could be changed to the title of montelukast sodium, which is the actual chemical name of Singulair.

(unsigned by User:TheMightyGrecian —Wahoofive (talk) 13:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I added some information on the drug from notes I took from my doctor's visit and what is on the information packet included with the drug. (I have excercise induced Asthma, and so I take it regularly, to boost the effect of Albuterol)

(unsigned comment by User:69.250.88.241 —Wahoofive (talk) 13:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep - Clean up but definately keep. Celestianpower 19:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As mentioned above. Grimm
    • Merge with generic. Wasn't able to find that article first try. Grimm 17:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable asthma drug. A Google search shows 432,000 hits. [12] Capitalistroadster 18:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs to be cleaned up. Jtkiefer 22:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep very very notable, just needs a lot of cleanup. Falphin 00:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • In light of Fingers-of-Pyrex I change my vote to Merge and Cleanup. Falphin 01:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Montelukast. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Merge. -- ElBenevolente 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable drug. JamesBurns 07:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to the generic name for the drug. That article already mentions Singulair. We don't need two articles on a drug. Vegaswikian 07:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was this nominated for deletion with a "strong keep" vote? That makes no sense. Probably should have been "speedy kept" as invalid nomination.—Wahoofive (talk) 13:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The Grimripper nominated the article but didn't post anything on this page. Falphin 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I think it was nominated by an Anon who didn't post anything here or bother to add the link from VfD to here, I just posted the link from VfD to see it resolved. Grimm 14:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd just like to add that I just did a quick web search to find out what Singulair is, and this page was helpful. It certainly could use cleaning up, though.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Deleted by RedWolf as copyvio --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Pepperweed

[edit]

Advertisement. KFP 19:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


It's not an advertisement any more than the listing for IBM or Hewlett-Packard. It's just an intro about a company. It doesn't even contain links to the company's web site. JTC 19:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain: whilst it doesn't have a link to the site it certainly is biased towards the company. Saying that, if it was re-written it might be justifiable. Will => talk 19:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Replace with content about the plant[13]. The company has almost no google hits apart from its own web site. Pburka 20:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless, during this VfD Pburka's suggestion occurs. The second-last section is very adverty, much much more so than IBM and Hewlett Packard, and the article even uses the word "our", which is a sure sign of writing an advert or at best being vain. -Splash 21:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. Marking as such and listing on WP:CP. --Tabor 22:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:24 (UTC) The result of the debate was no consensus --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

CTC Bank of Canada

[edit]

This article has had nothing in it since December. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Spinboy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote changed below. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because an article is a stub for 6 months, that does not make a reason to delete. This is a legitimate bank, and a subsidiary of the most profitable bank in Taiwan. I have expanded the article slightly. -- JamesTeterenko 04:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't be so modest. You tripled the length, provided the context that it's the most profitable bank in Taiwan, and added an external link. Good enough stub for me to change to keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough and has the potential to be expanded. --Deathphoenix 13:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Trevor_ENS

[edit]

Autobiography. No encyclopedic content. Delete. Poli 19:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity You (Talk) 19:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Karol 22:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Danny Hudson

[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 19:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - NN vanity A curate's egg 19:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Professional athletes are notable, but there's no evidence that he really is one. Pburka 20:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence comes up that this person is a professional athlete. You (Talk) 21:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity/nonsense. AFAIK There is no professional football team called Brighton Athletic. He also appears to have created an article for it though and that should be included in this vote. Leithp 21:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently, he was the "youngest professional footballer ever to score." :) – ugen64 22:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. No google hits on Emma Watson and Danny Hudson together. And you know there would be if such a relationship existed... --Etacar11 23:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

List of right-wing publications in the United Kingdom

[edit]

This page has been in dispute for a long time. It does nothing to constitue what 'right-wing' actually is in terms of publication and lumps together Conservative journals with BNP ones. Other on the talk page have suggested deletion. --Mrclarke 19:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it is certainly the case that the items listed are generally regarded by the enitre UK population, including those who are right-wing, that these publications are right wing. As to whether that is or is not a good thing is where the population differs. N.b. the BNP publications would normally be regarded as far-right, although this is still right-wing. I suspect that the BNP would claim they are not so different to being centre-right. But I really can't see anyone in the UK sensibly claiming that any one of these publications as left-wing.~~~~ 19:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep'. Perfectly good article. If there are content disputes, resolve them on the talk page and through editing. Don't list an article for deletion just because it has content you disagree with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. if we deleted this we'd have to delete List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom as well as half a dozen other articles of related subjects. Jtkiefer 22:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe that this can ever possibly be NPOV owing to lack of operational definition of left/ right. Delighted to see List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom go too. Just point me to the other half dozen! There are all sorts of shades of opinion that would have to be considered in any partisan taxonomy of the press. Cutler 00:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We could qualify it by saying "the following publications are often considered right-wing..." or something like that. --Tothebarricades 00:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. That said, I like Cutler's Partisan taxonomy of the UK press proposal, and if such an article were written, merging could be fine. - Mustafaa 01:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup identifying mainstream and far-right organisations and identifying sources for nominations if possible. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team XGEN

[edit]

Sorry, this just isn't encyclopaedic (two entries on Google). It's also poorly written. Phlogistomania 20:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETION

This article utterly fell into the category of speedy deletion (total content was "this website shows people how kerry sucks"). I speedied it. DJ Clayworth 20:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kerrysucks.com

[edit]

Utter POV, not encyclopaedic. Phlogistomania 20:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

United Statian

[edit]

This user insists on repeatedly removing all uses of the term "American" to refer to individuals or organizations resident in the United States. This article is an example of WP:POINT in his pursuit of this goal. The term is a non-notable neologism; it is mentioned on Alternative words for American, and doesn't need an article of its own. I'm going to open a WP:RFC on User:Heegoop if his behavior in this regard continues. Firebug 20:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Stewartadcock (content was: '{{deletebecause|Blanked by author, former content was garbage/text dump}}'). Master Thief GarrettTalk 04:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linkeexchange

[edit]

Not sure what to make of this, could be an attempt at a real article but contents is certainly not encyclopaedic. Could be cleanup or copyvio. Dunno Cutler 20:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Incomprehensible, and the title's spelled wrong anyway. Deb 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted article --cesarb 04:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brighton Athletic

[edit]

Total lack of content fails to show why this topic is worthy of notice. Probably topic is of interest limited to a small group of sport fans. Iani 20:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy - no content. Naturenet 20:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy no content and also, there wasn't a vfd tag on the page for some reason. Anyway, I fixed that. You (Talk) 21:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Flick Shagwell

[edit]

There is no way this person is real (and even if she were it should still go I think). OK admittedly she is real, but should it be on Wikipedia? Much as there are 190,000 Google hits they certainly don't seem to refer to the same person (some say Asian some British for example). I refer back to my previous opinion that she is not a real person but rather a popular pseudonym. Nevertheless it had a few edits so I didn't give it a speedy. Will => talk 20:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment It's possible to be British and Asian. Hiding 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very true (although I was just trying to highlight a point because I don't think they are all the same person). Will => talk 23:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment OK after looking at a number of biographies on the google results, I think she is a real person. Saying that, most of the google results all seem to link to the same few sites so I'm not sure that she is as popular as it may seem. Oh and as it is she isn't Asian. Will => talk 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, or blatant vanity at best. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as a useless article with no context. - Mike Rosoft 20:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on the article's rewrite this is a real porn actress. I am changing my vote to abstain until I find out what are the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for such people. - Mike Rosoft 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - you gotta google it, wikipedian. Over 190,000 entries. It's a stub, but she's as real as any of them are. Naturenet 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sure she may be completely real, but hair - and eye color,height, weight and such are not data to put in an encyclopedia. What about films she was in. I'd rather not verify it at the moment, there's people in the room that would be rather surprised if I looked up a porn actress... - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability provided in the article. For pornstars, google hits aren't a reasonable metric, since 95% of the internet is porn. CDC (talk) 21:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs expansion, but a notable porn star and as worthy of an article as the others. If the article remains nothing but stats then it can be deleted and someone can recreate it when they want to write a little more on the subject. 23skidoo 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the 190K claim above is nowhere near correct, take out the duplicates and the real Google score is 686. Granted, that's still higher than a lot of our VfD candidates, but as mentioned, the internet and search engines have a natual bias toward porn, with a lot of websites consisting of nothing else but thousands (millions?) of porn-related keywords. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder how correct is your claim. Google never displays more than 1000 results, and perhaps the 686 are just the 1000 with duplicates eliminated. (I do not believe that duplicates could ever reduce the number of hits from almost 200.000 to less than 1000.) - Mike Rosoft 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That is true, but all the same, most of the hits do seem to be automated lists of keywords which link to the same sites - as has been stated google isn't a very good measure when it comes to porn. Nevertheless, she may well be famous enough in her genre to deserve an article - I wouldn't know ;-) Will => talk 09:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 190,000 google hits is a lot even for a porn artist. Kappa 00:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Xoloz 04:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, notable pr0n artist. JamesBurns 07:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google is inherently biased, and there's no shortage of porn actresses (I won't use the word artist- sorry, but artistic merit is something people rarely look for in this particular subject), so I find it hard to believe thet they're inherently notable if they have google hits. Of course they have google hits! Anybody, what's the number one use of the internet? 4-letter word, sounds like corn. Don't mistake this as a vote for censorship, which I'm not in favor of; but you cannot use google hits to determine notability of porn stars. --Scimitar 14:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. The fact that porn actresses pop up a lot on internet searches is a function of the internet and how it has become a perfect distribution method for the pornography industry. Just because Wikipedia is internet-based does not mean we should base our standards of notability on Google counts when it comes to porn stars. The most minor porn actress probably has more hits than most Nobel prize winners. Based on my brief review of the various porn categories and lists on Wikipedia such as List of porn stars, we already have hundreds of porn actors and actresses with articles (and I assume that not every porn actor or actress has been categorized or linked on the lists). While there are some that are truly notable, such as Mary Carey or Linda Lovelace, I would venture to say most are not. In most cases we know nothing about them other than their stage names. Almost all of the "girls" claim to be 18 or 19, but like Dorian Gray, they seem to stay the same age. Any supposed "facts" that are published are likely nothing more than marketing, and certainly not verifiable. Although Ms. "Shagwell" does exhibit the ability to accept large objects into an orifice generally used for discharges, I fail to see how that distinguishes her from many other nameless "stars" in her profession. DS1953 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pseudonym + date of birth + unverifiable place of birth (pornographers lie, to target their markets) + unverifiable nationality (pornographers lie, to target their markets) + job. No evidence that this person has been on a magazine cover, caused a legal controversy or a scandal, starred in a mainstream film, run a major business, written a book, or been first in a field. For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri, and as per Scimitar and DS1953, Delete. Uncle G 16:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • keep this please do not let your personal biases influence your vote it is not the wiki way Yuckfoo 18:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please do not imply that a discussion (that has until this point been about verifiability of information, Google hits, and notability of the subject at hand) is a discussion about censorship, thereby derailing it from talking about the subject at hand as it has been. Uncle G 20:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Comment- I endorse Yuckfoo. I'm concerned that this debate is becoming a debate on the merits of porn stars (on wikipedia) in general. That's a worthy debate, but not for here. Let's not assume that nothing fictional is worthy of an article or we'll be dealing with a lot of cross Star Trek fans! And if the internet unfairly promotes porn, how unfair are all the articles on computer-related stuff? Let's just consider this article, in a NPOV way, for now. Naturenet 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If the last two comments were directed at my comments (since I am one of the relatively few to have voted to delete), I thought I made it clear that I am not opposed to having porn stars if they are notable. What I do think is that the concept of what is notable is being grossly distorted by the fact that the porn industry uses the internet for delivery and that the focus on Google hits is a very myopic way to determine the notability of these people. In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. It seems to me by applying the Google test, anyone who is willing to make a couple of hardcore films under an assumed name is automatically notable under the definitions others are applying. Independent judgment seems completely lacking here, since I see no arguments in favor other than citations to a test which I believe is not an accurate gauge of notability in this case. I have no personal problems with the porn industry existing or even being represented fairly within Wikipedia. I fail to see where that shows any personal bias. DS1953 20:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Unverifiable things are not worth articles. That's our policy. Wikipedia is not a 'phone book. That is also our policy. So far, all that we have about this person is her pseudonym(s), her date of birth, and that she has a job that tens of thousands of other people have. (The place of birth and nationality are unverifiable, for reasons already stated.) That doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria. It doesn't come anywhere close. MacGyverMagic and I have both mentioned some of the things that might cause such a person to meet the WP:BIO criteria. We don't aim to have articles on every single fast food restaurant worker in the world, even though we could verify their names, dates of birth, and jobs too. Uncle G 20:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
      • Her claims of being born in such-and-such a place are verifiable. If she is notable, this is all we need be concerned about. Many notable -- but odd -- people give false details in their biographies. The untruth of these is interesting, and might be discussed in any article, but should not prevent otherwise notable articles from passing. No one is certain about the age of Mae West (because she lied about it quite often), the birthplace of Andrew Jackson (because little attention was paid to the birth at the time), or any biographical details of mytho-legendary historical figures galore. What is important is that enough people knew of these notable figures, and accepted details regarding them. We don't strike Jesus for lack of a verifiable birthday. Xoloz 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I see no verifiability. Please point to the place where she herself (rather than some pornography copywriter just making blurb up to go with the pictures) has actually claimed a nationality and place of birth. In any case, that has no bearing upon the points that I made. Even having pseudonym(s), date of birth, job (that tens of thousands of other people have), claimed nationality, and claimed place of birth doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria, by an enormous margin. Articles about everyone who ever received a green card would be justified on those grounds. The discussion of Mae West, Andrew Jackson, and Jesus is irrelevant and completely misses the point. Uncle G 19:18, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Whether or not we can verify the claims of where she was born, her age and any other facts is not really the issue. We can verify the age, height and place of birth of any number of people ranging from singers and shop assistants to teachers and students. However this is not sufficient to earn them a place on Wikipedia. What must be established is whether this woman is a notable porn actress. After all, while I have nothing at all against porn actresses appearing on Wikipedia, it is certainly not the case that every single one deserves an article. This is when the google results come into it. Whilst a non-notable teacher would have very few search engine results (perhaps one or two from the school website or that of a local newspaper), a non-notable porn actress may have a very large number of results. This is because they conduct their entire business via the internet whereas for most jobs the internet is fairly irrelevent to their working life. As such we can expect that any porn actress will get a great many search engine results as this is their form of advertising (although note that most of these results are actually automated lists of keywords to inflate page ranks). What we have to establish is whether Ms Shagwell is an especially notable porn actress or whether she is just one of thousands of actresses who have not yet earnt a place on Wikipedia. Google results will not tell us this because any porn actress, notable or not, will get huge numbers of these - their entire source of income depends on it. Will => talk 21:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Edwin Lee, Edwin lee

[edit]

Delete - I believe this article is fictitous. it is certainly unverifiable. Naturenet 20:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree. Looking around I can see no information on google etc. Will => talk 21:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Edwin Lee" "SARS" yields some Google results, but none actually seem to refer to this person. When I googled the company's name, I got zilch. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 21:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both - these are at present unverifiable and is largely an ad/vanity in any case. -Splash 21:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redlinks are symptomatic here. --Wetman 22:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was default to keep as no concensus could be reached. (7 keep, 8 delete, 3 merge, 1 other, and 20 discounted) - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 12:30 (UTC)

L0de Radio Hour

[edit]
  • Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. Again, the votes are not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.

Adamn 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

      • Sorry. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

Looks non-notable: it only nets 16 distinct hits on Google. chocolateboy 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • for reference purposes the lrh episodes page can be viewed at [14]
    • Try Googling for lrh + l0de instead. 231 results.
  • Note that this is a 'deliberately' misleading figure. I also question the validity of a "need" for the warning below, which seems to be systemically and inherently biased.

Lol stop changing all the votes to keep, these shoe-sniffing waterheads will revert all my choice witticismz. Warning: this radio show is the work of GNAA members who will likely come to its defense. Please watch out for any sock-puppet votes, vandalism and fallacious arguments. Most of the keep votes are from GNAA members who came to vote after a rallying call in their IRC channel. They also seem to be insulting any delete voters.

  • NOTICE TO ADMIN: I have removed a (possibly farcical) death threat to those voting delete. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)
  • NOTICE TO ADMIN: I have re-inserted the so called "death threat" and heartily encourage that Scimitar learn the difference between a statement that all persons voting for deletion should consider themselves formally challenged to a duel which they could refuse only under pain of their emasculating cowardice being known to all of the internet, and a death threat, you DFF.

BULLSHIT This radio show is created by an independent entity, me (l0de). The gnaa calls in to the show, this is the extent of their participation. All equipment, music, etc is provided by me. Most insults to delete voters are from me, because these people need to unclamp their teeth from their pillows and get on with life. This wikipedia entry was created by a fan of the show, and is a fitting homage to the spirit of the l0de radio hour. Grave repercussions await its deletion. I am personally issuing a challenge to any one voting for delete, I will duel you, to the death, in international waters. If you so strongly wish to have this deleted, you must back up your words with your life, else they shall be considered inconsquential, and those urging its deletion forevermore relegated to the ranks of shunned cowardice.

  • STRONG KEEP Come one, why not keep it? l0de rules. Long live GNAA.
  • Keep I know l0de personally, and lolled @ his show many many times. The amount of effort and time put into producing each episode is so great, that alone should require a STRONG KEEP on this article. Not to mention the fact that the article is informative and interesting. --Timecop 13:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. How do you figure "only 16"? Why are the Turnip Wars notable and not worthy of delete. Ich 07:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with GNAA. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with GNAA, though seriously , it's a large text and the person doing the merge might say no. It's quite odd: I was sitting on irc, minding my own business, when suddenly this gentleman from the GNAA came by... Kim Bruning 18:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it is unfair to preemptively scream "trolling" on a VFD for an article because it is loosely related to the GNAA article. I also don't think a merge would be appropriate, because the lrh is not produced by them.--TexasDex June 28, 2005 16:57 (UTC)
    • It is produced by a member, although has a far wider appeal than simply people inside the GNAA.
      • Looking at some of the edits it seems I stand corrected. Complaining about trolling was practically inviting them to mess with the voting process.--TexasDex June 28, 2005 16:57 (UTC)
  • Keep, <PERSONAL ATTACK>s. Only <PERSONAL ATTACK>s would dare delete this fine article. Are you a <PERSONAL ATTACK>? GNAA Popeye 21:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Are you a <PERSONAL ATTACK>? ‡ Jarlaxle July 2, 2005 04:23 (UTC)
    Personal attacks removed adjusted for humorous purposes, per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. JRM · Talk 21:33, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    16 article edits total for this user. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 20:00 (UTC)
    • So? This user's creation predates the creation of this VfD by months. --Jacj 4 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)
      • Yes, it goes right back to the Vfd for the GNAA. And he votes to save this. What a surprise (it's called a role account; it exists as sort of a longterm sockpuppet, contributing nothing but voting on policy) --Scimitar 4 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  • Keep: seems like a lot of the people voting don't seem to "get" the nature of the l0de radio hour. It's independent of the GNAA, and I don't understand why a lot of the delete voters are strongly associating it with them. --Jacj 29 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Important part of Internets history
  • Strong Keep This show is representative of the general malaise of today's Net-enabled youth; contrarianism and shock jock talk to stretch the boundaries of what the media can do; what is offensive/what is entertainment/what is music -- all questions posed by this show, taken as a continuing piece of art. The GNAA reference could be deleted; they are an occasional particpant as much as any caller. Skip their self-aggrandizing and focus on l0de's artistry.
  • Keep Notable. Also note that amount of Google hits is greatly deflated by poster of this VFD. --Lysol 07:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Possible role account, judging by Special:Contibutions/Lysol. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • How convenient for you. I've made numerous contributions to articles, and it's people like you who constantly pick apart and judge others positive contributions that make Wikipedia increasingly more irritating to participate in. --Lysol 19:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • 24 total article edits, and none since January. Incidentally, you haven't editted anything on Wikipedia in the week since this post. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)
          • What does that have to do with the validity of a vote? You're really scrambling for something to question my completely honest and legitimate piece of free speech. You should be ashamed of yourselves. --Lysol July 1, 2005 06:53 (UTC)
            • It has nothing to do with free speech, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. However, we generally only accept votes from community members; people commited to Wikipedia, not one particular article. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Google test. It's not reliable to begin with, and somewhat of a red herring. The number of Google hits do not address the essential questions. JRM · Talk 19:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. --l0de 07:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) death threat removed
    • Vote cast by IP address 65.5.208.21. The IP has also vandalised User:Chocolateboy[15] and this page[16] Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I dispute the term vandalism, I was leaving a message for that user in a convenient fashion. I did not edit the other page at all! Base lies from a perfidious poltroon, I expect no less from the dung-eaters of wikipedophedia
  • Keep. Notable. The guy is a legend in the Internet radio community.
  • Keep. Notable. Very good shows, deserves recognition -supers
  • Keep. Notable. This man is on the forefront of investigative journalism in a brave new media format.
    • Second edit by account GNAA cyberdyne. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So? User:GNAA cyberdyne was created before this vote was initiated, so there's no way that they can be a sockpuppet. --Jacj 29 June 2005 03:37 (UTC)
      • Hey there (pigs can fly), wana stop pointing out things that nobody cares about? According to YOUR talk page, you aren't an angel either. removed personal attacks.
  • Delete NN outside the (small, irrelevant) GNAA community.
    • Unsigned vote by 64.95.182.163, their second contribution. -- Joolz 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The cries of "trolling" and "sockpuppetry" perhaps eminate more from the fact that the show is loosely-affiliated with the GNAA rather than any particular judgement upon its merits. Despite what the vote count could perhaps be, it is possible to dismiss whatever the powers that be disagree with by simply dismissing the individuals making the statements. The l0de radio hour is a fairly cutting-edge program that stands out within the realm of internet media as both extremely funny, shocking, and suprisingly topical. Despite the potential obscurity of the show, it has exiested as an internet entity for several years and will continue to thrive for quite some time
    • Unsigned vote by 70.240.89.53 - their first contribution. -- Joolz 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Do not merge with GNAA, as LRH is not produced by them. Kryptops 17:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User has a total of 11 edits. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. DX June 28, 2005 04:26 (UTC)
    • Note: This user has been tampering with votes. -- Joolz 28 June 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • Keep, LRH is definately a notable part of the internet. Anyone voting for its deletion from the self-important Wikipedia needs to stop chomping on green logs of butt mud for a second and listen to an episode. If you dont "lol" you're a humorless poltroon. To further butress my argument, heres a number I composed. Linux Scat Ode : The chat has moved off this mortal coil. To replace the entertainment , my pants : I'll soil! Turds smashing into the boxers all nite. I'll take them off and sniff. Ohh yeah. Dats rite. The smell is divine, the taste is great. Now all I need is a paper plate. Going to Butch's with this fresh poopie. I hope he's thirsty. Because this poop is : soupy. My bowel movements are incredibly loose. Thats ok, I love squirting juice from my caboose. The linux scat scene sure is hard. Its a shame that my body is nothing but lard. Oh the life of a Linux Fatty Shit-eating Scat Fiend. Oh no mom is comming!!! This chat session : screen'd --Feerie 28 June 2005 04:44 (UTC)
    • Guess what... This is the user's only edit, edits to his user page were done by the anon above who reinserted his "duel challenge", strongly indicating that Feerie is in fact, a sockpuppet. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)
      • Guess what... You are a designates my apparent nationality(removed), get back in the oven racist terminology(removed).
        • Adjustments to statement made by Scimitar 30 June 2005 19:55 (UTC).
  • STRONG KEEP No good reasons have been presented as to why there shouldn't be an article here. The people wanting to delete this clearly have an anti-gaynigger and anti-trolling agenda. The racism must stop on wikipedia or there will be consequences. PS not a sock puppet. :) :) :) :) :) (DONT YOU DARE DELETE MY VALID VOTE UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE I AM ONE TOO) GaryNigel 28 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)
    • User has 12 edits, this is his first since December of 2004. His last edit was on the GNAA Vfd. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 00:18 (UTC)
  • KEEP LRH is an impressive piece of internet history, I understand that some groups are planning on transmitting it uninterrupted via shortwave radio out of Canada. It is ridiculous to censure history, Wikipedia should take a bath of all this hippie fascist open-source cronyism and just report history. -HuseinGandhiRokso
    • Unsigned comment made by anon User:69.199.17.13 whose only edit is the literary masterpiece seen above. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  • Keep L0de Radio Hour is one of the most inventive uses of the internet to date and should not have to qualify itself to prevent censure. unloopy
  • KEEPZ* LRH is the greatest shit ever, I once called and he made fun of Latvia, it was so lol
  • Strong Delete Firstly an independant vanity article about a dime-a-dozen internet radio host. Its inclusion with GNAA is of no significance, as any one can join just by watching a movie and joing slashdot.
  • Keep: this is outrage and blatEnt discrimination of communism -User:commie
    • User's first and only contribution. -- Joolz 29 June 2005 21:51 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Definite significance, must not remove-User:furiouscommie
  • Strong Keep - *is* notable. And yes, scimitar. I know how many edits i have done Adamn 1 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)
    • That's good. I note the number of edits for the administrator's knowledge, not for fun. In any case, this account created on 1 July, but given contributions since then and also tone of votes, is likely not a sockpuppet IMHO. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. CDC (talk) 21:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Karol 22:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and sockpuppet supported. JamesBurns 07:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trolling. sjorford →•← 08:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The radio show is ABOUT TROLLING, you vagina-lipped metrosexual
      • I can't decide if this is irony or not. Who cares, really. sjorford →•← 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Stop being a het. You obviously care or you wouldn't have bothered to voice your foul musings.
  • Delete, WP:SOCK. Radiant_>|< 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your justification of your vote by reference to "WP:SOCK"...are you saying that the article itself is a sockpuppet and should be deleted for that reason? --Jacj 4 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. -- Joolz 17:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete'. What the GNAA does or does not have to do with the show is irrelevant, though the sockpuppet votes are not exactly supporting the arguments. In fact, the vote above was made by a GNAA member who was honestly arguing the point (I know this because we were talking on IRC as he made it, and I think you can trust me when I say I wasn't trolled...) However, this show is indeed very obscure. I don't see how this can be verifiable|; if the only source of information on the material is the station itself, or its listeners, we should not be reporting on it. Wikipedia is not for advertising, even if articles are written neutrally. When the station does something that makes it notable in the world (and I mean as in newspaper/major website notable, not "I really think this is revolutionary" notable) we can report on it, because then we'll have some sources with which to back up the claims. Wikipedia doesn't report on the truth, but on all (notable) views of the truth. This station is simply not big enough to be in any sort of view. JRM · Talk 17:59, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
      • I vote that the preceding user be granted leniency on grounds of hereditary idiocy, as this is a SHOW not a station. Note that the l0de radio hour has resulted in two deaths and one attempted suicide to date, which can be independently verified from a number of sources. This is MORE DEATHS PER SHOW than nearly any other radio programme.
        • Just outta curiosity, whose deaths are these? I assume one of them is Klerck's. --Jacj 4 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
        Yes, you are correct; "station" is a mistake on my part. JRM · Talk 4 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)
    • I'll verify it right now, you DFF. Everything in that article is true, or should be. DEATH 2 CENSORS
  • Delete. We've deleted FM radio shows and presenters, this is nothing special. Hedley 18:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And aren't we due for another bitter, partisan, and rancorous VfD for the GNAA right about now? The sockpuppets seem to be ready, at least. -R. fiend 04:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, per the sockpuppets. Failing a delete, merge as suggested above. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)
    • Suggest you "merge" your lips with dog feces

KEEP!

      • ...which shows the value of your suggestions, including what to do with this article ;) --Scimitar 4 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP There are a lot of irellevant radio shows on the internets. This is not one of them. While many internet radio shows are dedicated to how sexually appealing an anime character's breasts are or even worse the fact that anonymous sexual intercourse just seems more arousing with a mascot costume on, this show is about relevant and recent news events and presenting them in a way that the aspberger's afflicted community can relate to. A vote for deletion on this item is a vote to marginalize anyone with aspberger's. These are intelligent people with a voice that must be heard.
  • Keep This show rules. Wikipedia's mere existence makes me wish I had AIDS. And before anyone comments, yes, I know how many edits I've done.

Comments

[edit]
  • Alright folks, you've had your fun, back on the short bus and off you go. -R. fiend 28 June 2005 19:42 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from personal attacks. --Jacj 3 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

This is feerie - i'm absolutely not a "Sockpuppet" or whatever ridiculous terminology you simpering pro-censorship Moderator/Dictators use to dismiss the legitimate support this entry has. As I stated before, get the green logs of butt mud out of your mouth for more than 1 second and realize that A) people like the show and that B) its notoriety grants it a space in your bloated blog. Thank you, good night. --Feerie 2 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

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


. This page has been deleted.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a clone of existing content by User:Tony Sidaway. Kappa 00:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Durham Elementary School

[edit]

The article was created as Durham Elementary grammar school and was merged into the Durham, Maine article with comments and a pointer to WP:SCH. It was recreated under the proper name with the same information which is a duplicate of what is in the city article. No reason was provided as to why the city article, which actually says where the school is, was not a good place for the information on this school. Vegaswikian 21:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I brought this up here since schools are an issue for deleting even thought this could have been a speedy. With the creation under a new name it could be that it would keep coming back. I suspect that the vote will be to turn this page into a DAB, which in hindsight I should have done. Vegaswikian 21:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or, failing that, dab or redirect to Durham, Maine. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete School is not notable. --Xcali 21:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Info is in the city article. We don't need a second article on yet another non-notable school. --Scimitar 23:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I speedied this clone of an existing article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Samplerewards

[edit]

looks like advert/ copyvio Cutler 21:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - it looks like an advert to me too :-) Will => talk 21:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - VfD provides a way for to delete articles for FREE in exchange for typing in a message. Increase your edit count for FREE!-Splash 21:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for advertisement and for being FREE. --Sn0wflake 01:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. DS1953 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is worse than vandalism. Sarge Baldy 04:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 7 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Corporateering

[edit]

Neologism You (Talk) 21:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment after weeding out the book that seems to have started it, the article's last sentence seems to be true. I still got over 12,000 hits on the word. --Xcali 21:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to author Jamie Court. Not every buzzword is encyclopediable. --Wetman 23:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per James Burns. --nixie 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism dicdef. — Phil Welch 20:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource. Will submit to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Walk

[edit]

Delete, or move to wikisource? Copy-paste text widely available but not {{copyvio}} since well outside copyright. By way of being open: I originally marked this as copyvio but that was overzealous - the author got quite upset with me and reported me to vandalism in progress, but that was quashed very quickly and I apologised for my overzealocity(sic). The same applies to Second Treatise of the Great Seth, which I'm about to VfD. -Splash 21:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikisource, I guess. --Sn0wflake 01:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource. Will submit article to transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Treatise of the Great Seth

[edit]

Delete or maybe wikisource? Copy-paste text widely available but not {{copyvio}} since well outside copyright. By way of being open: I originally marked this as copyvio but that was overzealous - the author got quite upset with me and reported me to vandalism in progress, but that was quashed very quickly and I apologised for my overzealocity(sic). The same applies to The Devil's Walk, which I just VfD'd.-Splash 21:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • My vote is ban Splash for being incompetent and Splash should have any powers given to him by Wiki taken away as he has proven he cannot handle them due to incompetence and child like behaviour WritersCramp 17:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You really should stop the personal attacks now. Also see this project's talk page for the other part of WritersCramp's comments. -Splash 18:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource there is nothing encyclopedic currentlyin the article (though there probably could easily be if someone actually wrote it). ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Take a hike Splash your a jerk and you know it. The Second Treatise was written in 200AD and was translated into English before 50 years ago so it is not copyright protected. You only confirm your ignorance by these cheap tactics. You should be banned or at the very least have any powers given to you by the Wiki stripped !!

Please keep this entry. I note it is very valuable to have source material within Wikipedia, even if not yet in the form of a formal entry. I hope this treatise will remain.

Delete, doesn't belong here. Paul 05:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Delete or transwiki. / Peter Isotalo 22:31, 14 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:34 (UTC)

National mehrzahlism

[edit]

Neologism, non-notable party/ideology, and generally unencyclopaedic. Uppland 21:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, reads too much like a rant jamesgibbon 22:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • """Delete""". Doesn't exist in the real world in even a video game. --Wetman 22:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Educates the public on something that has been most recently created. (Unsigned comment by 24.41.38.68 (talk · contribs))
  • Delete - non-notable, not particularly encyclopedic. --FCYTravis 22:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aecis 22:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, likely the most ridiculous propaganda I have ever seen posted on the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 01:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense - almost funny enough for BJAODN, but just a bit too scary. -- BD2412 talk 02:49, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Martg76 07:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete this please its fake Yuckfoo 18:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Deus Homoni 06:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this, it's made up by a teenager who just reverted its deletion(and cast the only Keep vote, for that matter)Eyeflash 6 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Apply Football League

[edit]

I think this is someone's joke and not a real league Smith03 16:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • A notice for deletion was posted on the article on June 18, but it doesn't appear to have been placed on the log. DS1953 21:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been searching for a page about something like this. This is definitely a real league. A freind of my brother used to play with the Austin Comets. And I've been to a Skyriders game. However this page needs to be updated...(preceding unsigned comment by  67.173.218.243 01:52, Jun 23, 2005) - Mgm|(talk) 07:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Either a joke (mostly likely) or nn. No Google hits. DS1953 21:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Joke or nn. You (Talk) 21:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable likely hoax. JamesBurns 07:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - joke/hoax. - DavidWBrooks 19:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable hoax. --Metropolitan90 July 2, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Las Vegas Royal Flush

[edit]

see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Apply Football League Smith03 16:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • A notice for deletion was posted on the article on June 18, but it doesn't appear to have been placed on the log. DS1953 21:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a joke but nn in any event. DS1953 21:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Soft_tissue_therapy

[edit]

Advertisement. Text from http://www.mycarpaltunnel.com , which is a site selling treatments. Jeeves 22:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertisement. Karol 22:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete adverts. Presumably the author is also the copyright owner of the website, so there's no point sticking a copyvio on it?-Splash 23:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:30 (UTC)

DlhSoft

[edit]

Nonnotable. Karol 22:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the lack of notability. Possibly vanity. Nestea 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli 05:40, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • 66 Google hits? Hmmm... methinks Delete non notable would be wise... and a tip to corporations- Wikipedia is not a playground where you can advertise yourselves for free. CanadianCaesar 09:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Cutler as ppatent nonsense - affirmation of a trivial (un-)truth --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:54 (UTC)

Twenty-eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

[edit]

Delete based on WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, item 2: individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics --Tabor 22:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Georgia guy 22:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete smoddy 22:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ludicrous. Delete. If kept, I may have to work on articles for the next few thousands of amendments. -- Eagleamn 22:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nestea 22:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How about we redirect this to Proposals for amendments to the United States Constitution. After all, any proposal that passes will, by default, be #28. -- BD2412 talk 23:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete Article:"There is no Twenty-eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution at this time (June 2005)." Well, gosh, I guess there's no One-Trillionth Amendment to the United States Constitution at this time, either. Maybe there should be an article listing all the amendments which don't exist (perhaps with a section detailing amendments which don't exist in other countries, so as to avoid bias). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, without redirect since there are infinitely many such pages. It also has irregular capitalization. -Splash 23:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If only we could speedy this garbage. --Scimitar 23:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Any article that simply affirms a trivial (un-)truth must rank as patent nonsense in the context of an encyclopaedia. I shall speed delete. Cutler 23:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Cutler as patent nonsense --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:53 (UTC)

Peerumboor

[edit]

The external link goes nowhere and the OGG file is simply a pronunciation of the word. There doesn't seem to be any content worth keeping here. Epolk 23:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

Peerumboor

[edit]

Already voted for speedy delete, but it's back up. Double delete and watch for it to return. :) RJH 22:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 7 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

M&M's (song)

[edit]

Notable band, but the article contains essentially no information beyond "M&M's is a song by blink-182. They made a video for it."

  • Delete, non-encyclopedic article about a pop song with bland lyrics. --Sn0wflake 01:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic article about a song by a notable band. Failing that, should be merged with Cheshire Cat (blink-182 album). Kappa 28 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)
  • Delete agree that it's a notable band, but not a notable enough song to merit its own encylopedia entry. Plus the lyrics are really stupid and it's non-encyclopedic garbage. Lagga bagga 5 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Napaboy

[edit]

Delete what seems to be just an ad. Google returns possibly no hits, or at most 26 unique ones. Most of these appear to be a reference to a member of some site or other. This could possibly be a speedy candidate. -Splash 23:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising. -- Natalinasmpf 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. -- RW  (::talk::)

  • Delete. At the rate at which this junk is pouring in, a speedy deletion saves peoples' time, when there is no possibility of the topic being an encyclopedia entry. --Wetman 01:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree entirely, but this is exactly the sort of thing I have tagged as speedy in the past only to see that removed and it turn up on VfD on the grounds that there is the barest of 'contexts'.-Splash 01:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 11:26 (UTC)

Time/Parmenides

[edit]

Improper titling. Information is already discussed at Parmenides. --Tothebarricades 00:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 07:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

Nocturnal Animals Of Northeastern Pennsylvania

[edit]

Delete. Non-encyclopedic prose. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Nocturnal animals of the Soutwest would include me, but so what? Wikibofh 01:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — reads like a personal hiking journal. Not encyclopedic. — RJH 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy, deleted by Zzyzx11 as recreated deleted content. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Stacey Castro Media, Inc.

[edit]

Delete. Not notable, possibly self-promotional. 15 unique Googles for "stacey castro media". AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Didn't we already do a vote on a page for this same company? They do represent a couple of notable individuals/groups. But I couldn't find any business information on their web site. (Revenues, stockholder reports, &c.) They're likely a small player. Pass. — RJH 17:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:22 (UTC)

Cell phone jammer

[edit]

Looks like an ad, definitely not NPOV

  • Keep and cleanup. These are important devices, that are being looked at by places such as movie theatres and restaurants, as well as the local governments and FCC (with regards to blocking 911 service). Wikibofh 01:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep exists, after all - needs some work, though. -- AlexR 01:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a good topic which is currently the source of some debate in e.g. Europe. I might work on this a bit if I can find the time and references. -Splash 01:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have heard of a series of white-noise generators used to block communications from inside prisons etc.-Poli 05:39, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup has enough useful information about the device in general. Any ad-like material can be removed. - Mgm|(talk) 07:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Interesting device and topic. JamesBurns 07:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with additional cleanup. Vegaswikian 08:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 10:20 (UTC)

Simples

[edit]

Delete non-notable band. I get no relevant Google hits for their name (though it's a difficult word to filter) and no hits for their members, either with or without their 'middle' names.-Splash 01:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete are they even a band or just a group of non-notable high school friends, which is what barkada seems to mean. Dabbler 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_23&oldid=1234126942"