Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 6

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
(Redirected from User:Uncle G's 'bot/VFD/Log/2005 August 6)
< August 5 August 7 >

2005-08-06

edit

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

The result of the debate was Tagged as copyvio. --malathion talk 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jung, tak young

edit

Maybe this individual is significant, but this is a resume, not an article, and almost certainly posted by the subject (see Image:DSCN7012.JPG, currently on ifd, and note the username of its contributor and the email address given). —Cryptic (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Tak-Young Jung. Numerous solo art exhibitions around the world. Pburka 01:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The capitalization needs to be fixed, but I wouldn't support changing the name order unless that is the individual's preference or widespread usage. -- Visviva 13:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's own website indicates that he hyphenates his first name, and the Wikipedia convention is to place first names first. Note that the artist's e-mail address is tak_young_jung, so he seems to be a bit flexible about the ordering and the hyphenation. Pburka 14:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HyTek Hosting, LLC

edit

Delete nn webhost. Gets about 46 useful Googles with Wikipedia mirrors removed. Alexa rank for their site is about 960,000. -Splash 00:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew R. Smith

edit

None notable vanity page. Self Promotion for a hosting company - Hahnchen 00:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Stein

edit

None notable vanity page. Self Promotion for a hosting company. - Hahnchen 00:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete again -- Radiant_>|< 11:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

PythonMOO

edit

Rework of a previously deleted page (previous VfD here). Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material was protested by the website's creator. Still appears to be a webpage of little to no notoriety. --Allen3 talk 00:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --pippo2001 01:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Sigh. OK, I'll play along with this. The claim is that this version is significantly different from the previous version. My recollection is that it's pretty much the same, but the original is gone from view of non-admin eyes so I can't say for sure. Could some admin please do a temporary restore of the original someplace so we can compare them? --RoySmith 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most recent version from before the original deletion has been restored, and may be viewed in the article's revision history. The primary difference is the About section in the new versions. --Allen3 talk 09:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MOOve along, nothing to see here. Hamster Sandwich 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My head is spinning... <(o_o)> ... UniReb 06:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. The content is essentially the same; the only difference was the middle paragraph which was filled with obvious trivia (e.g. that you can use either a regular or a special telnet client to connect to it). Radiant_>|< 11:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete, with a vote of 3 to 7. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Stormwind (band)

edit

Delete, I think. They have one LP and one EP, released by a lable allmusic.com hasn't heard of. Allmusic.com has heard of a more modern artist by this name, but that artist only has 1 release (back in 2003) so fails WP:MUSIC anyway. My slight uncertainty stems from the fact that the information might have disappeared from the web because they were from the mid-80s. -Splash 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Marked as copyvio. – Malathion 05:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"marshall krause"

edit

Well it's certainly interesting, and the case shows up on a google search, I just wonder if it's actually that notable. Plus also the text seems to slip into a fictional style of writing about half way through. Francs2000 | Talk   00:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 02:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What middle schoolers in Hawaii do

edit

Poorly written, bad title, 1st person, etc. etc. Joygerhardt 00:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UMHC

edit

Delete. Just a hiking club at a Uni. -Splash 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by UninvitedCompany. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


Kaustav

edit

Delete, non-notable for sure. Speedy? I couldn't decide. -Splash 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These Black Eyes

edit

Non-notable fan fiction. Not even sure what all this is. Thought about speedy, decided to play it safe. If deleted, please check for articles linked to this one. RADICALBENDER★ 00:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It features many Aspects which are untouched in the Comics and the Show of Teen Titans. And as a constantly Reader of this Masterpiece, i can say that it stands with Show and Comics on the same Quality level or more surpasses it, in Dimension that are not possible in Comics or Show. extra mentioned should be the incredible lenght and the Fan Support for it, own Forum, Reviews Count and so on.

note: user's first edit. Junkyard prince 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Please keep this entry. This is the one most remarkable pieces of fanfiction on the net to date and has an avid fan following. People should have the chance to learn about it.

note: user's first edit. Junkyard prince 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete, fan fiction is rarely notable and this fan fiction seems to be more notable than most, but still not conspiciously so. Lord Bob 19:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there any notable fanfic? tregoweth 19:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well, a fanfic that caused fifteen people to kill themselves in glorious sacrifice to Harry/Draco slash might be notable. But at this stage, that is, thankfully, purely hypothetical. Lord Bob 20:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Then I guess I should get writing. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep (bad faith nomination) -- Francs2000 | Talk   01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Avramopoulos

edit

This article reads more like a resume or advertising, nowhere near up to Wiki standards, I feel it should be considered for deletion DuckKing 00:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look in the page history there is a decent version of the article before a new user changed it to read like a CV. As this guy is a Greek politician with over 13,700 google hits to his name I have reverted the article to the earlier version and vote speedy keep -- Francs2000 | Talk   00:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - DuckKing has vandalised the page himself and then nominated it for deletion. - Hahnchen 01:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. Pburka 01:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Malathion 05:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Uncut

edit

Non-notable Sonic flash on Newgrounds -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Uncut 1

edit

Non-notable Sonic flash on Newgrounds -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B1249

edit

I live nearby to this road. It is a none notable single carriage road, not really worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Hahnchen 00:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as IMO graduating in the top 25 percent of your class merely means you're better than 75 percent of those in your class. There's nothing notable about it, or anything else he's done. FCYTravis 21:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shinu Chacko

edit

Non-notable job seeker. Google returns 15 hits. RADICALBENDER★ 00:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of shows that are widely considered to have jumped the shark

edit

Delete. EXTREMELY POV, and nonencyclopedic. This is what I would call an indiscriminate collection of information, which is listed as What Wikipedia is not. The basis for each inclusion on this article is opinion, and the title is written in jargon. --Zpb52 01:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

One final comment – I appreciate JRM's comment that vfds are not meant to be personal, and that usually they're made for good reasons. Besides, I've moved on to better things, so deleting this page may hurt my pride but only for a little while. Just remember the disambig page idea.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noir (TBE)

edit

Even if an individual piece of fanfiction is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (currently undergoing debate here), a character from it certainly is not. Junkyard prince 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The four key steps to winning the start in sailing

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chief'd

edit

Delete. I don't know what this wants to be, but it sure isn't a Wikipedia article. And no self-respecting academics would write an article like that: so I reckon it's a bunch of bored student. -Splash 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and kick the ass of meat puppets. – malathion talk 06:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimCentral

edit

Delete communitycruft. Includes a list of neologisms too, in case anyone's unsure about deleting. Alexa rank is about 187,000. -Splash 01:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this VfD should also include Simcentral.net, a redirect that points to this page. -Harmil 01:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's 16th edit. Has only edited VfDs. -Splash 02:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No such user. Edit actually by 24.91.45.175 (talk · contribs). Same IP previously blanked this page. -Splash 02:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Arello

edit

Ad for non-notable organization, from the same user who created Dixie Randock, Real Estate Education Association and A Institute. --cesarb 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This isn't the yellow pages... please direct yourself to the nearest phone company. Thank you and good morning/afternoon/evening/& night. :) UniReb 07:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hujjat 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-threading libraries

edit

Has too much redlinks to be useful. This could be done more efficiently with a category. --R.Koot 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This comment will probably come too late, but... it is highly unlikely that articles will ever be written for the redlinks here, if someone does it would most likely get deleted because of non-notability. --R.Koot 23:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew makinson and Sumners farm

edit

Nothing on google about this guy, seems like non-notable vanity to me. The farm article was created by the same user: similarly I don't think individual farms are notable enough for an encyclopedia. Francs2000 | Talk   01:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero hits for "Andrew makinson" epping, and only a small handful for "Sumners Farm" or "Sumner's Farm" and many are other uses, or refer to a bus stop there. Niteowlneils 02:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Right now, I supposed to be sleeping... but I'm deleting...! :( UniReb 07:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sumner's Farm as not notable and Andrew makinson as possible vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Notability not established. --Edcolins 20:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mudagh machmar

edit

This looks to be a nonnotable student club vanity article. All the "legendary persons" mentioned in the article are all currently students at the University of Amsterdam. Babajobu 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as mentioned, completely NN - 2 hits on Google, pisses me off when people don't even try to sound encyclopaedic and use terms like "legendary" to describe themselves Sherurcij 05:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn - search for Mudagh on university's own website gets 1 hit. [1] Punkmorten 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Alan Barnes (recreation of A. Barnes)

edit

Delete. No more notable than your average college professor, fails WP:PROF. In fact, the Uni's website lists no course in Physics, so I wonder what's going on here. Clearly he's not employed there for his prowess in relativity and Google finds about 50 hits for "Alan Barnes" physicist. -Splash 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:The two articles here are identical and for the time being I've redirected the abbreviated one to the full one.-Splash 01:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, maybe I found the wrong A. Barnes on the web? The one I have in mind has 13 entries in the exact solutions book. (See the citations for the exact solutions article.) Any information appreciated. Also, please compare List of contributors to general relativity with the bibliography of MTW or the exact solutions book to assure yourself that I plan to discuss only some of the LEADERS in this field over the past 80 odd years.---CH (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure where you're pointing here. Exact solutions is a redirect to an evidently relevant article that doesn't mention Barnes, and List of contributors to general relativity was only created today (with this particular gent added by you). Why is he teaching at a new university (mind my POV there) that appears to offer no courses in the numerate sciences, let alone physics? -Splash 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Splash and all, please bear with me. First, I emphasize again that I did have high standards for the persons I included in my list (others have added some other people I am trying to have moved to more appropriate lists). "The exact solutions book" is the monograph by Stephani et al. cited in Exact solutions in general relativity; this monograph is widely regarded as a standard reference in this field.
If you have an account on the arXiv you can check that Alan Barnes of Acton University has quite a few papers there, so the Barnes I described certainly does publish research papers on gtr. I'd caution you against assuming that someone employed at a university which doesn't offer physics courses cannot have an active research career in physics, since this Alan Barnes is obviously a counterexample! Academic jobs are hard to come by (especially in Britain, or so I am told), so some talented persons may choose to accept a seemingly inappropriate teaching job in order to remain in the profession in which they have been highly trained. Also, on occasion, quite distinguished retired professors have been known appointments with small colleges, simply so that they can teach from time to time.
Nonetheless, I now guess the A. Barnes I had in mind is an older person by the same name, and yes, I should have checked more carefully that I had the right A. Barnes. I have tried to contact by email Alan Barnes from Acton University to see if I can clarify this situation. I may may not have made a mistake, but if so, it was an honest mistake. (What does "cruft" mean?)
I think the best fix would be to let me correct the page once I have information about the A. Barnes cited in the monograph (some of these papers are widely regarded as important), rather than simply deleting it.---CH (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad

edit

I did a google check and found no actual results (79,400 hits). My guess is vanity. freestylefrappe 02:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Software

edit

As mentioned in the discussion page, it's obvious spam. 9cds 02:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Evil

edit

Non notable band's guitarist. [2] Google shows 1 hit for band and name together-Harmil 02:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SNOF

edit

POV rant. If someone wanted to create a legit article, it should probably be at "Slovenomakedonski Narodno Osloboditelen Front", or, even better, whichever English translation is most commonly used. "Slavo-Macedonian Popular Liberation Front", "Slav National Liberation Front", "Macedonian National Liberation Front", or whatever. Could even be a speedy as an 'attack' and/or because if you remove the POV about all that would be left is the external link. Niteowlneils 02:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lustick (new article)

edit

I am putting this up on VfD just to prevent it being speedied as recreation of a previously deleted article. Ian Lustick was deleted today after blanking by the original author, apparently after about an hour on VfD and hardly any discussion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ian Lustick). I never had the chance to see that article, so this aricle is a new article created from scratch. Ian Lustick is a full professor and department chair at a major university (UPenn) and is author or (co-)editor of a large number of publications. He is clearly notable in his field. Baseball players and web cartoonists with fewer accomplishments are being kept by default. Keep. Uppland 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The First Man Out

edit

Delete, although I must confess to not researching this before bringing it here. Just reading it made me feel faintly ill. FWIW, the article as it stands fails WP:MUSIC admirably. -Splash 03:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Chemlab.tv

edit

Non-notable website; Alexa ranking is 3,134,670 at the moment. Delete. Joel7687 03:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platitude

edit

This is nothing more than a long, drawn-out definition for platitude StradivariusTV 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand: I would argue that many of wikipedia's articles are long, drawn-out definitions. The article does give more information than a simple dictionary definition. Moreover, there is much potential for expansion on this topic. Perhaps this should be marked as a stub. Mistercow 05:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The only real difference between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia seems to be the length of the entries. Keep. Agentsoo 13:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef. And I simply could not disagree any more with Agentsoo's comment above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fall somewhere in between. An encyclopedia entry should be more than a long version of a dictionary entry. But this is certainly more than a dictionary definition. The first paragraph? Yes. A dictionary definition. The second? Not so much. Keep in mind also that the deletion policy states that we should delete articles that "Can never be more than a dictionary definition". Platitude certainly can. Mistercow 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Mistercow. Where could this article possible go beyond its current state? I might be missing something here, but even if I am the article isn't worth keeping in its current state so it should be transwikied. I think the Geogre Doctrine applies here. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Care to elaborate? Agentsoo 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still feel that the article is more than a dicdef even in its current form. I think if anything it is borderline, but what it gives in terms of example and analysis of example gives more value than just a definition would. That said, I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit, and the analysis expanded. I'd also like to see it modified to more closely reflect the actual definition of platitude (a statement of deep content which has become meaningless through overuse). Examples of further expansion: history of cultural context, influences on philosophical thought, etc. I'm not saying the article is good, but it's a start, and the topic has potential. If it doesn't get deleted, I'll perhaps do some work on it. Mistercow 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per StradivariusTV. The way to fix a long, drawn-out dicdef is to get rid of the unnecessary cruft — then what you have is a concise dicdef. The article in question is equivalent to "platitude (n.) A statement of little or no worth, usually meant to encourage or inspire. From Greek foo 'flat'." — and if you go to Wiktionary, you'll see that a similar definition (with the correct etymology) is already there! --Quuxplusone 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xurban

edit

Current Alexa ranking is 5,537,103. Need I say more? Joel7687 03:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in case you were wondering what my vote was. --Joel7687 03:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Joel7687. -Splash 04:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently this group has exhibited at MoMA in NYC. That in itself is evidence that they are more significant than many other art groups (such as bands) that have Wikipedia articles. ike9898 12:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ike9898's logic is good. Quite good. rincebrain 8:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete They did not actually exhibit at MoMA. The show is at P.S.1, a much smaller affiliate. This year alone, the showing this group is involved in (The "Greater NY 2005") includes 160 artists, with the express purpose of displaying works by new, little known groups/individuals. Almost by definition, being featured in this exhibition categorizes a participant as not yet notable, although singled out (albeit in a rather large group) by the art world as having potential. To continue the metaphor of music groups, potential isn't enough. Call this their first major showing. If they can keep it up, then sure, an article would be appropriate. Until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Icelight 22:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 20:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spescom Limited

edit

Was previously marked as {{del}} for advertising but does not quite qualify for speedy deletion because we need to determine if this South African communications company really is important or significant enough to warrant its own article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public Madness

edit

Delete nn band. No allmusic.com presence, one or two relevant Google hits. Please also call by the VfD for Mat Evil, a band member. -Splash 04:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

3D-DOCTOR

edit

3D DOCTOR IS A 2D ADVERTISEMENT Sdedeo 04:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tesoro Theatre Arts

edit

theater department of a high school, insufficiently notable for article Sdedeo 04:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 04:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete, May I remind you that it is an AWARD winning theatre arts department that deserves to be on wikipedia. Andyhi18 11:22, 5 August 2005 (PST)
  • Merge pared-down information to Tesoro High School. My college's speech team is AWARD winning as well, that doesn't mean they're encyclopedic enough for their own article. FCYTravis 07:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tesoro High School. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, completely useless page. Most school's theatre arts programs (or any types of programs) have won some types of awards, that's hardly a justification. Tesoro's drama program is slightly better than average for the surrounding community, but its nothing special enough to deserve a wiki. (And I'm saying this even though I go to Tesoro) I hate to say this, but the Tesoro drama kids who created this page just want their names to be on Wikipedia for minor recognition. (hence the shameless namedropping and obvious advertisement style and lack of neutrality of the article.) Andyhi18 is Andy Hogan, a member of Tesoro Drama who made sure to include an award he won as part of an ensemble in the article (complete with his name being the one listed first) who created the article for personal gain, so he would have his name on wiki.
  • Merge worthwhile information into Tesoro High School. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. RasputinAXP 21:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the double edit. Checking the history of Tesoro High School shows an attempt by Andyhi18 to split the article. Stronger evidence for a revert on Tesoro High School and a delete on Tesoro Theatre Arts RasputinAXP 21:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 20:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Espial

edit

Was tagged as {{db}} for being an ad, but it does not quite qualify for speedy deletion because we need to know if this software really is important or significant to warrant its own article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 14:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of Colditz Castle staff

edit

A huge table full of non-notable people. Is there an expectation that there will be articles about all of these people? If not, what does this table serve? If so, do all of these people deserve articles? John Barleycorn 04:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is a required spinoff from the Colditz Castle article if you would have bothered to look. To quote the top of the list page "This article has been spun off from Colditz Castle; please see that article for more information on the camp itself." As the primary article on Colditz Castle is already WAAAAY beyond recommended length, spinoffs are required. Keep and please go vfd something less useful.  ALKIVAR™  04:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't understand the hostility. Are you assuming that I did not read the very first words in the article? Does spinning the non-notable off from a longer article somehow make them more notable? Please explain how this information is useful. John Barleycorn 04:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep I assume you wouldn't have deleted it if it had remained in the main article, so you shouldn't try to carry out a "punishment deletion" now that people have followed Wikipedia's request and broken up a long article. I've never looked at either article, but the annoyance felt by someone who has edited them is quite understandable in my opinion. Osomec 05:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well for starters the grounds "Not notable" is not valid for VFD. Not to mention the fact that yes these people are indeed notable as most are referred to in the Colditz Castle article I turned into a FA (using exactly this kind of "not notable" detail). I find it extremely amusing that the Harry Potter article which has several spinoff lists, in particular a list of characters (all of which are fictional) is perfectly acceptable, yet a spinoff list of REAL PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED goes up for vfd. Perhaps I did act hostile, I'm sorry, but the more I see this the more disgusted with WP in general I become.  ALKIVAR™  05:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am baffled. I have no idea why anyone thinks I am trying to punish anyone about anything. I will admit that I had not looked at the Colditz Castle article and just happened to run across this, but if I had encountered that article, I would most certainly have begun a discussion on the Talk page as to why this information was necessary. Since the information is now all that exists in the article under discussion, then, yes, VfD is the appropriate place to discuss the matter. Why would I want to punish anyone with whom I have had no dealings, and wouldn't anyone who has worked on any article under VfD discussion also be annoyed? Why is annoyance at this article being listed here be of any more significance than the annoyance of any other person at their information being listed for deletion? Please, everyone, calm down, I am not trying to start a war or even an argument, just a discussion. I see that you are somehow arguing that every real person deserves an article? John Barleycorn 05:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry but VFD is not the place to start the discussion. First the talk page, then to RFC, and THEN to VFD is the appropriate order, If you are unsure its always best to ask other people first, get a few opinions, ask the writers of the article on the appropriate talk page FIRST. VFD should be the LAST place to go to discuss article content, unless its obviously junk like User:XYZ's Band's Fan page.  ALKIVAR™  05:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because they are making legitimate contributions to a major article, which often isn't the case, and people only split articles like this because Wikipedia asks them too. They have been very diligent, and this is the response.Osomec 05:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Colditz Castle is one of the best-known and most intriguing locations of the Second World War - a person studying it could find such a list of staff a great resource in tracking down further information Sherurcij 05:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and thank Alkivar for serving the users by moving this material out of the main article. Kappa 05:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly. But point out that non-notable is valid in VfD, it is used hundreds of times in VfD every day and, in the extreme, is a reason for speedy deletion on-sight. -Splash 05:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised someone's actually found a full list of the Colditz Castle staff. It was one of the more notable events in WWII. I agree with Sherurci on this. --Dysepsion 05:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is mere Colditzcruft. WP is not toilet paper; delete. -- Hoary 06:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents makes it quite clear that "not notable" is grounds for deletion. "For the purpose of the list below, notable is strictly defined as being very likely to get a consensus to keep if listed on VFD. Similarly, not notable is defined as being very likely to get a consensus to delete if listed on VFD." I'm straddling the fence on this one. It seems to me that the article is right on the borderline between "notable" and "not notable". Does anybody have any precedents they'd like to use? I'm currently leaning towards "not notable", and suggesting that ALKIVAR and Osomec think about starting a website dedicated to Colditz Castle for such trivia (which could be linked to from the Colditz Castle article). But it could well be that ALKIVAR's and Osomec's rudeness is coloring my judgement. Could we maybe stop voting on this for a week and come back when cooler heads might prevail? crazyeddie 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Colditz is undoubtably notable, working as a private guiding it isn't. Similarly, Alcatraz was notable but that doesn't mean that a list of every person who worked there would be. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. If nothing else, this information will date quickly, and a seriously doubt anyone's going to update it in the years to come (yeah, maybe once or twice, but what about 5 or 10 years down the road?). Articles like this may make wikipedia full of extrememly marginal, but at least accurate, information for the present moment, but they will only cause wikipedia to be full of misinformation in the near future. I bet there's an external link that can provide this information. -R. fiend 13:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A list of those who tried to prevent the escapes is as useful as the unchallenged lists of those who escaped and attempted to escape from Colditz castle during WWII. Listing the German staff helps round out the article by showing another part of the German side of the story. If Harry Potter can list fictional characters, then we can list real German POW camp staff. DonBruce 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A major difference between this list and a list of Harry Potter characters is that very many of the Harry Potter characters have their own articles, which the list of characters links to. I don't think any of the staff of this German POW camp are notable to merit their own article. crazyeddie 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven edits before this, only one to an article (most to Talk:Colditz castle). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as Capitalistroadster. --Tim Pope 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Excessively long (I fail to see the need to list EVERY person who worked at Colditz Castle, Lance Corporals and the like strike me as unencyclopedic trivia) but it's a historical resource. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some obscure information is going to lack notability but still be useful to scholars and researchers. I disagree that the information is trivial. Obscure, yes, but potentially useful. Since wikipedia is not paper I'd like to see this information retained. Tobycat 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup This seems to be fairly important, but I can understand why it was considered for vfd. The page is simply a list, with a brief reference to the parent page. A nice introduction (could be copied from the parent article) explaining the significance of the list would go a long way. ManoaChild 21:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. As it stands it's really just a list, but some preamble (at least mentioning the dates covered in general) would improve this no end. Tonywalton 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly - a credit to Wikipedia in my view jamesgibbon 23:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for nonnotability. Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sabine's Sunbird 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't se the point of this; it is clearly non-encyclopædic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's historically significant why is it non-encylopedic? David D. (Talk) 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Castle is historically significant; the list of staff isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - List of non-prominent people in a prominent place is not any more prominent than they are - Skysmith 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Doesn't offend anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.18 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 August 2005
  • Delete per Mel Etitis. It certainly didn't belong in the main article, but by itself does not merit an article. Details are good, but excesive detail (Would the daily menu over the entire history of the castle be useful as it's own article? Probably not.) doesn't have a home. --Icelight 23:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tries very hard, but lots of question marks which will never be filled, and lots of gaps; it is neither fish nor fowl. Table does not allow for promotions. Includes "one from the totally separate SS concentration camp". "These are the named members of the German staff from 1939 to 1945 at Colditz castle" doesn't fill me with confidence. Without access to the books listed as sources, none of it can be trusted; of no use to scholars or researchers. None of the sources look like official German personnel manifests. Keep the commandants, ditch the rest. in the midst of it someone has linked the word 'legal', which is... touching.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like this list could be a useful reference. There are references provided, even if they don't look like personnel manifests. Maybe at some point someone would be able to fill in some question marks, perhaps descendents of the staff. 4.240.162.109 03:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the descendants were to do that directly, their additions would probably be dismissed as unverifiable, and rightly so. The additional information would have to come from books. There's probably much more to be written about Nazism and its appeal to many people, but perhaps not very much more in the way of Colditzcruft that's waiting to be published: as a sizable and apparently insatiable market for works about Nazi trivia (uniforms, etc etc) has existed for years, there has long been a big commercial incentive to publish. -- Hoary 06:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El schlong

edit

Delete nn band. No allmusic presence, about 85 useful Googles with 'pedia mirrors removed and no domain-name of their own [6]. -Splash 04:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Echternach Ed Comics

edit

Delete utterly non-notable comic. No Google hits so also unverifable. I wonder if I am falling for an attack page here? -Splash 04:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 15:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I Must Not Chase the Boys

edit

Delete. All that about a music video? It didn't even make it to no. 10 apparently. It's actually a copyvio from here, but that might just be the anon author given the nature of the site. -Splash 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... Wow. Redirect to Play (band) or Delete. POV essay, musicvideocruft. android79 05:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, significance not stated, and if not a copyright violation, then original research. Mistercow 05:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Allmusic.com, the single did not chart in the US and the Replay album reached #67 on the album chart. [7]

According to Top 40 charts, [8] , this song was top 20 in Greece for three weeks in 2003 but did not achieve chart success anywhere else in the world. We don't have an article for the Replay album which would be the logical place to merge this with. See change of vote below. Capitalistroadster 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Play (band)#Replaying in 2003 seems reasonable. Punkmorten 18:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus nut

edit

Seems to be original research. I just don't believe it exists. No sources, at any rate. Only heard the word used to insult Christians Superm401 | Talk 05:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nominator no longer supports deletion. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph E. Hayes Jr.

edit

Delete - while I have no (urgent) issues with his linked webcomics having a wikipedia article, I definitely don't feel that every webcomic artist should also have their own personal page where they mention that they're "available for commission" and such. Sherurcij 05:14, August 6, 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 speedily deleted as NN vanity without claim to significance outside a college. FCYTravis 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Lewandowski

edit

Delete. Non-notable vanity of the kind that a speedy tag just keeps on disappearing from (although it's been rewritten a bit now). To the closing admin: Image:Todd.jpg needs to go too. -Splash 05:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Ironic that an article about someone who claims to be such a fantastic columnist is so poorly written. Andypasto 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^Let it be known that the subject is not the author of the article

Quite, but the author has removed the speedy tag at least 3 times. -Splash 05:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm hoping an admin will come here and agree with me, tag or no tag. Junkyard prince 05:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Joseph

edit

Tagged for speedy for no claim to notability, butfounding a company is a claim. Not sure how big the company is, so not vote. Kappa 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Mercury Insurance the leading writer of automobile insurance in California taken from their website. They also have a biography of the founder, stating The eldest son of a restaurateur, George Joseph was born in 1921 and grew up in West Virginia. During World War II, he served in the Air Force as a B-17 navigator, flying some 50 missions. Afterwards, he attended Harvard on the GI Bill, graduating in 1949 with a degree in mathematics and physics.

  • Keep and expand. According to Yahoo business, this company had $2.67 million billion in revenue in 2004 and 4,300 employees [9] That makes its founder notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:50, 6 August 2005

(UTC)

Keep and Expand - per the company's website, the company plans to expand its operations to 40 states. George Joseph also has had some significant involvement in California lobbying, campaign contribution controversy, and the repeal of some parts of California's Proposition 103.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New-look NHL Free-Agent signings are causing anxiety amongst fans.

edit

A non-encyclopedic personal essay. It's even signed. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 05:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Furious Gypsies

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Munson

edit

Non-notable. The opposite of a vanity page - he is a user here (User:Chuck0), User:Hall Monitor is posting his home address, where he went to school and so forth, Chuck tried to delete it today repeatedly. Right now Chuck's banned for breaking 3RR trying to remove his address and whatnot from the page, discussion page and whatnot. This is just harassment of a Wikipedia user. He is not notable - Google "book chuck-munson" search yields nothing, Amazon.com book search yields nothing. Has a few thousand hits on Google due to his Internet postings over the years, but this does not make him encyclopedia worthy. More importantly Hall Monitor is just harassing a user of Wikipedia by posting his home address and whatnot which Chuck does not want posted. Ruy Lopez 06:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weird, very weird, on all sides. Chuck0 seems upset that someone is naming the county he lives in. Anyway, Delete, nn. Sdedeo 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following debate below, keep -- I trust claims of Munson's notability in anarchist circles. I leave it to someone else to sort out the weirdo edit war! Sdedeo 01:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree entirely with Ruy Lopez's reasoning, but we come to the same conclusion. Munson seems happy to use Wikipedia for publicity, but objects to having an objective biography. The information that User:Hall Monitor and I have recently adde to the article is relevant, ordinary biographical info- year of birth, colleges, name of blog. This is all material that Munson himself posts on the web currently, so his claims of invasion of privacy are preposterous. Munson has posted, repeatedly, his address on the web. This article merely said what city he is in. However, since the subject demands control of his articles to his own personal tastes, and since he is marginally notable, I say we delete this article and then his other projects. He says the articles are keeping him from earning a living and they certainly aren't feeding anyone here. I'd propose that if this VfD is successful then we should nominate the bundle of articles as well. If Munson isn't notable for starting them, then they likely aren't notable either. Infoshop.org, Alternative Media Project, Breaking Glass Press, and Practical Anarchy. The last appears to have an independent existence (Munson is no longer editor) and might be more notable. hasn't published in a over a year. -Willmcw 06:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently, in Ruy Lopez's world, county of residence counts as "home address" -- that, or he's deliberately exaggerating. Also, since when is including where [one] went to school and so forth a form of harassment in a biography? But he's right about one thing: Delete as non-notable, vote contingent on deletion of Infoshop.org, Alternative Media Project, Breaking Glass Press, and Practical Anarchy, per Willmcw's reasoning. --Calton | Talk 11:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. chuck is very important in some circles- he does a lot, as can be seen from the above list of his projects. infoshop.org is probably the premeire site of anarchist information on the internet, and is certainly notable; chuck, as its founder, should remain as well. infoshop gets a lot of hits each day. no books about him, but due to his outspokenness, prolific publishing of newspapers and on the internet, and the fact that virtually every anarchist in the US knows who he is, i think he is notable enough to warrant a keep. as for his demands of control, i don't see this as any reason to eliminate the articles. if anything, he's a more interesting subject now that he has launched a boycott of wikipedia. he says he is going away, so we won't have to worry about his demands for control of biographical information. --Heah (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's fine to request that specific personal information not be posted; that's no reason to delete an entire page about a noteworthy personality. Voyager640 15:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chuck is a clear and interesting writer. What must a person do to get an entry about them? Invade Poland? rhh1 16:23 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chuck has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major publications, because of his leadership among anti-corporate globalization activists and expertise in social movement organizing. Just delete irrelevant personal info, and retain an entry about his political work and writing. YF 16:24 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting mini-controversy here. My research shows that this guy is notable in the anarchist community. I think we need to be cautious determining notability for people/things within the anarchy category because, by definition, they place themselves outside the mainstream. As such, we should not expect mainstream websites and commercial outlets like Amazon to validate notability as effectively. What we do know is that this guy has published a book that's fairly notable within his community and he's done the same with some websites. I don't think his prior behavior on Wikipedia or his attempts to control his biography content should be relevant to this VfD. Tobycat 16:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article as well as Infoshop.org and some other related ones. I don't understand his behavior with regards to this article. I actually e-mailed him once to ask him to verify the information there (that I didn't add) and he just started removing stuff without explaining. I understand and share his concerns for security culture (I'm assuming that's his objection?) but there was nothing there that was more than basic biographical information. --Tothebarricades 17:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Chuck Munson should have his own Wikipedia page -- and should be able to make changes to it when somebody posts something as privacy invading as his home address on it. Chuck is well known in radical librarian and anarchist circles. He's the founder and co-ordinator of Inforshop.org, a well-used anarchist website. His page needs to stay up. -- Jessica Books, NY, NY. 17:58, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.123.48.63 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2005
  • Now this is an odd controversy, and it brings up an interesting question: Does someone have a right to say "no, you cannot post a biography of me" or not? If he was a public figure (Politician, Hollywood Star, etc), the answer would be more obvious. But, he's not. Really not entirely certain how to assess this. I'm going to ercr on the side of caution, and say that since he's technically a private citizen (after all, notariety in 'Anarchist Circles' is not the same as being a notable public figure), he should have a right to have this removed if he doesn't want to be public. Delete, for now. Though if this story hits one of the major media outlets, well, he then becomes a public figure, so all bets are off. =/ Xaa 22:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability. Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tobycat. bpt 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being notable "in anarchist circles" isn't too damn notable. --Nate Ladd 09:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme weak keep, per sockpuppets. —RaD Man (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "keep." Chuck was way out front on infoshop. Certainly original creative thinkers in any field belong here. editing issues should not affect decision on the entry.--Kathleen in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.229.42 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2005
  • Keep Chuck not liking the fact that someone is posting his county of residence is an inappropriate use for a VfD. --Bletch 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interested parties may want to read Munson's account of this on his blog, [10], in which he unfortunately gets most of the facts wrong. -Willmcw 23:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why is there even a discussion about keeping Chuck? As a librarian I am opposed to this censorship in the form of deletion by a mob, and I am also opposed to efforts to invade his privacy by blocking Chuck's attempts to remove sensitive personal information from his entry. While Chuck may be notable in small circles that are not to everyone's taste, he is indeed notable. I have learned and gained a great deal from my short, mostly online, association with Chuck. I am sure that many people have learned and gained from him. If you don't like Chuck's entry or don't think he's notable, don't read it. Perhaps the entry on a non-entity like Don Saklad would be more to your taste. -AmyM, NM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.120.200 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 August 2005
  • Keep. The individual is notable within the anarchist community, but should not be allowed to censor his own article against the wishes of other editors. Hall Monitor 15:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Article needs some work, and there should be a little more to assert notability, but seems good enough. Sean Black 03:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non-notable. --jenlight 04:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page / non-notable. -- in_on_the_killtaker 23:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it! Vanity page! Sorry, I don't have a user thingy. -Dan O, Philly, PA 2005.08.11
This is not a vanity page. I didn't create it and if you've followed this controversy, I've been trying to temporarily keep some personal information off of the entry so I can find a job. People who know me can tell you that I'm not vain or interested in self-promotion. At the same time, it's laughable that a few people think that I'm non-notable. I happen to be a notable anarchist, activist, and librarian. I've been profiled by the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Kansas City Star. I've been interviewed by other newspapers and magazines, including media outside of the U.S. On most days, I wish I wasn't so notable. Chuck0 15:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On most days, I wish I wasn't so notable
Don't worry. You're not. If you haven't already, why not vote for it's deletion? --jenlight 20:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am notable! This entry shouldn't be deleted, in fact, Wikipedia needs to have more entries on activists in various movements. These people are more notable than much of the obscure stuff which is covered by Wikipedia. 24.94.181.211 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't clear, 24.94.181.211 = Chuck0 = Chuck Munson. -Willmcw 23:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 08:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1950_British_Lions_tour_to_New_Zealand_and_Australia

edit

Has no information. Is just someone posting "hello i am hugh" Kushboy 06:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This could have fallen under the CSD, or speedy deletion. Someone else put the tag there, so the article should be gone in a little while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. I won't blame anyone for bringing this to VFD rather than speedying it. Simply being a musician is often viewed as an assertion of notability by many, and if the subject is truly not notable, it will usually rack up delete votes anyway, as we can see here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clark

edit

Not informative. Tried to find more information about subject and could not find anything; therefore, I think it Clark not notable. Kushboy 07:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP as a redirect. -Splash 22:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear_pollution

edit

Very POV. A commentary. Not enough to salvage and merge with anything. Kushboy 07:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sheepish Productions

edit

Probably vanity, fails Google test (zero hits). [11] --Alan Au 07:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find any proof that they really were in a film festival. The unsigned comment is fishy because the article is very new and it would be highly coincidental that someone searched for it on Wikipedia during its time on here. Also, an update: their website now has pictures of them and of the night of their formal. They seem very young.~~ (Unsigned comment by Kushboy (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, Wikipedia:All pages by title and Wikipedia:All pages in the MediaWiki and Template namespace

edit

Outdated, unmaintainable, and redundant with Special:Allpages. Radiant_>|< 09:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shobuz

edit

Given the author's username, probable vanity. In any case, notability not established. --Alan Au 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of sexual slurs. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoochie

edit

Nominated for deletion in accordance with WP:NOT section 1.2.3: Wikipedia is not a slang, idiom, or usage guide. This article is a slang definition. The Literate Engineer 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't that list also a violation of the same WP:NOT section? The Literate Engineer 03:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The Literate Engineer's Comment - Section 1.2.3 also states the following, "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." If this aritcle were to be omitted, then it’s also plausible to delete the slang article from the wikipedia, as well as List of sexual slurs, and other slang articles such as bimbo.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

French dragon

edit

Since there's no context whatsoever, I can only assume it falls under WP:NOT regarding Original Research: namely, this is from someone's personal fictional universe. As such, it doesn't belong. The Literate Engineer 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the guy is a rpg player just fooling around.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

De-perimeterisation

edit

Not so much an article as a jargon-filled mission statement, along with some distinct POVing. Possibly too much of a neologism to transwiki (?), so it either this needs a massive clean-up or deleting. About 1000 google hits with or without hyphen. Grutness...wha? 08:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism / jargon. Tobycat 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:57:26, 2005-08-07 (UTC).
  • Delete. Rd232 11:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC) As a newbie, I will admit that my initial attempt to create a wikipage that describes this new information security concept, had an excessive number of shortcomings. I am trying to understand the expectations of Wiki, and have started to edit based on the learnings I have achieved. I am working to achieve the "massive cleanup" and would welcome pointers amd feedback. What I can say in defence of not deleting the word is that having come to the Wikipedia to better understand and define the concept I was surprised to find it missing. Thus my ham-fisted attempt at adding it. I had never done so and thus the short comings. I am reading the MANY and various pointer pages. help or coaching would be welcome Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally could someone help me understand how not to be accused of POVing? I am trying to ensure that the page is written neutrally. Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Project namespace/Alphabetical index

edit

This is not really an index; rather, it is a list of two-letter combinations, each of which links to a query of Special:Allpages. The problem is that this isn't really a useful way of searching through Wikipedia namespace, and most letter combinations (e.g. "FK", "QZ" etc) will not yield any useful information. Radiant_>|< 09:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete The page doesn't even seem to work correctly. It certainly does appear to be a useless page. If folks come along and say that they are actually using it, though, I'll reconsider my vote. Tobycat 20:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advogato

edit

"Advogato is a website for free software developers that uses an innovative trust-metric to minimise the need for maintenance." Advertising has no place here, and certainly not in Wikipedia namespace. Radiant_>|< 09:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Alternative outlets

edit

Basically advertising, within Wikispace, for other Wikis that aren't Wikimedia sister projects (e.g. Everything2, Anarchopedia and Jnana). While I'm sure some of those deserve their article in mainspace, I don't see any point in this list in this namespace. Radiant_>|< 09:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hillsborough

edit

Reads like the introduction to a murder novel. Dr Gangrene 11:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Ideals

edit

Was originally deleted by VFD vote, then subsequently undeleted by VFU vote. This VFD is part of undeletion procedure. The reason for its earlier nomination was that it would be original research, and that the website mentioned in the article is non-notable per its low Alexa rank of 760,000. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 12:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I vote Keep, just as I did last time. But having read the VFU page in question I'm not sure if my vote will count anymore, so there we are. =/ I think the article could be expanded, and I think more citations are necessary, but that's simply a matter of legwork. And I still think that this article is necessary, since articles like Democracy have become the battle ground of entrenched camps of wikipedians. Xaa 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperdynamics

edit

This page has been made for advertising purposes and is disguised as an article. Check the pages history. cheese-cube 13:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising! Salsb 02:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:51:44, 2005-08-07 (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 Already redirected. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism

edit

Appears to be vanity and/or advertising. This is a CV, not an encylopedia article. -- The Anome 14:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The VfD tag was removed from this article the same day it was listed and not replaced until today. Because of the low number and ambiguous nature of the votes, I am re-listing the article so the process may be completed. I am not voting. -- Essjay · Talk 13:25, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Even if the artist is notable, the article is a bleeding mess and needs to be moved to the proper namespace. I'll change my vote to keep if someone can establish notability (maybe her own art exhibition or something along those lines). Fernando Rizo T/C 19:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. The publications section of Nadia Russ' website points out some news coverage, including a NYT Magazine blurb. Good enough for me. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

__ Here more info on notability: [[12]].
"Delete" was based on first version, when it was just number of art exhibits. New version made after note 'delete'. Article will be developed. <unsigned comment by User:67.191.39.103 at 11:38, 5 August 2005.> Fernando Rizo T/C 20:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Anthropology basic topics

edit

A short list of topics we want covered in anthropology - but all of them have already been covered, and the list hasn't been updated since february 2003. This has seriously outlived its usefulness, and it doesn't have any content worth archiving since it's just a list. Radiant_>|< 13:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

GlobalCom Software Limited

edit

Not notable [13] - brenneman(t)(c) 13:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.bogra.info and Bogra.info

edit

Not notable per WP:WEB - Alexa, however there may be systemic bias working here. brenneman(t)(c) 13:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

SKHM

edit

Not notable. Google:SKHM+energy yields 3,560 hits. brenneman(t)(c) 13:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the cited Google results are supposed to indicate. It is clearly some kind of New Age crap, but with 3,560 Google hits it may well be comparatively notable New Age crap. However, I suspect that this is a copyvio from somewhere, and in any case it is not written as an encyclopedia article. Delete unless completely rewritten. Uppland 14:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's either copyvio from [14] or posted by them. Either way it's unencyclopedic promotional POV material. Tearlach 17:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jamstick

edit

Delete, self-proclaimed neologism.FreplySpang (talk) 14:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lustick (new article)

edit

I am putting this up on VfD just to prevent it being speedied as recreation of a previously deleted article. Ian Lustick was deleted today after blanking by the original author, apparently after about an hour on VfD and hardly any discussion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ian Lustick). I never had the chance to see that article, so this aricle is a new article created from scratch. Ian Lustick is a full professor and department chair at a major university (UPenn) and is author or (co-)editor of a large number of publications. He is clearly notable in his field. Baseball players and web cartoonists with fewer accomplishments are being kept by default. Keep. Uppland 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --malathion talk 06:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

edit

POV magnet, created by editors pretending to be Muslim, so as to act as a strawman-opponent to their real point of view.

It's clearer with Saduj al-Dahij ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Brash

edit

Notability not established. - Motor 14:44:20, 2005-08-06 (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 speedily deleted -- Francs2000 | Talk   17:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icedawg

edit

This information has already been speedily deleted twice, however the user, who has been warned about it, doesn't appear to agree. So why don't I just delete it again? Because the user posting the content appears to have access to more than one IP: they were warned on 200.91.69.149 (talk · contribs) and have reposted the content on 195.93.21.38 (talk · contribs). Pending other IPs leaping in to repost the content I am taking the deletion up a stage to see if they get the general idea. By the way the content is patent nonsense. Francs2000 | Talk   14:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Double Gravity Bookset and The Double Gravity Trilogy and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/The Double Gravity Trilogy and Grice Design Work & Co

edit

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Double Gravity. Fan fiction. Also The Double Gravity Trilogy and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/The Double Gravity Trilogy. And Grice Design Work & Co. And Double Gravity Ships (sorry, there's already a vfd on this one; the tag was removed from the article). Joyous (talk) 15:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn. Searching for "Double Gravity" on google yielded 576 results, but I couldn't find any about this series of books. Amazon does not know about the books. ManoaChild 22:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, this stuff seems to be fan fiction. Do they even have a deal with the Star Trek people? --Etacar11 04:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And shouldn't anything to do with this that's not vfd-ed be vfd-ed? (I'm lazy at the moment) --Etacar11 04:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm not so lazy, all vfd tagged and pointing here. All related to apparent fan fiction and a small publishing company who I assume would be hauled into court by Paramount/Pocket Books if they published Star Trek stories and tried to sell them... (right?) --Etacar11 05:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbering Kate

edit

Another load of Barse - certainly unverifiable - and almost certainly bs --Doc (?) 15:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Special Air Service. Has already been done.-Splash 22:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKSF Selection

edit

The article is a simple cut and paste from Special Air Service. There is no reason to duplicate this information, and since selection varies between special forces it makes sense to include selection policies in articles on individual forces. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. No need for a WP:VfD. Pburka 16:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the British Army/Alternative Structure

edit

This was created as a subpage of Structure of the British Army by somebody who didn't like the former article. It largely contains the same information in a different format, with a number of inaccuracies and misspellings. While there is some information that could usefully be transferred and integrated, in general the existence of this article is completely unnecessary and confusing. -- Necrothesp 15:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

CHERUB Forums

edit

Nominated for speedy because of advert, but that's not a WP:CSD. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 15:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's not advertising, just informing. I talked about the page, I never said anything about whether it was good or not.No.--Commander gree 21:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of things widely considered toyetic

edit

Subjective, POV, weasel words in the title. Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 15:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inherently POV and unverifiable. Pburka 16:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep neologisms from Freakazoid Delete subjective, divisive lists. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, listcruft. Punkmorten 23:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant. Would be actually "list of cartoon characters" or something like that since toy manufacturers have attempted to turn most of them into some kind of toys. Quality controversial... - Skysmith 10:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. For better or worse, this is both a part of marketing history and animation history. The latter has been oftentimes accused (rightfully, at times) of creating stuff merely just for the sake of having a toy to market. Likewise, marketers have been accused of taking the most innocent stuff and creating mercenary merchandizing licenses out of it. It's somewhat of a dark footnote in what passes as (recent) modern history (though others may disagree), and I think it should be retained.--Mitsukai 00:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Delete. In retrospect, A Man in Black has a point. I'll go ahead and move over some of the examples to the toyetic article and this one can be deleted.--Mitsukai 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to How to Start Your Own Country. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Danny Wallace I

edit

Was nomintaed for speedy because not notable & vanity. These aren't valid WP:CSD, so I've moved to VfD. (No assertion of notability is a CSD, but the article asserts that the subject is king of a sovereign nation and is the subject of a BBC programme. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 16:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denailing

edit

Violates WP:NOR. Lacks references. Sounds like an essay. Probably violates WP:NPOV. Could possibly be merged into Torture. Alphax τεχ 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it existed in medieval times, it didn't go by that name. I'm not even going to go into style. Mistercow 18:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "courtesy of the delicious quality of agony perceptible by fingertips" Oh come on. Some people read about this for educational purposes, this guy sounds like he enjoys it a little too much. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.124.85.164 22:45, 6 August 2005 UTC)
  • Delete There is an almost pornographic quality to the piece, which is inappropriate, not to mention unsettling.
  • Delete The style of the article is inappropriate and there is little to no indication of factual accuracy. "... questioner felt "cheated" that more delicious agony could have been extracted" This is an encyclopedia, not a comic book. - Shadowe 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't like how it sounds? Then we clean it up, we don't delete it. Wikipedia contains many articles on various methods of torture, getting rid of just this one (and leaving the rest) doesn't make sense. People have definitely had their nails ripped out as a form of torture, it's fact and not fiction. Clean it up, don't censor! Commking, 11 August 2005
    • I don't think this is an issue of censorship. The problem is that we cannot verify that any torture has gone by that name. Have people had their nails ripped out as a form of torture? Most likely, yes. But do a google search for "denail" or "denailing". For "denail", you'll find a bunch of people who can't spell "denial". For "denailing" you'll find sites where people are trying to remove nails from lumber. Now let's narrow down our "denailing" search by adding the word "torture". Two results. Maybe there is a kind of torture called "denailing" and only two people have ever decided to mention them in a web page. But with no sources referenced in the article and no Google results, we aren't going to be able to clean this page up. Mistercow 08:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man X Collection

edit

Non-encyclopædic: it's merely a commercial collection of already-existing computer games; moreover, it doesn't yet exist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) To add to my inital coment: it seems at the very least a bit fan-crufty to have articles like this. The usual principle is that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; why is that different for computer games? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. --malathion talk 06:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//fragment

edit

Can't make much sense of this, but it doesn't sound notable. Deb 16:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's got something to do with .hack, although its notability escapes me. DS 17:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somebody can make sense of it - there are several other .hack// ... articles, so this is probably an anime episode or a game or something like that ... - DavidWBrooks 17:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup. A quick Google search shows that it is an MMO that has been released in Japan, ostensibly to be imported to the U.S. I don't think it needs to be deleted, as it is certainly significant, but the article is useless as it is now. Needs NPOV and cleanup. Mistercow 17:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup. The subject of the article will become more relevant in the upcoming year. Right now it is only useful as a reminder of a new game. For those who doubt whether the game exists at all, there is an IGN press release on the subject. [[15]]
  • Send to cleanup. This is factual, as there are any number of articles that discuss this found all over the net. This different from being an anime, as it is being made into an actual game, and varies from being a simple console game, as it will also be used for online play.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was CLOSED. Nominator has recommended delisting, and the nomination was in effect an accident anyway. Splash 17:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck (Pokémon)

edit

A one-off Pokemon trainer with no personality or backstory. Makes only a single appearance in a single matched trio of Pokemon games. Non-notable gamecruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strong Keep Gym leaders, like individual Pokemon, are notable. He is important in Ash's quest on the show and important to the player in the games. Let PAC expand it a bit. Ryan 11:34, August 6, 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 CLOSED. Nominator has recommended delisting, and the nomination was in effect an accident anyway. Splash 17:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy (Pokémon)

edit

A one-off Pokemon trainer with no personality or backstory. Makes only a single appearance in a single matched trio of Pokemon games. Non-notable gamecruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Gym leaders, like individual Pokemon, are notable. He is important in Ash's quest on the show and important to the player in the games. Let PAC expand it a bit. Ryan 11:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep As above. The Pokemon Adoption Center is actively working on expanding Pokemon stubs into real articles. With some 25+ members, the PAC has expanded 50 stubs in the past week alone and nearly 200 articles total. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. While Bugsy only appears in one matched set of games and one episode of the anime and no chapters of the manga (I checked before posting this VFD), this is better off merged than deleted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is getting ridiculous. Wrong yet again. Bugsy appeared in multiple chapters of the manga, see [16] for evidence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This needs expanding, but we can sort it and going on past record with pokémon, we'll do it very soon! --Celestianpower talk 12:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although PAC so far has centered on species articles, we're almost out of those, so next will come characters and movies (including deciding what articles are too trivial or indepth to be useful). Almafeta 13:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Johto Gym Leaders. Not worthy of a seperate article.Gateman1997 17:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was CLOSED. Nominator has recommended delisting, and the nomination was in effect an accident anyway. Splash 17:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brawly (Pokémon)

edit

A one-off Pokemon trainer with no personality or backstory. Makes only a single appearance in a single matched trio of Pokemon games. Non-notable gamecruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by UninvitedCompany. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

K.Grafstein

edit

This article seems to be an auto-biography of a non-notable person. It seems to violate Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Fbergo 16:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:TheGamer and TheGamer

edit

non-notable information on some internet user (originally on TheGamer, and moved to an non-existing Wikipedia user at User:TheGamer) secfan 17:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Userpage where no actual user account exists. Delete. Uncle G 22:41:45, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Keller Williams Realty. There was nothing here that needed merging.-Splash 22:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Williams (real estate)

edit

Article was listed for speedy because of no assertion of notability. The subject is the co-founder of a billion dollar business. I vote to Keep or Merge and redirect to Keller Williams Realty Pburka 17:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CartooNOVEL

edit

neologism. DS 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PRPoet has not only deleted the VfD notice, but blanked this page, twice.DS 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE TO PRpoet: DO NOT BLANK THE VfD NOTICE. THE PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON THIS PAGE, NOT DELETE THE PAGE ENTIRELY - FURTHERMORE, DELETING THE PAGE ENTIRELY WON'T WORK, SINCE YOU'RE NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR. STATE YOUR CASE HERE, AND WE'LL VOTE ON IT. IF YOU BLANK THIS PAGE AGAIN, I WILL REPORT YOU ON THE VANDALISM-IN-PROGRESS PAGE, AND YOU MAY BE BLOCKED FROM FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS. DS 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just rv'ed again - they'd once again deleted the VFD notice. Tonywalton 00:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - apart from anything else this'd be a neologism, as stated in the article.

Note that there's also a "Cartoonovel" page (as opposed to CartooNOVEL) with identical (pre-VfD) content. I've replaced it with a redirect to CartooNOVEL to avoid having to keep up with two lots of rv'ing when they remove the VfD notice (hopefully they won't rv the redirect page). If the "Cartoonovel" page is also reverted I'll VfD that as well. Tonywalton 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Admins should take note of actions of the users in this case and take appropriate action if neccessary
  • Delete neologism and advert. - Motor 07:48:05, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance 3 hawaii

edit

Another of Maoririder's stubs. Either delete or clean-up substantially and merge to Discovery Kids. Also, the formatting of the title is incorrect. So, if the vote is to keep, that needs to be addressed. -Soltak 17:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 11:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Hair Forever

edit

Completing nomination started by Billhpike on 24 June 2005. -- Norvy (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No votedoesn't mention much usefull info but could be expanded Billhpike 03:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • So put {{expand}} on it, or stub it like I did. Gazpacho 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to exist, was notable as being totally unannounced and random, even for Adult Swim. I doubt, however, that it gets a series. Weak Keep. humblefool® 04:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If the show does exist, and this article describes the show truthfully, why should it be deleted? There are plenty of articles on equally minor cultural achievements. matturn 3 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
  • They've announced that it is going to be a real series, premiering in December, along with new episodes of Aqua Teen. ZJP 5 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
  • They're currently recording new episodes, I'm not sure when they're planning to air them, but I know the show's not dead. bluehysteria
  • Keep It's a new series coming later this year. It's really funny. AshTM 07:33, 10 July 2005 (UT
  • Keep The show was the funniest ever, dont delete it, it was a show on Adult Swim--Kit fisto 06:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why was this nominated for deletion anyway? --Kamasutra 02:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inappropriate listing on VfD. I've left a message on User talk:Billhpike. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The show exists (I have it on MPEG) and it's hilarious! Can't wait for the new eps Adult Swim keeps announcing for the fall EmiOfBrie 22:03 CDT, Aug 1, 2005
  • Strong keep even though the show SUCKS. --Infobacker 19:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It one of the perfect examples of the conflict between the AS: Comedy and AS: Action.
  • Keep. Poor quality of the article calls for a cleanup tag, not vfd. -- Norvy (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard of it, but it has an IMDB entry and Google hits out the wazoo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep IMDb-proven, notable TV show CanadianCaesar 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sockpuppets are right. —RaD Man (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rob Online

edit

A personal web site. I have not yet found any third party evidence that shows that it is important or significant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seems vanity. Especially since its creator is "Rob Online". But I could be wrong. Kushboy 19:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic proverbs 2

edit

No vote. This had a previous VfD, and I'm relisting it for the reasons given in my closure note there. Original nomination said "Delete this because there's virtually no content to it. It's a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, a link to a list of Scottish Gaelic proverbs at Wikisource, a link to proverb, and some external links, held together by a dicdef".-Splash 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Fever vs Malaria

edit

Very few people would search for this article in particular. It is best to move all the dialogue to the two respective articles about Malaria and Yellow Fever. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

FinCech

edit

Sounds useful to a very limited number of people, and Wikipedia is not a mailing list directory.

  • Delete if it's just an internet mailing list. If it's an actual cultural society with a headquarters and meetings and such, possibly keep, though the article fails to make that clear. It only gets 61 Google hits, either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --malathion talk 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

edit

Totally inappropriate. A POV based dividing of editors works against NPOV policy, not towards it. Wikipedians should work together, not as US vs THEM but as a whole. Dividing people, classifying them into distinct group, is how ghettos form, and how racism starts. To try this is to claim that editors of belief X must all believe what everyone else of belief X is. US vs. THEM, is a false dichotomy. Truth is not black and white, there are many many shades of grey. To push one POV, or to try to balance only one side of the scales, leaves the other side unbalanced, making the system push naturally toward the POV of the balancing side. This is not appropriate. This is not right. This is not a wikipedian way of behaving.

It wouldn't be up for VFD if it was like those 4 projects. But it isn't. It is explicitely for editors with a single POV, not a single interest. Wheras those 4 projects are for anyone interested in their subject, whether pro- or anti-, this "guild" is explicitely for people only with one POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certanly not, where did you get that idea from? --Striver 11:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete __earth 17:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC) zereshk, its not malicious intent. Shia could still be dicussed under Islam. FYI, 3 others guilds within project islam, namely sunni, SIIEG and another one that I don't remember are being considered for deletion too.
  • Keep ObsidianOrder 10:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --malathion talk 06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild

edit

Totally inappropriate. A POV based dividing of editors works against NPOV policy, not towards it. Wikipedians should work together, not as US vs THEM but as a whole. Dividing people, classifying them into distinct group, is how ghettos form, and how racism starts. To try this is to claim that editors of belief X must all believe what everyone else of belief X is. US vs. THEM, is a false dichotomy. Truth is not black and white, there are many many shades of grey. To push one POV, or to try to balance only one side of the scales, leaves the other side unbalanced, making the system push naturally toward the POV of the balancing side. This is not appropriate. This is not right. This is not a wikipedian way of behaving.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bens face

edit

Could not find any information on 'Ben Hall' or anything notable about a 'Bens face' or a fuame. Kushboy 19:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 talk 21:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of celebrities with breast implants

edit

Largely unverifiable trivia. tregoweth 19:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • The only problem I see is the speculation. This should be removed. I suggest Keeping any celebrities who have publicly confirmed or denied having breast implants. Pburka 20:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the "rumored" section is eliminated.BillyCreamCorn 21:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The rumour section seems to have gone but we are still listing those 'either self-admittedly or with high probability' - that's nonverifiable and encourages OR (mind boggles?) - so delete unless someone is willing to reduce this to verifiable --Doc (?) 21:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Towel. -Splash 23:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drycloth

edit

I'm not clear whether this is a synonym of Towel or something else, but surely it doesn't merit a separate article. Deb 20:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

*beep movie*

edit

Nonsense. Delete--MicroFeet 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty content Delete --kpturvey 15:27, 6 August 2005 (CST)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jascer

edit

Nonsense. --Ian Pitchford 20:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Evilgelical Christians

edit

Frivolous and polemical use of the article namespace: the content of the article was a redirect to Fundamentalist Christianity — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Ultra Rev.

edit

If true, nn. But probably a hoax, the Church in question doesn't seem to have a pastor by this name [18] --Doc (?) 21:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does according to the site you referenced. --64.185.140.252 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK that was careless of me - I can now actually verify the self-proclaimed title from his blog [19] - but it is still very nn, so delete --Doc (?) 22:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you please clarify the terminology you used: "nn". Regardless, I created this entry, and intended it as serious and worth expanding in the coming days (because of the curious relationship between the indivual's ordaining denomination and the church he serves in), and no, I'm not Evans. However, I've reviewed the policy on deletions and whatnot, and suppose this could be considered a vanity article, though I didn't mean to use resources for useless material, or waste your time if you view it as such. My apologies if indeed this is how you take it. I respectfully vote keep. --64.185.140.252 23:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
replied on userpage --Doc (?) 00:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Cleo (1958)

edit

This article is improperly designated and is a direct duplicate of a section of another article. The article duplicated is here: Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What article? Punkmorten 23:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an article on another Hurricane Cleo, but this appears to be a different storm. Since nominator didn't specify what article this allegedly copies, I'm voting keep, though it does need to be wikified. Changing vote to delete as duplicate. For some reason I had the impression the two articles were on different events. My original point remains that improperly formatted articles are not a criteria for deletion, however. Be bold. 23skidoo 23:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 00:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did anyone actually read the article instead of just looking at the title? The article on Hurricane Cleo and the article up for deletion are, as the nominator said, on the exact same subject. Delete the dupe. FCYTravis 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hurricane Cleo and redirect. This has different information. There's no reason to bring this to VFD; a merge and redirect will solve the problems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. No merging or redirecting from this article should be performed because it is a copy/paste job from "Catastrophic" etc article mentioned in the VFD header. Delete it for being a duplication of data, and merge info into the real article. It's also incorrectly named (it's about the 1964 storm, not 1958). I would speedy it if I had caught it before E. Brown did, it has no business existing. --Golbez 04:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete information and redirect. Keep link if a proper page can be made with sufficient information, but this is the wrong storm!!! CrazyC83 19:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason at all to keep the link. Hurricane Cleo in 1958 was an extremely powerful storm - but never came close to land. See so for yourself: [20]. The article should be purged with prejudice and the creator should be chided. --Golbez 20:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Am I allowed to vote, be it that I am the accuser?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:19, 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waist shake

edit

Neologism. (80 unique googles.) "At the end of the article, the teacher states, "Luckily, the "waist-shake" craze has died down, but if it ever pops up in the urban dictionary or Wikipedia, we'll know who to blame."... looks to be a case of WP:POINT.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Static Octopus

edit

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, no notable members. feydey 22:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. I find it an interesting article. Just because no hits come up on Allmusic.com, doesn't mean it's not of merit. Are we not building Wikipedia to become the definitive resource and if so, then how we can compare it to other sources? User:Matt.whitby
  • In fact, this band is headed by Tery Daly, who although perhaps unknown to you is VERY well known on his music scene. As the publisher of <a href="http://www.Starcityscene.com">Starcityscene.com</a> a site that covers and promotes the Lincoln, NE music scene, Tery makes a big contribution to his local scene in that role and in his role in The Static Octopus.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beathoven

edit

Self-promotional, vanity..NN content. See WP:NOT EdwinHJ | Talk 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that everything like this is vanity. I have stripped the page down and improved the spelling & grammar, and it seems more acceptable now. Whether this is a relivant page at all is open to debate though.. Perhaps it should be moved to Wiktionary. When the Wiktionary is complete, it will certainly include popular culture words, even obscure ones, such as this. | Gubby 1:16, 7 August 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contrablonial

edit

Nonsense - unfortunately I don't think patent nonsense (although I won't object) --Doc (?) 22:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Williams Realty

edit

Pure vanity/advertisement page Tonywalton 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete If it was a well known realty company then maybe, but wiki is not for advertising. --Dysepsion 23:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should've done my research. Didn't realize they were around here in the West Coast albiet not really known compared to other real estate companies in the same area. --Dysepsion 06:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rubber Bandits

edit

Not notable, advertising. feydey 22:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youth finances

edit

First draft of an essay. Unsalvageable. Unclear if the title subject should even be an entry.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inertdynamo.com

edit

Alexa: not in 100,000, vanity and promotion. Cannot be put to CSD. feydey 23:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dust devil monster

edit

Non-notable. Low-level RuneScape character.Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (only content is an external link) --cesarb 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devrim

edit

The page is empty, with only a link for outside information. Created by an anonymous user. Delete --Pc13 23:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Keller Williams Realty. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Keller

edit

Vanity/advert along with Joe Williams (real estate) and Keller Williams Realty Tonywalton 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hell (DragonBall Z)

edit

Delete-anime-cruft.--Zxcvbnm 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boobies (The Thread)

edit

nonsense thread that doesn't really apply to anything, can't think of a reason it should exist Ovulator 00:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharsh

edit

So-called Israeli private militia, founded 3 months ago, dedicated to the "Silly Revolution." No Google hits (other than their own website), no sign of any independent news coverage, and the same editor added silly edits to Passion fruit regarding this group.[21] It appears to be non-notable, and perhaps a hoax. Delete. Willmcw 21:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The "Silly Revolution", while still rather unknown, has real substance to it, and the events described - although not "serious" by nature - did actually occur. Unfortunately for international interest, all media coverage of the organization has remained local - meaning no english-language links are available for reference (besides our own site).

The use of Wikipedia was intended for precisely this reason - to bring our movement to a broader international audience. Whether or not this is a legitimate use of Wikipedia is for you to decide, as we have no intention to force our ideology on anyone, but we do believe that our entry is not completely without merit. "silly" does not, in our opinion, necessarily equate with "Dumb", "pointless", or "superfluous". I think that Wikipedia readers/users should be allowed to decide for themselves how much thought (or lack of it) our militia deserves.

Independent Links regarding "Pharsh" and the "Silly Revolution" (unfortunately in Hebrew):

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3119283,00.html (please note almost 250 (!) responses)

http://food.nana.co.il/article.php?id=1017 http://b.walla.co.il/?w=/3900/754267 http://news.msn.co.il/news/Yellow/Internal/200507/2005072921802.htm
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&ak=null&S=DAF82FC95EB24C5F9DBBD4CE3A8A9414&ClipMediaID=71895
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/967/087.html

DardaDos 15:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. we are anything but a "private" militia

  • do you really think what we wrote constitutes propaganda? (in the classical sense). I would also be more than happy if someone else wanted to look through our site, read the articles, see the interviews, and write an "objective" entry on us. Volunteers? DardaDos 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharsh is not an unknown organization. Its activities have been covered by all the major news outlets in Israel, including press, television, radio and internet sources. Indeed, coverage of Pharsh has been so widespread that several satiric shows complained of the "oversaturation" of media by Pharsh. In addition to news articles, editorials have apeared in the press including the nations leading daily newspaper. While irritating, Pharsh is unfortunatly not a minor cultural phenomen in Israel.

Yaron Nahari

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_6&oldid=1081091754"