Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 14 July 16 >

July 15

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

The result of the debate was delete as vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lilian Lee Li Zhen

Delete non-notable vanity friendity. At least she's not frugly, though.-Splash 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

List of soft drinks by country

Yet another unmaintainable list - all nations on earth, every brand of fizz, tea, coffee, energy drink (do we then include supermarket own brands too?) ...... --Doc (?) 00:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Tangerine (genre)

A little bit vanity, a little bit neology. This band has been around since 2002, I'm a little skeptical of them creating a genre since then. Googling finds very little on the genre. The band may be notable, but the genre is not.-- BMIComp (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The link from this article to the VfD page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 00:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, "very short article providing little or no context." WP:CSD "odd... off kilter, quirky and contemporary yet retro" has no descriptive meaning at all, nor can one band constitute a genre, by definition. Dcarrano 00:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nn, neologism, dictionary stuff. Excuse for a link. Sorry, but this is not worthy of being in Wikipedia. Batmanand 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity neologism. JamesBurns 04:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 22:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Septoid2

Vanity. NN.-- BMIComp (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Roughly 29 keep votes, 21 delete votes. Cleanup take will be added - I'd suggest possible attention tag too. Hedley 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups

Always going to be POV; limited encyclopediac value. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This Vfd has gone through 1 week of voting, and appears to be a close match. I suppose we could err on the side of 'caution' and completely redesign the article, with some help of course. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or EXTREME Cleanup. I am entirely fed up with the opinionated 15-year olds going around on the article talk pages, vandalizing my talk page for protecting it, and other stuff. IT has no value, because we can't list every single group out there. Unless you want to start from scratch and only add groups with a news article source, my vote stands. If you'd like to do what is outlined in the previous sentence, then the extreme cleanup applies. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely astounding. Wow. Imagine if we deleted all articles on the basis of what 15-year olds did on their talk pages. —RaD Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. Don't know enough about this. But I see we have Category:Warez groups. Maybe a list could be made out of only those (i.e. notable enough to have a WP article. But then again, that list would be slightly redundant, so I don't know really. Shanes 01:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant then. Like I said earlier, if it's kept it needs to be started over from scratch and only w/ groups with notable sources. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably what we should do is just trim the list down to groups that have articles on here, that will clear up about half of the page. In the last section, everything is red links except for one. No vote from me yet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of everything ever known. --Phroziac (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category is sufficient. Dcarrano 02:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with two previous voters, a category would be best, if anything at all. -- Joolz 02:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is what categories are for. --Woohookitty 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. A few examples in the main Warez article should be sufficient for our encyclopedia. This "list of" article adds little value and is creating obvious problems. Delete. If kept, I do agree with Zscout370 that the list should be pared down to only those truly notable groups. A reasonable proxy is having an article. A redlinked site (or worse, a redlinked site that no one could be bothered to even describe) is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost entirely unverifiable. --Carnildo 02:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only the stuff that can be verified. Note to warez people: if you can be verified by us, then the authorities will be able to also. Have fun in jail! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above 66.167.144.200 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of these groups are verifiable. The ones that aren't should be removed. Rhobite 03:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Category is enough. --Eliezer 03:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant, category is better. Friday 04:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list with short descriptions is value added over a simple category, but the list should be strictly limited to groups that are sufficiently notable and verifiable to have their own wikipedia page, i.e. no red links. Dragons flight 05:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Addendum Comment: I went through and found the following wares pages which recieved keep/no-consensus VFDs: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
    I would say this is fairly good precedent that at least some warez groups are encyclopedic. If one accepts that premise, it is not much of a stretch to believe that a list of notable warez groups is also encyclopedic. Dragons flight 08:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Malathion 06:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. I'd even go so far as put the category up for deletion. Almafeta 07:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike the category, it seems like this table provides pretty good concise summaries / short descriptions of the groups. Agree with Dragons flight above on the necessity of limiting the groups to sufficient notability, though that of course carries the caveat of flame wars, vandalism, etc. when someone decides that warez group X or Y is not notable. Verifiability, IMHO, should not be too problematic, either. RidG (talk) 07:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, there are a couple of notable groups on here but mainly it seems to be a magnet for vanity of NN ones. Radiant_>|< 08:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Some of the information doesn't seem like it could be easily and instantly verified. TheMonkofDestiny 10:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but let the redlinks stand. The category is sufficient at this time, but if at some later time enough articles are added to warrant a list, I have no objection the this page being re-created. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly harmless unverifiable (sorry, I have Earth on my watchlist). I'm with Ilyanep on this one. Either this article gets deleted because it's too secret, or it gets kept, but only with groups that are verifiable through news sources. Even if this article gets deleted, one can always recreate it, but only with verifiable groups. --Deathphoenix 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Even a so-called "notable" warez group hardly is, I'd say, any more than any other cartel of fraudsters or copyright violators. CDC (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not to overtly criticize, but that's a rather unsophisticated comment. 95% of all released warez comes from a small number of well-established groups, with anywhere from 2 to 5 groups vying for the top position in a specific niche (i.e., PC games, DVD movies, etc.). Given the attention that piracy receives in this country and others, I would argue that such major contributors to piracy are indeed sufficiently notable. Infamy does not warrant lack of inclusion to the Wikipedia, at least as far as I am aware. RidG (talk)
  • Keep - agree with RidG Ravedave 19:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Ta bu shi da yu. --Conti|✉ 22:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic, fest for 15 year old IRC kiddies who think that being able to edit a .ini file makes them a 1337 Hax0r!1!!!!!1111! --Kiand 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing. :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but only the parts which can be verifid Yuckfoo 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable information. Martg76 22:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list ordered information provides a useful comparitive summary of organisations. The criteria for inclusion in the list should be a WP article which itself meets the notability criteria. Fifelfoo 00:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle keep. As it clearly states atop this article, this is a list of warez groups for the parent article on warez. It was created because the list of names was becoming too long for the main article and it was appropriate to export it; I believe this is an acceptable reason for the creation of a list on Wikipedia. If non-notable or non-verifiable groups are added they can always be removed, but that is certainly not a valid reason for the deletion of the entire list. Secondly, this list serves to document notable groups which do not yet have articles rather than create a host of stubs. Alkivar is out of town, so I'm not sure if he'll be responding before the close of this vote. —RaD Man (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created because the list of names was becoming too long for the main article So what? It was worthless in the main article, and it's worthless by itself. --Calton | Talk 13:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. WP is not a web directory. --Calton | Talk 13:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Reluctantly, because there's no way this will ever get cleaned up and stay cleaned up. An annotated list is not redundant with a category. I would be more comfortable with this if it did not include freebie links with redlinked entries. (Seems like an open invitation for vanity additions.) It would be useful if there were some kind of objective criteria that could be applied (Alexa ratings? I don't know enough about the topic). -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and annotte. This may be one of the few pages that needs semipermanent protection. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I just noticed that this is protected from editing yet does not have a protection header atop the article. Secondly, it seems like a catch 22 (or conflict of interest) that an article cannot be improved while it is up for deletion. —RaD Man (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a vprotected tab...but it was removed by someone. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RaD Man brings up a good point. This article, while being placed on VfD, has not had a chance to be improved. That really weakens this VfD, because one of the benefits of a VfD is that the article itself often gets improved during that time. If this article gets deleted (and it's pretty borderline right now), that makes it a strong case for a VfU. Perhaps this article should be unprotected and placed on VfD for another week. I'd like to see how (or if) this article gets improved. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be unprotected at the moment. I think any admins who voted on this should watch it carefully, however. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, because we already have Category:Warez groups. If it were not for this category, I would vote strong keep. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 16:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elfguy 17:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for several reasons: 1) moved to sub page since Warez was getting too large 2) stops the main warez article (which has been a repeatedly used resource/reference by major media organizations NY TIMES, BBC) itself from being vandalized constantly by joe schmoe the 12yr old warez kiddie to hype his latest l33t group. 3) Its really easy to verify existance of groups, but many are not noteworthy enough to get a stub article. This is a way to list smaller groups, as well as larger more verifiable groups with a brief 2-3 sentance description of them, and save the hassle of vfd's of small stubs because one person decided group X was non notable. Sadly a category (which I do find useful) would get cluttered up way too fast if we were to start including data on each group since there have been probably 15,000+ warez groups worldwide in the past 20 years.  ALKIVAR™ 00:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting list. Removing this in no way improves Wikipedia. --L33tminion (talk) 01:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many of these groups are very notable, some a little less. I'm offering my help in cleaning it up. It should definitly stay. bbx 01:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm persuaded by Alkivar's rationale. Problems should be handled by removing unverifiable additions. --Michael Snow 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list is interesting. --Myles Long 14:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreeing with RiDG, the fact that cracked/pirated software/media makes up such a large margin in the computer market (a given, since anyone somewhat knowledgeable on a computer has heard of p2p, and the general makeup of those networks is for distributing such files) should account for it's place it notability. Second, agreeing with RaD Man and ALKIVAR, the need for a seperate list to be created should be obvious given that someone that doesn't know what the term warez means probably doesn't want to have to deal with a huge list of groups on the same page. Also, not to be critical, but it seems that most of those giving a reason for deletion simply find the subject offensive. A wiki not only allows editing by anyone from mister PhD to his 4 year old daughter, but it also promotes free-speech. Hello World! 18:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I can't find a single vote on this who said they find the subject offensive, or that removing it would somehow limit free speech. Who are you referring to here? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weaaaaaaaak keep under the condition of cleanup and REDESIGN. The current layout is horrible. // Gargaj 09:45, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean and update It's an interesting list, but needs a few updates and design revamps as many groups that were only alive a month ago have now left the scene. --crumb 14:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Warez groups are on top of their food chain. They're the ones responsible for nearly every illegal copy of software and games out there, etc. Wikipedia's not paper, as some say. claviola (talk to me) 14:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep, mainly because all of the groups have their own articles already, and a list is more informative than a category. I don't really like the formatting, though. It should be more of a standard headers+<dl>-type thing. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 15:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Y0u. --WikiFan04Talk 20:55, 22 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep - but clean, perhaps, keep the POV out, etc. IMO this page was in its best state after Ilyanep locked it originally - it was POV, flame free, info was easily verifiable (defacto2.net, cybercrime.gov), and useful. It's referenced by many mainstream news organizations as well as people (including myself) writing papers on the subject of Intellectual Property.
  • Keep -- but does need cleaning, and probably some discussion about protection or watchlisting, per above. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while probably keeping only "historical" dead groups. Listing recent groups brings nothing but trouble. Dipswitch(scribble) 20:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep - with cleanup. --Avatar-en 12:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect (10 redirect to existing page, 4 delete). - Mgm|(talk) 22:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Right opposition

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (likely copyvio and lyrics are not an article). - Mgm|(talk) 22:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

One card short

Does not appear to be notable. Is this a copyvio? Exabyte (talk)­ 01:59, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rave

Delete Nothing but a vanity page. 24.143.142.212 02:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. The article now describes a nationally broadcast TV show from Australia. - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Getaway

This disambiguation page seems to serve no purpose. of the four entries, the last two are simple dicdefs and clearly should be deleted; and Google research implies that the Australian program is not particularly notable. Delete carmeld1 02:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (8 delete, 2 keep). - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Progressive student initiative

Less than 100 Google hits and below the 100K radar for Alexa. Denni☯ 02:52, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing suggests notability or verifiability. I could read the website content and take their word for it, but why? Friday 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, college clubs are not normally notable (especially ones just starting up), and advertising. Dcarrano 05:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, why delete it? Its obviously a rather new org, and thus would explain the low number of google hits (mainstream US press doesn't give much attention to organizing on the left). As per verifiability, there is a) a registered webdomain (do you seriously suspect that some other org or political tendency has launched a false website?) and a snail-mail address. If you want to check the verfiability, check whether the snail-mail address is faked or not. The article just needs a stub-tag and be rewritten. As per notability, its by no means true that student movement are generally non notable, and this organization clearly states its intention to become a nationwide movement. --212.60.73.2 11:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but intention isn't the same as result, or else I would be getting straight A's. Once they're actually notable--and most small student movements aren't--come back. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 14:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Meelar points out, the intention is to become notable, and thus they are not notable yet. -Splash 14:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Progressive Student Initiative. Revolución 01:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability. Only 14 unique Googles. --A D Monroe III 03:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable vanity. Give them an article later if they do something important. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 17:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.. - Mgm|(talk) 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful land

Created by User:Kojangee to illustrate a point. Foreign language dicdef at best; I do not see any potential for this to become encyclopedic. Therefore, delete. Visviva 02:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be too POV to merely redirect this to the United States? Hehe. —Cleared as filed. 04:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as currently unverifiable, although I would probably change my vote if given cites, it would be an interesting thing to note if true. Dcarrano 05:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-referential dic def. Also, hopes to be policy about use of the word which goes against current naming conventions. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete To explain, Beautiful Land is a transliteration of miguk(미국;美國) which is in turn taken from mirigyeon(미리견;美利堅), old Chinese transliteration of America. The character mi(미) means beautiful, but the meaning was not a factor in constructing the name of the country. Btw, Japanese use "米国" which also reads miguk in Korean, but means "Rice Land." noirum 09:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per MoS (use English). Kokiri 11:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I was fishing and indeed caught my fish as Kokiri has given me enough evidence to demonstrate my point on another issue. For those interested, Beautiful Land is indeed a translation of what Koreans and Chinese use for America. However, most modern Japanese use "Ah-Meh-Lee-Kah" and not Rice Land, an antiquidated term in Japanese. The point I was trying to make was that Koreans use the term "East Sea" (Donghae) for the "Sea of Japan" in Korean, yet some people are too stubborn and want to use the Korean word but put into English. My point is that if they want to use the Korean name and put it into English, why would the reverse not be called for? Anyway, my point has been made. Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:33 Beijing Time
Because the English name of the United States is not a matter of international dispute, perhaps...? Oh, wait, it must be because we're idiotic dupes of the great international Korean conspiracy to denature the English language. -- Visviva 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was listed as copyvio. - Mgm|(talk) 23:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fairlawn Library

Libraries are great, but this one seems unremarkable (and is not listed in the List of libraries). Delete. Nukeqler 03:04, July 15, 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 --Allen3 talk 00:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Division No. 6, Alberta

Delete Not notable. Created only by Statistics Canada for census purposes, little to no local knowledge of census divisions. List of attractions, etc, can easily be integrated into the Calgary or surrounding towns articles. Kirjtc2 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not too interesting, but nonetheless it exists, it's probably going to be around for a long time, it's probably going to be referred to now and again, and it's something somebody may need to look up. Might be a candidate for a merge, though. Gzuckier 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is still being worked on and is part of lager a series. (template:alberta)Series does not yet contain other articles, but I bet it soon will. May be up for a merge, but Alberta and Calgary are large enough already that they don't need to be filled with a bunch of statistical data. Zhatt 05:37, July 15, 2005

Keep. Equivelant to a county in the U.S. Please do not waste our times! -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut out the attitude, it isn't very becoming. This article should be renamed Greater Calgary Area, and merged with the Calgary Regional Partnership article. Nuff said. Snickerdo 06:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually not equivalent to counties. Alberta has counties that StatsCan counts as CSDs. This would be like an article on a school district. Kirjtc2 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is like a U.S. county, in terms of it being the level below the province. It has no governance however, but is a statistical region. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. Statistical regions aren't really all that notable. Nobody's going to go to wikipedia to look up what attractions or protected areas are in "Division No. 6". At most I can see a small article with the population and some other stats, but this page is made out to look like a major well-known government district. Kirjtc2 06:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's only fair that Alberta's Census divisions get the same treatment as Quebec's or Ontario's -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? People in Ontario and Quebec know their counties/MRCs/etc. They have a cultural meaning there. People in Alberta do not know their census divisions. There is NO cultural meaning. Please stop creating useless articles on things only census nuts know about. Kirjtc2 17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know very many people familiar with either system really. It just is us census nuts who do. Again, I point you to my Alaska Boroughs example. Clearly census entities are worthy of articles, like it or not. Even the Province of Alberta Statistics Division uses CD's. The Manitoba federation of Municipalities even gave their census divisions names for organizing purposes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Province of Alberta *Statistics* Division. Basically a provincial version of StatsCan. And seeing your updates to the Census division article, does this mean all the health regions, school districts, etc are going to get articles on here? Kirjtc2 22:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some school districts have articles, check out Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is evidence that census divisions have significant cultural meaning to the average Canadian who is not a census administrator. After looking over the census division article, it does seem like this is a logical way to break Canadian provinces down locally, so I'm changing to keep. Dcarrano 08:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Why? We have articles on the Census Boroughs of Alaska, and they pretty much serve the same purpose! -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Youngamerican 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep logical way of breaking down articles that would otherwise probably become too massive Sam Vimes 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please it seems notable to me Yuckfoo!~

Keep notable --Simon.Pole 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Do people in Calgary even know what Division No. 6 is, let alone people outside of the city? Rename the article Greater Calgary or something, as that would make a lot more sense. Snickerdo 06:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have an article on the Greater Calgary Area- which has entirely different boundaries. Besides, how many Torontonians can say what census division they live in? They would give you a blank stare, but that is no reason to delete our article on Toronto. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, the average person in the Greater Toronto Area knows what county/region they live in, and the names are used on a day-to-day basis. 'York Region' 'Durham Region' 'Peel Region' etc are as much a norm in day-to-day conversation as they are a part of Ontario Culture. Police forces, school boards, municipal services, etc are named after these census divisions. The same cannot be said for people in Alberta - Do the Division No. 6 Regional Police exist? How about the Division No. 6 District School board? Or the Division No. 6 Transit Comission? The content of the article itself are fine, but this article needs a different name and/or to be merged with one of the other Calgary articles. The only people with blank stares are the people reading this article and wondering what the hell it is talking about, and I think your zealous attitude towards this article needs to be adjusted. Rational comments are acceptable, but going on a tagent and making wild and false claims to justify your cause is, well, rather stupid. Snickerdo 08:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those things you listed off don't exist because, well, Div. 6 is not as dense as other census divisions. So what's your point? -Tyson2k
        • What justifies notablity is not whether everyone knows about it anyways. The fact is, it's a place, and places exist- and therefore should have an article. It's not an insignifigant place either- it has over 1,000,000 people. Whether or not people have heard of it is not the issue. Wikipedia is not a polling firm. The fact is, StatsCan says it exists- so it does. Why dont we just delete all the Census Boroughs in Alaska while we're at it? They aren't notable either by your definition. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a place as much as an entity created by StatsCan. Here in New Brunswick the province draws its school district boundaries irrespective to anything else, and they're numbered too. Are you going to say we should have articles for all 18 school districts, with a list of attractions and parks? If you're going to list attractions, MPs, highways in this article, then I suggest you add a complete list of them nationwide to Demographics of Canada. It would serve the same purpose. Kirjtc2 16:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Alaskan Census Borough pages don't contain any information beyond the simple census data. You are trying to make this article into some grand central source for everything around Calgary. You could argue about keeping this page about simple census data, but having information such as highways, MPs, MLAs, attractions, etc goes well beyond the whole point of the census area to begin with. This page MUST be altered and/or moved to a page more fitting for the data it contains. End of story. Snickerdo 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not just a statistical division, it's a geographical division as well. The Alaskan boroughs all have information on their geography. There may not be lists of highways and parks, but I guaruntee if someone were to add them, no one would fight over it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is it a geographical division? Who outside of stats bureaus uses this? As I've been trying to say, it might be gread for disseminating data, but it has zero cultural significance. Kirjtc2 05:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I never said it was a cultural division, but how is not a geographic division? It has borders, and is shown on various maps of geography. Again, look at the Alaskan boroughs. They all have geography sections. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, before anyone makes any sudden judgements, I would first take a look at the various Alaskan Census Borough articles. A list of them is available in the List of Alaska borough and census area name etymologies article. Earl seems quick to point out the notability of these articles, but at the same time these articles contain nothing more than simple census data. Listing attractions, MPs, MLAs, highways, etc is beyond the scope of a simple 'census' article, regardless of what Earl would have you believe. What's next, a Wikipedia article for every single census tract that StatsCan has created for every single CMA? If this article is kept in its current form, I propose that Earl be forced to create an article for every single census tract within the Calgary CMA, and update it and defend it with the same zeal as he does this particular article - after all, if we're making articles for un-named census areas that serve no purpose other than gathering statistical data, we may as well do the same for individual community tracts! Otherwise, I think it's time for a merger and a move. Snickerdo 10:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I am sorry if information is such a bad thing for an encyclopedia. Heaven forbid there be information in an encylopedia! And, it is not wiki convention to force its users to do anything. Census Tracts aren't something I think would pass the notablity test. (I have no American examples to justify ;-) ) -- Earl Andrew - talk 10:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Information is great, but information that can't be used for practical purposes is almost as bad as no information at all. This is the whole reason why we're having this debate. As for census tracts, I'm sure the census tract containing Queen's Park or Parliament Hill would pass the notability test - but is it practical? I'd just as equally argue the deletion of those articles just as much as this one. Snickerdo 10:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite: Since Alberta census divisions are not based on real-world municipal organization, the article is definitely needed, but it should be confined to things related to the census. A section like "Attractions", for example, should appear under counties or whatever that people in Alberta would actually know (unless there's an actual "Division No. 6 Tourism Association"). Peter Grey 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. Fawcett5 23:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peter Grey's reasoning. Stick to the raison d'etre of "Division No. 6" (eg. emphasize census data) plus a little info to help a reader understand where/what is being discussed. - maclean25 06:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These divisions are not all relevant, but some such as this one (see also, the Greater Vancouver Regional District) are actually more important. In the case of Div. 6, it essentially represents an area that corresponds to Calgary's metropolitan area, but is distinct from its censused CMA. This is not unlike the GVRD. Alberta just happens to number these divisions instead of name them as is the case in BC. -Tyson2k
    • Actually, that's not quite the case. There's a difference between the Calgary Regional Partnership and the numbered census divison. It's also interesting to note that the Greater Toronto Area is spread out over at least five seperate census divisions, and the Golden Horseshoe is spread out over even more. Snickerdo 06:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... you're right, the CRP is completely different. It is also a corporation and not a census boundary. However, even though they do not complettely match, Div. 6 is the basis for Calgary's StatsCan CMA (same as the GTA and the GVRD). It is also the basis for the boudaries of the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor and the Calgary Health Region, which are also StatsCan divisions. So, you're right, Div. 6 does not equal Calgary's metropolitan area, however, as a boundary, it is no less relevant that any of the other afformentioned regions. -Tyson2k
        • The Greater Toronto Area and the Toronto CMA are entirly different things. For example, Oshawa is in its own CMA, while still considered part of the GTA. Just the same, Orangeville is part of the CMA, but not considered part of the GTA, as it is not within Halton, Peel, York, Durham or the city of Toronto itself. The difference here is that each one of those regions is its own census division, has a cultural tie to the region around it, and each one serves more of a purpose than simply keeping track of StatsCan data.
  • OK, how's this: the article stays, but only census statistics and other relevant data is included. No lists of MLAs, parks or museums. Good enough? :) Kirjtc2 05:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Earl, even the Ontario census division articles don't generally list politicians and attractions and such; they simply list the cities and towns within those divisions. A few do have "attractions" lists, but those should really be listed mainly in the individual towns and cities. The articles for Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and Greater Sudbury are a different matter entirely from most census division articles, because those census divisions are actually single united cities, and thus their articles simultaneously function as city articles; most Ontario census divisions don't work that way. So the Alberta census divisions, which also don't work that way, have to be treated less like Toronto and more like Frontenac County. Bearcat 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten to them all you know. I'm starting with the more populated ones, like this one, and Peel, and York, etc and working my way down the list :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to support keeping this; whether it's common knowledge or not, it is a region with definable boundaries which serves an important purpose that fits within the definition of what Wikipedia is supposed to cover. Bearcat 17:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what's unfortunate here is that Alberta has chosen to number its census divisions. Snickerdo is right that many Calgarians do not know what Div. 6 is while most Ontarians know the "Peel Region" and many Vancouverites know the "GVRD". HOWEVER, even though names like Peel Region and GVRD make much more sense than Division No. 6, they are NO different. They mean exactly the same thing to StatsCan. All census divisions in BC are "Something Regional District", most census divisions in Ontario are "Something Region" (GTA is not quite the same thing) and all census divions in Alberta are "Division No. #". It's not very descriptive, and so nobody pays much attention to it. However, since it means exactly the same thing as something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should stay in Wikipedia for exactly the same reasons. Modify the article if necessary, but I have voted to keep it. -Tyson2k

I agree completely, and I do believe you are an Albertan as well? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am. -Tyson2k
The Greater Toronto Area is not a census division. It's actually a combo of the CMA and the regions surrounding Toronto. It doesn't even exist as a legal entity, and is rather used as a rough reference to the areas surrounding Toronto by various businesses, tourist groups and chambers of commerce. The whole debate here is the fact that Alberta's "Census Divisions" exist for no reason beyond book-keeping purposes. In Ontario and British Columbia, the census divisons also follow legal municipal boundries, and have a cultural link to the community. Sorry Earl, but writing an article is not going to suddenly make "District 6" a part of the Calgary culture. Snickerdo 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The GTA is a lot like the CRP. Agreed... it is not a legal division. I don't believe I ever made that case. However, Div. 6 DOES follow legal municipal boundaries like true census divisions in Ontario and BC do. Why do you think they don't? Look at the northern boundary of the municipality of Rockeyview and Div.6.... they are THE SAME. Furthermore, I would say that there is very little cultural similarity between communities in the GVRD (not unlike Div. 6). I have lived in both Calgary and Vancouver and can tell you that CULTURALLY Aldergrove is no more like Vancouver than Airdrie is like Calgary. The way of life, the ethnic/racial composition, and the socioeconomics of the cities of the GVRD are very different. I am not going to list off stats, but there is plenty of information at StatsCan if you need a source. -Tyson2k
You totally missed my point. The individual census divisions of Ontario are actual legal entities onto themselves. Even the Greater Vancouver Regional District is exactly that - it is a regional municipality, and even has an upper-tier government. What government does District 6 have? Is there a 'District 6 Health and Welfare Department' ? Is there a 'District 6 Regional Police Service' ? District 6 has ZERO impact on anyone in the area, nadda, zip. GRVD and the various Regions and Counties, however, play a significant impact on a BC and Ontarian's day-to-day lives. Hell, I live off of Niagara Regional Road 83. Could you please show me where Alberta Census Division Number 6 Road 83 is? It's a census article, nothing more. Snickerdo 01:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Internal political divisions in eastern Canada operate completely differentely than those in western Canada. The same is true for counties and municipalities in the west. They have very little political or legal power. No division in western Canada greater than that of the municipality has its own police force for example. BC's system is identical to Alberta's. The GVRD does operate a parks network and a transit system, but only by virtue of the fact that it has been incorporated and follows the StatsCan-determined boundaries of Greater Vancouver (it is the same situation that would arise if the boundaries of the CRP or the Calgary CMA were to correspond exactly to that of Div. 6, which they don't). You will not find the same in the BC division of the Caribou Regional District for instance. And the same is true everywhere in western Canada whereby provinces are governed almost exclusively by the provincial government without internal divisions. What do governance and political structure have to with whether or not this article should be kept anyway? Police forces, transit systems, etc, are a direct reflection of an area's government or lack thereof. Boundaries and divisions are no less valid in their absence. The boundaries of Div. 6 correspond exactly to the legal boundaries of the municipalities contained within it. Thus, it is a legitimate division which happens to be one unit of magnitude larger than the municipality and one unit smaller than the province itself... just like the GVRD. -Tyson2k
I actually have talked to Albertans. None of them had ever heard of Division 6. Kirjtc2 21:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I demand sources! ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep. Census divisions are important and encyclopedic. Talk of what belongs on such pages belong on talk pages. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see a purpose for this article other than duplicating StatsCan data. --NormanEinstein 00:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I live in Calgary and have heard of and seen maps of the census divisions. --Cloveious 00:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long it's kept up-to-date. A map showing the names of the member municipalities would make the article quite useful. It's impractical to fit the names and borders of every community on a provincial map, but might be possible on a Division map. It lets people learn about Alberta, one piece at a time. Ideally people should be start at the Alberta page, work (drill) down to the division level (with a map showing each), then go down to an individual municipality. Divisions give a nice middle step, even with no legal signficance. --rob 09:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete - Mgm|(talk) 23:17, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sams stuff

Not Encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 03:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E-42 s

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasNo consensus (you can't merge to a category!) humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E-43 s

For a prior VFD discussion, see Talk:1_E-43_s.

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E1 people

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 E2 people

I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Blue Team Productions

Non-notable/vanity. Last I checked, gets 21 hits on Google -- all from the same site. Delete. Alynna 03:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally useless.--Kit fisto 19:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of comparisons

This is essentially a flattened (and outdated) version of Category:Comparisons. Why maintain two versions? minghong 03:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (14 delete, 4 keep). - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in religion

The article is innately unable to achieve a neutral point of view. The concept of "unsolved problems" in religion is without basis, and may well be a contradiction in terms. Alterego 04:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Every time I reread this article it gets worse. The title is completely misleading, as it suggests that the article is going to contain a discussion of actual problems that are soluble, or at least open to intricate philosophical debate, with reference to a particular set of faith assumptions (like, for example, the problem of evil). That's not at all what this article is. It would more appropriately be titled Flaws with religious belief or Reasons that religion is incompatible with society's now fully evolved rationality-based belief system—and to state that is to realize that the topic is inherently POV and therefore unencyclopedic. I think Colby and Peter Ellis are overly optimistic in their assessment of the salvageability of this article.
Oh, and what's with the "topics for further discussion" at the end? When did this become Wikitextbook?
Je dirais même plus: Bleah. -EDM 04:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Back of the School Bus

falls under original research and is clearly NPOV, also non encyclopedic and cannot be accurately fact checked due to the fact that facts change from school bus to school bus Jtkiefer 04:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

*This seems like an informative article, I vote for this to stay. (Unsigned vote by 205.188.116.65)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Suncoast Primate Sanctuary

Obvious advertisement. Notability not established in article for the subject, and a google search pulls 328 hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alexis, Paul, Justin and Cole Cimoch

Neither the fact that they're simply quadruplets, nor bit parts as extras on Friends, makes them notable or encyclopedic. Suggest delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as obvious vandalism and recreated as redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Unstoppable Juggernaut

Vandalism Hansonc 04:12, July 15, 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. Hedley 23:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Revolution games

Far too much crystal ball and reliance on rumors and speculation. "Revolution" is a code name not the actual name of the system. See Nintendo Revolution for an actual list of games that have been aknowledged or confirmed by Nintendo. This page is no where near ready and far too soon for a system that won't be released till 2006. K1Bond007 04:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The press is using the name Nintendo Revolution consistently, and once the actual name of the system is known, we can just move it to the correct name. Additionally, the page is only three days old, and vandals have been blanking the page. Almafeta 07:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to me that a more appropriate place to put a list of rumored games at this early stage of development would be the main Nintendo Revolution article. Once the system is released, this article can be recreated. Kairos 09:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kairos. --TheMidnighters 14:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. -Splash 14:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Weak keep per dicussion on talk page. -Splash 22:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We just have to make sure that only confermed games are put on the list. And what is the point of deleting an article that is just going to be recreated later? Joizashmo 16:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 20:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previously noted, crystalballing. Additionally, unencyclopedic list topic. The Literate Engineer 20:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kairos, this does not need to be split out yet. Dcarrano 23:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thunderbrand 23:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it better now, that I've altered it to only feature confirmed games? -- A Link to the Past 00:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It'll just be remade as soon as more info comes out, and it's nice to have a list of confirmed games. Nifboy 01:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that in regards to WarioWare and Camelot RPG, the two games were confirmed by NGCFrance, but did not have an announcement from Nintendo or Camelot. Delete them if you want, or put a notice that it is confirmed by NGCFrance, who did not list their sources on the matter. -- A Link to the Past 01:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Speculation - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 04:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's speculating? Nintendo? -- A Link to the Past 04:27, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I vote Strong Keep. For one, there is NO SPECULATION IN THE ARTICLE. Hell, there are links on Nintendo Revolution's page confirming each of the games. For another, this article will be expanded upon, so why is it causing problem? If it were a larger list, it wouldn't be a problem. It's not an ideal VfD nomination, because it will, no doubt, be a noteworthy article. It wastes no bandwith because it is small, and when it begins to waste bandwith, it will be notable enough to warrant a place. There is no Crystal Ball, Hocus Pocus magic involved in this list; only the words from the horses' mouths. -- A Link to the Past 04:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Daikatana was confirmed as coming out in late 1997. Duke Nukem Forever was planned for release in 1998. Half-Life 2 was scheduled for September of 2003. The Phantom game system was scheduled for Christmas of 2004, then March of 2005. --Carnildo 06:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, what you're telling me then is if we have this article with these games confirmed and at an early development, they will forever be there. Wikipedia is written on the internet, not stone tablets. We don't need to wait until it becomes impossible for the games to be cancelled. As of now, there's little reason to believe they'll be cancelled, and even then, if they're cancelled, change it. -- A Link to the Past 06:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • And yet this page still breaks the rule of WP:NOT. Most of the games listed are all "Untitled" and all of them are already listed at Nintendo Revolution. There is no point to this article. It should be deleted and recreated at a later time (in the correct name) when a proper list can actually be made. Please read WP:NOT, it is policy. K1Bond007 06:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • That is what they are. If you say they don't exist, then you'd be a liar. They are in development, that is not even arguable. And if this applies to WP:NOT, then Twilight Princess does. AND, I fail to see the reasoning in deleting a harmless article that will return at a later date. There is no speculation on if these games exist, since they are confirmed by people with the authority to confirm it, so they are Revolution games. We should assume they're coming, like we do with Twilight Princess, Super Mario Strikers and Katamari Damacy DS. -- A Link to the Past 06:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • And on another note, if you're arguing this, then I dare you to go to each and every page for an unreleased game (like, Twilight Princess), and delete any mention of a release date. You're assuming that these games won't come out just because we haven't seen pictures, so logically, you must assume that game won't come out, right? -- A Link to the Past 06:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep confirmed info lots of issues | leave me a message 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This list does not suggest that it is. Ambi 07:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ordinarily, I'm soft on "crystal ball" policy, and support keeping items that will soon be valid topics; here, though, "Revolution" isn't even the name of the system. The title is inappropriate, and the verified content exists at the system's parent article. Xoloz 15:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All items mentioned here have been externally confirmed. Nintendo is notoriously tight-lipped about their projects, we need to wait a bit longer.~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:35, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep Usefull. Can be moved to correct name when it comes out. Is anything being hurt by having this article there? (sorry forgot to login) Ravedave 20:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further consideration, I'm changing my vote to Keep. While I would greatly prefer that game lists of this type distinguished between released games and upcoming games, that it not how they work. Given that, my biggest problem with the list is probably that the games on it don't actually have titles, and it seems to me like that's not a very good reason to vote to delete. Kairos 20:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will concede that this may no longer be crystalballing; however, I still believe that this is an unencyclopedic topic and does not even constitute an article. My vote remains to delete. The Literate Engineer 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now, it turns out that there are five more games announced. This article is no longer speculation, if it ever was. -- A Link to the Past 21:48, July 21, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tatiana Soskin

Non-notable; possible attack page Madchester 04:42, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

T W G

Verging on nonsense. I'm not sure if this is a band or a fan group, but there's hardly enough information in here to make a stab at judging verifiability. Joyous (talk) 05:00, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yong Chi Heng

vanity / not-notable Tobycat 05:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus for Ong, Sweeney or Ogonowski, transwiki for the rest -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ong, Madeline Amy Sweeney, David Charlebois, Steven D. Jacoby, CeeCee Lyles, Alan Beaven, Colleen L. Fraser, Thomas F. McGuinness, Jr., John Ogonowski

These are all the remaining 9/11 casualties I could find who haven't yet had their articles transwikied to the September 11 memorial wiki (which was set up a long time ago for the hosting of these pages, and to which nearly all articles like this have been moved), and who didn't appear to be notable in a way that would merit their inclusion in the main part of the encyclopedia (I was quite conservative about this and decided not to VfD many borderline cases). My vote is not to delete, but to transwiki, as has been done with all the others, so that these brief articles can grow into more extensive pages on a wiki specially created for the purpose. Wikipedia itself is not a memorial, and the people listed here are unfortunately not notable except for the tragic circumstances of their deaths. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 13:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ecologics

I debated whether or not to go ahead and nominate this page. It's a large text addition by User:Adisaji, who joined Wikipedia today and whose sole contribution is this article. Because it's a large text addition to a new article, I suspected copyvio, but I was unable to locate the text anywhere else on the Internet. I still suspect it may be Original Research. I don't know enough about what the article is talking about to really know, but it just feels wrong. I've added {{cleanup-importance}} and {{cleanup-verify}}, but I'm going ahead and calling the VfD and asking for other editors opinions...particularly anyone who might be more knowledgeable about this subject than I. If it's legit, great, let's keep it and make it great, but I'm very dubious of this page. }} EvilPhoenix talk 06:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote on this one. Adisaji has made an effort to improve the article, and has contacted me to ask for help. I believe user is editing in good faith, and I am willing to give this article a chance to grow. I would ask other editors to consider this when voting. EvilPhoenix talk 03:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Give him more time to improve it. --Malathion 06:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable; dubious (Black ecology predates asserted) William M. Connolley 15:47:40, 2005-07-15 (UTC).
    Comment: The article now begins... Ecologics ([Ikologiks])is defined as a cumulative-progressive system (science) of philosophical thought or study into universal phenomenlogical knowledge; within the context of integrated dialectical, metaphysical, revolutionary transformational praxis.(Davis, 1977,1999).. I don't think this has any meaning. Certainly it is incompatible with Ecologics is a research term used to describe a field of study or theory that is an extension of the academic discipline known as Human Ecology.. A term cannot be "is" something other than its definition. Still delete, sorry. William M. Connolley 13:45:03, 2005-07-24 (UTC).
  • Delete Adisaji, this is no reflection on the quality of your work, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. Abstain This has changed a lot, and I'm not well equipped to sort it out. Friday 04:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: remind editor about Wikipedia: No personal attacks - don't presume "we have no knowledge of the subject" - if anything, we're calling it out for deletion, and have every right to question its existence - if you think otherwise, just issue a defense statement and prove it should exist. But this is an encylopedia based on referenced issues, not a scientific journal...the community approaches it as a whole, and that way both expert and non-expert contributes. -- Natalinasmpf 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep - This document is awkward. It seems to be either a very talented piece of historical research or a remarkable fraud. In the spirit of good faith, I am going to assume the former. Google seems to verify the existence of many of the key terms (Ikologiks), organizations (Cornell College of Human Ecology, Eco.Logic Powerhouse) and people (Adisa Maina Omar). However, my use of google is not able to establish certain other entities or the connections between them. For example, I have not been able to connect any "Roger M. Davis" to either Adisa Omar, Cornell, or Ecologics. Key facts of this type clearly need citations. At the very least, I would feel a lot better about this work if the author would provide full references for some of Davis' ecologic work. Also, it seems that the term "ecologics" existed at least in 1971 when Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilbert wrote a book by that title. Of course, it is not clear whether they were refering to the same concept as this article. In response to the original research comments, I would observe that most of this article is presented as a collection of facts. As such, it should be possible to document these issues in sufficient detail to avoid the WP:NOR prohibition. Assumming the author is willing to start filling in the citation details (and s/he seems to have expressed a willingness to do this) then I support the existence of this article. Dragons flight 08:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Repy to Dragons flight I have not been able to find the book you referenced by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilber entitled "Ecologics". Can you provide the ISBN or publisher or the website you obtained this information from. If validated I will include it in my revised submission.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adisaji, here is a copy of the citation information from my university's online catalog. Frankly it reads rather strangely, since the "publisher" is given as "Los Angeles". I wonder if this was someone's thesis, or something like that. Regardless, they did use the word "ecologics", though I have no easy way of knowing what they meant by it. Dragons flight 02:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Author      Agran, Libbie.  
Title       Ecologics / written by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilbert ; with the help of Joyce King & Penny Kamin.  
Publisher   Los Angeles : Barbara Gilbert and Mary E. Agran, 1971.  
Description 102 p. ; 28 cm.  
Note        Cover title.  
Language    English  
Added Entry Gilbert, Bobbie.  
Format      Book
  • The above does look like someone's thesis paper. I have not found other confirmation for the publishing of this book using the term "Ecologics." I think the Library of Congress records would be a last resort.--Adisaji 04:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, Adisaji left a comment asking for help on my talk page, which I will provide as much as I can, so I do want to see if this article can be improved. It may be worth waiting on this one. EvilPhoenix talk 19:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete pseudointellectual claptrap. Even direct citations have spelling and grammatical errors, which leads me to believe this is a hoax. Also, as a professor of philosophy who has read much in the vein of environmental ethics and metaphyics, this is (a) like nothing I've ever seen published and (b) too religious to be analytical as the article implies. It would be a disservice to readers to maintain this article. As far as the author below claiming that he will provide "copies of news articles and clippings," I find this claim dubious because he expects prompting, rather than freely presenting the information in the first place. See Dianetics for my thought on the matter. Also, how is the subject anything other than deep ecology in gnosctic clothing? Amicuspublilius 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see top of page. EvilPhoenix talk 03:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATED!!!--Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)== Strong Rebuke == Amicuspublilius Your comments "pseudointellectual claptrap" were insulting and actually a violation of the "professional" and "non-attack" basis of wikipedia. I hope other members report you. I checked YOUR USER PAGE, and you DO NOT CITE, where you received your degrees in Philosophy and I find your claims of academic excellence flawed and dubious. I'm sure online pesudeo academic degrees are common and easy to obtain. You obviously have deep seated biases/prejudices (ie. comment Dianetics)and perhaps you need to go back to school to learn standards in professional objectivity. For the sake of harmony, I am removing these earlier statements that have been misconstrued as a 'personal attack.' --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, wikipedia editor does not have spellcheck/grammer check functions. I will attempt to make corrections as found. Rather than making blank criticisms, spend your time providing the specific sentences that have errors.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I addressed the issue at hand, and I hope that rather than attacking me, you or any supporter of this article also address the issue at hand, perhaps by providing citations. If you would like an extended academic critique of this article, I am prepared to give one. Feel free to report me yourself. As for my reference to Dianetics, I am pointing out an article which deals with a controversial subject, points out that the subject is controversial, and provides citations which prove the subject isn't so much hot air. This is as much time as I'm going to spend on the matter. It's up to you to correct the article or provide reasons it doesn't need correction. Amicuspublilius 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your tone is still belligerant -- for the record I NEVER attacked you. I just replied to your bias and responded to your offensive language and non-verification of your academic qualifications. I don't want to waste more time with "negativity-bickering" so like you said I'll make the corrections and you can vote the way you want. Dianetics and Scientologist (Tom Cruise, John Travota, etc.) may be bogus or "kooks" in your opinion, but some had that same feeling about other movements like Mormans, Hare Krishnas, SevenDay Adventist or those that once said the world was round when the common thinking was the world is flat (middle ages). We may disagree with their ideas but that doesn't mean wikipedia should not list them. I suggest opinions remain just that and pure objective scientific review not be based on cultural,racial or intellectual bias. That should be the golden rule at wikipedia. --Adisaji 04:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    you DO NOT CITE, where you received your degrees in Philosophy reads like an attack to me. You are failing to distinguish between what people say about themselves on their own pages, and the rather higher standards of reference required on article pages. I'm sure online pesudeo academic degrees are common and easy to obtain is most definitely an attack, and you should retract it. William M. Connolley 08:47:24, 2005-07-20 (UTC).
    • It doesn't bother me that he makes that point, although it is a tad irrelevant. There is a reason I don't list where I have my degrees, or where I teach, and my posts should be able to stand for themselves. Amicuspublilius 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:William Connolley, when someone uses language like "hoax" "dubious" and "pseudointellectual claptrap" I TAKE THAT VERY PERSONALLY AND AS AN INSULT ABOUT MY INTEGRITY AND HONESTY. Had he simply referenced the article that would be acceptable, but he personally attacked my sincerity, honesty, integrity. I had every right to question his "academic credentials" when he used them in a paternalistic/condesending fashion and as a basis for discrediting my submission and essentially calling me a liar. I've got better things to do with my time/life than fabricate erroneous material for wikipedia. --Adisaji 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't doing you any good you know. William M. Connolley 15:11:55, 2005-07-20 (UTC).
    • This argument is a red herring, and I hope he begins to edit the article with as much tenacity, for his and the article's sake. Also, feel free to see his user talk page where I have provided him a list of revisions he could make to meet "my" and Wikipedia's standards. Two citations, relation to current literature, and a revision of the article's definition (which at this point is nearly the same definition for ecology or biology) doesn't seem too much to ask (Since if this is provided, I could do the grammatical/spelling revisions as penance). I, and anyone here would provide these edits if they could, since there is no prejudice about the article existing per se. Amicuspublilius 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from page author:

Talk:Ecologics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ECOLOGICS

I am responding to those citing the submission for "deletion" on ECOLOGICS. I spent a lot of time preparing and researching this submission. Yes, it has historical relevance and I am prepared to offer copies of news articles and clippings that would substantiate this claim.

I think it is unfair and unreasonable to delete an article submission just because the reader has NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject. If you don't have knowledge about this topic then you should not comment. I would appreciate any serious contributions and help in editing this material since I am brand new to the Wikipedia community.

I really think this online source is important specifically because minor topics or information often ommitted in commercial dictionaries or encyclopedias can be now be viewed by researchers.

Thank you. Adisaji

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecologics"


Comment: "Black Ecology" appears to date from 1970 [10]. This doesn't seem consistent with the article. William M. Connolley 21:10:35, 2005-07-17 (UTC).


RESPONDING TO ONGOING DISCUSSION

I really found the assistance of EvilPhoenix very helpful and supportive. The "comment" by William M. Connolley seems well-founded. I am trying to locate the actual article by N. Hare so I can determine whether the term "black ecology" was used in a generic sense in the journal article or as an actual introduction of a new english word/term. It is possible that both N. Hare and R. Davis both began to popularize the term. For example, the 1960s black activist Stokely Carmichael is largely viewed to have introduced the term 'Black Power.' However, the term 'Black Capitalism' is accredited to former President Richard Nixon, and there is some indication he (Nixon) might have also introduced the term 'black power' preceding Carmichael (see book "Star Spangled Hustle" -- I'll cite detailed references later). I have located several scanned copies from the following presses: The Washington Post, Bronx Press Review, Our Daily Planet, NY Daily News and Cornell Daily Sun which all pertain to the material in the article -- Ecologics. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW I CAN UPLOAD THIS IMAGES, so interested parties can review them and assist in the ongoing discussion. Natalinasmpf Your comments were I believe a violation of the very Wikipedia policies you accused me of violating. It seems you just want to emotionally dismiss the submission -- for the record, I did not attack an editor. I'm trying very hard to be polite and scholarly.

(Updated!!!) I think at this point ... maybe the article should just be DELETED. I'm feeling so pressured to revise this article before your "five day review" deadline. The nature of this research for acquiring citations will take time, since the material is not easily recoverable and deals with material over thirty years ago. This was well before the digital age and internet age -- so most citations will have to be manually researched at the libraries -- not Internet. Before, I take time and money to do that (often to get archived reprints from journals or newspapers cost money) PLEASE MAKE THE DECISION TO DELETE OR NOT DELETE. --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) I will revise the submission as needed "as a work in progress" in good faith if I can just have some patience from all you editors and respondents. Thank you. --Adisaji 09:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Adisaji[reply]

SCANNED NEWSPAPER ARTICLES IN SUPPORT OF WIKI-SUBMISSION 'ECOLOGICS' & TERM 'BLACK ECOLOGY'

The below images have been uploaded to wikipedia. I have not posted them at the article site or revised the actual article until I receive clear support for completing this submission. --Adisaji 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMD Cornell Daily Sun - 4-27-78.jpg
File:Named EPA -Bronx Press review 1972.jpg
File:TalkingBlackEcology - ODP 12-1971.jpg
File:Wash Post -Courtland Milloy - 2-7-89.jpg


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – ABCD✉ 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comunleng

This article was proposed for deletion in May, but after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus. This is a non-notable conlang ("known by an only guy" according to ArnoLagrange) that has managed to sit on Wikipedia and become spread around the internet in mirrors and apparently by other self-promotion. Part of the reason people objected to the suggestion that it was original research last time around was that there are three interwiki links, though people didn't seem to appreciate that it's possible to create articles worthy of deletion in multiple languages. The French and Spanish versions of the article are extensive but have unanswered questions about such things as just how significant this language is on their talk pages. After the last VfD func put various questions on the talk page relating to verifiability and notability. These have not been answered. This article has sat around for far too long and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Delete, nn/vanity. -Sean Curtin 06:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already survived one VfD, not enough time has passed since last one. Almafeta 06:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does that have to do with it? The last VfD was a spectacular example of faulty logic and failure to read what was being said. Do you have any real argument for keeping this article? Can you verify the facts in it? Can you establish its notability? — Trilobite (Talk) 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your disagreement with the result of the previous VfD is not a reason to keep nominating it until you get the result you want. --Malathion 06:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the second nomination, after a gap of a few weeks, so it's not as if this is going up every week. Any chance of answering the very reasonable questions posed by func about verifiability and notability? — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your complaint comes down to wanting it deleted, being disappointed in those who didn't delete it in the previous VfD, and relisting it after some time has passed. Unless you have evidence of fraud in the previous VfD, or a significant amount of time has passed (3 months minimum) without update or expansion, pages shouldn't be relisted on VfD. Almafeta 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you point me to the three month rule please? I see you also invoked this mysterious policy on the talk page. And no I am not alleging fraud in the previous VfD, just an odd and surprising result that needs confirmation. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "three month rule". I once nominated an article for deletion twelve hours after the previous VfD had closed, with no changes having been made to the article page, on the grounds that the circumstances that had lead to the article being kept had changed. The page was deleted with no outcry about "too soon". --Carnildo 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Almafeta. --Malathion 06:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Trilobite that the last VfD was a disgrace. I agree that this article should be removed. I could not in good faith vote to delete this article at this time. We should not be dipping into the well again because we don't like the first taste. This should apply to any consensus decision, by the way: changes to CSD, RFA, anything. It's bad form, and weakens respect for "process". A four month moratorium sounds reasonable to me. brenneman(t)(c) 07:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nature of a Wiki is that anyone can modify anything at any time in any way. There is no logic to a 4 month lock after modification: it runs counter to how this 'place' works. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! I've been misunderstood before, but never so egregiously! (I blame all my problems on poor communication. Just never on my poor communication.) I was suggesting that when consensus in a vote has been reached, that that vote not be re-introduced again for four months. And before anyone whips out "show me the policy" of course it's not policy. If you don't feel bound by a vote you didn't participate in, Splash, does that mean you don't recognize as policy anything you didn't vote on? (That's a rhetorical question.) Pacific Sunwear was kept by a 7 to 1 vote and you voted keep. So imagine Nova Cygni thinks this was a "spectacular example of faulty logic" and nominates it again in four weeks. And imagine that by some crazy coincidence everyone was on wikibreak but for a bunch of rabid surf-short haters. When you'rE back from the beach and find PS gone, you'd feel cheated by the system. Justifiably. brenneman(t)(c) 15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a problem with this "4 month rule", and that is it's open to abuse by people who want to keep an article. Let's say I write an article on Origami chocolate and manage to convince just enough people its a real thing so that it just barely misses consensus to delete. It looks like that vote was a fluke and it will be deleted when it comes up for a vote again. So I nominate it in 3 months, and it again evades deletion because "it's last vote was not 4 months ago". Now it has another 4 month reprieve. Again in 3 months I nominate it, etc. This process goes on forever, and my travesty of an article on chocolate origami stays in Wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Obviously if any keep voters can verify the information in this article or establish the notability of the language I'll be happy to vote keep myself. I just don't see that happening somehow. Am I missing something here? Is this language so ubiquitous as to be immune from the need to provide evidence of its significance? — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. No proof it's used by anyone but it's creator. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/unverifiable. Interwikis just show people translated it because its there. Morwen - Talk 09:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable and unverified. I do not feel bound by a previous VfD in which I did not participate. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Radiant_>|< 14:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as I respect decisions made by consensus, even when I do not agree with them. Even when I think that they are really really dumb. brenneman(t)(c) 15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this matter has already been decided jamesgibbon 16:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's very wiki to maintain that once a vote has been conducted and it ends in no consensus (there was certainly not a consensus to keep last time, it just defaulted to keep), that an article must be kept for all time and the matter must be considered settled once and for all. Common sense surely dictates that where there are sensible reasons, and you don't do it constantly, it's okay to reopen the debate about an article's inclusion, particularly when simple requests like providing one source other than stuff that has itself been pulled from Wikipedia go unfulfilled. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't give a hit about the last VfD. A bad result last time does not justify a bad result this time. -R. fiend 16:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my commentary during the first vfd and my comments on the talk page. I understand and appreciate the above comments concerning consensus, ie: it is possible to abuse our system by repeatedly placing an article on VFD. However, this isn't about the VFD process, it is about what Wikipedia is all about. The issues regarding verifiability and original research are at the core of our ability to maintain a neutral point of view, ie: to give undue coverage to a language virtually no one has heard of is to allow Wikipedia to be used as an advertising platform. I think the Wikipedian who wrote the original article was perfectly aware that by placing his creation on Wikipedia, it would be copied to dozens of mirrors, floating lists of conlangs, etc. We are not here to establish the notability of the things we write articles on: they have to already be established. func(talk) 16:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because the article previously survived a VfD vote doesn't mean that that error shouldn't be corrected as soon as possible. Non-notable, original research. Quale 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It defaulted to keep last time after no consensus based largely on some flimsy claims. Several people voted to keep because it has interwiki links... well, the Spanish version (the only other one I can read) is longer, but it too fails to address any claims this language has to relevance outside the personal dabblings of its creator. It's not surprising that a conlang has interwiki links; conlangers are likely to be also speakers of several natural languages. This is not like the repeated GNAA VfD, which received a good deal of attention and roughly 100 votes and still arrived at no consensus; this got comparatively little attention, and many outstanding concerns from last time were not addressed.

Of the 6 Keep votes last time, three were based on its having interwiki links. One makes the claim that "conlangs are a special case", not backing it up with any reasoning. One is from an anonymous user claiming that it is a "well-recognized auxlang name"; when challenged, produced a Wikipedia mirror as more evidence of its existence. The last claimed it was a userful article even if the subject was not widely known -- taking the position that all original research should stay if the articles are good?

I don't care about Comunleng; I just want to make the case that the renomination is not out of process (and yes, I will kick the WP:ASS of anyone who renominates GNAA anytime soon), and that the previous default keep should not be a reason to dismiss this nomination entirely. This is the sort of article Wikipedia:No original research was meant to provide justification for deleting; there's a conlang Wikicity here for just such things. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an example of where, if the process fails, it should be examined and invoked again, once the failure is noted and corrected. jglc | t | c 17:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable, only argument to keep is spurious. Kept by no consensus default is not an indefinite reprieve. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable — mendel ☎ 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — unverifiable, but abuse of VfD. "No consensus" results are not "errors" to be "corrected". I agree with Almafeta and brenneman. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is making the case that in general, "no consensus" results are errors to be corrected, and I agree with the default to keep where the community is genuinely split. But sometimes we come to no consensus based on faulty or incomplete information—why shouldn't we be able to correct that within a reasonable timeframe? I believe sufficient time has passed since the last VfD for any evidence regarding its verifiability to be presented, and it has not been. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree completely with Mindspillage. And if it's unverifiable, how can its inclusion be justified except on bureaucratic grounds concerning VfD? — Trilobite (Talk) 20:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable conlang. --Carnildo 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absence of cites suggests original research/vanity. Article and Google have no information about number of native speakers, how it is taught (for non-native speakers, and for the standardization of native speech), how to obtain a comunleng dictionary (suggesting one does not exist). Spanish Wikipedia article contains little information not included in this one except for tables of words - still with no cites - meaning we can't import some saving tidbit from there to this article. Finally, I just checked my univeristy library's online journal collection. A search in Forum for Modern Language Studies revealed 0 results for comunleng, but 432 for constructed language. A search in Language Variation and Change and all other journals by the Cambridge University Press, including the Journal of Linguistics and Language in Society revealed 0 results for Comunleng - but 159 for Esperanto, 8000 for constructed language, 13 for "constructed language", and 21 for "invented language" - oh, and 46 for Klingon. Applied Linguistics has 0 results for comunleng, but 1 for "constructed language" and 2 for esperanto. No citations here or in the interwiki items. Google results are squat. No indication of any legitimate quantity of speakers, nor of a historic body of speakers whose use of the language was repressed and caused the language's extinction (as with natural languages of aborginal peoples). No scholarly interest. No validity to this article, its deletion is required. The Literate Engineer 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conlangcruft. Just because there was a no consensus vote doesn't mean that it deserves to stay. ral315 23:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, POV, as evidenced among other signals by the fact that the article begins by responding to purported (unsourced) criticisms before providing, seemingly as an afterthought, any information about the language. The extensive discussion in this and the previous VfD should not obscure the fact that this is not even a close call. -EDM 23:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Original research, nonnotable. It's also POV conlangcruft, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Mustafaa 01:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree in part and should have been clearer - the POV alone is not a reason for deletion, it was a criticism of the article as it stood. However it's an interesting question how to replace the POV with verifiable neutral information when the subject is inherently unverifiable, being apparently someone's unpublicized and undiscussed (let alone analyzed) invention. My personal view (irrelevant to this discussion) is that a conlang is inherently more interesting than lots of other kinds of thought experiments, but until the language achieves notability by being known to somebody besides its creator, this isn't the right place to publicize it. -EDM 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My google searches show few signs of notability when removing wikipedia itself. All votes for keep cite, not sources of notability or logic on the article, but instead that the previous VfD that resulted in 'no conensus'. Wikibofh 02:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 04:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all nonnotable conlangs. Conlangs are just large-scale neologisms: they have to become widely used and recognized (like Esperanto) before being encyclopedia-worthy. Wikipedia must establish some guidelines on the notability of includable conlangs. --Angr/t?k t? mi 07:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, vanity, and what do I care that it's been voted on before? --Calton | Talk 02:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Calton and others may not care, but I do. The three-month rule may be informal, but is a mechanism that helps keep VfD from becoming even more overloaded with gripes about prior decisions. We need consistent due process. I don't care if the full text of the article is "poop", if it manages to survive VfD, it lives to be improved for a time, barring an appeal against the admin for a loony ruling. Xoloz 15:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you really want an article reading "poop" to stay in wikipedia for 4 months based on a stupid principle? You must not care much for the contents of wikipedia then. I'm sorry but sometimes votes are skewed by incomplete information, and when new information is brought to light it makes sense to readdress the issue. Three months is a very long time. Now, assuming this is kept because people are voting purely on the previous vote not on the actual article, would we have to wait 3 months from its original nomination or three months from this one? See my comments above. -R. fiend 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an article actually said "poop", it wouldn't survive VfD; and if it did, I would edit it to make the best content possible under a bad heading -- I did this for Normative legal thought which survived despite me. The three-month period would count from the original vote, assuming VfD's before the elapsed time were called invalid by the admin closing. Xoloz 17:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It almost certainly wouldn't survive VfD, but hell, I've seen things get "lost in the shuffle" or whatever that didn't get any real attention. A couple partisan trolls voting keep can skew the process, and it is possible (albeit highly unlikely) that their actions could result in a default keep for even the shittiest of articles, including "poop". If that unlikely event did happen, would you really defend the article on a technicality? Even if there was no real "improvement" to be made? Let's talk common sense instead of policy. We're rational human beings here. Can you honestly say this article should be kept on its "merits" alone? -R. fiend 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • My common sense tells me that it is so much better to let one stupid article (that no one but the author will ever look up) live here with a "totally disputed" tag for a month and half, than to establish a precedent that articles can be reopened on Vfd sooner. This precedent is the surest way to have VfD hit 200 articles/per day before 2006. Xoloz 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why is it an inherently bad thing for VFD to hit 200 articles a day? Doesn't it just reflect that people are determining 200 articles a day to be deletion-worthy? If they've got a valid reason for judging the article that way... problem strikes me as more one with the article writing and editing than with the VFD process. The Literate Engineer 00:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Assuming the number of complaints now about the process at 100/day (and the CSD debate) I imagine that double that volume would cause enormous complaint. Since the Wikipedia solution seems to be to add to CSDs to reduce volume, I could also imagine such an upsurge contributing ultimately to more bureaucracy. Normally, VfD's are very accurate at screening out crap, but when they fail, better to abide with them, then to propose other solutions which either increase the risk of VfD expansion, or cause the proliferation of regulation, or both. An extra 90 days for a stupid article is simply not damaging enough to merit unbalancing the VfD process. Xoloz 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is madness! Can't you see this? The article is totally unverifiable and non-notable, but you'd rather go exactly by the book (the book in your head, since the three month rule isn't policy at all) and spend your time rules-lawyering and arguing about procedure so you can preserve it. If you're so keen on keeping it, how about providing a reference for the information in it that doesn't originate with Wikipedia, and finding something that indicates it's a notable topic? I honestly cannot see why you would want to keep this article. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • See comment immediately above. This isn't madness or legal formalism -- it is holding the line against a VfD nightmare. If we have to live with a stupid article lurking in the unseen shadows for 90 days, so be it. Xoloz 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Note also that, even if this debate ends in deletion, the Keep votes here serve a purpose; at least a sizable portion of members care about process, and this knowledge helps deter frivilous re-VfD on articles that are much closer calls than this. Xoloz 04:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wow, I'm turning into a deletionist today ;) No evidence that this even exists, except in the mind of the creator. If anyone provides links or citations to the contrary, I might change my vote. Sam Vimes 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CryptoDerk 23:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't believe in listing and relisting things for vfd over and over again, as I said when I voted keep for GNAA. However, two vfds is hardly outrageous or uncalled for. I also think the fact that I've seen zero evidence that anyone uses or even knows about this language beyond its creator and Wikipedia. That trumps any concerns about relisting and it troubles me that so many people are so unconcerned that this thing barely exists. Gamaliel 05:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Neither the Spanish nor the French wikipedia articles have come up for deletion, and in fact, the English wikiarticle was referenced in the Spanish talk page when there were POV issues on the Spanish page. Almafeta 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how that has any bearing on the English Wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias have their own policies. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Referencing the English wikiarticle for the Spanish one was as much an inappropriate citation as referencing the Spanish article here is. The difference between self-referencing in an article and referencing another wikiarticle is nil: both are unverified recursion, and may as well be original research. It's no different than citing a mirror of this article. Only sources that are completely independent from any form of wikipedia whatsoever should be regarded as eligible for being considered valid; I would think that would be obvious enough that it shouldn't need a policy dictating it, though I would be glad to propose such a policy if there isn't one. The Literate Engineer 15:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to unverifiability. Nandesuka 20:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had no vote the first time, and I still don't know anything about these languages and what counts as notable or not. However, while there may or may not be a wikipolicy or wikiguideline about wait periods, I would rather wait a reasonable time (a few months) to delete. Despite Trilobite's dramatic invective, this page is not harming the wikiproject in a significant way, and we will be none the worse for wear if this survies VfD for ninety turns around our central axis or so.--Tznkai 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about the dramatic invective. Some of the comments made in support of this article have caused me wikistress because they have all been complaints about process and no one has come forward with evidence of verifiability or notability. I have to say to you as I've said to others, provide some external source for what's in the article and I'll be happy to vote keep myself. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any proof of its notability one way or the other. I see this as an issue of comparitive good and ills. On one hand, removing this article is probably the right thing to do as far as our notability notions and WP:NOT. That having been said, having any sort of precedent that any VfD can be rendered "invalid" is dangerously close to anarchy, another violation of WP:NOT. As this article is not sufficeintly distructive to the wikipedia project, I do not believe it is worth the risk of starting a precident for VfD revotes/recounts.--Tznkai 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. A few verifiable citations establishing Comunleng's status would be enough to sway my vote. No Comment on the practice of renominating articles. This does appear to be a valid candidate for deletion. Dystopos 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (conditional) Delete. Hmmm, I think that notability still hasn't quite made it as an official deletion criterion. I also don't like the concept of re-vfd. Even so: an article does have to provide some kind of reference, of course! - This vote is conditional: If one or more external references with a description of the langauge are linked to or are proven to exist (in dead tree format, perhaps) at time of closing, read this as a vote to Keep instead. Kim Bruning 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There appears to be no argument regarding this article's merit for inclusion. The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is. In the absence of affirmative arguments about merit, I suggest we don't need anything further about its obvious crapitude.
  • All of the keep votes are based upon concerns about abuse of VfD. The mosr recent GNAA nomination was in fact about respect for the process, about insuring that the standards were maintained. In this instance there was no irregularity, just disagreement. If even half of the people who voted keep before come back and vote keep here, we're again at no consesus. What will you do then, Tri? Wait another four weeks and try again??
  • I'm willing to change my vote to delete iff:
    • Trilobite places this message on the talk page of every user that voted keep in the previous VfD: As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments.
    • Following that, it can be show that over half of those users have logged on.

brenneman(t)(c) 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of point one, though, I wonder why the process matters. I.E., in the absence of affirmative arguments, does that not obligate us to repeat the deletion process until such time as an affirmative argument about merit is produced or the article is successfully deleted? Whether we wait 4 weeks between nominations, 4 months, or 4 years, all of the first bullet will remain true in the absence of affirmative arguments or changes to the article's content that meet, for instance, the requirements set forth by func - which would constitute an affirmative argument for keeping it. What makes a 4 week interval disrespectful or abusive of the VFD process, but not a lengthier one? An article that is infused with "obvious craptitude" has obvious craptitude, regardless of the time at which it is discussed, the number of edits between nominations, or any other consideration not related to the content of the article and the standards for an acceptable article. I believe voting to keep or delete an article based on the results and date of a previous VFD is what constitutes abuse of the VFD process. The process exists to judge the article's content in its present form and, if the present form is unacceptable for Wikipedia, to determine the proper remedy: merge, redirect, delete, move. Either this article is or is not acceptable; if a user judges it unacceptable but votes keep, that is abuse. If a user judges it acceptable but votes delete, that is abuse. If a user judges it unacceptable and in light of that nominates it for deletion, as Trilobite has, that's proper use of the process.
That said, I will place those notices, though I believe it will be a repeated travesty if this article is kept a second time. The Literate Engineer 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you have placed notices on the talk pages of those who voted to keep last time while not notifying those who voted to delete. Would you consider doing this? It seems very unfair to only tell one side about it when the others would probably appreciate the opportunity to voice their opinion a second time. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do, Trilobite. I actually don't believe any notices should be given, but you're right that they should be given to all concerned parties if given at all. I feel like I'm participating in meatpuppetry, and I really regret (and wish I could take back) the original notices I gave last night.The Literate Engineer 23:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must object most strenuously to one user thinking he can hold the VfD to ransom. If you want something done around here on the Wiki, do it yourself. Don't go demanding that other users do it for you. Your vote is no more (and no less) important to the process than anyone else's. If you want to vote keep because of the reasons you give above, that's fine, but don't go demanding that the rest of us do things to placate you. -Splash 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, you seem to think there is some lack of clarity over inconclusive VfDs. There's not: they are kept unless there is a "rough consensus" to delete. Then, they can be renominated anytime someone feels like it. -Splash 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Held to ransom? Did my vote somehow become really important and I wasn't notified? Stating conditions upon which you'll change your vote is almost standard practice: I'll vote "keep" if (this article is expanded or the other one is deleted or its notability is proven to me). Look closely that last one. Isn't that, to use your word, "demanding", that others commit some action to "placate"? I'm also puzzled by your repeated misinterpretations. I state I think "we should wait four mounths between VfD nominations", your response is about "locks on editing articles". I raise "how long is appropiate between nominations", your response adresses " no consensus means keep". I'm left with several possibilities: Either you aren't reading my comments before you respond, you are failing to understand my intent (which could be my fault), or you are being deliberate. This questions was raised when Trilobite func first stated he was going to re-nominate (see Eventually Back to VfD) so it should some as no suprise now. brenneman(t)(c) 04:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting delete-unless-made-better is quite different. It (in my case, anyway) usually means that I don't think the article can be made into a keepable one, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the area to verify this fact to my own satisfaction. I mean to encourage others to help out who know where to look for information. Your condition here, however, has nothing at all to do with content and is something you could just go and do and yourself rather than expecting that others will do it for you just because you say so. As for my "no consensus means keep" response, this was because you said "The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is", and the appropriate process is keep. -Splash 16:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to doubt my ability to form english-like sentences. If it were not the default that a VfD without strong consensus was a de-facto keep, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? From the context of this discussion, a reasonable person would read that sentence as "The only open point is what the appropiate [time until renomination] process for inconclusive VfDs is". Again, either we are not communicating well or these straw-man arguments are an attempt to divert. brenneman(t)(c) 04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that to me that Wikipedia's rules state that if there is no consensus, the default is to keep the article. If there are people who are unhappy with this, and keep proposing deletion whenever they have failed to get something deleted, this is an abuse of the VfD process, as it simply is an attempt to try to wear out the patience of those who have voted to keep in a previous VfD. -- BRG 18:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Keep proposing deletion" is an odd way to describe it. It was proposed once before and several weeks later has been put up again. Have you actually read the article? Have you read the comments on its talk page? Have you read the previous VfD? Have you read the arguments set out on this page? Can you provide a single source external to Wikipedia that verifies the content of the article or establishes its notability? Would you rather Wikipedia was full of nonsense than permit a second VfD after a decent interval for an article that no one has shown to be encyclopedic? It does seem this way. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a Google search, which gave me 505 hits, of which 229 are in English [11]. The first website listed is the Spanish Wikipedia. The second, called Language Maker, lists the main website for the language organization is at the Spnaish Wikipedia. [12] Most of the other sites I found are Wikipedia mirrors and other sites that pretty much copy ours. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, wouldja just look at this page. Just judging by volume of comments anyone would think this was one of the weightiest and most significant articles on WP. It's just somebody's little article on their own personal conlang. I voted delete (at least I think I did, it seems a long time ago), but really, people. Is this the hill we want to die on? -EDM 23:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverified, and certaintly unnotable. I've seen no evidence presented that gives any hint that this is verifiable, all of the keep votes thus far have been keeping because of the VfD proccess, not over the merits of this article -- Joolz 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I voted Delete the last time this came up, just got a notification of this current vote.) I agree with func above. Wikipedia reports on things already notable in the outside world. It's not an advertising portal for non-notable things. (Non-notable does not mean "bad", it just means not notable.) Note that I would not vote to delete articles on conlangs like Ceqli and Slovio for which one can show the existence of some kind of community of people, going back a number of years, who have an interest in the language. If this can be shown in the article (I don't think it can, but who knows, maybe someone can prove it somehow) I would change to a weak keep. Cam 03:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Joolz -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delete The time that has passed between the VfD's should have been time spent putting together arguments for inclusion, or gathering evidence of the language's existence outside of Wikipedia. I don't like repeat VfD's (let's try someone until they come up guilty!), but since this has been re-listed, and there's still no evidence, I can't justify a vote to keep. !!If someone comes up with non-Wikipedia evidence of this language before voting closes, change my vote to keep!! --cprompt 00:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keeeping an article we all know to be worthy of deletion to preserve the system is absurd. The system is meant to serve wikipedia, not the other way around, and wikipedia is better off without this article on an unverified, non-notable subject. carmeld1 20:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Wikipedia wold be better off with clear and consistent way of addressing issues like this one. Hop over to Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland for a moment. Whatever happens there, someone is going to be left "shaking their head" at the outcome. How about if that article get re-cycled every four weeks for deletion/undeletion? And how about all the contentious articles about religion and race, why don't we have a go at them once a month as well? This article is a fly-speck, and if it had been simply trimmed back to a verfiable stub and left for six months, there would have been no real harm done. But when we start jacking with the system because we get our knickers in a twist, then there is harm done.The last VfD was conducted properly and closed properly, and even though I think they were idiots, it's insufferable to simply say, "Well, we think that was dumb, so it doesn't count." brenneman(t)(c) 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is, it's back on VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles supporters to argue why we should keep. So far, not one of them has said why this article is worthy of staying on wikipedia. Every keep vote has complained about the proccess. Renominating this article is not against the rules. I do not see that there was any other option but to renominate, because every article on wikipedia must be verifiable, a fair chance was given on the article's talk page for evidence that the subject can be varied to be submitted into the article. No such evidence was submitted. It is fair and correct therefore, that, considering that there's no evidence of verifiability, that the article be subject to another VfD. No article should be on wikipedia unless it is verifiable. -- Joolz 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact of the matter is, it passed one VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles opposers to argue why we should delete. Every keep vote with concerns about the process is not against the common practice. Your argument fails to address:
  1. How closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus affects perception of the process,
  2. The possible follow-on effect for other more contentious articles,
  3. Why other options were not explored for this article in light of known objections to renomination, and
  4. What you would propose is to soon to re-nominate. Would the next day be too soon?
Perhaps it's my eventualist leanings, perhaps it's my love of order, but I strongly believe that more harm is done by removing an article in this manner than by leaving one crappy article around for a few months. brenneman(t)(c) 02:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brenneman, I answer your four questions in this way:
1. Closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus (which does not apply in this case, as the month's time passed does not constitute "closely following") improves perception of the process by allowing the process to do what it exists to do: efficiently dispose of articles that do not belong on wikipedia through an appropriate method, of which deletion, merging, renaming, and redirecting without merger are common choices. It ensures that the appropriate keeping of inconclusive articles is kept as a temporary measure, and forces debate to continue until it is resolved in consensus - either clear consensus to keep or to delete. Indeed, I believe that policy should require renomination of any inconclusive VFD after no later than two to three weeks.
2. The possible follow-on effects are desirable, as more inconclusive VFDs may be revisted. Furthermore, we are setting valuable precedent that inconclusive VFDs, rendered inconclusive due to keep arguments that are quickly shown to be factually false or otherwise faulty (accurate descriptors, I believe, for all the "keep" votes in the original Comunleng VFD) are no different from consensus-to-keep VFDs that are subsequently shown to have been kept on false premises. Finally, we are establishing that articles are to be voted on due to judgement of their content alone, and not due to procedural matters that have no place, I believe, in VFD discussion. I repeat and clarify what I said earlier: to vote keep for this or any other article, for any reason at all, if you believe it does not meet such criteria as verifiability required, no original research allowed, no advertising allowed, or encyclopedic nature required, is a worse abuse of VFD than any renomination could ever be.
3. What other options are there? This is an unsalvagable article. It is vanity about a conlang so unnotable that it is unverifiable to the point of being indistinguishable, in my mind, from a hoax. Three or four reasons all of which the deletion policy defines as grounds for deletion. I can't find anything in this article that belongs on wikipedia.
4. As I see it, as a VFD can be closed after 5 days, then by the same reasoning that 5 days is sufficient time for consensus to be reached and edits that would change an article's status from Deletion Required to Keepworthy to be made, 5 days is sufficient time for new edits to be made prior to a revisiting. I believe inconclusive VFDs are more often inconclusive because of faulty reasoning one way or the other than because the article's contents do not lend themselves to consensus; 5 days allows enough time for those articles whose contents do require some clarification to be edited enough to tip the discussion in the appropriate direction.
Every article and every topic has a fundamental essence. That essence is either Deletion Required or Keepworthy. It is the purpose of VFD to discover that essence with maximum efficiency. If its essence is Deletion Required, our duty as editors is to eradicate the offending article. If its essence is Keepworthy, our duty as editors is to edit and reshape the article until it is someday transmuted to Ideal. Yes, I'm being foolishly metaphysical, but I believe it is wholly inappropriate to allow inconclusive VFDs to stand. They need to be renominated. And in this case, it needs to be deleted, and it did not "pass" anything. Discussion was closed too soon, and the original "keep" votes were never legitimate to begin with. The Literate Engineer 03:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We should judge the article on its merits, rather than argue the process. In the uncommon case that an article gets two nominations in a row, people are likely to just copy their votes from the last one anyway. Radiant_>|< 07:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiki pedia is not anarchy either. We have the processes to guide and protect us from abuses and accidents. Again, putting this in perspective, no one here is objecting to another vote in a few months. Wikigods will not strike us down in the next 90 days for a bad article.--Tznkai 00:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find Radiant's argument compelling. All of our allegience should be toward making the actual encyclopedia as best as it can be. If the policies and procedures lag behind a little bit, what's the harm? If the lack of a renomination waiting period is a problem, address the problem on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not by voting to keep an article that is nonsense. Dystopos 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at Google hits makes it clear to me this created language is not notable, and probably vanity. I would like to ask all of you voted to keep, have you actually ever seen anything written in 'Comunleng'? I haven't. As far as I'm concerned, if there are zero sites on the Internet written in your made-up language your made-up language is not notable. --Fazdeconta 02:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT, already merged. -Splash 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Red (book)

Advertising. brenneman(t)(c) 06:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising! (comment added at 06:35, July 15, 2005 by User:Prescott

Delete per Brenneman. See :) Hiding 07:19, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brockhall

Not notable. Malathion 06:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

WinMatrix

Forum vanity. "WinMatrix (commonly abbreviated WM) is a self-described desktop customization community, launched on April 29, 2003, which currently boasts almost 15,000 members." EvilPhoenix talk 06:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

  • Delete, just another website. Dcarrano 23:15, July 17, 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 Speedied by Dunc. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa's Birthday

Should have been speedied but author is stubborn and there seems to be a lack of admins so here's my last option. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest any voters look at the page history to see what's been going on. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous user created an article about her own birthday. She constantly keeps removing speedy delete notices and whining about how she can make herself encyclopedic. The answer is: by actually doing something notable. Wikipedia is not a gateway to notability. Strong delete. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, as per only true author's request, plus article is now contentless. Dcarrano 08:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect to The Simpsons (it's an episode title) and protect. Radiant_>|< 09:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity then redirect to The Simpsons per Radiant!. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, it's nearly impossible to speedy something if the tag keeps getting removed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Xavier Lozano

This page is believed to be a vanity page, and according to Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Vanity_page does not belong on the Wikipedia. In addition parts of the entry is fiction. (Sorry, X, better luck with your next article) GSchjetne 07:44, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Edwin Low

After a quick googling, most of the hits seem to refer to a photographer, not an inventor. Hence, delete as a vanity article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:57, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Juggernaut group

I came across this using Wikiwax when I made a disambiguation page as a result of another VFD. Delete as blatant advertising please. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel Coloma

Notability not established. Sietse 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Secret Maryo Chronicles

Complete fancruft, not notable, no better than putting a random fan fiction in. Delete. A Link to the Past 09:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: Discounted votes are stricken out. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
User's only edit. --Allen3 talk 13:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
User's only edit. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks interesting but not yet notable, and there are many other clones out there. StopTheFiling 22:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, A great programming effort. Among the best Mario remakes out there, and very active.
Unsigned vote by Stephelton is the user's 7th edit--Allen3 talk 13:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Quality =/= Notability. Is it popular? Is it well-known? Is it on par with Zelda Classic? I'd say no for all three. -- A Link to the Past 23:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please check carefully for sockpuppet and newbie votes. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, July 22, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Apiakp

Vanity/Advertising of local church youth group. Article originally had duplicate links to the external sites embedded in the text. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Meanderthal

No hits on dictionary.com. Looks like a faulty dic def. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, redir to Neanderthal as possible misspellgni. Radiant_>|< 11:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. no redirect, as it's a typo, not a misspelling. -R. fiend 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like it, but it's sniglet. this is not a dictionary or slang guide. Friday 20:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Radiant as typo/misspelling. Xoloz 15:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me that making a redirect sort of endorses this as a variant spelling. Common misspellings are fine, but someone finding "Meanderthal" leading here would probably cause confusion, just as Kozart redirecting to Mozart would. Also, apparently this does have a "real" meaning, it just happens to be a neologism and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. Someone looking up that neologism would be better served finding no result than this one. -R. fiend 20:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Morwen. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Adventures_of_Tracy_Dick:_The_Case_of_the_Missing_Stiff

Delete There is nothing sitting in the article. Unless someone can contribute more worthwhile information to it, I do not see why it exists. TheMonkofDestiny 10:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the page is now gone. TheMonkofDestiny 10:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kody Kinzie

Vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, July 15, 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. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Toro

This article is almost certainly a copyvio. Also appears to be original research in places. Delete Dr Gangrene 10:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by User:Morwen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Armypants

Questionable notability. Anonymous IP 68.191.163.243 created article 04:29, July 15, 2005. Article tagged speedy shortly thereafter. 68.191.163.243 removed tag. Multiple users replaced tag, 68.191.163.243 has repeatedly removed tag. See also comment from anon on talk page. Admins, please assist. EvilPhoenix talk 10:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable/non-encyclopedic.- Mgm|(talk) 11:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, Notable signifigance to an isolated community.- [User:TimonQ]]|(talk) 12:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
note: User:TimonQ's fourth edit. I suspect sockpuppetry. jglc | t | c 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
note: No sockpuppetry here, I've been a registered patron of Wikipedia for some time now, and have chosen to contribute to this article as I have first hand knowledge that this article is completely relevant and factual User:TimonQ 13:24, July 15, 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 (8 keep, 3 delete; if margin is not large enough it defaults to keep due to lack of consensus anyway). - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Honkey

Dicdef of a derogatory word; it is already in Wiktionary and I don't see it having encyclopedic potential. Radiant_>|< 11:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Morwen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Yellow Yell

Nonsensical, not encyclopedic.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio and recreated as redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 13:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

IP mapping

Original research, very probably a copyvio too. (Includes copyright notice.) Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Especial:Imagelist

Transfer from WP:PNT. Physchim62 11:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tranferred discussion form Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
Looks Spanish to me. --TheParanoidOne 21:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is, it's some sort of article about ships. Title is compeltely misleading, so I'm thinking it's some sort of silly joke. The sentence structures are all mixed up, but it's an entry about why vessels that can't get certificationsohouldn't get into the sea. I'm passing on translating this one. drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
    • I´ve transwikied this to es:Transwiki:Buques sub-estándar (the sub-title that appears as the first line of the article). The image links are still broken even on Spanish wikipedia and as the article is mostly a discussion of the images (which supposedly illustrate boats in various stages of substandardness), it is left as pretty useless. I suggest we wait a day or two to see what happens on es:, then speedy: otherwise it's straight to VfD. Physchim62 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The transwikied article has survived Spanish RC patrol and been marked as wikify. The article here could be speedied, but I have chosen to list it on VfD as it seems a less clear-cut case. No vote. Physchim62 11:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Munt

Term: Munted is used within New Zealand culture. To describe the destruction of a car or other comparible object. I believe this is a case of double meaning. Where one word is good in one culture and highly insultive to the next, aka Culture Clash. It shouldn't be deleted but noted down as a offensive word in some cutures and the cultures the meanings belong to, be applied. T94xr 29th July 2005 - New Zealand.

Neologism used at a single school. Oliver Keenan 12:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nature in ramayana

I don't know what this is about, but I know it's not encyclopedic and likely a copyvio as it largely contains a translation of copyrighted material. Delete. Nature in Ramayana is the correct place should it be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Biscuits

Delete nn band, doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Also the redirect: "The Biscuits". TheMidnighters 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wet tube

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Nikolopoulos

non notable Elfguy 12:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stair-cane

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to John Q. Public. -Splash 00:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sixpack

Dicdef for 'the average guy' and already in Wiktionary. I don't see how this can possibly be more than a dicdef; it may be possible to merge/redir it somewhere but since I couldn't find a suitable place I'm nominating it for deletion. Radiant_>|< 12:53, July 15, 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 Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Microflyovers

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hallicart

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hallipath

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

List of quarterlies

Small list of some magazines that appear four times a year. Redundant with List of magazines. Radiant_>|< 12:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The two lists serve different functions that are both potentially useful, so this should be kept in some form. Could categorify instead, but I think there might be some value in this context to listing mags that don't have their own articles; don't have a big preference either way. Dcarrano 15:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as a subsection of List of magazines. If magazine names already exist there, one should still merge "quarterly" as an important category. Xoloz 15:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maizlish

Vanity. This is the name of the person who patented the products this guy is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Total vanity page and deleted. Manning 13:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

There were a set of 8 pages related to this - all of which were blatant corporate self-promotion with no informative merit. I deleted all of them.Manning 13:26, July 15, 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: 6k, 2d including original nominator and completor. -Splash 00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where You Live

Finishing VfD for another user..., Comment: Keep Weak Keep. (N.B. Although the article has some crystal ball-like qualities - released in sept. 2005) Feydey 13:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Children Act 1989. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residence vs contact

Text is so incoherent and fragmentary that I first put a (db) on it, which was promptly removed by the author bob tillings ; I'm putting a Vfd mostly to call it to the attention of Wiki pros who know how to deal with it. This said, although it must have some basis in fact, I think if I knew what it was, I'd still vote Delete. Bill 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. The current article on The Children Act is very threadbare, and doesn't really have the structure that admits a merge at the moment, but might later. The Children Act is quite important over here so this is probably encyclopedic. Any lawyers out there able to help us out? -Splash 14:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As a lawyer, though an American one, I find it a very bad idea for this notion, which is defined by, and apparently created by, The Children Act to have a separate article. Iff no more competent authority offers to accomplish this, I'll do my best to do so. Xoloz 16:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Xoloz. Radiant_>|< 13:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

General Transit

This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this - it was a no brainer and no discussion needed.Manning 13:10, July 15, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thai beer

No reason for this article to exist - non encyclopedic. -- Cnwb 13:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat concede. I think there is a place for an article on Thai beer, and realise now that sometimes substubs can fool one into thinking an article is worthless. I enjoyed many a Singa and Chang during my Thai travels. Cnwb 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable birding-related books

Not an encyclopedic article. At the least, could be merged into a bird article. Elfguy 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Tank

This smells of vanity. Delete Alynna 13:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moneynet

This article is an advertisement. User 217.30.116.158 Special:Contributions/217.30.116.158 continually adds a link to moneynet.co.uk to the Credit Card article. User has also been blocked for this behavior User_talk:217.30.116.158. Monkeyman 14:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertisement. Xoloz 16:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an article on a particular type of financial services web site and the internet company that started them in the UK, not what could be strictly defined as an advert. If Wiki policy was to remove all references and external links to any money making business in case they are seen as an advert, then Walmart, Disney, and thousands of other pages, should also be removed, which I don't feel would allow wikipedia to continue presenting itself as a useful source of encyclopaedic information.--Bod 13:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bod, this is the only edit/contribution to Wikipedia you have ever made. You'll forgive me if I suspect you're the owner of the site. Monkeyman 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Monkeyman you can suspect that but you would be wrong I am afraid. No offence taken however.--Bod 16:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. Ken 16:55, July 19, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Notcalling

Pseudo-linguistic nonsense. Joyous (talk) 14:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MTV2-ing

Neologism. Poorly written article. Not Notable Oliver Keenan 14:17, July 15, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Moran

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mitchum

Vanity page. Joyous (talk) 14:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No notoriety, no verifiability. -- DrTorstenHenning 14:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sober view on Firefox patch releasing

POV fork, essay, etc. The title says it all. Meelar (talk) 14:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Miranda

Vanity. Recent college grad, which seems to be the highpoint of his career. Calton | Talk 14:49, July 15, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag Bhimani

Vanity page for a civil engineer. Features a mug shot bigger than the article text. Calton | Talk 14:50, July 15, 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 (with suggestion to merge to etiquette) Also, I'm going to excercise my editorial (and not administerial) prerogative and move it to Office etiquette (lowe case) per naming convention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Office Etiquette

  • Probably fits a lot better on H2G2 than Wikipedia. --Paula Sandusky 08:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Would the goal of the re-writing be to make it more encyclopedic or more humorous? :-) RoySmith 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Don't worry, I am planning on making this much more than a list. It is not humor. Read the discussion page. What is the policy on Wiki? Do all articles need to be in complete condition before they are posted or can an incomplete article be posted and then finished? This thing has only been up for a day. If this one is subject to deletion than so should Dance_etiquette and just about everything else in the Etiquette category. Would adding the stub template avoid this problem? I don't see anything regarding these rules in the wiki tutorial or elsewhere. Ravedave 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencylopedic unless this can be turned into a sensible comparative study of the differences around the world, though I suspect we have that somewhere already. I agree with the author that everything in the category (apart from Wikiquette) should go (including his article, I'm afraid). Just look at Public cardroom etiquette (poker)!-Splash 17:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the effort you put into the rewrite, but while the presentation may be substantially improved, I still think the topic is just not encyclopedia material. As for the rest of the category, Etiquette, Customs and etiquette in Hawaii and Etiquette of Japan seem to me the only ones worth keeping, but that's another VfD for another day. RoySmith 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont follow. You disagree with this topic (could be called Etiquette of an Office), but agree with another exactly parallel article Etiquette of Japan? Please explain why one falls on one side of a line and the other does not - in Topic terms, not content terms. We need to be consistant in this matter, so all articles in the Etiquette category need to need to be deleted or not (excluding the meta article Wikiquette). Can we create a VfD for All distinct Etiquette articles and hash this out there instead? Ravedave 19:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles I cited contrast cultures around the world. I find that interesting (obviously, there's a lot of subjectivity here). Etiquette in the office seems rather banal to me. Perhaps if I were Japanese I would find the Japan article banal as well. RoySmith 19:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is encyclopedic. Andreww 22:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see. First, strip out the how-to (Wikipedia is not a finishing school). Next, strip out the unverifiable information (e.g., snapping at someone is considered inappropriate in some parts of the US). Next, strip out the non-encyclopedic gas and filler (customs vary by region). And we're left with ... a dicdef! And an unhelpful one at that. Delete -EDM 00:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "encyclopedic ... embracing all branches of learning; full of information, comprehensive.". So I would argue that topics with whole books that discuss the subject should be included. Andreww 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Office culture is vast and varies greatly, its a deep topic with alot of factual evidence to potentially make this a very insightful article, it's encyclopedic. Also, snapping at someone being seen as a rude act most definately is verifiable, not just in some parts of the US either, how could it possibly not be? 0104, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Source please? -EDM 00:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source? This is ridiculous, you walk into any office and be relentlessly moody and see what happens.. snapping at someone being considered not good etiquette shouldn't need any linkage or a source provided, what could possibly be linked to anyway? Maybe there is some obscure thesis out there or research on how lashing out at others all the time is not considered polite, but you've got to be kidding me if I have to provide it.. having said that, by the same token I don't see it as a very informative thing to be put in an article, its a bit.. obvious?
      • But if you want a source there are one or two websites (a random selection includes: [18], [19], [20], but Google lists more) and books (e.g. Grace Fox, "Office Etiquette and Protocol"; Post & Post, "The Etiquette Advantage in Business : Personal Skills for Professional Success"; Sue Fox "Business Etiquette for Dummies"), not to mention all the little things in company handbooks, induction packs and intro guides. Andreww 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no links in the article namespace, and Wikipedia does not do lists. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ettiquette. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Merge Not my cup of tea - the phrase honour among thieves comes to mind -- but merge with etiquette. --Simon.Pole 08:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with etiquette. It'd be worth keeping if there were massive improvement of content beyond its present "behave as is polite for where you are, with whatever extra rules the company has". This is a complex area: it needs stuff like cultural differences, the crossover with office politics and netiquette, reference to people like Robert Townsend who tried to alter office culture (seeing etiquette as one of the ways inefficient business practice is propagated - as Simon says, honour among thieves), etc. It also needs quality sources (anyone can sit down and write a list of things not to do in the office, and most such online guides are just personal views). Company etiquette summaries like this umass.edu one are worth reading as objective sources. There are plenty of topic ideas at the office etiquette section of the Wall Street Journal's executive careers site here. Tearlach 17:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dienst

Apparent vanity page, no Google hits for Kevin Dienst other than to wikipedia/mirrors, no Google hits for Veritas Arcanum. I'd tag it speedy but I don't want to waste some admin's time relisting it here. Delete Eliot 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (more or less). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Essex v Glamorgan 15 May 2005

And basically every other article in the Category:2005 English cricket season matches, which is hundreds of articles. Wikiepdia is not: any spiel that comes out of the mouth of Bob Costas (or whoever his British equivalent is). I think several hundred thousand cricket games have been played in the world (multiply that times the number of sports out there) and we've got millions of poor articles, written in a completley unencyclopedic manner, that made the Tuesday paper and were lining parrot cages on Wednesday. Important games should have their own artciles, but these aren't them. -R. fiend 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all voters: These articles are temporary. At the end of the season, they will be merged, under the auspices of WikiProject Cricket into seperate articles (here, Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, and National League Division One in 2005). Please take this into account when voting in this discussion. Cheers, smoddy 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We debated this not that long ago. This article is being transcluded in 2005 English cricket season (15-31 May) as a result of that VFD debate. David | Talk 15:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again...*sigh*. Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005. Sam Vimes 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC) (Edit: I should mention at this point that I wrote this article) Sam Vimes 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this and all other articles on recent individual cricket matches to Wikinews; failing that, do a proper merge. Abstain. (I was unaware of the temporary nature of these pages.) These are not encyclopedia articles. They are news reports. I don't know how many cricket matches there are per year, but MLB plays 2,430 regular-season games. Articles on the World Series and national cricket championships belong in an encyclopedia; articles on individual games do not, unless there's something particularly interesting about them. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The articles cannot be merged because they are being transluded in multiple articles. Merging them into those articles would result in duplicate content and would be a maintenance nightmare. Morwen - Talk 16:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that now. Merging would indeed be messy. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note also that the "national cricket championship matches" - akin to the baseball World Series - that Android79 speaks of, do not exist in England - instead, the regular season tables determine who becomes champion. Sam Vimes 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why not summarize the season as a whole? No doubt plenty of dead tree is used in England to describe the progress of the season as a whole and of individual teams during the season. This can be done without describing every match in excessive detail. I'm not very familiar with how Wikinews works, but it looks like there's nothing being added about cricket in England. This sort of content would be perfect there. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • That is correct, and it is exactly what we are doing - in a format very similar to what dead tree is used for in Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, a yearly dead tree publication in England (yes, it DOES describe every match in excessive detail). I can't see the harm in describing it - it is verifiable knowledge Sam Vimes 19:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep jamesgibbon 16:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it seems the other VfD came when I was out of town, and while I try to keep up with older VfDs I do miss some (particularly as VfD is so huge, a reason why I support several new speedy proposals). It seems that the main defense of these "articles" is that they are not to be their own pages but "sub-pages". What exactly is the difference? There's a "/" in the middle of the name? They still come up in Random page searches, they have all the characteristics of "real" pages, but with longer names. As someone pointed out recently AC/DC is not a subpage of AC. That excuse is a cop-out. Are we going to see Giants vs. Brewers April 17, 1967? "Anderson hits it toward the rightfield wall, its going...going... it's good! Out of the park! The crowd is on their feet, Higgins and Maloney are brought home and this game is far from over!" (OK, I made all that up; I know very little about baseball, particularly from the 60's). -R. fiend 16:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last discussion, and "random page" should be regarded as a minor function not the top priority. Kappa 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to wikinews or a wikicities project. I, too, somehow missed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005, where I certainly would have voted to delete. Given the split result (quite a few merge, transwiki, and delete votes) I don't find it very useful as a precedent. I do find setting a precedent for including detailed results of all of the tens of thousands/year of regular season sports meets quite troubling. Last I checked the other two sports-related WikiPortal projects are wisely avoiding this level of granularity. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a cricket (or even sports) almanac. Several people expressed concern about this major expansion of Wikipedia's scope on the Village Pump a month ago[21]. Niteowlneils 21:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the argument you're using against it, that it's too detailed, flies in the face of wikipedia policy, especially [22]. Sam Vimes 21:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I obviously failed to make my point clear. My primary concerns are A) These are news items, not encyclopedia topics, and B) It is a major expansion of the scope of Wikipedia at a time that newpages and recent changes patrol are already overtaxed, so more vandalism and patent nonsense is making it into Wikipedia unchecked, and this expansion just exacerbates the problem. Niteowlneils 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • To A) I'd say that professional sports events have a significance beyond the event itself, and thus should be kept in an encyclopedia, to describe how the season progressed. We are a very detailed encyclopedia, like it or not. Point B) still comes under the No size limits policy. Sam Vimes 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per last week's vote. --Ngb 21:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Carnildo 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are a proper matter of record as is illustrated by the fact that such reports make up the largest part of the contents of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, and people collect and read Wisden's that are over a hundred years old. Calsicol 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how it's spun, these are news reports, emphemera by their nature. Come back when the season's over and summarize it all for us then. --Calton | Talk 03:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We decided this a week ago. There's no need to re-run the vote, jguk 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I simply can not see how every sports encounter is encylopedic. Next we can add every baseball game and then football and then socer and so on. Maybe we need to create a sports almanac? That's where information like this should be, not in an encylopedia. They are two different books that serve very different purposes. Vegaswikian 07:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wasn't in on last week's vote either, but I'll support Cricket; I'm sure this is very important and quite encyclopedic to our British friends. Xoloz 16:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't give a fig whether last week some people thought this or that. The fact is that this is a single instance in a season. We are not a sports site, and we are not going to have a page per game for every sport, every team, every year on the professional ranks, and then the college ranks. Forget transclusion: no VfD debate gets to set policy, and that's what you're attempting to apply when you say that this debate is rendered moot. (Also, by the way, what about Glamorgan v Essex 15 May 2005?) To even suggest that we should allow this because one likes or dislikes the sport is bordering on insensibility. Geogre 03:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Geogre summed it all up. These are not encyclopedia articles --Naha|(talk) 04:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: As per Geogre. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article (although sub-article would be a better word) feeds through to four separate articles (see "What links here"). It is those articles that are the fully encyclopaedic articles summarising the season - see 2005 English cricket season for a link through to all of them. It's quite proper that we should allow detailed coverage of cricket, just in the same way as we allow detailed coverage of Star Trek, Harry Potter or mathematics. Wikipedia is not paper - projects develop (including projects we have no personal interest in). That's why it's so great, jguk 06:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or put in Wikisource or something, per above. Also, this may be grounds for an RFC or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus discussion. Radiant_>|< 13:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no need for me to repeat the arguments Tintin 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long-term benefit ... will be merged ... get a life ... blah blah blah. Nothing has changed from last week. These articles will cease to be so in time; why can people not appreciate this? It is true; it is verifiable; the end result will be encyclopedic. smoddy 15:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question I feel I need to bring up: is anyone going to address the unencyclopedic and generally just plain poor writing style of these articles? My Giants/Brewers parody above was an exaggeration, but not enough of one. And I don't want to hear that that's how "Wisdens" does it. As it stands I think most of this info is terribly trivial. Why not do a season wrap-up with a chart giving the teams, final score, etc? The whole "this is part of a larger article" argument is crap. It's its own article, even if it is made into a "sub-page". -R. fiend 16:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you grasp the "long term" thing? In the end, these articles will cease to be articles in their own right. They will become part of proper articles, in a good, encyclopedic style, in the fullness of time. Is this concept too hard to grasp? smoddy 16:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is. What's the delay? If they're not going to be articles "in their own right" does that mean you will be merging them? Why not now? Why the poor prose? If this is a work in progress and these aren't meant too be articles then why not work on them offline? You seem to be admiting that these are news reports that will somehow become articles (well, not articles, because you just said they won't to be articles in their own right). So what exactly is the deal with them? -R. fiend 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you specify exactly why you think this is poor prose? As far as I can see this is a description of how the match unfolded - yes, it includes vivid adjectives, but as far as I can see wikipedia doesn't ban vivid prose, and the article praises those who did well in the match - by perfectly objective criteria, such as scoring runs and getting people out. Merely quoting statistics and results, now THAT is poor prose (in fact, it's not prose at all...). Yes, it's in a newspapery style, but that's not forbidden either (see Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#News_style). The only thing it possibly lacks is an introduction to the subject it treats - I can understand that. However, that is because the pages onto which it is transcluded (meaning that the entire content of the page is included) give an introduction to the topic already - it becomes obvious from the context of the page it is on. Reading "This was a game of cricket played in the National League in 2005" in every single section of National League Division Two in 2005 gets, believe it or not, tedious. And, as explained earlier, the content should be in the main namespace for the benefit of mirror sites Sam Vimes 17:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is not ephemeral, what is? Even if they're just a temporary stage in a larger project, they shouldn't be in the main namespace. PRiis 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again. Hiding 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a single match in a season - Wikipedia is not a sports page. JamesBurns 02:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, then, aren't we voting to delete on Boom Town (Doctor Who) (a single episode in a season - Wikipedia is not a TV page), or Blue (Pokémon) (a single character in a video game - Wikipedia is not a gaming page), or Rita Skeeter (a single character in a book - Wikipedia is not a children's ficton page). As you can see it's easy to quote examples of this from other places than sport -- why is sport in general, and cricket in particular, any different? I really do feel the repeated VfDs on these pages are a clear example of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --Ngb 07:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I am no fan of the articles on individual episodes pf TV shows, there is a major difference in that these shows are often referenced and viewed multiple times. They are re-run. Many are available on DVD. This is not true of these sporting events (truly importnat games, such as finals, world cup, world series, etc. are the exception, and not included in this VfD). Ther is also a huge differenc in sheer numbers. A typical season for a TV series is about 25 shows. There are thousands of cricket, basketbell, baseball, etc. games every year. -R. fiend 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there are about 30 Surrey County Cricket Club matches a season... Just because this is comprehensive is not a reason to delete it. Your statement is actually beside the point anyway, given that these are, long-term, not intended to be final articles, just a legitimate stage on that journey. Why are you so sour about this? smoddy 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Xaamir
  • Keep May be a single match, but it links to several pages regarding specific cricketing clubs and the domestic championship, and without individual records like this, those pages wouldn't be complete. sdb
  • Keep, provided that it gets merged into longer articles and then deleted at the end of the season as described. Stephen Turner 09:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, who described that scenario? Smoddy sort of haphazardly mentioned something sort of like that, but has declined to go into the specifics. Everyone else seems to be defending these articles as "part of bigger articles on the entire season", which seems to mean they are detailed breakouts, with no scheduled deletion at the season's end. If I'm wrong here someone please correct me. There's been some talk of moving these to "sub-pages", but such subpages are still separate articles. -R. fiend 20:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the assumption the editors of these pages, me incldued, have been working on for most of the time - sorry for not making that explicit enough. When the season is over near the end of September, we'll do a rewrite and copyedit of all the articles on the season, and then use "subst" or something to remove the transclusion, which will make this article content fairly redundant, so it can be deleted. But I suppose that isn't good enough either? Sam Vimes 20:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely resent that allegation. When did you ask for specifics? If you had wanted them, I would have given them. I also fail to see how it was haphazard. Do you care to substantiate these allegations, or are they just mud-slinging? I have added a note to the top of the page to inform voters about the destination of these articles. smoddy 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this sort of asks for a few specifics, does it not? Your reply responded to a different question, which this talk of "cleanup" and "rewrites" has done something to address and put me a bit more at ease. I still think if these are temporary articles (a concept which is somewhat new to me), they should be either offline or not in the article mainspace (mirrors bedamned, they aren't my concern, Wikipedia is). -R. fiend 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Firstly, I am not Sam Vimes (unless I am bilocating in South Wales and Norway...). Secondly, I didn't see that. The options are
            1. Have absolutely nothing in the main article namespace until well after the end of the season. This is possible, but undesirable, because we can have something now.
            2. Do what we're doing: have slightly odd articles until the end of the season, then quickly merge them into good, coherent articles. That will happen in the fullness of time.
          • Basically, I think this whole ugly affair comes down to a failure of communication of intent. Perhaps this should have been better-documented. But, as it is, it hasn't been. That isn't a reason to delete this page, or any other such article. Eventualism, anyone? smoddy 21:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about confusing you with Sam; this discussion is getting rather complicated. I think this discussion sort of boils down to a question of "temporary articles". As far as I can tell, no such thing exists in WP policy, and this is the first I have heard of it. That is not to say such things are inherently contrary to policy, but it does bring up some questions that go well beyond this VfD. Perhaps that is what we should be discussing, and if so, probably not in VfD. Comments or uggestions, anyone? -R. fiend 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd suggest putting a boilerplate notice of some kind on each of the subpages' talk pages; there's at least a chance that those would get noticed. Now that I know what these articles are being used for now and that they're only temporary, I have changed my mind. I still think they would be better off on Wikinews, or at least in User space, but I can see that argument is going nowhere. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • They started out as subpages of 2005 English cricket season, to where I would have moved them back (per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Cricket#Match reports) had this VfD not been started. The reason it is done like this is that each report appears in several articles: in the case of this particular one it is in Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, National League Division One in 2005 and 2005 English cricket season (15-31 May). Our intention is to rework each of these summary articles at the end of the season so that each forms a 'season review' targeted to the team or competition in question -- this is absolutely encyclopaedic, an innovative use of Wikipedia and something that *no other resource*, either online or in print, provides. An example of this being done 'the other way' (i.e., backwards, with no pre-existing match reports to work from), is at User:Ngb/English cricket team in the 2000s -- you can see how long this is taking because information has to be dragged in from so many separate sources, and this is for just one international team (international teams play many less matches than domestic teams). --Ngb 21:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for a way these match reports can be integrated into a good encyclopedia article, despite including match reports written in a descriptive style, see 2004 American League Championship Series Sam Vimes 21:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (Edit: although, of course, this is a finals series, the principle remains the same)[reply]
  • Delete ephemeral sports cruft. CDThieme 18:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Radient and others. This doens't belong here, where as part of a larger article or not. DES 20:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Written in a non-encyclopaedic style; only possible expansion would be the scorecard; this is a 'news item'. It belongs in an almanac, not an encyclopaedia. Noisy | Talk 20:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - how many times do you have to vote Keep on the same articles? Notable, encyclopaedic, verifiable. No grounds for deletion - especially when Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort each have their own article. Guettarda 21:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Six. smoddy 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but those two are fictional characters in mass-marketed fictional worlds, and mass-marketed fictional worlds seem to be of similar (greater?) interest to many people than is the real world: see for example Category:Star Wars characters. The power of marketing aside, Harry Potter "sells" much more than do particular cricket matches when all are new; and a year or so from now the interest in particular 2005 cricket matches is likely to have sunk rather more quickly than the interest in Potter's 2005 adventures. -- Hoary 07:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep William M. Connolley 21:48:52, 2005-07-18 (UTC).
  • Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, etc. brenneman(t)(c) 23:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, *yawn*. James F. (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boredom aside, transwiki to Wikinews or anyway delete from WP, following the arguments of Uncle G in the earlier VfD debate. Note that although we read there that The result of the debate was keep, the actual result was very mixed, certainly with more votes for a simple keep than for a simple delete, but with nothing like consensus. To take this mixed result to mean "keep" was entirely correct, given WP rules, but there was hardly any conclusion. -- Hoary 07:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Suddenly the bordom is back. Monkey Tennis 10:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is highly inappropriate to keep nominating the same thing in the hope that one time you will get what you want. CalJW 19:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. DS1953 02:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. As long as the wikiproject is committed to maintaining this array of pages I don't see a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:55, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. IMO, this kind of article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. — Bcat (talk | email) 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary articles

I've created a new heading here to make adding comments easier for we who have size limits with our browsers, and to try to open a discussion of temporary articles in general (see my comments above). I had never heard of such a thing before, and I think it warrants some discussion. While I think this is a good place to formulate such a discussion, I think it should soon be brought elsewhere. If I am incorrect and there is a policy or precedent for temporary articles, please point me in the right direction. Thanks. -R. fiend 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all things in WP are done without there being an explicit policy saying you can do it. Really, as long as what is being done is within the aim of improving and/or adding to the encyclopaedia, it should be encouraged. New ideas, methods, approaches will be developed as we progress. Whilst they should accord to the normal WP style, we'd be fools to ourselves to prevent them on the grounds that as nobody has thought of it before, there is no explicit "policy" saying you can do it! Our goal is a better Wikipedia, not blind obeisance to "policy", jguk 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bad idea to have temporary article snippets in the main article namespace. There are ample policies and precedents that describe what a wikipedia article should be--temporary article snippets that do not meet these criteria and that never will themselves be expanded to legitimate artices have no business being in the namespace, even temporarily. Anything else requires a change of policy with a broad consensus--a couple of very obscure VFDs is not enough to justify such big change in what is acceptable as an article. If it's such a wonderful idea, why is there so much resistence to getting a broad consensus for it? (By the way, when these articles are no longer wanted, don't they have to go through the existing, labor-intensive deletion policy, or are snippets exempt from this policy as well?) PRiis 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that when the content is merged, the original articles would be left as redirects, as is normal merging policy? Sam Vimes 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they don't really take up too much room, I think it'd be nice to keep them. Category:2005 English cricket season matches is a very useful index - we shouldn't get rid of it in a hurry, jguk 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you say keep "them" I assume you mean keep redirects, otherwise we're back where we started. As for PRiis's comments, I'm tempted to agree. While I suppose it might not be against policy to have temporary articles, it does seem just sort of, well, strange. It also sort of opens a door that I'm sure can be abused. While I realize wikiepdia itself will always be a work in progress, this creation just to delete seems sort of contrary to wikipedia, in a way. Now, should this discussion be moved to a policy page somewhere, because that's where this is going? I think such a move would also get opinions from a wider perspective outside of this VfD. -R. fiend 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can accuse the Cricket WikiProject of being bad for Wikipedia - indeed, it has done much good work for Wikipedia - and has many featured articles and featured lists to its credit. The WikiProject can hardly be compared to an instance of a rogue editor, or a newbie not used to WP ways - it would be easy to distinguish circumstances where what is happening here is being used as a precedent where it shouldn't be, jguk 20:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone accusing Wikiproject Cricket as being bad for Wikipedia. This VfD is about a somewhat small portion of the project, and this section at the bottom is about temporary articles, which should be seen as a separate issue entirely. This is a new thing, as far as I can tell, and if there's no policy on them there should be, whether the policy is "no temporary articles" or simple rules/guidelines for how they are used. There are issues here. Who decides what articles are temporary? I assume the originator, but since no one "owns" WP articles what happens if a contributor objects to their temporary status? How do we prevent the use of them from being abused, and people from using temporariness as an excuse for poor articles, or ones that are early stages of works-in-progress that are a jumble of cut-and-paste messes from other sources? (I am not accusing Wikiproject Cricket of doing this, but I can see it happening somewhere in Wikipedia.) At the very least there should be a template:temporary for each such article, and there should be discussion among general Wikipedians. Again, that should occur elsewhere, as it is not really a VfD issue. -R. fiend 06:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anyone except smoddy suggest these articles are temporary. If that is true then keep them in the User namespace, the Project Cricket (which I am not challenging) namespace, or anywhere but the main article namespace. Niteowlneils 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the concerted and continuous attack? They were subpages to begin with. That was attacked as being not in keeping with page-naming, so they were moved to separate pages. Now the subpages are being VfD'd one by one. When there is no consensus to delete the first, they move on to the next. Now you want them userified? Why the systemic attack on one of the top two sports in the world? Any First Class cricket match is at least as noteworthy as a minor character in a Harry Potter book, or a DS9 episode, and they don't even get VfD'd. Or are you saying that first class cricket matches are less important than minor Pokemon characters? Guettarda 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Olson

non-notable. One edit on the page even says "A Quick Bio on a low-level artist in the nerdcore scene." (emphasis mine) While the people he's worked with are noteworthy, IMHO, it does not save this entry.--Mitsukai 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP

Hot coffee

  • Keep - This case could create a precedence for game classification around the world and is likely to have historical significance
  • Keep - Who's the moron that even thought of deleting this? Please tell me!
  • Keep and possibly create disambiguation page - This issue has already entailed some remarkably significant precedents; in time, it may well be a much bigger issue than its parent article. Still, many users with an interest in Hot Coffee would also take interest in the main GTA:SA article. Re: The poster below, the Mortal Kombat controversy never had a catchy name. Scoff if you will, but a good title can seriously affection the public perception of an issue. Edit: "Seriously affection?" Yeesh, good thing I got some sleep since typing that.
  • Merge - There aren't special pages for Mortal Kombat's original controversy that created the ESRB in the first place. This is the internet celebrating itself. Giving this much merit to what Rockstar coders made to stay busy at work and what modders unlocked in a few afternoons is an insult to superior mods that took a lot more time and original work to accomplish.
  • Create disambiguation page People searching for "hot coffee" will most probably be looking for this article rather than actual "coffee". To be sure, though, creating a disambiguation page would prevent any unneccessary viewing. However, this article merits separate mention from the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article because the controversy bears ramifications that extend far beyond the scope of the game itself.
  • Keep - Why would this be deleted? It's become hugely controversial, and marks a new chapter in the battle between video games and grandstanding politicians who don't give a damn about freedom of speech.

Seems to be nonsense, what's your opinion? Manik Raina 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

and this could be a fine article, as mentioned above. Themindset 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - again, more info on the controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.128.182 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 July 2005 UTC
  • Keep this is a massive news issue at the moment, though the minimal information at the moment is about the mod itself, rather than the controversy itself. If you believe it should be deleted, please just look at the news, GTA fansites will show you what is going on pomegranate 02:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It passes even the far more stringent Google News test with flying colors. Of course, that would require the above mentioned additions to be made. --Icelight 06:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 06:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Move to Hot Coffee mod - for the same reasons as Icelight and Themindset. Besides having national attention, this whole controversy has the potential to change the way ESRB establishes content ratings, as well as establish federal government intervention of the video game industry. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC) (updated 23:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC))
  • Ravedave, Themindset, Pomegranate, Icelight, and Lbmixpro seem to have missed the fact that the controversy is already covered in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Leaks and hackings, as Mitsukai pointed out at the start of this discussion. That article even links to the Wikinews coverage. Growing a duplicate article is silly. Break out the section of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas when it becomes too big. Currently, it isn't. Uncle G 11:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article already exists. Much more could and will be added to what there is in the San Andreas article, requiring a seperate article. Would you suggest the HC page be deleted and then restored shortly afterward as soon as a couple more paragraphs are added to the section in the SA article?
  • Keep, unfortunately. It caused controversy, and might be the source of lawsuits against Rockstar Games. Almafeta 16:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deletion has to do with unjustified creation of a seperate and specific article, not with cultural relevancy of content. Topic covered in parent article. 162.40.146.88 20:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is developing into a rather large controversy. Hillary Clinton and Jack Thompson are both taking a strong stance on it. In general, the gaming community is taking the opposite stance. User:DrIdiot 01:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge Keep. My previous comments are irrelevant now - changed my vote a second time (for shame) -- jiy 17:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to coffee. And pour me one. Radiant_>|< 13:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge content into parent article. Nandesuka 20:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas already covers the material and the hot coffee article should really be about (wait for it...) coffee. Dcarrano 23:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge The variation is notable as a news story, but the news stories generally reference Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's unlikely that many researchers will look for this content under the current name. In my opinion the GTA:SA article should feature this type of content (more encyclopedic) and move the bulk of the game details to the Wikibooks entry. Dystopos 23:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and thin down information in main GTA:SA article. -- Norvy (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Link to this from GTA:SA. I was going to add this under the controversy section in ESRB but checked to see if there was an arcticle to link to first. I was surprised to se it up for deletion. --Dustin Asby 13:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep article and Merge Move contents to Hot Coffee mod; provide disambiguation. 25 chatter 00:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful information. I suspect that we'll see more of this kind of controversy in the future. It would be useful to be able to refer back to this incident. Chrysrobyn 13:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep THIS MADE NATIONAL NEWS AND THE ADEQUACY OF THIS ARTICLE ISN'T EVEN CLOSE TO ANY OF THE SHITTY ARTICLES THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED FOR DELETION
  • Comment. Votes to delete the article have not generally recommended deleting the content, but merging it to GTA:SA under the "controversies" heading. Deletion pertains mainly to the usefulness of having an article under the name Hot Coffee -- NOT to the validity of the content itself. Many of the votes to keep the article seem to have been made without respect to alternatives to merge the content. The fact is that people will look for this information under GTA:SA, not by searching Wikipedia for Hot Coffee. Dystopos 23:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Let's fast forward 5 years. It turns out that Pokemon Unleashed has a mature hidden level that people are able to get into. It causes quite a stir, "Like what happened in 2005 to Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas bug known as 'Hot Coffee'". No matter what we do, the link to future events can point to GTA:SA#Hot_Coffee or to Hot_Coffee. People will be able to find the event in either section. So, does one who wants to learn about GTA:SA necessarily want to know about Hot Coffee? Maybe -- so follow a link. Does one who wants to know about Hot Coffee want to know about the rest of GTA:SA? Maybe -- so follow a link. In either case, they're related, but the content and audiences of the two articles are potentially different.Chrysrobyn
  • Keep This controversy is a thing in and of itself. It shouldn't be merged into a main GTA page. --Starwed 04:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this has gained media attention and the controversy/issue is significant in and of itself; however, the title could use some improvement so that it is more descriptive, i.e. "Grand Theft Auto - Hot Coffee (Game Modification)", and Hot Coffee should be a redirect to a disambiguation page. --Mysidia 12:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In ten years, Hot Coffee will be more famous than GTA:San Andreas. Whether this article needs to be kept until then or recreated later is the question in my eyes. Given fast deletion policies, I'd be temtped to just keep it. --Steven Fisher 17:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Hot Coffee is probalay the biggest contraversy to ever to hit the video game industury so far. This defentialy deserves it's own page. --Saint-Paddy 20:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definetly keep, maybe rename. Disambiguation page would be good.
  • Keep: It's currently a "hot" issue (no pun intended). However, moving it to Hot coffee mod and having a disambiguation page isn't a bad idea. Douglasr007 22:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For reasons already stated by other users. In wanting to get right to what the "hot coffee mod" was, I turned immediately to wikipedia, as opposed to having to sort through mainstream news articles which would tip toe around the issue. A Merge would also suffice. --Godheval 00:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ray Spalding 01:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major news...prob first case of Rating change ex post facto Bubbachuck 04:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with above user. Definetly keep, maybe rename. Disambiguation could be used, but isn't really needed.
  • Keep, huge controversy in VG industry, very notable subject, etc. claviola (talk to me) 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hot Coffee mod but keep content intact. SYSS Mouse 16:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hot coffee mod or Create disambiguation page. That, I think, makes the most sense here. Overall the info should be kept intact as it is a fairly notable mod now. SF2K1 17:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hot coffee mod as above Courtarro 17:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Addaone 21:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. GatesPlusPlus 12:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Add screen shots under fair use. — David Remahl 04:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I think it's time for this. Almafeta 05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —BenFrantzDale 18:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's definnatly notable and should remain. Also about redirecting it I have some thoughts: 1) Despite popular belief "Hot Coffee" is not a mod, it was written into the initial code, but was never meant to be accesed. 2) Most people searching for the drink will most likely type in "Coffee" while people looking for this will type in "Hot Coffee" Deathawk 23:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create disambiguation page. I typed in this page looking for information on the "hot coffee" political scandal thingy, and immediately found people suggesting it be deleted. I came here specifically to look for it, so I imagine it would be useful to others as well. Um, I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this voting thing right. Awk 01:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Add screen shots under fair use. — David Remahl 02:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jimbobsween 02:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is too important to be deleted. In time, it shall find place perhaps in other articles, or maybe it will be cited by other articles. As Sarah from Attack of the Show said, I believe, "we'll soon have to refer to it as 'BHC' and 'AHC'; Before Hot Coffee and After Hot Coffee". -mysekurity
  • Keep Widely reported news topic with major political and social ramifications - Extremely notable above and beyond the patch itself. Gblaz 02:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep And move to disambiguate, if that helps. This "mod" is already among the most important legal precedents in gaming and so having a page to explain the software and the results is useful, apart from background information on the specific game. JustinHall 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utopics

A rambling, uninformative how-to of a "16 level program to transform into your inner animal or Meta animal, find true love, and join nature to become free - ascension." Non-encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 16:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Delete Meaningless screed from unknown source. --Lee Hunter 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP:8k, 2r, 1d. Anon IP vote discounted. -Splash 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of imagination

Obvious phrase. Sure it was used in the 9/11 report but in the same way that "brake failure" is used to describe the failure of brakes.--Lee Hunter 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 4k, 1d from original speedy (signed in user). Note taken of Tony Sidaway's point; today is 5 days. -Splash 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farid F. Abraham

Was tagged for speedy delete with a reason given as being "not notable". Moving this to VfD to determine if the subject is considered notable. No Vote --Allen3 talk 16:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand — To me at least, he seems quite notable, and this should not be deleted, speedy or otherwise.[23] — RJH 18:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a legitimate scientist. With time the article will be expanded. -- Judson 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the article slightly. More than enough to establish notability. (3 cover articles in Science seems more than enough for a scientist.) Can someone more savvy than myself remove the Speedy tag from the page? Dystopos 00:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should remark on the circumstances of this VfD. It's one of several that were tagged on the bogus speedy justification "not notable". Some of them were wrongly speedied, and I have restored those. Also the person who listed this on VfD didn't insert the VfD notice in the article. I have added it now, and whoever closes this discussion should take into account the fact that it wasn't properly tagged until 18th. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QFS pen

Injoke, non-encyclopedic and non-verifiable, no Google hits other than wikipedia/mirrors (and good god, there are 300 of them!) Delete Eliot 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trust-forum

This appears to be a "vanity" article about a new software project which is not (yet) notable. The user who wrote the Wikipedia article is the same person who is the author of the project. The project appears to be a FUSSP -- an unproven attempt to "solve the spam problem". In any event, vanity articles and original research are both criteria for deletion under Wikipedia deletion policy. FOo 16:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is only the reference to the antispam solution that is the reason to delete this article, we can just delete this aspect and focus on other aspects of this software, that can be interesting too ?--Spoirier 19:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete it isn't that it's an FUSSP; it's that it's vanity (you wrote the article about your own program) and that it's not a notable project (yet). Once you solve the spam problem for thousands of people, one of them will write a Wikipedia article about your program. --FOo 03:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All right, anyway I don't worry: important corrections are being made these days, as I'm starting to use the system for myself, and I expect that thousands users will finally come in the next few weeks. So even if it is deleted now it is likely to come back a bit later.--Spoirier 10:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry, Spoirier, but you can't write the article about your own software. Concentrate on making your software good enough to attract attention, and somebody else will write an article on it. Otherwise this counts as a "vanity article" and "original research." Jdavidb 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not yet notable (see SourceForge page -- still in beta, 6 downloads in last week. Keep working on it, sounds interesting! Dcarrano 00:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ngee ann wichita scouts troop

It's a scout troop. Not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Move and Keep, I think. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy's Page

Delete Appears to be nn vanity. Icelight 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete blogcruft. sigh. Friday 17:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Bleh --malathion talk 19:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Betsy Newmark. I swear that I did not post this myself. This was NOT a vanity post. Someone else wrote it and I thank them. There are plenty of Wikipedia entries on bloggers and I don't see why mine shouldn't be among them. Check out some of the other entries under Bloggers and you'll see that this is a typical description of a blogger. Thank you for your consdideration. My Background 18:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. -- Joanne Jacobs

  • Delete, unless reasons why this is a particularly notable blog are shown. Dcarrano 00:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also vote against deletion. This is blog is notable for her iconoclasm, wit, and insight.

Do not Delete People who are so quick to urge deletion have obviously not read her site much. Betsy may not be shy, but she is hardly so insecure as to post a vanity listing on Wikipedia.

I vote against deletion. I get so much out of reading Betsy's Page and think her blog deserves the recognition. -- Crystal

  • Delete It's not a vanity, and Betsy deserves an article because she's well-known and well-regarded amongst the major conservative blogs I frequent, but this article doesn't say anything that doesn't sound like the generic fawnings of a generic fan of a generic blog. Add to that it makes it look like shameless family promotion, when in fact a regular reader should find the associations to be substantive with respect to her commentary. As long as deletion allows someone to subsequently come back and actually write something informative, I say delete until then. -- Chris Culbertson - 04:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- site gets over 4000 visits according to TruthLaidBear rating. I have heard of this blog and have visited there although it isn't a site I regularly visit. Capitalistroadster 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PULEEZE... what standards are being applied here? She is not writing about her sex life and her dog... she aggregates information, provides commentary and relevant links, focuses mostly on politcal issues, and does so with a high degree of wit and erudition. There is a personal touch also... but, I submit, no more so... and easier to endure... than Dan Rather's describing his wife's mastery of "Texas tact" as having learned how to french kissing a guy who chews tobacco...

I vote against deletion. Betsy's iconoclastic blog allows me to see what's going on in politics and education in a new, better-informed light. She has a wonderfully independent way of looking at things that brings me back to her blog at least several times a day. She is, to my mind, one of the top three bloggers on the planet--and believe me, I read a LOT of blogs. --Barb Oakley

e.g. Note that all of the "Keep" votes except for one have been made by either anon IP addresses or user's first posts. Icelight 00:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Against Deletion - space is not a problem, so what's wrong with having entries that are relatively minor in import? Like it or not, Betsy's Page is an excellent example of the blog as citizen journalism. She is a regular poster, and has demonstrated the utility of blogs by her fisking of Kerry's Daniel Webster quote. [Linda F, Right As Usual, http://rightasusual.blogspot.com]

  • Delete. Not terribly notable. Nandesuka 20:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rather than asked to stay away, new users who have been pointed here are invited to make themselves familiar with Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines and, in particular, Deletion policy. In short, we are not voting on whether Betsy is interesting, witty, popular or capable. We are voting on whether an article about her blog could be encyclopedic, based on verifiability, neutrality, and notability. Dystopos 00:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and Redirect to Betsy Newmark. She seems to be borderline notable as a blogging teacher, (five time winner of a national teacher award, etc.) and is frequently referenced by conservative blogs. In my opinion this is more defensible as a biographical article than an article about the blog. I don't see that either is especially notable, but as long as it's NPOV and verifiable, (which it is, after I cleaned out the vanity and expanded the article) I have no problem with the content. Dystopos 01:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The blog is notable enough that in the last couple of days alone it has been featured on the cover of Washington Post Magazine (here)and on CNN (here). Should such evidence of "notableness" be included in the article? - David M


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burn the Children

Band vanity - I can't find any listings on allmusic or any major retailers offering to sell me their music. And with all due respect to beautiful Conway, New Hampshire, being that town's "premiere metalcore band" just isn't very impressive. CDC (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediacrity

Delete Non-notable blog. Icelight 17:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Fetus-X kept, Monkey Day deleted, everything else smerged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feral Calf and associated other entries

Feral Calf, Casey Sorrow, Eric Millikin, and Fetus-X are all webcomic entries created by anonymous IPs User:207.179.100.190 and User:68.248.28.159. Monkey Day is another entry created by the former anonIP, and its entire content is "Monkey Day is an annual celebration of monkeys and primates on December 14th," plus two external links (both of which go to pages created and solely maintained by Casey Sorrow)
Feral Calf receives 139 Google hits (the first few of which, at least, do correspond to the webcomic), Casey Sorrow gets 3730 (the first few pages of which, at least, correspond to the artist), Fetus-X receives 6,050, and Eric Millikin receives 6,010. I doubt that Feral Calf is notable for a webcomic, and I vote delete on it. Fetus-X, on the other hand, is somewhat notable, I feel (I, at least, used to read it), but I'm not certain: I vote weak keep. Eric Millikin, for creating Fetus-X, may be notable, but I suggest that his article be merged into Fetus-X, and redirected there. Casey Sorrow may be notable as an artist on Fetus-X, but I don't think he qualifies for notability under Feral Calf. for Monkey Day, as a non-notable, fan-created holiday, I vote Delete. jglc | t | c 17:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fetus-X, Delete the rest. Fetus-X is notable, the rest are not. Nifboy 01:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was very confusing to list all five of these articles together. At least three VFDs (Feral Calf/Casey Sorrow; Fetus-X/Eric Millikin; Monkey Day) should have been made for these only tangentially related items. Quite possibly, five would have been even more appropriate. Dcarrano 01:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Monkey Day for being a holiday observed by very few; Sorrow and Millikin because even if their comics were notable, it would be sufficient to list their names there; and Feral Calf and Fetus-X for being non-notable. Feral Calf is easy: no Alexa, 11 comics in archive. Fetus-X is tougher because it has a somewhat larger, albeit not huge, archive (it's numbered strangely, so I didn't count exactly how many), and the article does have some outside links/comments. But with Alexa #335,262, I really don't see it. Dcarrano 01:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Dcarrano. Xoloz 16:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of them. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fetus-X for reasons already give by Nifboy and jglc, merge and redirect Eric Millikin's article with the Fetus-x article, Delete the rest. Dragonfiend 00:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Dcarrano. JamesBurns 02:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote "keep", because I can see that the only reason this article has got a lot of "delete" nominations is because it is about controversial subjects (fetuses, sex, politics) and it is about a controversial comics scripter, who American Christians, Catholics and many similar people do not like.

I am surprised that not more people listed above have the brains to be able to spot this, and instead put down pathetic reasons such as "non-notable" (a really stupid term, by the way, Wiki creators. As are some of your other bureaucratic neologisms.)

If I am researching comics or web comics, I naturally expect there to be extensive articles about anyone of note on the scene, such as Millikin - and his best-known comics. If Wikipedia deletes these entries, Wikipedia. is even stupider than I previously thought it was.

No, I don't like you guys, have never LIKED you. But you're free - that's the great thing - and constantly updated. Still. I frequently wish you'd get hacked. Especially when I see totally LAME attemps at censorship such as all the above. [User: Liz. OH - and BTW - what right have YOU people got to a) log people's I.P. addresses and b) publish them on the Web? None, I would bet.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.104.65 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 July 2005 Note: User's only post

  • Comment: Let me just note that "non-notable," as a search term, receives 15,700 hits on google. Out of the first two pages of results, only two hits are from wikipedia. jglc | t | c 18:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gein gemekker

Blatant vanity in Dutch. A rough translation: "Gein gemekker" is a group of friends that has existed for five years. They all come from Roermond. Their names are [list of names]. Sietse 17:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Bohlin

After the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HansaWorld this should probably removed as well because no notability is established. Delete. --S.K. 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Especially without the page on the company he founded, there isn't any reason for him to be listed here. --Icelight 18:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable with or without his company. Dcarrano 02:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, unknown even in Sweden. / Alarm 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinconc

I wish Mr. Concrete the best in his upcoming musical career. However, he does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines by a long shot. Even though he has his own message board. Delete Eliot 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three beautiful things

A supposed 2004 cult, size unknown, started in England. Unfortunately, only 3 google hits for "Three beautiful things" +Cult, and only 8 for "Three beautiful things" +"Clare Grant" (the supposed founder). Non-notable, essentially unverifiable. Delete. Meelar (talk) 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-verfiable, not trace of this group on the web. Brand new and perhaps a vanity. -Willmcw 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certainly a vanity page. --Zappaz 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a definite movement in the sout-east. The first two statements above contradict each other -- there either is web reference or there is not. If these contributors can decide to delete an entry, then I must state they have too much power.
  • Delete. Badly written, and probably not notable. "Clare Grant is the one that done it." is particularly bad. If it was better written, I might be persuaded to change my vote. Themindset 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page for this blog and nothing more. Meelar, be careful with searches like that... supporters of a "cult" are not likely to describe themselves as such. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable movement. Dcarrano 00:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable non-movement; HorsePunchKid is right, it's just blog-vanity.--Pharos 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable cult. JamesBurns 06:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. V. interesting to see how this site works. Someone has add the "Clare Grant is the one that done it" bit. I agree it is badly written, but can it not be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.249.237 (talk • contribs) 11:31, July 16, 2005
    • It certainly can be edited. If you would like to establish the noteworthiness of the subject, now is the time to do it! Just keep in mind that cleaning up the writing will probably not be enough to save this from deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:15, July 16, 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bryan St. Clair

Delete Non-notable. Only reference is relation to a brother who is only slightly more notable. Icelight 18:14, July 15, 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. The vote was 15 for keep, 21 for delete and several for rename. Woohookitty 23:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White supremacists

Reason why the page should be deleted NoahB 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently POV. Before, at the earliest, 1920, most notable public figures in the U.S. and many other countries expressed white supremacist ideas. The number of white supremacists is so large that any list is going to be limited, which means that we're going to be unfairly singleing out certain people as racist. A related problem is that almost no one these days (not even David Duke) consider themselves white supremacist, so labeling them as such is POV. Finally, it has been suggested that the article be restricted to people notable for their white supremacist beliefs or who are leaders in the white supremacist movement. The problem here is, who decides who is notable for white supremacist beliefs and who isn't? Again, I don't see any way to put the list together that isn't inherently POV.

  • Keep if you look at this very VfD page, you'll find a lot of people deciding what is and isn't notable. There is nothing inherently POV about judging someone to be notable or not. --malathion talk 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply a list of people who express a certain belief. It shouldn't matter that "almost no one these days" calls themselves that, as a list can encompass historical figures as well. -- BD2412 talk 19:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As repulsive (or not, depending on one's POV) as this list might be, as BD2412 said, it's a list of people who express a particular belief. We have lists of other things just as potentially problematic here, but it's an encyclopedic matter (if only for the historical figures alone) and should be retained.--Mitsukai 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of Historically Notable White Supremacists and leave out anyone who fails to meet the double-criterion of historic and notable. Alternatively, make it a category. The Literate Engineer 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why does Wikipedia need a list of white people who think they were/are better than everyone else? When is someone going to want to look at a collection of these people? Phoenix2 22:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we are not here for censorship but freedom of information Yuckfoo 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of modern white supremacists. It seems from this discussion like the historical change in attitudes that the nominator mentioned is going to be an issue; I see a lot of people here using slippery slope arguments, and if there's technically nothing preventing, e.g. Abe Lincoln from being listed due to his many pro-slavery statements, the slippery slope would get ridiculous and the article would just become a free-for-all. However, I think the definition of this list can be pinned down, if limited to a certain timeframe. Dcarrano 23:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep For the reasons stated above.--Gramaic | Talk 00:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's an unmaintainable list. If one believes, as many do, that white supremacy was systematic and inherent in western society before the Civil Rights movement, then practically anybody can go on the list if you can pull up a quote that would justify their inclusion. Yet, to do so would be to apply modern moral standards to historical people, a practice which presents POV problems. There are already problems with, for example, Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson appearing on the list, and conceivably it could go on forever: Shakespeare, Jack London, H.L. Mencken, FDR, Lincoln, George Washington, Mark Twain...??? It might be possible to exclude historical figures, which would keep the list limited to people like David Duke who clearly belong. But in practice, is that really going to happen or is the list going to be cluttered up with edit wars by people who insist that their own POV be represented by the inclusion of one historical figure or another that they don't like? Alternatively I would support a name change to "List of notable modern white supremacists". Kaibabsquirrel 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a list of contemporary white supremacists in the White supremacy article (which is also controversial). My understanding was that this new article was created in order to have a more comprehensive list. (Whoops! Forgot to sign earlier -- this is by me. NoahB 18:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Weird mixture of people. It doesn't make sense to mix contemporary Ku-Klux-Clan leaders with Nazis, revisionist "historians" and others. Martg76 06:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is detrimental to the Wikipedia project as it's potentially the opening of pandora's box. With a white supremacist list, there will be lists of all other things popping up, furthermore, there is no segregation between 'white supremacist' and 'white seperatist' or 'white nationalist', many of the people on the list at the moment express anti-white supremacist views. It's flawed and a waste of space, next we'll have other fanatics listing black supremacists and every other ethnic group which will all fall down to a mamoth name calling and labelling tantrum, something we don't need! Jachin 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in its current form. Jachin is pretty much right, and its already happening w lists like List of fascists and so forth. ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is stupid, obviously an attempt to slander people. There is a distinct difference between a supremacist and a nationalist and there are several nationalists on this list. This only serves to de-legitimize wikipedia.
  • Comment, Wikipedia has been good in regards to promoting diversity. We don't need to pander to hatemongers on this balanced site. How many more must be oppressed and gassed until we learn that we can only allow 'Free Speech' as long as we all agree to stay free. If this list dies,so does our future. You say that every ethnic group will have a list like this? Who have the Jewish people EVER oppressed? NO ONE. - JDL Rep. "Never Again!"
  • Comment:Ought to be verified.--81.134.102.240 17:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't about jews, blacks or other ethnic groups. This is about whether the article should be deleted. Try and stay on topic and not let your hatred of White's blind you too much. (User:211.31.9.5)
  • Keep, but possibly rename. Also are all white supremacists? I'm not sure Ray Hill is (read the article.--MacRusgail 17:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I believe this is inappropriate for the Wikipedia project.
  • Keep, Maybe convert to table & include a specific reason for including their name. pamri 18:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Who determined that these individuals are "White Supremacists"? I think listing individuals borders on slander. Wikipedia should not become a "hit list" for individuals with an axe to grind. I'm Jewish and I denounce what the JDL person said in his above statemnt. Robert Rosenberg. (UTC)
  • Delete, it's inappropriate and racist for white people to be singled out as "supremacists". Afterall, the "Jewish" state of Israel makes the former apartheid state of South Africa look like a bastion of civil rights and equality. I'm tired of the double standard...perhaps we should start a "List of Jewsh supremacist" page?(UTC)
  • Delete, Whites should not be singled out and labelled as "supremacists". This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention unnecessary.
  • Comment Um, I thought Jews were White? (Sorry if that offends someone) Why isn't Ariel Sharon on there? He is anti-Arab. Do the Jews see themselves as nonwhite? Oh wait, they aren't Caucasian, they are Semitic like the Arabs, but jews DO think they are superior to everybody so aren't they the real supremacists? Master Cylinder 19:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, the name is spelled wrong, move it and make that w lowercase if kept. Anyway, we should not single out whites for being supremists, but, if they are well known to be white supremists, what's it going to hurt to keep a list on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not censored. --Phroziac (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the notion of "white supremacy" alone to be, more often than not, a laughable mirespresentation of any semblance of racial awareness or interest expressed by any White. Let's face it: supremacists don't really exist anymore, and if they do, Sharon or the powers that be behind the oddly named "Aztlan" movement should be named in similar manner. This list is useless and, what's more, ignorant. The term alone sounds comical, much like the overused term "racism," today a meaningless moniker used to smear any opponent of the prevailing religion of egalitarianism, much like "heretic" was once employed. Some simply do not share the views of the lumbering majority, and the voices of the dissenters amount to just a bit more than "supremacist" ideas, but very valid concerns which should be presented in a fair light.
  • Delete This article does not contribute anything to the Wikipedia project and opens pandora's box. I agree with Jachin and other users statements on the matter, it's downright stupid and racially vilifying potentially non-white-supremacists by listing them there.

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually very racist that Wikipedia calls these people, "White Supremacists". I guess that Jews cannot be "Supremacists", only "Zionists"? What is someone called who acknowledges races are different but doesn't feel "supreme"? Does that definition take on a more sinister tone if you are a European?

At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to List of white supremacists. "White supremacist" is a designation that really is applied to people. We didn't make it up. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's been a lot of modifying of other people's comments. I'm trying to clear some of it up, but unless it's done as it happens, it's probably hopeless. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mean to bash other Wikipedians, but the only contributions Izmorrow, Kinej, Tizokman have made were to this page, and Exil2, has only made five edits here in Wikipedia; three of the edits to Hilton twins and the two other edits were to this page.--Gramaic | Talk 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous (i.e. unregistered) and newly registered users actually are allowed to vote according to official policy. However, in a contentious vote or if there is evidence of sockpuppetry, there's a good chance that they will be ignored. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All these lists make no sense. They are hard to maintain and add no value. --Zappaz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. We have all kinds of lists of people, List of conservatives, List of Libertarian Politicians and Media Personalities, List of Los Angeles natives, List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers, List of gangsta rappers, and so on. I think that "List of white nationalists" may be a more accurate name for this article, and uses a term that most people on the list would use to describe themselves.-Willmcw 08:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just invites POV, if not outright abuse. Perhaps rewrite per The Literate Engineer. A verifiable list of leaders or theorists of white supremacist movements might be encyclopedic, but the current list is simply too broad to be meaningful. (Unless someone wants to add a mini-bio on each and every entry to justify their inclusion.) Peter Grey 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as it stays verifiable and accurate of course -max rspct 15:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Some of the keep arguments presented here disgust me as a human being. Especially that by JDL_Rep, hostile, dispicable and a shame to our people. ADL488 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of racist fuckwits. (count this as a keep vote)  Grue  18:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a category. It is despicable but these people do exist. Include only the self-professed and definitely verified supremacists - Skysmith 08:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guettarda 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definately delete. This is hideously inappropriate content for the Wikipedia project. Adam249 08:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. Radiant_>|< 17:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure how long this vote goes, but since there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus, I'm going to go ask a few other editors who have contributed to articles on race-related articles to comment. I hoped we could leave the vote open at least a couple more days to see if any of them wish to vote. NoahB 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this list were to be kept, it would have to include nearly every white person before 1900. And many blacks as well - most black people in the United States would have said publicly (if asked to do so) that white people were fit to rule over black people - to say otherwise would be suicide. So who's a white supremecist and who's not? This category is problematic beyond repair. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, though not necessarily under this name. Probably should be moved to List of modern White supremacists. And there should be clear criteria for the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Change the name per above, but then again I could see some heated arguements over whether or not a person should be on the list. MicahMN | Talk 21:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The votes thusfar are as follows.
    • Delete 19
    • Keep 12
    • Move 2
    • Weak keep 2
    • Rename 1
  • Delete. I agree w/the originator of this VfD that any proper list of white supremacists would be endless and that any list we could come up with would, necessarily, be POV. I recently added the names of several dead U.S. presidents, along with a few others, to the list to make a point: white supremacy is a pervasive ideology -- and has been, for centuries. We might just as well undertake to make a list of people who are not white supremacists. A fairly convincing argument could be made that such a list would be shorter. deeceevoice 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: While a holocaust denier can be totally wrong and crazy, does that automatically qualify him as a white supremacist? nobs 04:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list already appears to be going along the lines of 'almost anyone who's white can be labelled a white supremacist', which is why it's a stupid concept and detrimental to the Wikipedia project, it's all opinionated drivel Jachin 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could easily be libellous. Who's going to check to make sure all these people really are white supremacists? Moreover some of them (like Sen. Byrd) are apparently on the list for things they did in the distant past; I don't think it's fair to put him on a page whose title implies he's a white supremacist now. --Trovatore 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, I added Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA) to the list. He was a racist, old fart who croaked in 1966. You're probably thinking of Robert Byrd (D-WVA). deeceevoice 06:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, right you are. Doesn't change my larger point though. The page is libel bait and unmaintainable. --Trovatore 04:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification: "right you are" that I was thinking of Robert Byrd. I know almost nothing about H. F. Byrd and have no comment to offer on your characterization of him. --

Trovatore 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think your entry of Harry Flood Byrd, whomever he happens to be, is a substantial example of why this list is a moot concept. He was a 'racist' and an 'old fart'. I'm not quite sure which applies to declaration of white supremacy out of those two? On one hand, almost all white 'old farts' (pre-1930's) are white supremacists, yet almost all 'racists' would be, by capita, not white as whites are not a majority and racism is a proven facet of the human psyche. So in theory, how can we list 'racists' in a 'white supremacist' list when most racists aren't white?
The fact ultimately remains, there is not enough underlying definitive quality of product provided by this article, the concept is a loose name-calling / labelling project similar to a nazi death-camp, except in this modern era of 'enlightenment' where we forego our forefathers who worked to put us in a position with so much leasure time that we can damn the entire history of human development as an evil empire, we are instead handing out more than just stars of david to people.
We had the 'communist' badge of the post-WWII era, dozens more between, and now we have our current 'terrorist' badge. The question is, where do we draw the line at generic stupidity of attempting to label or catagorise everything into big broad sweeping statements? It all smacks of witch-hunt mentality that I, as a human, have always wished we'd have gotten over by 2005. Jachin 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trippin' a bit, Jachin, though we essentially agree, I think, on this list. No. Racism isn't a come-with kinda thing; it's not, ipso facto, automatically part of being human. That's far too facile; it reads like somone was looking for an excuse. Your argument may pretty much be correct in the case of whites, given the pervasiveness of the ideology of white supremacy -- which has been my experience. It certainly has not been my experience with regard to many peoples of color (though, it seems to me, Asians (of the Far East) rank pretty high on the list of folks with racist tendencies). Be that as it may, there is absolultely no question of Harry Byrd's racism or white spremacist beliefs and policies. And, yes, white supremacy was pervasive in a particular time period -- but it is pervasive, still; it simply has been sublimated to political correctness, its prominence among those in the news pretty much relegated to backroom/backwoods/boardroom/country club conversations, instead of front-page media quotes and explicit public policy agendas. But then -- oops -- there're always the public slips/foot-in-mouth gaffs; the atrocities, like the lynching of James Byrd, that surface from time to time. Again, white supremacy is so pervasive, it might be easier to make a list of who isn't one than who is. deeceevoice 10:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and rename to List of white supremacy theorists and List of white supremacist politicians. To merit inclusion, white supremacism should be a major and essential (and I mean "essential" here literally, as in "constituting the essence of") part of the person's ideology/policies. Junes 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but as with some other lists, inclusion should be on quite strict criteria, not (of course) to include smears, slurs and so on. Charles Matthews 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe problem with restricting to strict criteria, or with trying to keep it to people for whom white supremacism was essential or major or some such is that this is also POV. If you are going to keep people off the list who were clearly, by word and action, white supremacist (like Woodrow Wilson, for example, or Jefferson Davis, or Thomas Jefferson or Christopher Columbus or even Abraham Lincoln) then you are going to hugely minimize the extent and power of white supremacy as an ideology. You could make a pretty good case that white supremacism was a central part of the ideology of America for the first couple hundred years of its existence -- it's enshrined in the Constitution, no? The problem isn't that there's a threat of the list being too large and therefore libellous -- the problem is that for the list to be inclusive is impossible, and that a non-inclusive list is hopelessly POV -- both unfair to the people on the list (since their white supremacism is not properly contextualized) and unfair to people of color (since it downplays the power of racism in our culture.) NoahB 14:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You got a point there, but I don't think it's enough reason to give up on what could be a potentially useful list. I think the list should be designed with this usefulness in mind. I don't think anyone interested in the history of white supremacism would be helped much with a link to Christopher Columbus or Abraham Lincoln. Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, may be a useful addition - that's for the editors of this list to decide. If, after a few months or so, this article turns out be nothing but a bait for edit wars, I'd have no problem with deleting it. For now, I have faith in the Wikipedia process of establishing criteria for inclusion (this is what we do constantly, not just for this list). To prevent people from thinking that these were the only white supremacists in their days, some sort of introduction text could be provided. (By the way, we have a List of anti-Semites that would arguably have a similar problem). Junes 09:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C team

Vanity, orphaned, not notable DR31 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Math Blaster

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Someone seems to care about these guys, but that might just make it a vanity page. Icelight 18:23, July 15, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell Moens

He is born somewhere and has a mother and a father. --Uppland 18:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anildigital

It's a personal page. 202.63.160.146 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mulchie

Local slang. DS 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Kirby. – ABCD✉ 23:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbies

Searching google this internet slang word doesn't seem notable. Feydey 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Lopez

Note: This article was listed on VfD on July 9, but (despite some discussion) got no votes either way except for the nomination itself. Although that may technically justify deleting the article, I am re-listing it in the hopes of getting a broader response. -- BD2412 talk 19:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(original nomination and discussion follows)

Spam. Stilgar135 9 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Question. Spam? By what definition? And why? Granted, the article is a stub -- and I can rectify that, if that's the only problem. Otherwise, I'll likely vote against. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 9 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
Spam probably isn't the right word; vanity would be better. If she is notable, and you can write a good article about her, then that seems like the right thing to do; but seeing an empty page with only a name, measurements, and a link to a personal site definitely makes it seem like a vanity page.
I would agree with the vanity part. It looks like Kikki Daire would be the same boat, but I did work on that before I called it a night. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can turn it into a good page, more power to you. Stilgar135 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Slicer

Delete It may have existed, but this is a page about a car in a movie that was never finished. As such, it probably doesn't deserve it's own page. Icelight 19:57, July 15, 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. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oklahoma College Republicans

Vanity, non-notability. See also California College Republicans and Maine College Republicans Gamaliel 20:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If College Republicans are noted in Wikipedia then why wouldn't you want the federated chapters information also? They are not bragging on accomplishments they are a legal and noteable orginization in Oklahoma. Tassidar 15:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is this user's (as an IP adress) first edit. --Icelight 21:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it is not clear from these articles that the California College Republicans, the Maine College Republicans, the Oklahoma College Republicans, and the College Republicans in 47 other states are significantly different from each other except that they conduct their activities in different states. Even if a given state's chapter was significantly different from the others, that would probably be more valuable information in the main College Republicans article rather than an article for the state chapter. Delete. --Metropolitan90 01:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable sub-group of a notable organization. Similarly, we wouldn't need an entry on the Casper, WY division of AA, while the group itself deserves mention. Could be merged to College Republicans with a brief entry for each group. --Icelight 21:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, most college clubs are not notable. Dcarrano 00:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another student club. Is it my imagination, or are we getting a lot of these lately? --Calton | Talk 03:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable college club. JamesBurns 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable club. Xoloz 16:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:16, July 17, 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: 5k, 1d. Final vote discounted, though from registered user. Had been present only 3 days and although with a number of edits they were a series of rapid-fire minor non-show-preview edits to about 3 articles. -Splash 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Boys

*Delete. Inflammatory, offensive and certainly not deserving of a WP article. Forbsey 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I accept the points made below by Xoloz that 'offensive' 'inflammatory' are not suitable criteria for deletion. After expansion by PatGallacher I have withdrawn my vote on the grounds that it is both encyclopedic and notable despite personal reservations about the article's content. Appologies for the VFD tag, I guess I let me own personal viewpoint get in the way of what is notable and encyclopedic. Hopefully the article will be kept for the sake of WP. Forbsey 20:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not claim that the article is particularly polished even now, if you have reservations feel free to edit it. PatGallacher 11:06, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Keep - the expanded article has become encyclopedic. JoJan 07:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why would anyone think a football chant is encyclopedic in its own right, sectarian or not? --Stevefarrell 23:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Keep Sectarian songs are a major issue in Scotland and Ireland, especially at football games. Since expansion the article is much more encyclopedic, and clearly shows it is much more than 'just a football chant'. --Stevefarrell 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this is certainly an unsavoury issue, it is encyclopedic. I have expanded the article slightly, I hope those who previously voted for deletion will re-read it. It is more than just a football chant, it has been widely sung over the decades. PatGallacher 23:53, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of stirring it a bit, looking at this user's talk page, they seem to have a history of casting controversial votes to delete articles (or sometimes include them). PatGallacher 11:06, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep It sounds encyclopedic to me, and 15000 Googles hits suggests so. If Forbsey is the nominator, I am not sure he stated a proper ground -- "offensive" and "inflammatory" are not reasons for deletion, and "being deserving" is a somewhat-POV way of calling something non-encyclopedic, if that is what was meant. Xoloz 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanded version appears encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – ABCD✉ 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Draconis Lumenis

Delete A moderate sized guild, but no notability. Probable vanity page. Icelight 20:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Miss The Big

Ad for non-notable band. Gwk 20:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Chipmunk. – ABCD✉ 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmonk

Not notable local band that never peformed for years. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chipmonk was a real band. They were a garage band, but they did play several shows in their short tenure as a musical group. I should know; I was substitute lead singer for the band at their show at Marquis de La Fayette hotel in Cape May in March 2002. (Check the external link page for more info) --Runciblerabbit 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that though the band might have existed, but I want you to look at WP:MUSIC to show what we think bands have to meet in order to get articles on here. Better yet, I am going to pull examples to show you on why I placed it here. "Chipmonk is the name of a little-known improv/punk band from Cape May, New Jersey formed in January 2002 by a group of friends composed of bored, 20-somtething, college dropouts and some high school students. While Chipmonk was short-lived (lasting only 3 months), they were quite prolific, producing three self-released albums, consisting of a total of over 90 songs." A local band lasting for three months, self produced records. That does not meet the requirements for notability. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Same user also created articles for each of their "records". Friday 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Gwk 21:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. I didn't know of the notable rule before I started creating the page and since they never released an album I guess that they're not notable (Though you'd be hard-pressed to name another Improv/Punk band from South Jersey with 90+ songs).--Runciblerabbit 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hee... funny VfD, nice to see a sense of perspective here. Delete, natch. Dcarrano 00:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns
  • Delete and redirect to Chipmunk as likely misspelling. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and redirect, per Angr). This doesn't seem to be a sufficiently notable for inclusion now, I'm afraid. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Davis

I believe this person is not notable and suspect this is merely a vanity page. There has been only one editor (two IP addresses) who has basically never done anything else except insert himself into the birthday list. Jdavidb 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Really Really Crappy EP

Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Sucks

Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck You

Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article history wouldn't have history for a previously-existing article that got moved. Jdavidb 22:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...well, I typed in fuck you and see what it did. Fuck you redirects to Fuck. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Shartzer Stadium

Delete Not notable as a high school stadium. If there was an article on the school it could be merged there, or just left with the reference it has in Louisville Bulls. Icelight 21:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Lifeboat

Not notable c. 600 members, and article contains some Fcukin slander. Feydey 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youse are all a right shower. Keep it, I say.

Well stop yakkin and delete it already if you're going to but you will be deleting a piece of history if you do.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherohonkee

Almost nonsense. Seems to make some sense, but also seems completely unreal. smoddy 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron price

Vanity. smoddy 22:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, sad to say. :) Woohookitty 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ /rupture

Vanity. Gwk 22:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is art?

The only reason I don't think this qualifies as a speedy is that it represents an apparently sincere bit of thinking from someone. Is there a place for it? Deb 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted POV rant about suicide bombers.Dunc|☺ 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Women's Organization

Nominated for deletion because it appears to be a POV essay or letter, not an article. I can't figure out how it could be cleaned up into anything usable. Add to that my confusion as to why it's at the title, and the fact that it looks very much like a copyrighted letter (although I can't find it elsewhere online), and I think it's best deleted. Jwrosenzweig 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My letter has been modified/revised to present a more complete Christian view of suicide bombers. Vincent Bemowski

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

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

The result of the debate was rewrite. – ABCD✉ 23:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

17092 Sharanya

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peach Friedman

This page is not authored by the person in question. I know this because I worte it and I am not her. Moreover, while I would agree that she is not reasonably well known, I would argue that very few modern poets are. By the standard in the Wikipedia guidelines, "One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I would say that several original publications would qualify someone to be featured here. Keep. Snowberg

  • Vanity page, by the person in question herself. Her brother and uncle are both reasonably well known, but she hardly qualifies. Delete. JZ 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardcore vanity. Gwk 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Phoenix2 23:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim to notability. The article describes her as an "aspiring poet", which is fine and laudable, but only poets with established careers should have an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm the person in question. I did not write the article. My boyfriend did, sweet of him. I would actually have no clue how to figure it out. I am only writing this comment thing right now because he set it up for me. And honestly, I don't really mind whether or not I have a Wikipedia page. It's true that I'm not famous. I have a few poems published and lots of people used to read my blog before it became an exclusive community, but other than being Nat Friedman's sister, I'm not that noteworthy.

BUT! Not in my own defense, rather for the sake of Wikipedia's consistency, there are MANY people with Wikipedia pages who are really not well known at all either, EXCEPT IN TECH FIELDS. It does seem like there's a real slant toward technies in here--so I may be as well known in the field of poetry as another is in the field of Linux, and you guys will only recognize the Linux people. Makes you think, no? I'd ask the question of whether or not you're representing the whole population of people, or just one slice of the big ol' pie. I'm known in certain cirlces. x's and o's, peach.

  • Delete reluctantly as a Google search comes up with 61 results. [26] My understanding is that the benchmark for poets includes publication with a circulation of more than 5,000. If it can be shown that she has been published in a publication of reasonable note, then I will vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'll change my vote if we can get more information on how she's been published. Almafeta 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. Xoloz 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Peach's point is noted, but I think it's that we're letting in too many techies, not too few poets ;-) Dcarrano 23:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Bolaffi

Vanity from a nobody. Bobbis 23:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

OmniNerd

Non-notable web site. From the article: "Since its inception, OmniNerd has seen moderate growth surpassing 100 registered users in the summer of 2005." 680 Google hits. tregoweth 23:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advert. Gwk 23:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website. -- BD2412 talk 00:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My personal standard for forum notability is 1000 members. Come back in another order of magnitude. Almafeta 16:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the page's primary author. Two reasons have been listed thus far, both of which are not grounds to delete a page. First, if the Omninerd page should be deleted because it is considered an 'advertisement' then other similar pages covering webpages (such as slashdot) should also be deleted for the same reason. Second, there is nothing in the Wikipedia deletion policy that lists a certain popularity level as requisite for coverage in Wikipedia. If the page is to be deleted, there needs to be a concrete reason as defined in the deletion policy. Brandon 03:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slashdot is sufficiently notable to qualify for an article. Listing the popularity level is a way to illustrate if a website is truly important or well-known enough for an encyclopedia article. tregoweth 06:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing the delineation in the delete policy either. All that aside, I find it troubling that it's just assumed that this page isn't worthy due to it's at-a-glance 'non-notability.' The site is a quality one, it's not a spam-center, and has features like the listed 'NerdRank' that are quite unique to the site. It seems silly to me to delete a wiki entry due to the lack of current membership and then re-add it when that barrier is broken in the near future. OmniNerd is a solid site with solid growth. I could understand if it were a personal website or a non-interactive page, or even just another bulletin board using the same code found on every site, but it's not. OmniNerd is built on 100% original code. I think it's unfortunate that such a site is getting resistence in a forum like wiki that seems to promote original thought and user interaction. If it is decided that this page must be removed, can we at least have the privledge of knowing some exact criteria for acceptance? We're not trying to abuse wikipedia, just add to it. Helpful suggestions, not abrupt deletion, would be much appreciated. MarkMcB 05:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be the highest-quality web site ever, but quality does not equal notability. Also, as one of the site's founders, you might have a slight bias. It would be best to allow someone else to create the article, to avoid the appearance of a vanity article. tregoweth 06:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. Dcarrano 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not good enough. -Haniff July 18
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Dmcdevit·t 03:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Prophecies of Joseph Smith

I don't see any way that this article could eventually conform to NPOV. It has about as much potential as a page devoted to examining the Scriptural backgrounds of papal proclamations. Furthermore, by analyzing the claimed prophecies, it would violate the "No original research" policy. Analysis of whether a prophecy is true prophecy or not belongs on sites other than Wikipedia. Kadett 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we know that everyones always going to put NPOV language and of coiurse thier own opinions into this, if we look at the edit history, hence delete. Gabrielsimon 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has already been discussed. The article has undergone major changes as a result. I believe the idea right now is to document the prophesies only, and make no attempt to determine truthfullness, which, as you've suggested, would be inappropriate. I thought this page should go away previously as it could serve only to promote fighting. See the take page for history and details. Friday 23:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, encyclopedic so long as it is essentially a laundry list of what the prophecies were. -- BD2412 talk 00:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, but only if it fits into the style suggested by BD2412 Youngamerican 01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if it can be brought up to a reasonably comprehensive list of prophecies and placed in something resembling chronological order. --MrWhipple 02:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Up until recently I had serious reservations about this article, but they have since been resolved. In its present form, it's informative, neutral, and does not represent 'original research' in any way. Gregmg 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, agree with Gabrielsimon. JamesBurns 06:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is important and can detail a vast amount of research done by various people on this critical topic. Please see the discussion concerning this part of Joseph Smith, Jr. on the Joseph Smith talk page as well as on this page. Jgardner 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. POV, but we've kept POVer lists of prophecies before. Almafeta 16:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a list of Smith quotations, and Smith's POV is certainly notable. Possible magnet for disputes, I suppose, but no more than any other religious page. Xoloz 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep, as long as the article explains how believers think the prophecy came true. Otherwise, there is little informative value, as only those who already know about the prophecies can judge whether they came true. --K. 05:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree strongly with K. This was how the page was originally organized, but this was opposed by several users. I think the page should have prophecy, evidence for, and evidence against -- this make it useful to see how Smith's prophecies have been interpreted by supporters and critics. Perhaps a neutral editor could be brought on board to help sort these issues out.
Response: Absolutely. The article certainly needs work, but I think that it can be worthwhile. NPOV doesn't mean no POVs are allowed; it simply means both (or more) POVs should be included. I have never read any of Smith's prophecy's and have no idea how to work out if they came true. This article could help by explaining both how supporters think it came true and why critics say they didn't. Being new to Smith's teachings, I'd be happy to help in adding different interpretations. --K. 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisionial Keep, This article can be informative and a worthwhile article on Wiki. However, it should be limited to a list of prophecies and possibly a very, limited explanation of each prophecy. Readers are quite capable of determining the value of each prophecy without an interpretation from each side or arguement regarding the validity of Joseph Smith's prophecy. Storm Rider 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is problematic. Smith was constantly issuing prophecies. A list of all of his prophecies would be a good part of his writing and speeches, much too long to fit in one article. Most of the prophecies listed so far are ones which are considered to have come true, gathered from pro-Mormon sites. Most of the prophecies are as unspecific as Nostradamus's prophecies. Almost anything could match the prophecy. Discussing the accuracy of the prophecy is worthwhile. Where does one go to find out information about Dan Jones? Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith#Word_of_Wisdom_related_conspiracies is similarly vague, but meaningful to modern Mormons. How can a casual viewer determine what these mean without further references? Maybe that is the point of a prophecy, it is general enough that it is probably true. Nereocystis 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Delete: The article as it stands at this time has no substantive content. There is no discussion of which of the prophecies have been fulfilled, or partially fulfilled, or failed. If the article previously had such content, then its deletion while a VfD was in process is a serious breach of Wikiquette, resembling, but not exactly, vandalism. Robert McClenon 22:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people consider analyzing the prophecies to be POV. Others consider not analyzing the prophecies to be point of view. It would be helpful to specify what type of comments you don't like. Otherwise, it difficult to discuss objectionable comments. Nereocystis 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of analyzing prophecies is first identifying the meaning. As you review the current article's history, the two sides are miles apart on what Joseph Smith meant in a prophecy. I do find it interesting that those outside of the LDS church seem so stridently confident that their interpretation is the only legitimate prism through which to review Smith's prophecy. Conversely, those who are followers of Smith believe there is only one prism; the one that makes a prophecy true. I still remain unmoved that readers are not capable of reading individual prophecies and making their own interpretation of what it is meant. An introduction to the prophecy is adequate, but an analysis will only result in constant revert wars as is so evident in this article. Storm Rider 22:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Interpreting the Independence temple prophecy in D&C 84 depends on what Joseph Smith meant by "generation." Critics believe he meant within his lifetime. Believers believe generation is synonymous with dispensation. Some context here is necessary to understand the possible interpretations. I say give both and let the reader decide which is correct (or if they want a third alternative). --MrWhipple 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An analysis shouldn't be original research or opinion; it should simply state what different groups believe as to how the prophecy came true. That isn't POV, it's presenting facts about what people believe. How will there be edit wars about that? Does anyone disagree on what the LDS think about his prophecies? --K. 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the prophecies do not have official LDS interpretations. This is especially true of prophecies which may not have come true. There definitely is not a monolithic non-LDS viewpoint. However, this should be attempted. Let's try it with one or two prophecies, perhaps in the talk section, and see what it looks like. Nereocystis 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. As long as we stick to "this group believes this, while this other group believes this" then we don't get into POV issues of "this didn't come true/this did come true". --K. 13:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 09:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Strawberry Alarm Clock

Not notable. Phoenix2 23:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep A very well known radio show in the Dublin region and quite well known throughout Ireland, definatly notable.
Unsigned comment by 83.70.226.51 (talk · contribs)
  • KEEP Very well known in the Irish capital.As it says in the article 'Dublin's Favourite'.This radio show would be known by 9 out of 10 Dubliner's in the street.Definetly notable.

--Fenian Swine 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is user's first and only edit. EvilPhoenix talk 00:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Will consider changing vote upon arguments from established editors demonstrably from Ireland. EvilPhoenix talk 00:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic local radio show CDC (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm demonstrably from Ireland. The page is accurate, the show exists, and is relatively well known in Dublin. Notable? I don't know what the threshold is for ghastly morning-commute radio shows and don't care. Ben-w 03:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Irish radio program as per Ben-W. If decided not to be notable, please have as redirect to the sixties band Strawberry Alarm Clock who had a huge hit with "Incense and Peppermints". Capitalistroadster 05:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anywhere, this belongs in the page about the radio station. Almafeta 16:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should be kept and added to the FM104 page. The show IS very well known in Dublin. Tunney 00:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with FM104. It's on the bubble of notability IMHO, though I suspect the standards for what makes a notable drive-time radio show depends a great deal on the size of the radio market in question. Just as an example, I'd take as a minimum standard Loren and Wally from Boston's WROR -- they are so well known in the Boston radio market that their parody songs have been played on other stations in the area from time to time, and their presence pretty much overshadows every other jock at the station (Matt Siegel, from WXKS in the same market, probably also qualifies). That said, I would ironically consider their station to be non-notable -- it's not exactly a cookie cutter station, its format defies easy categorization (classic hits, I believe it's best known as), but they are not the first station to hold those call letters and they're one of a stable owned by a fairly minor conglomerate whose major claim to fame is being early adopters of HD Radio. I would argue that if we were to assume some validity to the "Loren and Wally" test, altogether very few jocks meet the standard to begin with, and few of those jocks would be outside major markets. (I don't consider syndicated jocks in the same category -- they tend to be inherently notable. This "test" applies strictly regionally.) Haikupoet 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into FM104: A Google search for ("The Strawberry Alarm Clock" +FM104), with quotes as noted, returns 634 results. I find it non-notable for its own article, but if it truly is so well-known, put it into the FM104 article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 01:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Hanson (Web designer) and EarlyBird

Non notable vanity pages. No real google results for various combinations of Richard Hanson, EarlyBird, Manchester, etc. Article doesn't establish notability, and this person has spammed links to eb.cx in various articles. Also relevant, see [27] and Special:Contributions/Attitudepc CryptoDerk 23:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, vanity, and more vanity. I wish this garbage could be speedied. Gwk 23:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You'll actually find dozens of pages related to this person. I think this is a simple case of user bias against the person. As you can see, other people have already shown an interest in the article, adding information to it.
    • Comment:Note, this unsigned vote is by the creator of the articles. IP is from England, surprise. Within minutes of posting an article the other person on the EarlyBird design team edited the article, surprise. Please stop spamming and self-promoting. CryptoDerk 23:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:Do you not think it's a bit arrogant and presumptious to assume that the other editor was from my team? A friend maybe, a member of my team certainly not.
    • Comment:OK look! I am not on his team whatsoever... Friend is what I am and nothing more... if you would notice. if you put my screen name into google, you'll find more links for my s/n than just his website... I'm also friends with a guy named brandon, who's website is exonyte.dyndns.org and my screen name appears for hits for his website thank you very much
  • Keep. because it provides biographical information about someone that some people on the internet may have an interest in. - attitudepc
    • Comment: I smell sockpuppetry... Gwk 00:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's kewl... - attitudepc
    • Comment: And I'd consider that comment defamatory. It's easy enough for people to check based on IP addresses if we are the same person and I'd caution you against making claims that impact somebody's reputation without having evidence to back it up.
    • Comment: Wait, were you making the claim that my IP is from the UK? If so, you're mistaken... I am very much in America. Houston, Texas to be more exact
      • Nobody claimed that. The two people involved with eb.cx are from Houston and England. The two IPs that have edited this page and the Richard Hanson page are from Houston and England. CryptoDerk 00:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • People shouldn't make assumptions about situations when they don't know what is going on. There is only one person involved in EarlyBird Web Design. EarlyBird. That is why the site is in England, the telephone number is in England, the fax number is in England and the address is in England. Attitudepc is only listed on the site because it was the only way to give her a blog on it.
          • This has nothing to do with the VFD. Vanity pages, self promotion, etc. are not allowed on Wikipedia. The fact that the IPs match with the locations listed for the people involved and the name "attitudepc" matches with what is on the eb.cx website are just meant to add evidence to my claim that this is vanity and self-promotion. That you two have continued to comment on here just backs up my proof. CryptoDerk 00:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To "Richard " or "Richard's friend" - Stop wasting your time. There is no way this is going to survive the VfD unless you include verfiable information that Richard Hanson has actually done something noteworthy. And it doesn't matter how many votes you or your friends cast here because WP is not a democracy anyway. Bobbis 00:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Richard is responsible for the world's first URL redirection service. The ruling on this site is that you shouldn't vote on subjects unless you have knowledge of the subject. If you had knowledge on this subject you would know of this person.
      • Well, TinyURL was around in Feb 2002 [28] and eb.cx domain wasn't even registered until 6 December 2003 [29]. Perhaps you need to provide evidence of where the EarlyBird URL redirection service was hosted prior to Feb 2002 to backup your claims? Furthermore, the Alexa rank of TinyURL.com is 1582 [30], which compares to an Alexa rank of "no data" for eb.cx [31]. You didn't really make the most of that first mover advantage, did you? P.S. nice work plugging your own site on Amazon reviews. Bobbis 01:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eric Forste 00:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/unverified. --Etacar11 00:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wouldn't find him notable even if his invention claims are true, since no proof has been given that this accomplishment made him especially well-known. And obviously his EarlyBird username is not independently notable either, that's just crazy talk. Dcarrano 02:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Richard may have a loyal friend, but his notability has not been established. carmeld1 00:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a business card holder. There are too many pages which are in effect mini biographies of persons who haven't established their noteworthiness. Just a hint to all aspiring brilliant persons: If you are noteworthy, someone else will write the article about you without prompting. Posthocergopropterhoc 05:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallitube

Advertisement for non-notable device. See above for similar products that were speedied and recreated by User:Hallitubes. Bobbis 23:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google hits: 6. Gwk 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [32] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, shameless. Manning 05:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain. I find the proposal interesting in itself, although the stub article is uninformative. Numerous other transportation proposals are in Wikipedia, and are not proposed for deletion. I'll fill some details in. I'm not associated with the project in any way. User:Ray Van De Walker 17:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax ? This is a 60+ page website, 100+ images, many 3d rendered, behind it is a cadre of transportation engineers and urban planning experts. Could one of you visit www.generaltransit.com ? We have not done news release yet...

Size of the website is not relevant. I have visited your website and saw nothing to change my vote. Manning 05:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

How can Manning Bartlett be a serious Wikipedia editor if he calls an Anti-congestion initiative "shameless advertising" with the top of the site saying "Nothing for sale"?

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not for original research. Even though I listed this for deletion, I do think it is a very interesting proposal. However, it is only a proposal. Unless it is accepted or at least gains support in a wider sense, then it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if there was a prototype to show or if a technical journal had described it or if a newspapaer had done an article about it, then it could stay. As it stands the only evidence is a single website describing the concept. As an encyclopedia, WP should be very conservative about including new things - it should record history, not be a party in creating it. I am sorry, because I can tell this is something you are passionate about, but you should be directing that energy into gaining support for your ideas from the people that matter (venture capitalists, politicians and the media). Bobbis 12:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of edits over nearly 4 years pretty much gives me some credit as a serious editor. I am not suggesting your ideas aren't interesting or potentially successful. I also have no doubt your ideas might become encyclopediacal one day, and they will rightfully take their place in the pedia. But in the early days it was decided that the 'pedia is not the place to present every new idea on earth. Most new ideas fail and we cannot record them all. Hence the "Crystal Ball" rule that Bobbis describes above. It's nothing personal. Get your project implemented and you'll get no end of coverage here. Manning 10:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The difference (and significance) of an electronic (as opposed to physical) encyclopedia is that it can rapidly respond to events, and has lower institutional barriers to entry. The Hallitube Initiative has over 20 separate proposals, here is what academics say about it from our news release:"An innovative strategy that merits consideration for alleviating congestion and encouraging alternate transportation". Dr. Stephen Mattingly, Univ. of Tex. "A great attempt to solve the current urban transportation problem", Dr. Morton Gulak, Va. Com. Univ. "Maybe we cannot beam you up, but we can tube you over" Dr. Kenneth Waldron, Prof. of Mech. Eng., James Clark Faculty Scholar, Stanford Univ. "Makes a lot more sense than the public vehicle aspect of other PRT systems" Dr. K. Kockelman, Univ. of Tex. "An interesting project worthy of consideration" Dr. Kevin Krizek, Director, ACT Transp. Research Group, Univ. of Minn. "Sounds really promising" Prof. R. Gakenheimer, MIT, Chair, Int. Sci. Cmte. of Coop. for Dev. and Improvement of Urban Transp. "Hallitubes should provide everyone who is frustated and disgusted by the traffic situation in our cities with the hope that very soon,we well be able to cost-effectively tame the monster that the car has become." Dr. J. Kolo, Florida Atlantic University. "The (referendum) microflyovers make sense..." Dr. R. Layton, Prof. of Transp. Engineering, Ore. State Univ. "The proposed Hallitube pylons are an innovative potential use of prestressed concrete.." Dr. A. Schokker, Henderson Prof. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Pennsylvania. "This is an innovative private market solution that deserves further study and consideration." Friends of S. Calif. Highways,Fixtraffic.org.

Traffic is the biggest urban problem of the day. This is not a remote subject, unlike the surface composition of Mars, it carries intense public interest. The costs of this problem are extreme, and we have waited for 20 years for academia and government to act. You say you cannot present every idea. For most areas that makes sense, but in this particular area, you should really present every idea, in part because it does not take experts to examine the viablity. If you become like bureaucrats defending rules, you fail to fullfill a novel role wikipedia can represent. If major academics say this deserves attention, and you suppress, you identify yourself clearly as part of an establishment that apparently has decided someone's interest are served by traffic congestion.

How do you go about deciding that a discussion of the French Trottoir Roulant should have a concept design of an American version removed, or that "car stopping" technologies should not be included in an enceclopedia, when 1000 California mothers could not pick their children up in time because of another police chase ? By definition, the discussion of any concept is an advertising for itself. If you write a thread on a BB, prior to the existence of the web, the idea of an "online encyclopedia called wikipedia" is this a new concept, or should it be suppressed because it is "advertising" something ? You need to look for informational density and novelty to determine if something is an advert. The California Stem Cell proposition was 2 years in the making before it was passed. Should this be suppressed from discussion because it has not been voted on yet ? The inclusion criteria must be 1)relevancy and 2)informational density. The fact that it is being proposed cannot count against inclusion. Would you have allowed Michelson-Morrison to allege that there is no Aether when everybody in Physics thought there was one ? Open up a little, and think about the collective costs of traffic congestion for humanity as a whole. You are saying " let the west fail, we don't like it anyway". Incidentally, the current entry for Hallitubes is not written by our staff. (by 66.27.105.251 16:02, 26 July 2005 )

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Google. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Google community

Found nomination unfinished, completing. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be merely self-promotion; subject does not warrant a Wikipedia article ~ Booyabazooka 02:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the above person is right, since this article hasn't been updated in a long time and seems to serve no purpose as of yet other than a placeholder page, which potentially can be occupied by an article deemed capable and purposeful. Eric 09:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Highway electrification

Advert (see numerous other entries above Bobbis 23:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [33] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Car-stopping technology

Advert (see above) Bobbis 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

car-stopping technology IS under development. Not covering the details makes wkipedia poorer

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Spot-a-lot

Advert Bobbis 00:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Accident shielding

Advert Bobbis 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedy if possible. Enough with the 'parking lot' adverts already! Gwk 00:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are seeming like a series of jokes or something. "H.Patrol" in the article is not even defined, I am guessing it is the California Highway Patrol or some variant there of, perhaps to the level of Eric Estrada in a CHP uniform, as it would be better than the Arkansas real estate ads you see on TV at 3AM he has been doing of late. UncleFloyd 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proposed legislation; article of this nature needs more references to stand on its own merits. — RJH 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hits for "Hallitubes", other than WP mirrors, are someone's home page [36] - hoax/unverifiable as a legislative proposal. Dcarrano 23:35, July 17, 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 00:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yielding Light

I'm getting pretty tired of VfDing these adverts. Could probably speedy these, but some might want to be redirects (see above). What should I do about User:Hallitubes who is creating all this rubbish? I have left a warning on his/her talk, but (s)he needs watching I suspect. Bobbis 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect Gigi - no merge anywhere, because text was just a c&p of Gigi (1958 movie). CDC (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi (movie)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_15&oldid=1081092088"