Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Schleimer

Stub on a notable entertainment lawyer.♥purplefeltangel 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. It's who you know... humblefool® 01:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not totally sure where we set the bar of notability on lawyers, but I found a [bio] stating that he's represented some pretty high-profile clients (Stallone, Michael Jackson, Sigourney Weaver...) and has his own law firm. Seems notable enough for an article to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Having one's own law firm is not a notable accomplishment. Thousands upon thousands of lawyers have their own law firms. David Hoag 06:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Starblind. Kappa 01:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also, although the above clients should be mentioned in the article. Agentsoo 02:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable with famous clients. Jobe6 04:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to assert significance. - Thatdog 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Partial client list has been added (i.e. those with valid Wikilinks). --Alan Au 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of recent edits. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline, but leaning delete at present: "Attendant fame" is one of the things we don't measure (being the kid or ex-lover of a celebrity doesn't make you a celebrity). If the fellow is so substantial, and I'm sure he is, he must have actually argued some significant cases or won some substantial claims. These would make him worthy of a biographical stub, IMO. Not to be trivial, but the valet to the stars probably exists, too. Geogre 15:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a partial list at http://www.schleimerlaw.com/trial.htm . Granted, none of them are world-changing trials like OJ or Lindbergh, but several of them made the news, and at least 2 of them are famous enough that I've heard of them despite not following law or celebrities closely (specifically, the ZZ Top one and the John Landis one where someone was killed in a helecopter shooting the Twilight Zone movie). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Hes the kind of lawyer other lawyers want to be. Truely a shark amongst the little fishies. Hamster Sandwich 20:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Starblind. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There seems to be less here than meets the eye -- the "client list" is not terribly accurate, since it includes clients of his previous employer on whose cases he worked in unidentified capacities -- and few of the listed cases on his firm's website appear noteworthy. There are, no doubt, quite a few real estate agents in California with even more impressive client lists, but no one, I think, would advocate their listing here.Judge Magney 13:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem to have had an impact on US law. Klonimus 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Cross-space redirect made redundant, so not really any need for this VfD to run through. Hedley 01:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:X-Troll

Article already exists in article space. This appears to be redundant copy in the wrong area. Buffyg 00:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the now cross-namespace redirect. humblefool® 01:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lfyre

Programming language still in beta on sourceforge. humblefool® 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No harm in having this article. --malathion ^talk 02:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Programming languages are great but this is nevertheless not notable. Would be happy to see it restored if the language gains any kind of popularity. Agentsoo 02:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ---ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep legitimate information can't hurt, there are more obscure things on wikepedia. Uber nemo 05:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- according to their statistics page on Sourceforge, there have been merely 826 downloads of this application served by them. Google search for lfyre programming gives a '206' results; it seems to not be a widely used language. --Mysidia 05:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Less than 1K downloads doesn't sound too notable to me. WP:NOT:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are all sorts of languages that don't get articles because they're not popular, significant, or used. 1,000 downloads is not at all sufficient to demonstrate adoption, and then there are no notices given in trade magazines, etc. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.og. Further, Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or announcing your wicked cool language: when other documented sources speak of it, it will be time to consider an article. I don't know why voters are suddenly having so much trouble telling Wikipedia from Everything2, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, not a primary. Geogre 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org, and Wikipedia is not the place for this article. --Carnildo 19:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for subjects that have not yet demonstrated notability. Buffyg 14:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the "stop giving more slack to technical articles than non-technical ones" principle. Nandesuka 22:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Carnildo said. "Wikipedia is not advertising" is particularly prominent here. JRM · Talk 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside: having articles on things that are not even established yet does harm Wikipedia. It shouldn't become a place where the latest, greatest software projects can be announced/promoted, no matter how neutrally this is done. JRM · Talk 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn.  Grue  19:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No argument. siafu 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Japanese history

It's only just been created, but I can't see this ever working, and I'm not sure that it's been done for any other countries. History of Japan would presumably contain anything that goes here, and theres no other Wikipedia glossaries right now. Hedley 01:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep valuable resource started by contributor with a long history of developing significant articles. Wikipedia has enormous numbers of lists (and a glossary is a list with a more specialized name and function) that organize information in ways that other articles do not. History of Japan is too long and organized by period. Fg2 01:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this glossary counters that, a glossary is just a duplicate of content, and Wikipedia's convention is History of.. articles. Hedley 02:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am not sure why this fails to work. While I am afraid that it might get too long in the future, we still have to see this for a while. I created this in the same manner as Glossary of object-oriented programming and similar glossaries in math. I agree that this may be unprecedented, but then that might mean that we need similar glossaries for other countries as well. Finally, as Fg2 pointed, this is certainly differently from History of Japan as this one lists historical terms not narrate the story. -- Taku 02:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. TakuyaMurata, given his prolific output, would naturally find glossary pages a useful tool. They aren't common on Wikipedia, but they provide an efficient means for grouping together lots of related (but different, and hence unlistable) articles. Binadot 02:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see no criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that would justify deleting this page. Glossaries are clearly encyclopedic. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but suggest a rename to List of terms in Japanese history, or something similar, which would clarify its place in Wikipedia. At present, this is not a "glossary" as I understand it -- it does not define terms except by their Japanese equivalent. -- Visviva 02:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 'nuff said. David Hoag 06:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is at least one other Wikipedia Glossary: Glossary of game theory --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 08:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think, however, it needs a lot more terms listed (including perhaps ones without Wikipedia links!) to warrant keeping in the long term. TheDeadlyShoe 08:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Wikipedia already has a large number of glossaries (see [1]), and knowing the creator of this page, I have no doubt that this glossary will prove to be useful and encyclopedic. BlankVerse ∅ 11:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. needs alot more links, but no reason for deletion, just for editing. Uber nemo 15:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The difference from the main history articles is perfectly clear. CalJW 13:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - wow. Just found this. Nice. - Tεxτurε 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about fetal expulsion

Currently has three songs; I can't imagine the list growing much longer. tregoweth 01:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and ban trivia. Hedley 01:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cant imagine who would search for this, or what would link to it, and I don't want to. --malathion ^talk 02:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly trivial. Can we get a moratorium on new List of songs about... articles? android79 02:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Who comes up with these article ideas? Delete. Agentsoo 02:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could have been speedied. This was created by User:SuperDude115, who seems to be a reincarnation of our old friend User:SamuraiClinton. This kind of brain-melting trivia seems right up his alley. Binadot 02:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he is. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton. android79 03:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author didn't even get "Havin' My Baby" by Paul Anka. Hamster Sandwich 07:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Cholmes75 14:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, actually only two of the three listed are about foetal explusion jamesgibbon 15:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WTF? 23skidoo 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: List of the uncountable, and enough with the WikiAsperger's Project already. Geogre 15:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Los Esqueakis 16:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What the ?!?! Oh, thought it was fetal explosion, sorry. Delete. Friday 17:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Foetuses are notable. Klonimus 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Educatethepoor

Looks like a Yahoo hosted page that (at the time of this writing) only contains one sentence. There doesn't seem to be any content here, besides the good intentions Rx StrangeLove 02:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nn. Mmmbeer 02:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn. Agentsoo 02:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN/advert. --Ragib 03:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/advert. --*drew 07:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 14:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Los Esqueakis 16:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn website. --Etacar11 00:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn/advert. Buffyg 14:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs with scat-singing

There are way too many songs with scat-singing in. Genres of music generally can't have lists of songs. This list has barely been started, but even so - Does all 22 tracks from two Scatman John albums, with all their remixes, covers and variations get added to here? Does every jazz song with scat singing in go here? Lists such as this with never be completed, aren't been contributed to, and don't belong on an encyclopedia. Hedley 02:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Impossible to maintain. android79 02:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Hedley and 'droid. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too broad to maintain. 23skidoo 12:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tarzan Boy by Baltimora? Since when does the Tarzan Yell qualify as scatting? -R. fiend 13:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad, and not useful. Conceivably if someone a short list of songs that contain particularly instructive or noteworthy examples of scat-singing would be a useful addition to Scat-singing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Usefull list, assume that common sense will be used. Scatman John would get one entry under notable scat singers. Klonimus 23:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 04:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, people should be able to find examples of Scat songs in wikipedia. Kappa 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any good reasons to delete here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yamahachi Dental

Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. This is vanity. Look at the second first person POV in this statement: They have a 30% share of the artificial teeth sales market in Japan and are proud to enjoy an excellent reputation among our customers. Whoops. Zpb52 02:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite without POV. A notable company. - Thatdog 05:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I rewrote it a bit, got rid of the blatent advertising content. People might want info on a company the made their teeth. Teeth are good. Hamster Sandwich 08:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if it's partly in third person, and partly in first person, does that average to second person?—Wahoofive (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. First person: I/me/mine. Second person: we/our. Third person: he/his/they/their/ Zpb52 16:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't second person be you/your ??? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Eighth grade was so long ago. I guess I didn't pay enough attention! Zpb52 18:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Los Esqueakis 16:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. As the second largest artificial teeth manufacturer in Japan (that kind of sounds like a joke... but it's not), it does have some room for expansion. The article would need a rewrite to make it read properly. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ET Might Write, Not Radiate

This is unencyclopedic, poorly titled, and conjectural, not to mention bald-faced vanity. If this information belongs on Wikipedia at all, it should be integrated into the SETI article. Binadot 02:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Okay, this is clearly a case of inept academic vanity. The author of this page is User:24.44.208.18, who appears to be the same as User:Cnmirose. Cnmirose openly admits to being Christopher Rose (yeah, he created an article about himself in the Wikipedia namespace), a (non-notable) professor who wrote a (non-notable) article entitled "ET Might Write, Not Radiate", which is the subject of the article in question. When I placed a VFD notice on the article, he removed it, commenting "DO NOT delete". He doesn't seem to understand our policy on vanity. You'd think a professor would know better. Binadot 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Gazpacho 02:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say Binadot's tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakenly tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Chris 03:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely because an article has been in a notable publication doesn't mean that the article itself is inherently notable. The contents may be notable, and I think in this case they are, but they don't require a separate article. I'd dump the contents into SETI, perhaps into a new subsection. Sorry to come down on you so hard, but we have a strong policy on vanity, for obvious reasons. If a topic is notable, we'd prefer it to be documented by an impartial third party. I would have been more relaxed about things if the VFD notice hadn't been removed, and if I hadn't discovered the Christopher Rose and Gregory Wright articles. Binadot 03:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks -- consider me educated :) Is there a way to expedite the removal of the three pages Christopher Rose Gregory Wright and ET Might Write, Not Radiate (as well as the misspelled version which caused me to mistakenly delete your vfd ET Might Wright, Not Radiate -- if I had a dime for every time I've done that mispelling, I could probably buy myself coffee for a week :) ). I *AM* the sole author, I've removed the links in the SETI article I edited, and I now understand that such entries cannot be taken lightly. So I'm all for an expedited removal schedule. Also, since you seem knowledgeable about wiki-matters, if you could take a peek at my additions in the "Probe" section -- just search SETI for my name -- and advise, that would be really helpful. I also have a question -- how do entries like Robert Freitas get posted/written? Let's just say that the notability quotient you implicitly cite is not high for that page. :) However, I have no objection to it since for someone looking for work in the area, his stuff is useful. Hence, if such pages for Greg and me would be helpful to folks, it would be useful to know how to get them written. Of course, cites to our home pages in the SETI article at appropriate places would probably be just as good or better. Cheers, Chris 04:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, poorly titled, too technical. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Chris. Hamster Sandwich 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with SETI. --malathion ^talk 06:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, questionable at that - Tεxτurε 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep the rewrite and nomination was withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Theatre

I tried Googling this to find out where this 'Little Theatre' might be. It was a hopeless task - there are more Little Theatres than you can shake a stick at, to say nothing of things like "...take in a little theatre on a Friday night...". None of the other clues here helped much in reducing the number of hits. This article is unexpandable unless we know where this theatre is located, and useless for the same reason. Denni☯ 02:25, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

• Change to Keep In light of the recent edit and expansion by EvilKnight. Hamster Sandwich 18:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to redeem this article yet. Willing to change my vote if a reference gets cited or if the sub-stub is fleshed out in some way. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of EvilNight's fine expansion. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Los Esqueakis 16:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfortunately unexpandable. Tempshill 21:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it is expandable, but only if someone from Rochester with a bit of knowledge of this place happens to stumble over your article. "The Little" by name in Rochester will be instantly recognized by anyone in the area (and by not a few people in Hollywood in the art cinema circuit). Considering the original wikipedian's entry for the stub with the clues "now an art house multiplex" (The Little has 9 screens now if memory serves), "oldest active movie theaters" (The Little was founded in 1928, cinema houses don't get much older than that, or last this long), and "built specifically to show films" (which The Little was) it seems clear he meant The Little in Rochester. I know of no other cinemas that match all of those credentials. I've gone ahead and updated the entry to a more appropriate stub with a bit of information, some basic history, and some links (and all of this material is my own writing, no worries about copyright). Give it a go-over and decide if you still want to vote it for deletion. Also, this is my first Wikipedia entry, so check and let me know if I'm breaking any etiquette. I would also be willing to bet that if asked, the management at The Little would consent to a direct import of their history from their website into this article. Do check out the history link, it's quite interesting. EvilNight 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touched up the language a bit. Also, the Little Theatre was mentioned twice by name in the article for Rochester, NY, so I changed the names to internal links pointing to this article. EvilNight 21:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, EvilNight. I happily retract my nomination. BTW, great first article! Denni☯ 03:29, 2005 August 5 (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 PENDING TRANSLATION. Already on WP:PNT. Splash 18:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazaam Abu Shadeed (neé نظام_أبو_شديد)

not an English encyclopedia article - Nunh-huh 02:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PNT --Dmcdevit·t 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It's about someone named Nizam Abu Shadeed. Nothing shows up in an English Google, but a search in the Arabic alphabet brings up a lot of Iranian sites; however, this looks like Arabic, not Persian. I'm afraid I can't understand most of it, since all I have is a smattering of self-taught Persian and Arabic. --Jpbrenna 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed that he is either an artist or aesthetic philosopher, born in Ghana and educated in France. The article seems to be in Arabic, not Persian. --Jpbrenna 06:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Translate, Important Persian article. User 24.171.36.233 04:58 AM [11:58], 29 July, 2005 (UTC/CDT)

• Consider for translation? -- It is not in English, and at this point, I have no hope of understanding a character of it, let alone a whole word of it. --Mysidia 05:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English -- Longhair | Talk 05:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Use the appropriate bureaucracy; list on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, hold it there for 2 weeks, return here with it if no one cares. Dunc|☺ 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As no one voting here can read the thing, there's absolutely no way of knowing if it needs translation. - Nunh-huh 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per to Dunc --malathion ^talk 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being. We can usually do something with these on WP:PNT, if not it can come back here once we've had a go. Physchim62 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dallow

"Up and coming" means "not there yet." Please come back later. Denni☯ 02:41, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

• Comment This Dallow guy seems to be at the "high" end of up and coming. Hes executive producing a Nat. Lampoon movie (I know it was funny in the 70's) [2] so I'm gonna hold off on voting till I can get a bette idea whether this kind of Hollywood behind the scenes guy gets any respect from my peers. Hamster Sandwich 08:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to Keep based on the astute observations of my estimable collegues. Hamster Sandwich 20:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, grudgingly. The guideline at WP:BIO states, "movie producers.. in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more." This guy produced the (truly awful) film Pauly Shore Is Dead, which I'm quite certain assaulted was watched by more than 5K people. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under WP:BIO. IMDb shows three movies in postproduction see [3]. Capitalistroadster 11:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't call his resume of films stellar, but I'm sure enough people have seen them. --Etacar11 00:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rose

This is a blatant vanity page created by an anonymous user who is most likely Rose himself. It's part of a series of vanity articles surrounding the "ET Might Write, Not Radiate" page. Binadot 02:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say your tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakely tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Chris 03:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Vanity. --Ragib 03:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agreed, following exchange with Binadot Chris 04:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per binadot and authors wishes. Hamster Sandwich 08:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Los Esqueakis 16:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wright

This is another vanity article apparently created by Christopher Rose. Binadot 02:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say your tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakely tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Cnmirose.

• Delete agreed following conversation with Binadot on another entry Chris 04:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 08:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Tek Singh (district)

Seems unencyclopedic and not very verifable. It's a nice read at times but full of original research with a bit of personal history thrown in. Sorry. Rx StrangeLove 02:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or delete and replace. The current contents are nonsense, but there is a perfectly encyclopedic district by this name. See [4] -- Visviva 02:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'll give it a shot and replace the content with something better suited to a encyclopedia if that works for everyone. Rx StrangeLove 03:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the content with a stub, if people feel that this VfD should run it's course feel free to revert and we can recreate under Toba Tek Singh or redirect from here. Rx StrangeLove 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Kudos. -- Visviva 14:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful stub after edit. Nice Work Rx ! Hamster Sandwich 08:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rx Strangelove's rewrite on notable district. Capitalistroadster 13:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- after the rewrite. --Bhadani 16:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pointenslutten

Neologism. Come back in ten years. Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. Not even BADJOIN worthy. Hamster Sandwich 08:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. If this ever catches on, I shall stop speaking English out of principle. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiki-Hell. Neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Tempshill 21:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher & Robertson

Does not indicate notability. Gazpacho 03:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They seem a fairly run-of-the-mill software company, specialising in terminal emulation (which is quite retro in these days). I found 17 unique google hits for 'Gallagher and Robertson' and 186 for 'Gallager & Robertson'. It's not doing much harm here but I don't think it's vanity or sales promotion. David | Talk 15:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a very minor software company. --Carnildo 19:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see "Articles about companies should describe companies that are well known, and are notable", below. Tempshill 21:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge into terminal emulation if appropriate. siafu 23:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Turing Test

"We believe" = original research. Delete. Gazpacho 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Personal essay. --malathion ^talk 06:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It mentions a citation. Merge that reference only into one sentence of Turing test. Septentrionalis 16:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. The paper this seems to be based off of (the second reference) appears to only ever been published online, on the website of one of the authors. --Carnildo 19:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• VORPED (Vanity, Original Research, Personal Essay - Delete!) Stirling Newberry 21:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Septentrionalis. siafu 23:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PolyMonomic

• Delete. This is a dead page. I created it, and it is a project that no-one is interested in reviving.--coblin 07:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Hypothetical future game designs in their very early stages of development like this one are speculative and not very encyclopedic. The original author is the one nominating this for deletion, and noone else has made substantial edits to the article in a year, since its addition to Wikipedia in November, 2004. --Mysidia 05:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per author - Tεxτurε 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Useless page, also because the author nominated it. MicroFeet 08:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poms Ventures Corporation Oil Mills, Philippines

Wikipedia is not a means for advertising. Articles about companies should describe companies that are well known, and are notable. This company is definitely not notable. This also looks like some about page rather than an article. Also, if it is confirmed that this should be deleted, may I please request an admin to delete, thanks.

• Delete, for the mentioned reasons, --Noypi380 12:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It reads like a company sales brochure. Hamster Sandwich 08:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but keep the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI/Archive04

Strong Delete No reason for "archive". Amicuspublilius 23:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting and entertaining turn it into a flash video for ebaumsworld.com im telling u it will work

• Delete. Gazpacho 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interesting, but unencyclopedic, and as far as I can tell original research. Uber nemo 05:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tinfoil-hattery --Doc (?) 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see the fnords. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you read every tenth symbol backwards, it spells P-O-P-E-C-R-U-F-T. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The 16th Pope to bear the mark of the beast? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• delete--Scimitar ^parley 18:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the talk page. The talk page was mainly used as an archive when the talk page of the Pope Benedict XVI article got too long. I had no idea someone used the article space to write that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Or crazy talk. Tempshill 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Careful Delete per Zscout. Now, if the name added up to 616, I'd be worried... humblefool® 22:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but keep the talk page, which is a genuine archive. Ann Heneghan 23:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Posters Will Be Band

Small pub band in London. No releases. humblefool® 03:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete band-itry. no national tours? no releases? Hamster Sandwich 08:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete garage band. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Garage? I thought it said pub. However, no assertion of WP:MUSIC criteria, thus, Delete. Friday 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable. Tempshill 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn pub band vanity. --Etacar11 00:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Fly (Whisper to a Scream)

Very short article: not even a complete sentence. No links, no categories. Not notable, not encyclopedic, no useful information. DanMS 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand It's just a stub that has yet to be marked as such. A lot of songs have their own articles. This should be no exception. Ryan 05:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as above. Kappa 03:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we Speedy keep this? It's a complete sentence now, by the way :) --Phroziac (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepits an article about a song. Whats a few electrons between friends, right? Hamster Sandwich 08:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep >> famous song. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, classic work. That's the song, not this article, but anyway :D jamesgibbon 13:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is probably the only Icicle Works song that deserves an article, though (even if it's not their best). Expansion would be good, but there really isn't too much more to say. -R. fiend 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I posted the original VFD on this and I am changing my vote. The article has been expanded into something useful. DanMS 18:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the VFD notice from the article, since I am the person who posted the notice in the first place. There were no votes to delete and the article has been improved. My apologies if that's not the correct way to do it. DanMS 01:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 under criteria related to obviously mis-spelled names. David | Talk 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd the Barbe

This is a mispelling of Floyd the Barber and there is no information on this page that isnt on the page with correct spelling. Jobe6 03:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lightsaber

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Steve Casburn 03:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic fancruft, written by an anonymous user with a history of vandalism. Binadot 03:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too specific. Lightsaber is good enough. No redirect. K1Bond007 04:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. --Mysidia 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 05:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete >> cruft-tastic. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Both Yoda and Qui-Gon Jinn mention that the subjects have green lightsabres, so this isn't even smergeable. Poof. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all information in article is already covered in lightsaber. Completely needless. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per --Merovingian. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Simple fact mentioned elsewhere. CanadianCaesar 00:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bit streams cryptology

Huh? Google finds nothing but wiki mirrors for this. I think it's possibly a hoax. humblefool® 03:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is made-up technogibberish. I suppose that's not quite patent nonsense. So I doubt a speedy would work, unfortunately. Nonetheless, Delete. Friday 04:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is being described bears some similarity to a stream cipher, so perhaps a redirect is in order, but this page contains little that is meaningful. ManoaChild 05:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete >> neologism; in other news, there's a large dilithium mine here in town. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 09:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. — Matt Crypto 09:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone remember the company that advertised its technology that would let you compress a file, then compress it again, then compress it again, until any file whatsoever could be encoded in 64K? Delete. Tempshill 21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember that! Who was it?!? When was it?!? 131.111.8.104 22:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    See "Patents" on [5]. Gazpacho

• Delete, absolute garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Binkovitz

Vanity/no evidence of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 05:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, no claim of notability - being a writer is not notable without claim of fame. Usrnme h8er 11:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. I've restored this because it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. The article refers to critical response which implies notability. It's a disputable claim, but that's why we have VfD. No vote. -Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 19:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hillegass

The only thing I've been able to find out about him is that he wrote a book on Cocoa programming and wrote a course for teh Big Nerd Ranch. I don't think he's noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article. Exabyte (talk)­ 04:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep >> 14,600 Google hits in quotes. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are a lot of Google hits, but they're all blogs, interviews, and bookstores selling his book, and there are a lot of multiple hits from the same site. I was looking for some sort of newspaper article about something noteworthy that he has done. Does the number of Google hits really measure notability? Exabyte (talk)­ 05:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Writing a well-known book is notable: appearing widely in the media is an indication of notability. (Keep) --Mysidia 05:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the above. Keep. Agentsoo 09:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Aaron is a major figure in the Cocoa developer community. His book is pretty much the introductory text for Cocoa.
• Keep per Mysidia. siafu 23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podeti

Unable to verify notability; only 40 Google hits, all of which are in Spanish (Portuguese?). --Alan Au 04:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I'm not sure if this even deserves a spot on es: --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 05:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC) +
• Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But, we need some latinamerican to help us check things a articles of the region. Thanks
• Delet: Yeah, it lacks information and say nothing about the guy
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RP (GorillaMask)

Vanity. --malathion ^talk 05:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article appears to be an ad for a small website. Notability is not asserted. --Mysidia 05:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete >> non-notable website. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, attempt to use Wikipedia as free advertising. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Raiola

Undistinguished professional athletes are not sufficiently famous to warrant articles. LisaCarrol 05:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is nothing on the page to indicate why he is notable, aside from being a professional athlete i.e., an adult paid to play children's games. I feel that many if not most pro athletes would not warrant an encyclopedia article. However, if someone wishes to expand this into a proper article there is information on him on Detroit Lions Site: Dominic Raiola and NFL.com - Dominic Raiola, and I would be willing to reconsider my vote. LisaCarrol 05:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No offense Lisa, but your obvious strong personal distate for sports may be getting in the way of your logic here. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly agree that many athletes deserve articles, such as Joe Namath, Brett Favre, O.J. Simpson, Dan Warner, Larry "Bird" Johnson, Joe DiMaggio, Sidd Finch, etc. I just don't agree that every pro player in history from every major sport belongs in the encyclopedia -- that will inevitably result in thousands and thousands of articles on people almost no one has ever heard of. But I appreciate the way the article has been expanded, and acknowledge that the consensus is to keep. LisaCarrol 09:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Professional NFL player. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and expand. The man has been the starting center for the Detroit Lions for three years and was a four-year starter at Nebraska. I think all major-league professional athletes are worthy of inclusion, as well as all major-college football and basketball players. Mwalcoff 06:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep >> notable athlete --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I have added the article significantly outlining his career. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nice work expanding the article! Kudos to Capitalistroadster. Hamster Sandwich 20:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well written, and certainly a notable player. By the way, Larry "Bird" Johnson is not a person. Larry Bird was a person, as was Magic Johnson. But I think you're confused.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maldivian democractic party

Only created due to original creator's misspelling, probably due to their lack of English. Nothing on Google for this phrase other than Wikipedia mirrors. Content was merged into real page long ago. Mr. Know-It-All 05:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete >> misspelling or somesuch. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• • Er, that's what the redirect's for. No harm done, they're cheap. (and in the future, redirects go to WP:RFD) --Dmcdevit·t 23:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rkult

This page is clearly advertising for a fansite. They even use "we" to show that the editor is the person who is running the site. At best include something about it in the Rammstein article. Jobe6 06:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Rammstein sucks I mean, nn website. Alexa rating over 1 million. Friday 06:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete >> fansite. On a less related note, I don't even know any Ramstein songs.  :< --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft. Hamster Sandwich 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, despite being a Rammstein fan. -- Elisson • Talk 22:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like the band, but fansites are usually not notable. --Etacar11 00:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sri.GOD

This somehow comes off as less than encyclopedic. CJCurrie 06:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Delete. -- The Anome 07:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete >> I laughed out loud. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete as patent nonsense, short article with little or no context, etc. Brighterorange 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Ludo

A clone of the page Ludo (board game) with nonsense added. The original (anon) author's only other edits were adding the same nonsense to Ludo (board game) itself, which was reverted. —Blotwell 07:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete >> nonsense. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Adds nothing of substance, is clearly based on a local variant with no broader spread, and contains factual errors. -dmmaus 11:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki dating

Why was this put on VfD? I mean, almost all Wiki projects have articles in Wikipedia. Despite low google hits, it has a high alexa ranking.

• Keep per alexa ranking. --SuperDude 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The alexa rating I get is a very unremarkable figure in the 500,000 range. Is this "high"? Morwen - Talk 08:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A higher (in numeric value) Alexa ranking means less traffic. For comparison, Slashdot, a high-traffic site, has a 1,380 ranking. android79 11:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • In music charts, #1 is the highest. Alexa rankings also work this way. This site obviously has a very low ranking.
      • It's not 500,000, it's 5,500,000. It's difficult to find anything lower than that. Angela. 00:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete apparent vanity, wikipedia is not a web directory. Morwen - Talk 14:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but probably needs cleanup. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 08:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website. Started a month and a half ago and has an abysmal Alexa ranking. android79 11:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per android. --Uppland 14:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as Cabhan points out it has only eight members. Of these six live in Florida, one in Georgia and one has nothing but a question mark on his/her userpage. Started in June 2005. Really, really bad Alexa ranking. This website is almost as notable as my coffee mug. Uppland 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It has 8 registered users. Alexa rating of 5,532,733. *attacks site with karate ninja-chucks* -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just created my own account for Wiki dating. I think it has a potential for being notable and having alot of users! --SuperDude 21:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Scimitar ^parley 15:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 15:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Let's see. Very poor Alexa ranking, no assertion of notability, less than two months old... Furthermore, it is an external website with no affiliation to wikipedia (other than being a wiki, of which there are a huge number), not a true wikiproject. --Icelight 16:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• delete! soooo non-notable, despite what the nominator claims. (?) Brighterorange 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only 2719 page views, across the entire site? Hardly worth an article. --Carnildo 19:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- it's a one month old wiki web site. Installing and configuring Mediawiki should not equal an instant Wikipedia article. If the site proves popular, it'll be recreated with outside references pointing out it's popularity. - Longhair | Talk 21:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. It's not even a wiki directory. Gentgeen 22:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alexa ranking below 5 million. There are hundreds of Wikicities more active than this and those don't have articles. Article was created by SuperDude115, who is a sockpuppet of SamuraiClinton who keeps requesting this wiki be a Wikicity. Angela. 00:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notability above and beyond the call of duty. Nandesuka 22:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote myself for deletion!

• My friend Ben, whose been helping me with the site, left me an odd notice today: the Wikipedia article on "WikiDating" is being deleted. I am flattered someone thought it was worth mentioning, but it still is very new, and when 1.5 MediaWiki stablizes, I plan to upgrade & haven't decided yet if its worth borging in a bunch of age code vs. just asking people to be honest: and of course, there's still the issue of deletions there and the like. Right now, its still very much an experiment & the best support I could ask would be word-of-mouth: instead of provoking the pro-deletion factions I've been made aware of that defend this site. This didn't need to be added to their list: maybe in a few years, if I still run it, it'll be "worthy" of even their support to mention here.

I did not submit this article, nor desired to, and with amusement & regret I vote for deletion. Cwolfsheep 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertising, nonnotable. tregoweth 00:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, not notable. --Sleepyhead81 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikisex forever!  Grue  19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Spam --Patio 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable / advert - Tεxτurε 19:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. There was no consensus to delete or to transwiki. A couple of votes were discounted because the editors are either too new or have too few article edits. I expect at least one month and 100 edits total at the time of voting, with a decent proportion of those being article edits. angrydruid had only three edits in all, Firefox made his first edit a day or two before voting here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of HTML decimal character references

This is someone's attempt to make a companion article for List of XML and HTML character entity references. Whereas that article is clearly useful in its discussion and listing of the standard 5 XML and 252 HTML/XHTML character entity references, this new article merely contains the first 10 thousand numeric character references out of a potential 1.1 million. Nearly any Universal Character Set code point, aside from an unassigned or otherwise disallowed handful, can be referenced in this way.

• There is no need for this kind of list,
• its cutoff is arbitrary,
• its formatting is poor and makes no use of existing character table templates and formats (see ongoing discussion in Talk:ISO 8859-1#Character table format),
• its length is too great,
• no one is going to be able to render the characters in it (slapping Template:SpecialChars on it isn't going to help much),
• and most importantly, there were similar "Table of Unicode characters" articles (with similar charts and arbitrary cutoffs) that existed up until a month or two ago, but have since been deleted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Various Unicode-related pages. — mjb 07:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The precedent is delete so I'll go with that. Actually, the precedent is transwiki. So let's do that instead. Agentsoo 09:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any cutoff point is arbitrary, and if there is no cutoff, then the list will grow every time the Unicode working group meets. --Carnildo 19:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or transwiki to WS. The precedent is NOT delete (RTFVFD). Its cutoff is not arbitrary. I checked the next few thousand, and none of them appear to have been used yet. In any case, where in the article is it suggested that the list is complete? Poor formatting is no reason to delete an article, it's a reason to post a cleanup tag at most. You delete an article based on content, not formatting. Claiming there is no need for it is also not a valid complaint, since your opinion of a need is subjective. The fact that such lists already exist on the internet, and even on Wikipedia as you have pointed out, indicate a need for the list. What do you mean noone can render the characters in it? If you can see the characters in your browser, you can render them (so already we've found one use for the list). Another invalid complaint. Also, the precedent is NOT delete but to keep or transwiki. In any case, following precedent is only an excuse to be lazy, when other possible suggestions, such as splitting the article, would also work, but require minimal brain power. Claiming that the growth of the list is a bad thing is invalid as well, since Wikipedia is not paper. Claiming that the XML/HTML article is useful whereas this is not is also invalid, since this article simply requires expansion of content, so you should put in a request for expansion, or more easily wait a while (the article just started!). :)  BRIAN0918  21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the comment above is by the person who created/generated the article in question. Re: formatting, inconsequential cosmetic details are not the issue; rather, it is the content. A numeric character reference is not necessarily going to correspond to a renderable glyph (even with an extremely capable browser and all fonts), because not all characters are 'graphic', and some are only usable in combination. That is, while it is reasonable to say "© is ©", it is not reasonable to say " is …some replacement glyph for unrenderable 'interlinear annotation separator' character", so the purpose of the table is in question. What exactly is it trying to show? Also, the nature of the numeric character references is such that they are really just another set of labels for UCS code points, just like the 'U+' notation. If there is no consensus on the value of a table that has nothing but code points (listed in U+, decimal, or hexadecimal) and browser-dependent glyph-rendering attempts, regardless of how the table is split up, then the value of a table that differs only by virtue of prefixing each code point with "&#" and following it with ";" is equally dubious. In other words, the new table is nothing more than a minor cosmetic reformatting of the deleted/Wikisourced articles, which were not-very-well-thought-out attempts to automatically generate information found in ISO/IEC 10646 and The Unicode Standard. If they don't belong on Wikipedia, then this one doesn't, either. I suggest following up on the discussion in Talk:ISO 8859-1 where various ideas for where and how to best present character info in general are being floated. — mjb 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying this list is no different from those that were transwiki'd to Wikisource. You might want to update your vote, then. -- BRIAN0918  22:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FireFox 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or transwiki, this article can improve and there is precedence to transwiki. NoSeptember 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: To put it plain and simple, this is an article of knowledge and by definition that's what an encyclopedia is! 03:32 UTC 8 August 2005 Kurthalomieu J. McCool
• Delete this is completely irrelevant (preceding unsigned comment by Angrydruid 04:26, 8 August 2005 UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Alexander Andrew Pickles

I couldn't find anything on Google so I initially flagged this as {{unsourced}}, and asked the user who created the article to provide more details. None have been forthcoming, and the tag was removed by an anon editor, which leads me to suspect it's a hoax. Delete. (They would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that pesky choco fudge). OpenToppedBus - My Talk 08:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax --malathion ^talk 08:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete >> fake. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable information abou individual of doubtable notability. Capitalistroadster 11:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. I spent a half hour looking for anything that had to do with this individual and proteus syndrome. If the author could site a source I would change to a keep vote. Hamster Sandwich 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverified/possible hoax. --Etacar11 00:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Davies

Vanity Page PMaunton 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete >> non-notable. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verifiable evidence is presented that he is notable. Capitalistroadster 13:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability is shown. --Etacar11 00:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 19:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Order

An article about a neo-nazi organisation which doesn't exist. How exactly is this verifiable information? And, if at all, is it to be verfified by evidence for its existence or by evidence for its non-existence? --Pjacobi 09:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to compare this VfD. --Pjacobi 09:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstood the entry. It's not an organisation in the sense of having a leader and headquarters, but more a philosophy. If we could check out the related books, I see no reason not to keep. Agentsoo 09:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? But what's encyclopedic about one person's private philosophy, which didn't get any following? --Pjacobi 09:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Everything, it can be an important concept for peoplke studying Manson's followers. Theodore W. 09:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this isn't one persons private philosophy, but rather the public philosophy of a handful of notable people. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 12:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a fringe group, no doubt, but notable. —Morning star 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Smacks of hoaxterism. Hitler to Rockwell to Manson is stretching a philosophy pretty thin. If there are more than a handful of people adhereing to this philosophy, I would be surprised. Hamster Sandwich 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge has no notability in this context other than the originator, could be confused the term from mathematics (more notable by far), or philosophy (stoicism and mysticism both use the term). At very least rename and disambig. Stirling Newberry 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Disturbingly well sourced for such a short article. Could benefit from expansion. siafu 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trent holmes

Subject is not notable enough for encyclopedic entry. Google search for "Trent Holmes" producer results in 4 unique hits. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn and possibly just a vanity posting. Usrnme h8er 09:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad vanity --malathion ^talk 09:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 09:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Sliggy 17:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hanaoka

Probable vanity page. Being VP of Information Systems at Ask Jeeves just doesn't strike me as a big claim to fame. He only has seven hits from Google. But, it's uncertain enough whether this qualifes as an adequate claim to fame to put up here instead of speedy delete.

• Delete or Speedy, I dont think its adequate but as a claim and a Speedy could be suitable. Vanity. Usrnme h8er 13:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and the creator has blanked the article. --Etacar11 00:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 19:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

County Executive

Starts off with " 1) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the county executive committee at primary elections shall perform all duties that relate to etcetera etcetera ..." and goes downhill from there. Delete Dr Gangrene 09:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-it needs to be fixed up though.maybe just creat a stub for now. Xpendersx 13:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. It's a valid political office in the U.S., sometimes with considerable local power. In King County, Washington, for example, the post has sometimes served as the stepping stone to a governorship. — RJH 17:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good potential for an encyclopedic article. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, we should probably have an article on county executive (note the lowercase "e"), but this is just a copy-and-paste of a section of the Mississippi state code. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's a copyvio. --Carnildo 20:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above arguement. needs massive editting. Hamster Sandwich 20:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio. It's a copy-and-paste of a section of the Mississippi state code. Under Mississippi law, the laws of Mississippi are copyrighted by the state of Mississippi [6]. Any new article should be written at the correct title of county executive (note the lower-case "e"), not at the title listed on VfD. --Carnildo 21:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the copyvio does not kill it. Yes, we need an article on this, but I suspect that starting from scratch to get to a good article would be easier then fixing this one. Vegaswikian 05:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a possible replacement stub at County Executive/Temp. The position in most states, I'm aware of, uses the capital 'E' so I left that in the title. Not sure of the wiki sytle mannual in this case. Vegaswikian 05:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TELES AG

Blatant advertising --malathion ^talk 10:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising. A rewritten article may be keepable. Thue | talk 10:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Usrnme h8er 09:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project California

Article starts with the text "concept yet to be produced but is said to be". 210 google hits. Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thue | talk 10:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speculation --malathion ^talk 10:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original work / hoax - Tεxτurε 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- unsubstantiated rumor technopilgrim 22:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Tikka

Hoax. Thue | talk 10:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chicken Tikka Masala--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - In light of new re-write, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above Usrnme h8er 14:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but rewrite) I don't know what kind of Indian food you guys eat, but as far as I know Chicken Tikka is a different dish from Chicken Tikka Masala. -- MrBland 16:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's own dish. Does anyone else find it ironic that this was pointed out by someone with "Bland" in their username? Also, now I'm hungry. The page on Tikka could also get involved, if someone wants to clean it up. --Icelight 16:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• comment if this is a hoax, it should not be redirected to Chicken Tikka Masala, since Chicken Tikka is a different dish. Just delete it and someone can make a proper article some day. Brighterorange 17:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as rewritten. Thanks for not redirecting. Brighterorange 14:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My ornathology is not great, but I'd say delete (no redirect)and perhaps BJAODN --Doc (?) 19:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC) keep, as rewritten --Doc (?) 13:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Doc. chicken? woodpecker? Gene splicing is getting out of hand! Hamster Sandwich 20:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the original author of this article. The reason for the hybrid bird thing is simply that tikka is Finnish for "woodpecker". Rewrite to be about the Indian food. — JIP | Talk 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reidrect -- to Chicken Tikka Masala - Longhair | Talk 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've put a brief stub there, hopefully someone with more knowledge can expand it. Do not redirect as chicken tikka is very different to chicken tikka masala. Vashti 13:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Indian dish (and heartily reccomended by this user). siafu 23:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Teen talk central

Doesn't seem a notable website. Wikipedia is not a web guide. [[smoddy]] 10:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nn Lectonar 11:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Usrnme h8er 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Website advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of albums with names identical to songs done by the performer

Note: I forgot to list this on the main page last night. Please excuse the delay. android79 11:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic, not maintainable. Would be more aptly named List of albums with title tracks. Such a list would contain thousands of albums. android79 03:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to List of albums with title tracks --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• It's not exactly the same thing, as there are exceptions. For example, Pet Shop Boys had an album called Nightlife and also a song called "Nightlife", which wasn't on the album (and therefore not a title track). I'm not sure if there's enogh such examples to support a list though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Likewise Gomez had an album called "Bring it on", then had a song of te same name on the next album, but I think List of albums with names identical to songs done by the performer except Title Tracks is going way too far! --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable, regardless the context. 23skidoo 13:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft. --Carnildo 20:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment XTC is a band that uses lyrics from songs to name subsequent albums on a regular basis. Hamster Sandwich 20:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Steve Casburn 18:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 04:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, interesting. Kappa 16:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmaintainable listcruft. Punkmorten 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curl_programming_language

Google search for 'curl "programming language"' gives 189 results, the first one of which is an incoherent wikibooks article, some mirrors of wikibooks and a lot of sites that have nothing to do with the programming language described. - Dv 11:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a good stub to me. And searching for the entire "curl programming language" yields some relevant results on Google. - Lucio 11:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above.
• Keep, notable with more Google presence than suggested. — mendel ☎ 15:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — valid programming language. There is a wikibook on the topic. — RJH 16:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is somehow notable, Tim Berners-Lee supported or influenced it (or something like that). Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable programming language. - Longhair | Talk 06:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk 20:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

X-Offender

Not enough relevance to have a page just for it. There's an article for Blondie (band), so merge and then delete. Lucio 11:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merge and Delete" is incompatible with the GFDL. If a merge is done, a redirect has to be left in place to preserve the article's history. android79 11:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• GFDL only requires that the history be kept. This article has trivial history (Page creation only), so the history could be moved. But I'll agree with redirect. Lucio 12:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, a classic early Blondies tune and just about adequately notable jamesgibbon 13:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable Blondie single with potential for expansion see [7]. If it were to be merged, merge with Blondie (album) which is the album it comes from. Capitalistroadster 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Blondie (album) as per above. Hamster Sandwich 20:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added to the article. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no good reasons to delete or merge this article. It has only recently been created. Give it time to expand. JamesBurns 04:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Wikipedia is not paper. Notable debut single by Blondie. Iam 01:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with Iam. Punkmorten 22:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Simon Holford

Subject not worthy of inclusion Tegalrof 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Apparent Vanity Google says no--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. It is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Usrnme h8er 11:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus keyboard

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Vote: Keep: It's a very interesting product that appears to be genuine and in production/development. The article is discussing a new technology that could benefit a lot of computer users, thus it has encyclopediac integrity and merit. Richardbooth 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement. The article is nothing but an ad for a product that doesn't even exist yet. As for the novelty value of the described product, keyboards with programmable LCD keytops were already available many (15?) years ago. Naddy 11:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep.

Artemy Lebedev studio may have not well been known outside of Russia, but it is a very solid manufacturer. I genuinely do not believe that the studio would publish an article on something they did not actually work on. I think the "vaporware" claims, at least as far as accusations of publicity frauds, are not justified.

As for the argument that it is a prototype, I have seen hundreds of entries in Wikipedia about concept ideas by other companies, including car manufacturers like GM or Ford, or not-yet-released software, including those who already HAVE proved themselves vaporware (ahem Duke Nukem Forever. Why don't we go and delete that?

I think the article should be given a chance. It perhaps should be modified, more directly emphasizing the fact that no physical keyboard exists, and/or warn about dangers of vaporware. But simply deleting an interesting article about an informative concept design is displaying bias and triggerhappyness. (Elvarg 18:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete. It is only an artist's concept, and only vaporware. It should not be even mentioned as a 'product' or 'prototype', because it does not exist in physical form. If it is kept, it should be in a "Future Keyboard Artist's Concepts" section.

Vote: keep. This product very innovative, good idea, and current "event". Maybe vaporvare, but I don't think so.

Vote: keep: If it is in advertising style, let's change it. It's an interesting idea (albeit not entirely new), and the article gave useful information (for example: I didn't realise the pictures were cg renderings). The article on coca-cola isn't considered an advert, and other future devices exist on WP, so lets keep this interesting technology page, albeit tweaked a little for encyc. style. Mat-C 11:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — JIP | Talk 11:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per everyone else. If the advertising tone is removed, this article will be quite useful about a new kind of keyboard. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep: Definetly an interesting idea and could be expanded to include examples of similar keyboards from the past. --81.154.237.252 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep: This is arguably an advertisement, but could easily be edited to broaden its scope. The advertisement is continued in a number of places on Wikipedia, including two mentions to itself on the Computer Keyboard page (an image and a link at the bottom), so these should perhaps be removed. If this is to be deleted, it should be replaced with a broader article on similar keyboards. RandyWang 23:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep: i added the "future product" comment, that should make it clear that we rely mainly on company information Hppl 12:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Delete: What is the point of this article? It doesn't seem apropriate to have an article about a single product (not a broader technology) that doesn't exist yet, and therefore has not historical or cultural importance. While I agree that this could be of technological interest, if that is the point of this article, then a broader article about the technology itself, not an individual product would be the right way to go.

• • unsigned edit by Laurajacob (talk · contribs)

Vote: Keep: No cultural relevance? So I guess numerous promised products that never came to fruition, or even those that did, had no affect on culture before they were released? This is incorrect. Think of numerous gaming systems, software titles, etc. Think of computer designs and concepts which had an impact on society even if they never were produced successfully.

• • unsigned edit by 168.28.52.89 (talk · contribs)

Vote: Major change: Include references to any other programmable keytop keyboards. Vaxalon 13:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • don't vote for it, do it!

• Keep, notable product which has already been the subject of a fair bit of discussion elsewhere jamesgibbon 13:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Keep: but rewrite the article so that it has more information on this particular type of keyboard rather than focusing so much on this particular make and model. As Optimus is the brand name might it require renaming the article? --Timmywimmy 13:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete

Advertisement for vaporware. Does Duke Nukem Forever have a page? How about Windows Vista?

Yes, Duke Nukem Forever does have an entry. As does Windows Vista.

• • unsigned edit by 65.78.15.101 (talk · contribs)

• Keep: Google test (with quotes) returns 277,000 hits. Seems like an interesting concept, though I agree it should be expanded to encompass all keyboards of its type, if others exist. And for the record, Duke Nukem Forever and Windows Vista both have pages, yes. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per everyone else — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Agree with previous Delete voters. If the article was about OLED keyboards in general, and included this product as an example, that would be different. This is just an advert. Delete it. Elwood00

• Keep but edit so it doesn't sound like an advert. Ppe42 13:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete: Vaporware (see Adambisset's Patented Perpetual Motion Machine for a similar example ;). Merge with the article on computer keyboards if necessary, under the heading of 'future developments' perhaps. (I notice that Mr Lebedev already has a picture of his product on that page). [BTW 'Google testing' gives special privilege to certain subjects. It is an invalid method for determining the content of an encyclopedia. Think about it the other way round: if a subject has millions of Google hits does the world really need another page about it?] Adambisset 13:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete: The images on the home page for this are nothing but renders and Photoshop jobs. This does not exist, will likely not exist any time soon, and even if it does come to exist, this page is little but an advertisement for it. If this page persists, should I go create pages for all my company's products? N0YKG 13:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, a product catalogue nor an advertising medium. If it's ever a real product, if it gets a manufacturer, if it ships in 2006, if anyone buys it, if any of the other nebulous predictions in the article come to pass, then it deserves an article. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Perhaps change the entry to the subject of LED keyboards in general, have the Optimus as a section in that article, and redirect Optimus searches to that article. I hate it when I know something exists and Wikipedia has no information on it at all. If something exists, even if only in the form of a publicly accessible concept, Wikipedia should have info on it if possible.

Nortonew 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a mere product placement article. If there are any such keyboards around, it is sufficient to mention them in the keyboard article.
  • unsigned edit by 24.19.173.159 (talk · contribs)

• Delete: Vaporware. Klundberg 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this is an advertisement, and the fact that you found the info through /. doesn't make it less of an ad. Bottom line, lots of people have been spamming slashdot recently and managed to get past the not-so-keen eye of the editors. Slashvertisement. Adidas 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete: Agree with previous Delete voters. Blatant press release masquerading as content.
  • unsigned edit by 208.213.81.136 (talk · contribs)

• Vote: Delete: Ditto - ovvldc 14:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC) If kept, it should be widened and crossreferenced with similar products.[reply]

• Vote: Delete: Too much like an advert. Not public interest enough. --Mwongozi 14:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until it is an actual product that has some impact on the market. Until then, perhaps some mention on an article about keyboards. - Zelda 15:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Weak Keep: Either merge under a "future developments" in computer keyboard or reduce this to a stub with picture denoting that it is a prototype. Kirz 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete Agree with other delete posts here. This isn't a real product, and it's worth significant until it is released. If it persists as vaporware and enters the public consciousness (e.g., Duke Nukem Forever), then it warrants a page. But we're not there yet. Rstandefer 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Computer Keyboard: Changed my mind: create a section "Future Developments" under the Design section and add this sort of keyboard to that. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Weak keep: Since it is getting widespread publicity, I'd say keep, but only if given a less 'buymeNow' overtone. Hemsath 15:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep: But curb the ad-babble and edit it into context of a new project in the design of peripherals. Thamyris 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete: Salvage anything neutral and free of marketing taint and put it someplace useful. I've heard Computer Keyboard suggested, and that seems right to me. And on a related subject, how did a "VfD" page get into the "Did You Know" section of the Main Page? And finally... folks, please sign your votes. I'd like visual assurance we're not being sockpuppeted by "interested parties" to this marketing page. -- Gnoitall 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the page up for deletion after noticing it on the Main Page. --Naddy 19:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sigs prevent sockpuppets :P ---Pope Benedict 12:12, 01 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Computer keyboard. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 16:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: But change the title to something like "Reconfigurable Computer Keyboard", rearrange the structure to minimize the brand placement, and imply that most graphical keycap keyboards have turned out to vaporware, but in 2005, company X announced theirs would use the new OLED technology, but as of July 2005, the only visible evidence of the Optimus keyboard is a computer generated rendition. Then, future changes could say either, "the first working prototype was shown at the 2007 CES in Las Vegas" or "as of July 2007, it appears that the Optimus keyboard also turned out to be vaporware." JJLatWiki 16:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep-PlasmaDragon 16:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising for a product that does not exist other than as a dream and electrons (very crystal ball), and has no notability, other than a linkspam on slashdot. In a related note, my sypathies go out to the admin to has to sort through this mess or good posts, anon IPs, sock puppets, and a whole slew of users who've made mabe a dozen posts since they opened acounts some time in '04. (i.e. many of those redlinked users.) --Icelight 17:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Computer keyboard under a Future Development section, like what Cabhan recommended. Although some unreleased products are notable, this one isn't, no more so than every other quirky product/thing/idea/meme-of-the-week that gets linked from Boing Boing or Slashdot (and there are thousands of them). -- Lifefeed 17:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: Apparently, this manufacturer is dependable. If/when this product comes to fruition, it could have enourmous ramifications in the computer industry; in mere years, static-character keyboards would be relics of the 20th century. -Ayeroxor 17:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Computer keyboard or even OLED. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 17:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep LegCircus 18:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: What is wrong with articles on vaporware? Even vaporware can have important cultural influence. I want wikipedia to tell me what's what, instead of having to rely on the manufacturers website alone. It is definetely of importance to the public since for instance someone might postpone keyboard purchases after reading the article, planning instead to wait for the optimus keyboard. If you think it's vaporware then by all means register that concern in the article. Potential buyers might want to know! --CygnusPius 18:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Article is on significant piece of technology, and, while speculative in nature, is based on factual estimates of available technology and official press releases. jglc | t | c 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete: Needs to be a note about the technology itself OLED. It would be a shame to see Wikipedia become a dumping ground for commercial ads that are really undercover marketing campaigns. One of the biggest things that draws me to wiki is that it is truely an informational site without advertisements. Advertisements hidden in the form of educational articles are truely insideous. If this article, and otherslike it, stays Wikipedia will enter the realm of commercialism.--P Todd 19:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it ever becomes more than a set of renderings on a website, then we should probably have an article about it. But until then, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep: The technology is useful. -- User:Ray Van De Walker 20:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This vote actually by 65.171.255.181 (talk • contribs).

• Merge with computer keyboard. I vote NOT to delete I've seen pages FAR more worthy of deletion. The concept is pretty nifty. Also wanna say, no one gives a damn about Dvorak keyboards. --TheDoober 20:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep: Shows an innovative concept that is interesting to read about. Could possibly exist sometime in the future. Eightball 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" CDC (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Merge into computer keyboard (and redirect optimus keyboard to there); alone, this article constitutes advertising. Within 'computer keyboard' this would be a minor yet viable addition to wikipedia. --afterword 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I absolutely love the idea, but as per CDC and others, it doesn't exist yet and can only be considered a one-off, non-notable work of art. At best, it's advertising and speculation. I'm also skeptical of the Art. Lebedev Studio article... —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep: The popularity of this meme on the Internet is, in itself, interesting enough reason for an article, even if it is vaporware. Kwertii 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vaporware without mindshare. Stirling Newberry 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep: But please link to, or create articles on other keyboards with LCD displays, or the technology in general. Optimus might be unique with its colour OLED technology, but many other keyboards use black and white backlit LCDs on their key fascias, many being used in the broadcast industry. (I'm sorry I do not have any names right now.) Mr. Brownstone 21:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Computer keyboard, under the Designs section, per Cabhan's suggestion. Anyways, that section talks about "a large number of different arrangements of symbols on keys," but only a couple designs are specifically mentioned. – Minh Nguye^~n (talk, contribs, blog) 21:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have pages for other prototype developments. --Vaergoth 21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An interesting potential development.--82.44.102.209 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vaporware. Thue | talk 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Seems it would be better as a mention on another article (perhaps Computer keyboard), as it doesn't seem worthy of its own article, especially with its current vaporware status. Bushytails 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge with Computer keyboard. --Cybersavior 22:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with a more general article, either keyboards or programmable-display keyboards specifically. I'm a programmer by trade and have been using computers throughout my (admittely young) life, and this is the first I've heard of OLED/LCD-top keyboards. A quick Google search did not turn up much else on the technology so far, and it seems this prototype is important among models currently in existence. In my opinion, it seems that LED-top keyboards could become an extremely important part of computing as computers become more global and Unicode support becomes more of a necessity. So I'm in favor of keeping information about this model at present, though I agree ultimately the better place for it would be in a more general article about computer keyboards with programmable displays. --faseidman 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete But why is a VFD article on the main page in the first place? Anyway, since this doesn't actually exist, scrap it. 65.0.31.216 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC) EDIT: This was my vote, I forgot to log in. Vonspringer 23:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep or Merge Space elevators are "vaporware" that has an aticle currently, and this keyboard should be out fairly soon, and we have many instances of specifc products like the Commodore 64 and such. Could be merged too...

Zotel 23:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Once it's released, if it truly is so revolutionary, it can get its own article. As of right now, it should be relegated to a "future concepts" section or something. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 01:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with computer keyboard or Keep and rewrite as suggested above. It interested me! Keeps the benefits of the article and removes the ad content. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is extremely confused. It talks about a prototype which doesn't appear to exist, and a Technical specification which is more of a wishlist. Some comments on other votes:
  Pburka 04:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Space elevators - yes, we have an article about them, but not about a specific theoretical model. There's no Otis Space Elevator 3000 article.
  • Several voters talk about this prototype. This is not a prototype. It's an artist's impression of what a prototype might look like.
  • Speaking of non-existent products, though, why don't we have an iBrator article? That's notable vaporware!
    • My point was we have vaporware and specific "real" products, so shouldn't a combo of the two be acceptable? Why else have the "future product" tag at all - Zotel 00:01, 01 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the technology is already in use in other products, that should be added to the article. Eixo 09:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If Crew Exploration Vehicle has an article, why shouldn't this? I agree it definitely merits reworkig to make it less like an advertisement. Also, redefinable keys are cool, I mean look what this button doe123nNfj8??!%(?^£"NO CARRIER —Neuropedia 19:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete on the "stop giving nn technical articles more slack than nn nontechnical ones" principle. Nandesuka 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete it's an ad. I'm taking it out of the computer keyboard article too, where it's taking up a good quarter of the actual content. If they want to have content in Wikipedia it should have less hype splashed everywhere. It does not matter how cool it is. --kop 02:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Keep though I think alter the tone of the article somewhat --KharBevNor 02:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Are we going to create articles for every idea a graphics designer has? This is far too ETSB. ed g2s • talk 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an informative article that simply requires some NPOV editing.--Fahrenheit451 00:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, astroturfing. —Cryptic (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote: Delete. A list of specifications which may or may not be met, with no available prototype... I don't think this even belongs in the Wikipedia, and certainly not linked to from the front page. This is slashdot/wikinews stuff. Robert 00:51:13, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: Like many others who vote for keeping, I agree that simply deleting this article is overkill. The point of wikipedia is that users can change the information. Why isn't this done already? This idea already has a controversial history on this site, in helping define how the community and the project handle vaporware and distinguish between the intent of user edits Certainly these contributions, along with a good strong copyedit that makes everything clear, would allow the article to stay. Ahutson 08:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Keep: A product that is making a lot of news right now. It might not have gone into production yet, but then neither has the Playstation 3. --PopUpPirate 16:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: It's too early yet to cry vaporware on this. The company producing seems to have some reputation in Russia already and its generating lots of news. If we have an article on The Phantom (a true vaporware story) then we can have an article on this too. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 00:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: If the advertising is removed. -- Mbisanz 09:32, August 2, 2005 (EST)

Vote: Keep: I think that this is a great idea. This is NOT vaporware because it has not even come out yet, so there is no delay to complain about. this is a new idea, and will likely change the way people will use a computer. frankly, i want one of these "smart keyboards". now Starcraft: Ghost- thats vaporware. -- Fluke 11:33, August 5, 2005 (EST)

Vote: Keep: It's a very interesting product that appears to be genuine and in production

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The United Intellectual Ambassadors for the Southern End, tUIASE

Zero Google hits and very recent founding date leads me to believe this is either a hoax or not notable. Delete Usrnme h8er 11:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense/hoax. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dorm-cruft. Hamster Sandwich 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. Can this be speedied? --Etacar11 00:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, while they make no explicit claim of notariety, its not a bio... And the page is coherent enough not to be patent nonsense... Still pretty convinced this should be deleted though... Usrnme h8er 11:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete indeed. (Unsigned vote by ThomasK (talk · contribs))

No please don't please (Unsigned vote by 203.94.143.9 (talk · contribs))

• Leave it it seems legit (unsigned vote by 60.226.184.63)
• Don't Delete the web site is being produced, it is real and not a hoax (unsigned vote by 60.226.145.51)

Please notice the similarity between the above ip's, likely to be the same ISP, possibly the same user. Usrnme h8er 11:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe it’s two different users living in the same geographical location, heck the geographical location that tUIASE is based out of, which is (if must know) the city of Gold Coast. (yes we really are a Hoax and want to corrupt the world, over throw the US government, steal some nukes and hold the world hostage, and that is sarcasm for those who are a stranger to it) sorry if you have not heard of us. We clearly must not exist if you don’t know about us, because you are so all knowing and worldly that you know everyone and everything that exists in this world. Heck you “know” that if two IP addresses look the similar they must be exactly the same, just like how the countries Australia and Austria look the same and are therefore the same place. IP that look similar could not possibly from the same city and it’s totally illogical that a organization that based a given location would have it members living close by. Clearly IP from the same ISP must be from the same person, because only have one customer and that is how to survive the cut throat world of capitalism. 34 million users of AOL is really the one person, either the other 33,999,999 users are an arbitrary statistics or its just the same person signed up to several accounts take your pick since you dictate how the world is run. You are all commanding that if you say it’s not notable then it be, its impossible for be ignorant of anything. Why don’t you run the CIA they could really use some of your knowledge. (Unsigned comment by 60.226.145.51 (talk · contribs), only edits involve this article)

For fear of getting into a conversation I'm not particularly interested in, I didn't state that the two were the same, I expressed the possibility. I stated that they were likely to be the same ISP, which I stand by (which would indicate a physical proximity although in the case of major ISP's like AOL, this is not always the case). Neither has anyone stated that you are "for fact" a hoax. The matter that your organisation is not notable enough to warrant a page of the encyclopedia. A simple google search or a quick reference to othe encyclopedias gives good grounds for that comment. If you are of another opinion and feel that the organisation is of sufficent notariety, please feel free to post links to references on the Talk:The United Intellectual Ambassadors for the Southern End, tUIASE - Usrnme h8er 15:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a hoax, but notability not established. siafu 00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency (hydrology)

Reason Meaningless question, asked instead of informing. Want a Speedy Delete myself but I don't know if it qualifies... Usrnme h8er 12:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy non-sense, no valid content. ∞Who?¿? 12:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear speedy delete candidate. Little or no content, just a request for help. To the creator: Try searching a bit through the encyclopedia and bring questions like this to the Wikipedia:Reference desk if you get stuck. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Vomiting. The AE redirect suggested by the final voter has already been created. Splash 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technicolour yawn

Another slang term, which is not in all that common usage. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vomiting. Probably somewhat obscure, but used often enough (and a confusing enough idiom) that a redirect is useful. This expression is not unique to Australia, although I suppose it might have originated there. android79 12:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. I've heard it used here in Canada. --Scimitar ^parley 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Term is used in UK too. Djbrianuk 16:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- to Vomiting. - Longhair | Talk 21:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- Term is in the U.S. as well, and should also have a redirect w/ the American spelling. (Technicolor yawn) Saswann 17:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 ^talk 22:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reauchambeau

Slang words are usually deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. This one is also a novelty word and so not notable too. feydey 12:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a novelty word, but a misspelling of a real game: Roshambo, also known as Rock, Paper, Scissors. Redirect there. android79 12:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, redirect to Rochambeau would be better. -R. fiend 14:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per R.Fiend. Hamster Sandwich 20:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• huh Rochambeau is the real name for "rock paper scissors" and isn't a game about kicking people in the nuts. In that case, redirect to Roshambo and also, redirect the pitiful Rochambeau while we're at it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing that would leave Comte de Rochambeau out of the loop. -R. fiend 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per R. fiend. siafu 00:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Rochambeau, as Reauchambeau is misspelled. Punkmorten 22:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge a shortened version into the G.I. Joe. I will make a quick attempt at this, but looking at the G.I. Joe article, it seems a bit awkward. I will leave a redirect with the history intact at Fred VII if anyone wants to review this article and merge things in a different manner than I do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred VII

Article is on a topic of minimal importance and is overly long anyway. If Breathanach and Wenedyk are up for deletion then this must surely be unimportant enough to be deleted. Jogloran 12:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is inconsistent, so deletion nominations for articles A and B does not imply that article C should be deleted – and you're comparing apples and oranges, anyway. Regardless, I agree that this article is overly long and detailed, but the solution to that is a Smerge into G.I. Joe or perhaps create a list of such characters. android79 12:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, inappropriate to merge. Kappa 17:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, some sort of cruft. Martg76 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the apotheosis of fancruft. Nandesuka 22:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per android. siafu 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge (This is NOT a vote to keep) - Tεxτurε 19:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

. . . . .

They are all out of business. Even their website is history. Must have been bad management, because the concept and previous history of the restaurant was fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertex11 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.