Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 8

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (1 keep, 1 delete, 2 delete by anons, and 1 keep by anon) --Allen3 ^talk 22:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not noteable, more like advertising 66.208.166.3 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

• Comment: took the liberty of correcting the incorrect wikilink. (abstain) Marblespire 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
• Delete. cihan 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
• Delete, Not Notable. 13:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned vote by 66.186.77.82 --Allen3 ^talk 22:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand after speaking with optix Adamn 13:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why remove recognition of a great service, one of the few left in the world. -- optix

Vote by 80.200.163.129 --Allen3 ^talk 22:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria--no albums. Zero hits for "Spiked Cola" west park centre', making that part unverifiable. 22 displayed hits for just "Spiked Cola", but almost all are other uses--the few that are this group are their website, the site of the person that built there website (that has since apparently removed almost all references to the group or their site), and the top hit is just a template for band info that has all fields other than the band's name blank. Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

• Delete For the time being I think this article should be deleted, though this is not to say that this article cannot or should not be rewritten if this band achieves notability. Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 01:16 (UTC)
• Delete NN, possible vanity, WP:MUSIC -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
• Delete, nnanity. In addition to lack of Googles, has no presence on allmusic.com and their website has no alexa traffic data at all. The article says that their first EP is due in Autumn 2005, so this also fails owing to the use of crystal ball. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
• Delete: No records yet (which would be self-financed), no contract, no distribution, no sales. Not notable at this time. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
• Delete no fame. Kokiri 8 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
• Delete: as above
• Delete non notable.-Poli 2005 July 8 14:47 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUISC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:13 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. --Tabor 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

• Delete or, nn. Nothing related on google, nor have I ever heard this term in a political science context. -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
  • Nothing related on google? Suggest spell-checking search term.
    • three minutes yielded..."A relatively recent proposal (with very old roots) is that instead of electing representatives, we might have them chosen at random. (Mueller, Tollison, and Willet, Dahl) This has been called Randomocracy." [emphasis mine]from http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gild2.html

• Delete: Original research, a proposal/manifesto for someone's dorm room philosophy. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone seems to have written an unpublished book about this here in relation to some electoral reform in British Columbia. Given that it is apparently unpublished (the site is in the first person for orders etc. and Amazon don't carry it), this is WP:NOR and possibly POV given the context. Possibly also a copyvio from the book, but not able to tell. Finally, it admits to being a nelogism here: "a random word, an obvious neologism". If someone can show that it is actually an established political doctrine in British Columbia I would, of course, change my vote. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
  • It was used once in BC to select representatives from each electoral district. These citizens crafted and selected a proposal for electoral reform. (It failed in the referendum with only 58% voting 'yes') maclean25 08:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it was not. The process used for the BC Citizens Assembly was Sortition. Uncle G 15:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is published, and available from, e.g., http://www.munrobooks.com/by_isbn.cfm?view=DETAILS&isbn=0973782900, is there a requirement that something be carried by a particular vendor? the use of the word is referenced in http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gild2.html Geoffrey Transom
• I reached into a hat and randomly selected "delete" as my vote in this VfD. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Delete This is not in use anywhere as far as I can find.--Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash.-Poli 2005 July 8 14:49 (UTC)
• Kept because I think it's an informative article. Maybe someone else should rewrite though to avoid breaking the original research rule. --FFAFRoxorzMyBoxorz 8 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
• Delete, rewriting will not help with respect to "original research" - it is otherwise not notable outside of Wikipedia. StuartH 8 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. I've seen the concept of selecting government officeholders by lottery before (it's common enough in science fiction), but never under this name, and never with the other features specified in this article. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to something with a better title. The idea is not new but the title is. --maclean25 08:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• The idea that Maclean25 is conflating this with is Sortition. This is, however, not sortition. It is an expansion of that notion to include, for starters, an economic ideology and a criticism of partisanship (two of the "other features" that Carnildo notes). The article is a reasonably clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a novel concept, and indeed a book. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the originator of this Wiki entry, I can tell you that although I've read the book, I have no interest whatsoever in promoting it; asserting as much without the slightest scintilla of evidence is reprehensible - a genuinely gutter act. Also, as anyone who has read their Aristotle will tell you, sortition explicity (as a theory) deals with partisanship, and Mueller, Tollison & Willet's 1972 article (Representative Democracy via Random Selection) in Public Choice embeds it in economic doctrine.Geoffrey Transom

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. FCYTravis 01:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is non-encyclopedic, meaningless garbage, and is more of a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article.

• Delete--GrandCru 8 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
• Delete as per CDC. Jaxl 8 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
• Delete per Cdc -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
• Delete, as slang dicdef. It's not meaningless garbage though; the term is used although it is derogatory. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Qwghlm July 8, 2005 10:15 (UTC)
• Delete What Splash said. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)
• Detele Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-Poli 2005 July 8 14:52 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to List of ethnic slurs. If this was to be deleted, then there's a whole list of redirects to List of ethnic slurs that also qualify for deletion. —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of ethnic slurs.-Pyrobob 8 July 2005 14:38 (EST)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Speedied as nonsensical, didn't make any sense whatsoever and insufficient context. Fawcett5 8 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)

This is from some fiction, but I can't figure out what, and I suspect it's non-notable either within or without that fiction. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

• Delete obscure, ill-translated fancruft. nn -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even sure this qualifies as fancruft; it may be part of someone's private fiction. No relevant hits on Google. Unverifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
• Delete: Tinfoil hattery/fantasy. The information "was researched" by trainers of beings from other worlds. Uh-huh. Would these trainers wear long white coats and carry syringes? Geogre 8 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio, already deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. Abstain. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

It seems strange to bring an article to VfD that you yourself are not going to vote to delete. If you're that unsure, it's a keep. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

People abstain all the time, you know. The point is, I couldn't verify it, but then again there's a chance it could be legitimate. Someone else might know. I'm not going to slap a delete vote on something that I don't know enough about. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

• Delete Minor rap group with no albums that I could find. Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
• Delete as per Harmil, no entry on AMG. Jaxl 8 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
• Delete: Supposedly a "crew" that did production? beats? backing? on some records. As with other things relating to that "band," it appears to be a private name for a group of people who are not known by that term anywhere else. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
• Delete'. "Brooklyn Zu" collects 6260 Google hits, however they nearly all appear to be about a series of films by that name. The band have no allmusic.com presence and from what I can filter from Google have not generated any media interest either, nor anything else that would qualify on WP:MUSIC. If anyone wants to rewrite the article to be about the films, I'll change to keep. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
• Delete It, along with the dozens of others just like it that have been added this evening are all copyvios. Somebody has been pasting one paragraph at a time from a website on this topic into Wikipedia.Tobycat 8 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
  • Hah! I thought so...I've been watching them pop up on Special:Recentchanges all night. Have you been catching them and slapping {{copyvio}} on them? --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Wait. Wait. While not particularly well-known, Brooklyn Zu is a legitimate rap crew affiliated with the Wu-tang clan, especially Ol' Dirty Bastard, who some persons might be interested in learning more on. While the body of the article is a copyvio as it stands, I'll work on the article myself. Same with Hell Razah, Killah Priest, and anyone else that comes along. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Might I add, those of you who've seen my VfD contributions and votes before know that I am very zealous in pursuing deletions for non-notable groups and bandcruft. I hope that you take into account the fact that I'm voting to keep (which I seldom do on obscure bands), instead of delete (as I almost always do). jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

comment: I got it. The crew are members of Wu-Tang. It looked for all the world to me like another name for part of the band. I.e. a way for them to jokingly refer to their beats unit. Thus, it wouldn't be a separate band at all and therefore not one with records, etc. Do you have any recordings by them that aren't Wu-tang? Geogre 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

That's the problem, and the one reason I suppose that they don't meet WP:MUSIC... Brooklyn Zu, as with many other groups affiliated with Wu-Tang (Streetlife, for one), have yet to put out a solo recording. They have made guest appearances on ODB's LP's (and are known as his "other" rap crwe), and - I believe - have been working on a solo mixtape. I dunno: to me, they're notable, but others may feel that they are not. I honestly feel, though, that they deserve an encyclopaedic entry (i.e. brief, to-the-point, but informative). jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band cruft. And, from the looks of it, a copyvio too. RoySmith 22:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• QuestionComment: The article as it stood was a copyvio. However, I would take it upon myself to create a better article outlining who Brooklyn Zu are. In fact, I think, the best proposal is to create an article Wu-affiliates, with all the groups like Hell Razah, Brooklyn Zu, Killah Priest, Streetlife, &c. contained therein. On their own, these rappers may not have the clout to be encyclopaedic, but I feel that a mention of the Wu-tang Clan should not go without some sort of companion article on their many colourful side projects and affiliates. jglc | t | c 01:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question in there somewhere? RoySmith 02:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. My bad. I originally meant to ask whether you guys thought it would be a good idea to create a secondary article, but realised that, due to the nature of Wikipedia, it'd be fine to go ahead and do so on my own. I retained the incorrect label. jglc | t | c 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redirect into Wu-Tang Clan or a breakout article detailing "their many colourful side projects and affiliates". -- Jonel | Speak 02:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 01:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

advertisement Doctor Whom 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

• Delete ad. Jaxl 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Delete ad. mindstream 8 July 2005 01:54 (BST)
• Speedy Delete Title does not match content, probable copyvio (see Google) -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Mrendo 8 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. DS1953 July 8, 2005 03:02 (UTC)
• Speedy delete is certainly not out of bounds, as this is arguably long spam. It's not just advertising but click-me advertising. However, delete for advertising. Geogre 8 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
• Delete ad.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:39 (UTC)
• Delete ad / vandalism. The contributor's IP should be blocked. See his other contributions [1] —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
• Delete blatant spam. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 6k, 2d. -Splash 02:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant enough for article.

• Delete --GrandCru 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Keep - found a link that suggests there is more here than meets the eye; added it to the article. I'll see what else I can dig up, but I'm convinced this person is significant enough to merit an article. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:26 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412. Xoloz 8 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
• Move to Yuan-lu Wang, change Abbot Wang to redirect. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
  • Good point, but I've actually moved it to Wang Yuan-lu, as the naming convention in China is to put the family name first. Both Yuan-lu Wang and Abbot Wang now redirect there, and I've redirected the vfd page accordingly. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
    • Right, I knew that. My mistake. Leave moved to where it is now, and keep.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
• Keep where  BD2412 moved it to.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:42 (UTC)
• Keep establishes notability. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
• Keep, notable tao-cruft. RoySmith 22:27, 9 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

• Delete. Patent nonsense. See the article creators other edits and talk page for some idea of his modus operandi. Tufflaw July 8, 2005 00:53 (UTC)
• Delete Not only nonsense, but much of it is just a cut-and-paste of an old version of United States House of Representatives -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 tetraneutron. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Only 2 Google hits, probable hoax as neutrons do not bond together. Created by the Stop Drinking Soda vandal, in any event. Delete. Jersyko talk July 8, 2005 01:27 (UTC)

• Delete: Seems like a prank. If not a prank, then a profoundly wishful bit of non-physics. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
• Very weak delete. This is a bit of personal OR pseudo-science. This points to a New Scientist article that played with the idea (you can get a free 7 day login if you're really keen; I didn't bother). What's the feelings about pseudo-science which is apparently drawn from a single source but that got an article in a 'proper' magazine (though not in an archival journal)? -Splash 8 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
• Keep if the stated theory is supported by a reliable source. The original author of the article must have had such a source in mind when posting the article. If this optimistic confidence is unfounded, delete. -EDM 8 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Do bear in mind, per the nomination, that it was created by a known vandal, even while assuming WP:FAITH. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

• delete as unverifiable, since there are only 2 hits for this on google and it was created by a known vandal. Vote subject to change without prejudice given a citation. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
• REDIRECT to neutronium, as chemical elements depend on the number of protons it has, tetraneutronium consisting solely of a tetraneutron nucleus, is obviously *not* a chemical element, but an isotope of element 0, neutronium. Alternately, redirect to tetraneutron. 67.68.67.71 8 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not OUR job to dig up cites for highly dubious, one-sentence-long articles that lack any. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 07:57 (UTC)
• Delete hoax unless proven other way.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:45 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable because stability calculatins suggest that it would be a stable form of neutronium, that makes it VERY special. 24.19.27.32 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Can you include either the calculations or a reference to them in the article? -Splash 8 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

• Redirect to tetraneutron - It looks like this either an alternate name or possibly just a made up name. This forum makes it sound made up, but the wooden periodic table link above makes it seem to be at least a common misconstruction of the name. - Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with this summary. - Jersyko talk July 8, 2005 21:03 (UTC) (nominator)
• Redirect to tetraneutron --Carnildo 8 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, neutronium itself is science fiction, not accepted science, but that at least deserves its own article. This doesn't. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
• Redirect to tetraneutron. It's verifiable as a highly speculative bit of theoretical nuclear physics that experimenters have attempted to verify.Gorringe TP, Ahmad S, Armstrong DS, Burnham RA, Hasinoff MD, Larabee AJ, Waltham CE, Azuelos G, Macdonald JA, Poutissou JM, Blecher M, Wright DH, Depommier P, Poutissou R, Clifford ET. Search for the tetraneutron using the reaction 4He( pi -, pi +)4n. Phys Rev C Nucl Phys. 1989 Nov;40(5):2390-2393 No abstract available, alas. The name tetraneutronium is a neologism with no status with IUPAC and no entries in PubMed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete William M. Connolley 22:03:16, 2005-07-09 (UTC). Neologism.
• Redirect to tetraneutron RoySmith 22:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to tetraneutron, and note that the creator has also added text referencing tetraneutronium to neutronium. -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete neologism Salsb 02:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to tetraneutron. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 05:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really suitable encyclopedia content, unless there's any particular screenshots of real significance (none I can think of hand.) byped July 8, 2005 01:35 (UTC)

• Delete This game-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
• Delete. "Screenshots" is plural, yet I only see one. Jaxl 8 July 2005 01:55 (UTC) The attempt at expansion is good, but I agree with others that this article is still POV. Jaxl 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
  • The text clearly reads "This is an article of all the best screenshot of great video games." Obviously the title is in error. Delete. — mendel ☎ July 8, 2005 13:21 (UTC)
    • No, the text is an error. The author meant to say, "This is an article of all the best screenshots of great video games. If the word was preceded by "all of the best", then that must mean there were more than one intended. If you want a better reason to delete, then I'll give one. Not encyclopedic. Jaxl 8 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
• Delete POV, non-encyclopedic. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
• Delete It's not encyclopedic. Anomaly1 8 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
• Delete: The Great Game is politics. The screenshots would not apply, as colonial powers arguing and warring over the division of Asia and Africa was before computers. (I.e. the name should be "Great game screenshots" not Great Game Screenshots.) As for the article on its own, it is inherently POV and therefore impossible. It is also inherently meaningless, as it proposes a pictographic article, not a discursive one. Encyclopedias live and die by discussion, not pictures. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• Delete and a cookie to Harmil - I think we need to make that a template. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
• Delete I think Harmil justfied the reason why best Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 02:27 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
• Delete LMAO Harmil, ditto. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 03:19 (UTC)
• Delete. POV title, and a wikipedia article isn't a gallery of screenshots. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic to have one persons opinion of what a great screenshot is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Image galleries can be encyclopedic content just fine. But I can't see how this title could make an article that isn't inherently POV - David Gerard 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Please everyone give the user more time to expand the article and correct their errors. Maybe they accidently hit save page before they were ready. Did you even think about that maybe they were going to improve on it. Or did you just jump to immediate deletion. I say we give then more time. If the article isan't any better in three days then we can delete it. Sail max 6-22-05 8 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

• People do tend to jump on artices to delete them, that is true. However, the VfD process lasts a full 5 days from the time of nomination. Voters can, and often do, change their vote in that period if an article is significantly revised. In practise, a VfD is often not closed for about 10 days and most admins will count all good-faith votes cast in that time — this should give the author ample time to make their case and their article. -Splash 8 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
• Even so, Sail max is missing the point. This is a POV article. Everyone's defintion of what a "great screenshot" is will vary. Wikipedia is not the place for articles like this. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I agree completely, as I said in my vote. -Splash 8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

First off I'm not missing the point from what Nahallac Silverwinds said. I understand that this is not Wikipedia material and everyone will have diffrent opinions. So my suggestion is that if people don't like the screenshots they can come and add their own. Maybe this can be a page where everyones feelings of great screenshots can be.-Sail max 6-22-05 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

• Delete I like the idea, unfortunatly, it is non-encyclopedic.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:51 (UTC)
• Delete I'll repeat what someone else said- great idea, but not fit for Wikipedia. You (Talk) July 8, 2005 18:15 (UTC)
• Delete Why is Super Mario 64 not in there? And why is Super Mario Sunshine in there? I can see edit and revert wars here. And then the page will gwt too big to accomodate evryone's tastes. Nope, POV articles will never work. And this one cn't be un-POV'd Sonic Mew July 8, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
• Well -:Poli this actually is encyclopedia like because I sugguest other sections and give facts. Also this is a section for anybody to do what they want with their favorite screenshots.
• Why dosen't anyone just expand the article already and stop complaning about it. Sail max 6-22-05 8 July 20:04 (UTC)
  • Because it's not encyclopedic content, but an article worthy of deletion. You might be able to make this a user sub-page, however, with your opinion of the best gameshots on the wikipedia. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
    • Yes, let's be clear here. We're not saying, "this is poorly written, so delete it." We're saying, "this is an article which, by definition, cannot be NPOV". That's perhaps a subtle difference for some, but to me it draws a clear line between candidates for deltion vs. candidates for cleanup. -Harmil 00:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
• Delete unless some user's willing to userfy it. In the article space it's inherently POV. --Idont Havaname 20:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sail max 6-22-05 and think that this article should not be deleted. Yes this a POV but it is everyones opinion. And it is encyclopedia like because it gives facts and dates and if you don't like the article no one is forcing you to come to it.

• Delete not encyclopedic, nothing but a screenshot gallery Jtkiefer 20:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; POV, and kind of messy too. Thunderbrand 23:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • • I think that instead of deletion, this aritcle should be changed. Change the title so it isan't a POV. Add more facts and information to the characters and the games. And make it so that it isan't just a gallery of screenshots, but like a video game character profile page. What does everyone say about that?

--Sail max 6-22-05 14:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It could be redone to use galleries instead of that god-awful mishmash of thumbs, but I just don't think the article should exist, in any form. There are already screenshot galleries for each of the major game systems, like this---and they're sort of already de facto "the best games for the system". grendel|khan 16:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion.

• Delete. These guys exist but a google search shows only their own websites. Wikipedia is not a place to showcase unknown bands.csloat 8 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising of a subject that is not encyclopedic if stripped of POV. The "band" is unsigned, undistributed, unsold, etc. Nice that they're upset about the Stone Cutters, but.... Geogre 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
• Delete - band nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. Jaxl 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)
• Delete band nnanity. Only 16 unique Googles and no allmusic.com presence.-Splash 8 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
• Delete does not fulfill WP:MUSIC.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:55 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:16 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax/vandal page. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

I believe this to be a hoax article. I've asked the author for citation, but received no response. Joyous (talk) July 8, 2005 01:58 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant hoax. "Hamster Language is the only writing of the "philosopher" GjEffori BonnģwiŤz...Hamster Language is a document that told that hamsters were once the dominant species and were 6 feet tall." Yeah. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 02:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Vanity, somebody's forum handle. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 8 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
• Delete - nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
• Delete - a poster child for why Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/1 needs to pass. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity. Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry for the speedy; I knew it was a little questionable, but that's why we're freely editable. Deltabeignet 8 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Forum-cruft with notability issues. jni 8 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
• D-E-L-E-T-E. as vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
• Delete non notable.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:57 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:08 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as communication.FCYTravis 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Clearly spam. Voting for deletion. ctgPi 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is a clear attempt at communication between the parties referenced in the article, so is speediable (even at the moment) under CSD for Articles, pt. 4. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Speedied. Very clear A4: "Hello sir/madam I am Dr.k.kandavel,-i have finished Ph.d in Botany specialization in forest ecology- I searching any kind of job in related to..." then a bit more of the same, then contact info. Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fucked Companycruft. This intersection exists, but is unremarkable. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

• Delete, bordering on nonsense. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
• Bordering on nonsense, true. Deep within idiot territory, fer shure. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
• We have a speedy. The anon blanked it and left a few random keystrokes instead. - Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
• Delete, quick-like. --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
• Delete, ridiculously not notable. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 07:58 (UTC)
• Delete I thought it was and ad, but link does not work. No clue what this is about now.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:59 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a regular poster on FuckedCompany. This is just sort of a specific in-joke. On behalf of FC, I'd like to say that not even WE think it merits a wikipedia article. (Unsigned vote by User:CAPS LOCK)
• Delete Same here, I'm a notable FuckedCompany poster, and it's really too obscure for wikipedia. Klonimus 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Hedy Burress. 6r, 2d, redlink user discounted (only 11 edits). -Splash 02:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable actress. Has had minor roles in minor films, some voice work. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable, virtually nothing about her on google. Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

• Looks like a misspelling of Hedy Burress, so probably just needs a redir (and an incoming link fix). Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Don't delete Could have potential, if an FFX fan was hardcore enough to dig it up. What's the harm in keeping it? Arsonus

• redirect per Niteowlneils. Kappa 8 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
• Redirect misspelling. -- Grev -- Talk July 8, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
• Redirect per all of the above.-Poli 2005 July 8 16:01 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable group and/or neologism. LNGD hits are mostly other uses, "Losers, Nerds, Geeks, and Dorks" gets only the website linked from the article (article is also a VERY thinly disguised copy of the text from that site), and LNGD nerds gets only 4 displayed hits. Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability not established. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
• Delete - self-professed losers JoJan 8 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
• Delete as per TheMidnighters.-Poli 2005 July 8 16:03 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Wikilibrarian 02:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason #1: Advertising for something VERY non-notable. Reason #2: 904 Google Hits. Reason #3: Nothing links to the article anyways, and the user who created it--that was their only edit.

Unsigned nomination by User:Hottentot. -- Grev -- Talk July 8, 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Delete Agree with above points. Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

• Delete, article doesn't establish notability. -- Grev -- Talk July 8, 2005 03:13 (UTC)
• Delete nn website ad. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
• delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• delete advertising Klonimus 9 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - band nn/vanity or hoax TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity, nothing on google. Jaxl 8 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 8 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, unless proven to fulfill.-Poli 2005 July 8 16:09 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:18 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy. Apparently, was recreated deleted content. Deletion carried out by Lommer. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:27 (UTC)

"popular website set up by two young Australians as they travel around the world". How popular can it be, given that they haven't started? Delete. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Delete according to above comments. ColoradoZ July 8, 2005 03:10 (UTC)

• God, page has been up for less than 5 minutes and it's already getting bashed. Crazy.
• Delete - WP:NOT a crystal ball. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
• Delete. Page wouldn't be getting bashed if it resembled something notable and encyclopedic. Five minutes is enough time for fifty new articles to appear. Most will not visit VfD. This one is, and for good reason. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 03:30 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just advertising. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
• Delete, the lack of large amounts of comments on the blog and the fact they haven't actually left yet, make this pure and simple advertising/vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:23 (UTC)
• Delete lots of people travel. Unless they have some other reason to be in an encyclopedia, delete.-Poli 2005 July 8 16:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as hoax. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

A nicely detailed article about a seemingly non-existent animal. The author has not responded to requests for sources. Joyous (talk) July 8, 2005 03:08 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax from what I can see. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax created from a copy of Badger. -- Kirill Lokshin July 8, 2005 03:23 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax JoJan 8 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax unless proven other way.-Poli 2005 July 8 16:15 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable,ie Weather Channel anchor. TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

• Delete Of no relevance to people outside the station's broadcast boundaries. Which is about everyone. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 03:25 (UTC)
• Delete in current condition. Note that the Weather Channel in the USA is a national cable network devoted to (surprise!) weather. No opinion yet whether weather-readers on this channel are public figures worthy of inclusion. But this ain't an encyclopedia article. Smerdis of Tlön 8 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 8 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
• Delete: My view is that news readers and presenters are not in need of biographies in an encyclopedia until they are individually known to a degree as to be found in cultural references outside of their station/show. If Walter Cronkite just read the news, he'd be best discussed in CBS Evening News, but he was regarded as a sage and trusted voice on all topics, was referred to as himself by countless magazines and newspapers, etc., so an article is needed. Otherwise, pretty people in the glowing box should be discussed, but only in their master topic. Geogre 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cute but irrelevant. Delete this neologism. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 03:14 (UTC)

• Delete. Jaxl 8 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
• Delete, name neologism dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Delete, cute, but not encyclopedic.-Poli 2005 July 8 16:18 (UTC)
• Delete (cute, as per above). Dusik 9 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. This has already been voted on 7 times. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, guys. These trolls are NOT NOTABLE. I don't care how many people on Wikipedia have heard of them (see WP:SELF), they just aren't. Please, let's delete this article and end this nonsense once and for all. Firebug 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanity article. Thesquire 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep(now Neutral), based upon seven previous attempts at deletion. - Rudykog 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the attempts at deletion? What about the subject of the article? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the subject may be offensive to many, however I feel that the content, whether NN or not is in agreement with Wikipedia rules. I do not believe that the group or the article attempt to offend anyone or any group. Perhaps there should be an offensive warning label? - Rudykog 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not whether or not it is "offensive." It is about notability. And if it was NN, it would not be in agreement with Wikipedia rules because it is NN! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I see now, I didn't pay attention enough, I revise my vote to Neutral. - Rudykog 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this has survived no fewer than seven previous AfDs: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Jamie 09:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but most of them were "no concensus." That people have tried so many times speaks for itself, but not in favor of keeping it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I revised my vote to neutral. Let's see if this AfD actually succeeds, finally. Jamie 11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - people on wikipedia may have heard of them, but they are not notable in any encyclopedic fashion. Wikipedia isn't the collecting place of every miniscule piece of internet trivia, including a trolling organization that operates on one or two sites. Regarding all the previous AfDs - like the Japanese say: "Fall down seven times, stand up eight." We've messed up seven times by not deleting this nonsense, but eventually it will be done. -Parallel or Together ? 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They have always been non-notable. But the shitstorm that errupts every time this has been brought here (and FAC) has brought the page to the attention of almost every active Wikipedian, creating the false air of notability. Like Parallel said, we've heard of them, but they are not encyclopedic. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generates 981 Google hits [9] and 249 of those are from Wikipedia [10]. They may be widely known amongst portions of the internet community, but they have not achieved notability outside of that. Movementarian 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Movementarian. A quarter of their total notability originates with Wikipedia - and the Internet is their specialty. Durova 10:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trolling Wikipedia doesn't automatically make you notable. Average Earthman 10:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Regarding Google hits, it appears that most websites mentioning the GNAA do not spell it out (for easily guessable reasons). GNAA gives 69,400 results, an indeterminate proportion of which obviously refer to other topics. However, I refined my search and discovered that +GNAA +slashdot gives 11,800 results, +GNAA +IRC gives 23,800 results, and +GNAA +internet gives 29,400 results. All of the results from the last three queries appear to exclusively pertain to the Gay Nigger Association of America. This group has achieved notability, even by my (perceivedly harsh) standards for inclusion, previous nominations not being a factor. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:06, Dec. 15, 2005

• Comment. Fair enough. I can agree that my google search was too restrictive, but still don't think that they have achieved notability outside of the pockets of the internet community that they effect. Movementarian 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-referential article, whose first sentence states its subject's non-notability ("self-aggrandizing"), and which may violate WP:BEANS. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete much of the "keep" commentary on previous nominations seemed to be based on the assumption that, while not well-known elsewhere, the GNAA is very famous on Slashdot. However, being active on Slashdot myself and doing quite a fair amount of browsing there, I've found that this simply isn't true. In maybe 3 months of at least daily visits, I haven't seen anything there by or about the GNAA, not even in passing reference. Granted, I wasn't exactly looking, but still, if these guys were truly the scourge of Slashdot, you'd think they'd be mentioned with some regularity. Also notice that, while the article has a decently-sized references section, it's (almost) all forum posts, blog entries, and the like. If their activities were important, why aren't they reported on in newspapers? Why aren't they profiled in any published books? The answer, of course, is that forum trolling is only of any interest to a very, very, very small number of people (mostly the trolls themselves) and that individual trolls and groups are seldom, if ever, notable or verifiable in an encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To my knowledge the GNAA is not particularly famous on Slashdot and no good verifiable evidence to that effect has been presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep based on the fact that the page is used for reference by several Wikipedia administration pages on the subject of article vandalism, since a number of alleged members of this group are regular vandals. Perhaps, for that reason, this can be moved into some sort of administrative space rather than kept in article space? 23skidoo 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion, and since you haven't provided any other rationale, there is no reason to delete it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 17:42
  • Notability is too a deletion criterion and claiming otherwise is dishonest. [11] Ashibaka tock 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf this is unspeedied then why does the comment still survive below? The way this nomination has been handled is very strange and stifles debate. Durova 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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!) 10:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makred for speedy but isn't a candidate. Neologism from single episode of TV show. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

• Delete - It's an "accidental" neologism, not even a purposeful one. Utterly useless. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
• It is expected that the word "suxy" will become a common word as a result of this accidental uttering. Seriously. Like, any day now., Delete admitted neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:29 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude thought some other dude was funny. Gosh. Geogre 8 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
• I was actually watching this show. Delete as a pure slip of the tongue. It was funny, though. Hermione1980 8 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
• Delete and archive at BJANDON. I chuckled. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:21 (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. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

1) dicdef. 2) incorrect dicdef, not supported by m-w.com, dictionary.com, or even urbandictionary.com. 3) Apparent attack page. Chuck July 8, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

• Delete - for reasons above. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
• Agree. Delete. -- Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:29 (UTC)
• I have entirely rewritten the article; it is now a stub about songs of mourning. 198.7.223.182 8 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
  • Somehow I had gotten logged out when I posted that. Smerdis of Tlön 8 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten stub--the songs meaning is encyclopedic. Thanks, Smerdis. Meelar (talk) July 8, 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Nice job, Smerdis! I'll now vote to keep the new stub. Chuck July 8, 2005 14:40 (UTC)
• Keep - Three cheers for Smerdis! --IByte 8 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
• Keep Good save. EvenMadDeletionistsCanSeeReason 9 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
• Keep - The edited version is very good. Cissi 9th July 2005 08:15 (UTC)
• Keep Smerdis's rewrite - well done to him. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewrite - Skysmith 10:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 10:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet notable. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 03:42 (UTC)

• Delete - teenage vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Xoloz 8 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)
• Delete, being a 13 year old webmaster isn't noteworthy, sorry. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:31 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 8 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
• Delete, keep up the good work, young Donnie and you will have your encyclopedic article in no time!.-Poli 2005 July 8 22:38 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:17 (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 MERGE and REDIRECT: 2m, 1d.. -Splash 02:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article about non-notable (395 google points, many of which are wikipedia mirrors) fictional language, and apparent vanity; nb Fyksland has survived VfD in the past, so perhaps this information could be merged there. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)

• Merge into Fyksland, not that I understand why that needs to exist either. Total vanity. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
• Merge. arj 8 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Could be orig research. Didn't find any related Googles. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

• Delete. It looks like a school science experiment report. Probably a good report, but not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)
• Delete - as per above JoJan 8 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
• Delete - per Jojan. Karol July 8, 2005 22:02 (UTC)
• Delete - as above. jdb ❋ (talk) 9 July 2005 00:01 (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!) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN, vanity. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

• Delete --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
• Delete nn. van. jni 8 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
• Delete - leave him in Vancouver with Kris and off the Wiki . NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:20 (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!) 10:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn band vanity. TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

• Delete - nn. Only Google hit was the show schedule mentioned in the page. Mrendo 8 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 8 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
• nn delete - UtherSRG July 8, 2005 23:19 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Little known says it all. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:22 (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 (note: nominator abstained from voting). -- BD2412 ^talk 03:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Could be vanity, could be NN. Low Google. However, I abstain from voting because I am not entirely sure. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

• Keep - I cleaned up the article a bit. They released several albums on A&M Records and have been featured on MTV.com. Not my area, but it's more notable than some other music articles out there imho. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)
• Keep agree with TheMidnighters, seem to be notable enough. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notability. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
• Keep. Appear to meet Wikimusic Project guideline ie 2 or more records released on major label or significant independent label. Capitalistroadster 10:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This guy claims he's famous because he's going to make a film about bias in the bathroom. Seems like his POV will be pro-s***. Anyway, this is vanity, and isn't a CSD yet. Harro5 July 8, 2005 05:01 (UTC)

• Delete: NN. Also, watch out, he's removing the VfD. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)
• Delete - nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

User:Dkkicks has also created a page called Daniel Hill-Moses which I nominated for speedy since it holds personal information on someone (pin number, credit card number), whether it's accurate or not it should be deleted speedily. User:Dkkicks also removed the speedy tag there. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

• Delete. vanity autobiographysubstub. Maybe userfy to User:Dkkicks. jni 8 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
• Delete. Jni's assesment is pretty much spot on.- Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:37 (UTC)
• Delete - and let's leave him in the bathroom . NN . A curate's egg 8 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen filmmaker vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This article is nothing but a "jargon dictionary" definition of an insulting term. It does not suggest that there is anything encyclopedic to say about the history or importance of the term. The term is already defined on Wiktionary. Therefore, there is precious little need for a Wikipedia article. FOo 8 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef, duplicate of Wiktionary content. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
• Delete per bainer. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:06 (UTC)
• Delete this is long-standing hacker jargon, and not necessarily insulting, but... jargon file .NE. notability. CAPS LOCK 8 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable vanity. --Vile Requiem July 8, 2005 05:47 (UTC)

Delete Too much coverage for a forum that doesn't have any real notoriety to the general public. However, the main article, Nintendo NSider Forums, can probably stay. (Disclaimer: I've done a bit of work on that article. It seems valid to me, but I'm not against a deletion at all if it is found to be against policy.) --Typobox43 July 8, 2005 05:53 (UTC)

Delete If you'd chill out and wait until the article was at the very least finished with the initial entry, you might change your mind, but I've changed mine. As the article's creator and sole contributor, I also cast a vote. If it's such a big deal, axe it. I would clear it myself if not for policy. --Fashnek 8 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

• Delete, forumcruft and non-encyclopedic. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Delete it's useless info --Froth 14:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as an admitted hoax/nonsense article. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

NN vanity. He's been around for quite a many negative years. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

• Delete, and delete the image that goes with it.Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 8, 2005 06:09 (UTC)

Who is that stud?! Keep it up until there is more information about this stallion!

• Delete. nn. vanity. jni 8 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

please don't delete Chance Gully's post. You may not know who he is, but he is well know in the areas he frequents. I promise you, this page will get alot of attention and applause when its done with, especially from its subject, Chance himself. --Treyevans 8 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

Guys, I think its just some friends getting a laugh in at one of their buddies. Lets be cool and not jump the gun on deleting this one, even though I agree, it serves no purpose. But, sometimes youve gotta go with the flow and admit to yourself, that picture is fucking hilarious. HBarnes284

• Actually, I really don't. Delete, vanity or hoax or whatever it is. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:08 (UTC)
• Delete and all the pictures . NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
• Delete This goes close to a speedy as pure nonsense--Porturology 8 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Strong delete: article from a well-known vandal, obvious hoax. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

• In the center photo, he looks a lot like the vampire pizza-delivery guy in that X-Files episode. Which took place in, hmm, Texas. --Mothperson 8 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

• Delete. Red hair frightens me. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

man you guys are a bunch of laughless prudes. --71.113.246.27 8 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

If you're going to make personal attacks, you could at least have the courage of your convictions to sign your name! "Laughless prudes", indeed. Now, I have to vote. Delete. And he's a dead ringer for Ronnie Strickland. --Mothperson 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as copyvio --Allen3 ^talk 12:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The article itself actually establilshes non-notability. This is bandcruft. Unfortunately, its one of dozens of articles added today by the same contributor that appear to be similarly non-notable. Tobycat 8 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)

• and they're all copyvios. I'm in the process of marking them all as such. Fucking tedious. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:23 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted for personal details. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

More blatant vanity by User:Dkkicks. Was marked as speedy but is not eligible under current overly strict CSD rules. jni 8 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. --Typobox43 July 8, 2005 06:20 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Probable hoax too, since everyone knows Yankees don't drink Dr Pepper. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, hoax, even WP:POINT. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)
• I've speedied it anyway as an attack for containing supposed personal details of the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Since it's a copyvio, it will probably be deleted anyway. Woohookitty 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability...has not even released an album yet. Tobycat 8 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Notice - I just discovered that the current content is a copyvio and have added a notice to that effect. The content was taken from Here. Tobycat 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, alleged member Raekwon was in the Wu-Tang Clan, this satisfies WP:MUSIC (although "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such"). --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Raekwon is a member of Ice Water, Inc., and they have appeared at several concerts performing their own material, as well as backing him up. While I highly doubt that they, on their own, would ever achieve notoriety, Raekwon's inclusion as a member makes them notable. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
• Delete unless this article is cleanup and expanded so that it has useful content. 12.220.47.145 8 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established - no album releases. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC guidelines for now. Though needs some SERIOUS work. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 08:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Verges perilously close to being a speedy. Ambi 9 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)
• Delete""" nn band cruft. RoySmith 22:59, 9 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 12:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Together with the subpages Cultur [sic] events, Music events, and perhaps also other linked pages.

Advertising for future events in Istria. Delete. -- Hoary July 8, 2005 07:07 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising, WP is not a directory of upcoming events. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Delete Once more a SPAM site of HISTRICA.COM (how can we get rid of this guy?!). ...added at 07:59, 8 July 2005 by 193.26.143.106
  • I believe that you have to be logged in in order for your vote to count (insofar as the decision is made according to vote). -- Hoary July 8, 2005 10:50 (UTC)
    • No, anybody can nominate for VfD (see WP:VfD#Things to consider#here) and anybody can vote. But the closing admin is entitled to take into account the nature of brand-new and anon users when tallying the votes.-Splash 9 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Delete all pages, spam. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:09 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above RustyCale 8 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly not encyclopedic. jni 8 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above and the fact the WP crystal ball is exhausted after being used so very much. -Splash 9 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. See the VfD for Istria events, of which this is a subpage. -- Hoary July 8, 2005 07:10 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising, WP is not a directory of upcoming events. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, advert, WP is not a calendar for non-notable events. jni 8 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
• Delete - tedious NN rubbish A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. See the VfD for Istria events, of which this is a subpage. -- Hoary July 8, 2005 07:11 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising, WP is not a directory of upcoming events. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't a place for copyvio's from here either.- Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 09:39 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this could become encyclopedic even after copyvio rewrite. jni 8 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Website Vanity, a kind of meta-charts site that is compiled by a 17-year old (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sebastian Prospero, below) in his spare time. Site is hosted on freewebs.com, so no meaningful Alexa rating available, but the one and only Google hit I get for "qnx music chart", "qnx charts", "qnx chart", or similar is the site itself. -- Ferkelparade π 8 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence anyone at all cares about this chart. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:10 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note that age and notability are unrelated. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:39 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree, of course, but that doesn't make this particular 17-year-old or his website notable - sorry if the above sounded like it implied that all 17-year-olds are non-notable, I just wanted to point to the related Vfd nomination of Sebastian Prospero -- Ferkelparade π 8 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
• Delete NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
• Delete nn, probably looking for an improved Google pagerank. WP wouldn't want to be Top of the Pops, surely. Maybe come back when it's established notability - it was only launched on the internet last month (it was founded in 1987). -Splash 9 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Some random 17-year-old who maintains a chart website, which in itself also appears non-notable -- Ferkelparade π 8 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Xoloz 8 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
• Delete; even if the chart were notable, he still probably wouldn't be, and the chart ain't notable anyway. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. And the chart is so notable it needs free webspace...? --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first in a long list of Nokia product articles that will never be expanded are non encyclopedic. I have only tagged this one because there is a limit to my ability to push keys with my mortal fingers, and they outnumber me.

Nokia 1100 Nokia 3100 Nokia 3110 Nokia 3200 Nokia 3210 Nokia 3210 Nokia 3220 Nokia 3230 Nokia 3310 Nokia 3410 Nokia 3595 Nokia 3650 Nokia 6230 Nokia 6260 Nokia 6600 Nokia 6610i Nokia 6620 Nokia 6630 Nokia 6670 Nokia 6680 Nokia 6681 Nokia 6682 Nokia 6810 Nokia 7650 Nokia 9000 Nokia 9210 Nokia 9300 Nokia 9500 Nokia N70
Not phones Nokia M1122 Nokia MW1122 Nokia DX200
Future products (Speedy?) Nokia N90 Nokia N91

There appears to have been some effort in this area before, as several (not listed above) have re-directs already:

Nokia 3120 Nokia 3200 Nokia 3205 Nokia 3210 Nokia 3210 Nokia 3220 Nokia 3230 Nokia 3310 Nokia 3315 Nokia 3390 Nokia 3410 Nokia 3510i Nokia 3560 Nokia 3620 Nokia 3660 Nokia 7110

If there is public outcry, I am willing to go back and properly tag every bloody page but I'd rather not. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

• Keep all of them (or else merge them together to some some list of Nokia phones). Individual models of mobile phones are notable enough. The fact that these stubs are unlikely to be expanded is not a valid criterion for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
  • And many of the articles aren't stubs either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
• Keep all. Never seen the 'articles that will never be expanded' argument before, most of the articles have been edited in the last couple of months. RustyCale 8 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is my opinion that having an article for every Nokia model is a bit excessive and unencyclopedic. However, this is not a uniform series of stubs (and several have been expanded beyond stub status) so it doesn't seem appropriate to delete them all with a single vote. - Thatdog 8 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
• Comment I apologise if I gave the impression that this was a list of stubs. If it were, and if there was a chance that they could have been expanded into articles that warrented inclusion, I would not have nominated them for deletion. But despite the fact that these have information in them and despite the fact that they are being updated, they are simply not notable. If someone famous kills someone else famous by bashing them with the Nokia 3310 then it becomes notable. I'll even withdraw the 6600 because it was the most exciting actor in Cellular. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)
• Keep some of them. A lot of these phones are nothing special like the 3510i and 3205 for example, they are just ordinary series 40 phones but the 1100 is probably the most "basic" one they have made yet and is very popular in third-world countries
  • Comment It is polite, Towel401 to state when voting on pages to which you contribute. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Man, I have to get out of the house more often. I sound like an ass. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)

• Keep Nokia is the worlds most well known mobile phone manufacutrer. Anyway there is a demand to have neutral resource such as Wikipedia for finding out about mobile phones, most searches on google for mobile phones are spam for ringtones and the like. NSR (talk) 8 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
• Keep Nokia phones are notable and different from each other. Kappa 8 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - All notable products. Andros 1337 8 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 8 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
• Can't all of this be Merged? How likely is it that anyone will want to know the features of one individual phone as opposed to comparing two or more anyway. How likely is it that anyone who wants to know this information will come to here and not to, say, Nokia's web site? On the other hand, a Nokia 1100 seems more notable than the GNAA -- Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the List of Nokia products catalog article. Just because someone who works for Nokia decided to make an article for every one of their products doesn't mean we have to give them the free advertizing. Articles for some consumer products should have articles, but this is ridiculous. Jack Daniels deserves an article because people know it and ask for it by name. Ask anyone what exact model phone they have and 90% of them won't get any more specific than "Nokia". That's why Nokia has an article. This isn't encyclopedic in the least. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't consider these articles advertising, since most of these phones are no longer in production. If anything, this large series of articles would only serve to baffle someone trying to select a phone for purchase.  ;) - Thatdog 8 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
• Keep for two reasons: a) the articles are okayly informative (or could be in future, anyway) and b) my phone is a Nokia 3120. :-) Hermione1980 8 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I think it'd be best if these were all on one page... but that may be a bit much. -- 24.12.224.172 8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
• Delete per R. fiend. Also note that claims in the article may be original research if no references are supplied. These sorts of individual articles for dozens of items that are nearly identical are a bad idea, and even worse when you consider how quickly these sorts of consumer products become obsolete and replaced with new models. This is the equivalent of having 40 different articles for the Ford Mustang automobile, one for every model year since it was introduced in 1965. How about doing something useful? Merge into product lines and provide redirects making it easier to compare features by having all the info someone might want in a single place, rather than scattering it all over wikipedia in dozens of little articles with repetitive, nearly identical content. 165.189.91.148 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC) Sorry, got logged out before I saved. This is Quale 8 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
• keep or merge the shorter texts into List of Nokia products. This is verifiable and noteworthy. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
• Merge. Having this many pages for exact phone models is craziness. For the sake of simplifying maintenance, merge these into one page. The article quality will not suffer, since we'r'e dealing almost exclusively with stubs so no information need be excised.Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
• Merge by product line. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge -- cell phones may be trivial now, but just like the Ford Thunderbird or the Studebaker to the auto industry, in a few decades these devices will be talked about as classics of the information age. Fuzheado | Talk 9 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. This is just what WP is for: each of these phones has waaaaay outsold all today's teen-band listings and Nokia is so huge it imparts parental notability. If we're not just a little careful, we'll have WP:MOBILE and WP:CELLULAR to help us determine notability. -Splash 9 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
• Merge the lot of them. They're informative, but a list would allow for easier comparison. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a split of List of Nokia products can be done, with Nokia Original Series, Nokia Basic series (1xxx and 2xxx, even though the 1xxx series are ultrabasic), Nokia Expression Series (3xxx), Nokia Active Series (5xxx), Nokia Classic Series (6xxx), Nokia Fashion Series (7xxx), Nokia Premium Series (8xxx), Nokia Smartphone Series (9xxx), and Nokia NSeries. This would clean up List of Nokia products and would allow more detail on each page. Andros 1337 9 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
    • Well, that's better than having a thousand separate articles anyway. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
• Merge to a single article. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
• Keep all. Encyclopedic subject. Some articles need cleanup. Despite Aaron Brenneman's claim, there seems to be regular maintenance work on these articles. They're obviously interesting to somebody and if I want to know about a Nokia I will probably look it up here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I claim that? DamnThatOtherPersonalityIsComingOutAgain 13:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. Phone cruft. I'll be honest, I only looked at the first few, so it's possible there are other articles later in the series which are better, but the ones I looked at didn't seem notable. RoySmith 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strongly feel this is non-encyclopedic content. We are not going to have articles for every model of every item ever made in the world in here are we? It's an encyclopedia, folks, not a library of product manuals. DavidH 02:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this non-encyclopedic content. It might be okay to discuss differences in series, but even merging discussion of differences in models seems tedious and commercial. Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success. Davilla 12:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. Zero google hits. Vanity?-- BMIComp (talk) 8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)

• Delete Well it's linked from, and mentioned in the article about Michael_Paul_Oman-Reagan. But then again, that article has only been edited by one IP address, the same person who created this article, and so may be vanity/NN as well. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
• Delete - Notably not established. And I've made an entry for Michael Paul Oman-Reagan farther down. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 00:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote this article and just updated it. I'm adding as I learn things. There's nothing 'vanity' about the article. Just because you don't know who she is, doesn't mean she isn't historically important. It's true that I can't find out very much information on her yet, but that could be because she doesn't engage in anything that results in internet posting or traffic. However, if google hits were the basis of inclusion in Wikipedia, we wouldn't need wikipedia, we could just google. I know that she's important in Denmark and relevant to several other articles I'm working on which is why I made one for her. On the other hand, I suppose she could be just listed on the other articles and have no listing and then people couldn't find out more about her. But that wouldn't be very encyclopedic. 66.108.21.54 20:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

According to my Google search Goatstown exists, but I seriously doubt it's founded and run by a 16-year old. Suspect hoax. Vanity anyway. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 08:53 (UTC)

• Delete - Vain hoax. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)
• Delete - Sorry Pete you're NN and life's too short A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)

I'm not vain I didnt write that myself calm down no tantrums and i'm 15 not 16 gobshite.Sorry i'm not Dutch but Biology is better than Chemistry.Is amaidean e thu.Translate that Chemistry boy.

Look if you're 24 and living in your parents basement patrolling this website then lifes too short for you and what does NN mean? DON'T DELETE THIS PAGE OR DAVID TUNNEY!

• Delete. Goatstown may not even qualify as notable, so its 15 year-old "founding father" is certainly NN (that's "non-notable"). Oh, and a hoax. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Delete. I've added Peter Branigan (note caps) to this vote as well; voting had already begun, but I don't think it was properly listed, so I've copied the votes from that page to this one below. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 04:00 (UTC)

• Keep it i dont care if hes written a page about himself who would in their right mind!Also that goatstown.tk is an amazing website.
• Vanity --Bedel23 July 9, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

So what if its vanity its amusing and can only be good for the site!

• Delete. Vanity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 02:40 (UTC)
  • Err, this doesn't appear to have been properly nominated by anyone; consider this a nomination. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 03:40 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
• KEEP It is factual.Goatsown is in Dublin,Ireland. (Unsigned comment by 213.202.156.170.)
• KEEPIt is patent nonsense to consider this truthful page for deletion.I believe this to be raccism against the Irish people.

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an installation guide. Should be transwikied to wikibooks. Graham 8 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

• Go right ahead. Wikipedia:Transwiki is your friend. Don't forget to save the edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 09:29 (UTC)
• OK, I've moved it to the transwiki namespace of wikibooks, but haven't moved it to the main namespace there yet. I'm not that familiar with wikibooks: do I just move it into the namespace myself, or wait for more experienced editors to reformat it first? Graham 8 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)
• Now moved into main namespace of wikibooks. Delete, though it strikes me as odd that we don't have an article on h3knix itself. I wouldn't even know where to start with that, but maybe it'd teach me to spell h3knix properly. :) Graham 8 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge the "info" section into H3knix. --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been transwikied

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 this article. BD2412 has requested that another article replace this one, this request will be honored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is this really important enough for an encyclopedia? It seems more like an advert to me. PeterLean 8 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

• Delete PeterLean 8 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
• Delete: it isn't really in the style of an advertisement, but it surely appears non-notable in topic. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
• Delete - an advert masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)
• Delete NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, advert. Jaxl 8 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable advert. When this is deleted, will someone please drop a note on my talk page, so I can write an article on the town of Xinjiao, in the Haizhu District of Guangzhou, China, where my wife and my mother-in-law once took a lovely trip. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 17:26 (UTC)
  • ...or if you could, just move the article I've written here. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 17:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable band vanity. There's no mention of released or even recorded material, yet for some reason they have a website. I don't get it. TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
• Delete. NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, band vanity. Jaxl 8 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus : 8 keepm, 5 delete, 3/4 merge. Garrett^Talk 02:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ball article about an unreleased album. Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable. Tatu are very notable. Kappa 8 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)
• Delete - NN Life's too short A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
• Delete - Sure, and the members of Tatu will all one day die. Does that mean I can write an article about that now? Because that would at least be interesting, which this is not. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
• Delete. Band is notable, but album is not yet released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
• Keep. The album has been announced with a specific release date and general details. It's not a matter of being a crystal ball and t.A.T.u. is a notable band. The article will be created again even if this early version of it is deleted. We gain nothing by deleting this article now. DS1953 July 8, 2005 15:59 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think the band is notable enough to warrant the article. Although WP is not a crystal ball, it seems futile to delete an article which will almost certainly be recreated within a couple of months. To get things in perspective, we already have an article on the 2020 Summer Olympics for example. Bobbis 8 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  • And creating a new actual article with actual content when the time comes will be SO hard. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
• Merge with the Tatu article until there's really something to put here. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
• Delete. If delete fails, merge with Tatu. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
• Keep. More information about the album is to come forward soon. Besides, this band isn't obscure. They came in third in the 2003 Eurovision Song Contest, they had a hit single in the U.S. and they're one of the most popular Russian pop bands. The entry will get bigger and better as time goes on. ~ Chad1m July 8, 2005 22:36 (UTC)
• Merge into the band's entry, they are quite notable. But I don't think albums deserve their own article until they are really out. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
• Delete outright or, at best, Merge. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
• Merge, Tatu are certainly a notable band, but that does not entitle them to use of the WP:crytal_ball. -Splash 9 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)
  • Watch out, the 2008 Summer Olympics have been using it too... Kappa 23:47, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know. It gets used altogether too much! Still, it's a little much to create an article about a song, the success/failure/everything of which can't be known yet, and the Olympics which already have some history to a future event. -Splash 01:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This duo isnt obscure - they've had a few hits under their belts already. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
  • The article under consideration here isn't about the duo. That's another article entirely. Uncle G 01:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not even released yet. RoySmith 23:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This can be added to as time progresses with singles, track listings etc. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of Can this be improved, it's a question of Does this article meet the objective criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? If you read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it should be clear that it does not. If you disagree with the official policy, lobby to get the policy changed, don't just ignore it because you like this group's music. RoySmith 13:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: no offence to anyone, but how many of you voters have actually read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball recently?!? Just wondering... Garrett^Talk 12:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: heaps of other albums are yet to be released, (see Category:Upcoming albums), if one were to delete this one, they would have to delete all the others too. Plus it will probably be recreated in the coming months anyway? We are wasting our time? secfan 06:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: same reasoning as secfan (Unsigned vote by Rudykog)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be vanity. Head of Penguin Books in India, speedied 3 times but recreated but there hasn't been a proper vfd, but then Google seems to indicate that he is indeed an author. (no vote) Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)

• Rewritten. Keep. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)
• Delete. NN A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
  • "Non-notability" is not an accepted reason for deletion per the deletion policy. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)
  • It pretty clearly is, it simply goes by other names. Looking at The deletion policy under "Problems that may require deletion" we see straight away vanity pages listed. Of course, for guidelines in what's "vanity" may vary wildly, so let's look at musicians as suggested by that page. The first line states "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable," (emphasis mine). On this particular topic, I'm leaning towards Weak Delete based upon one book (which is one more than I've written), although I'd prefer to know how many copies it sold and it what countries. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
    • Yes it is, that's why we need to establish his notability through the notability of his works. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)
      • No it isn't, else it would say so on the policy page. There is indeed a vanity clause, but that hardly applies to the version of the article as re-written by me. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
        • WP:BIO would instead apply here. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 14:52 (UTC)
    • Are you actually saying, Pcb21, that as it does not say directly on the deletion policy page the exact words "non notability is grounds for possible deletion" that this is not a reason for nominating a page? The above-the-fold text on directly linked pages say:
      • WP:VAIN "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is..."
      • WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."

And it doesn't take much digging to find:

• WP:BIO "Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria for inclusion. See also Wikipedia:Importance..."

Non-notability is clearly a reason for nominating a page for deletion, both by consensus and by official policy. Obfuscation will not add to this pages chances of surviving, demonstrating this author's notability will. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

• Comment he does only appear to have authored 1 book, but does have an e-biography if anyone has $4 to spare [12]. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 14:07 (UTC) WP:BIO
• Tentative Keep. Published author of a book which appears to have a wide audience. Amazon sales rank: 49,017. If anyone can explain what the Amazon sales rank means in terms of raw number of sales, that would be extremely helpful. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 14:52 (UTC)
• Comment Ihad a book that got to 250,000 with about 25 sales. I suspect 50,000 would be a lot less than 1,000 sales.--Porturology 9 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)
• CommentThat was 1-2 sales per month. An amazon score of 50,000 would, I guess, be <50 per month.--Porturology 9 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)
• Keep, head of penguin books in India, author of a book with a good sales rank. Kappa 8 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Keep per Android and Amazon sales. Xoloz 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
• Delete One book is not a body of work and does not imply notability--Porturology 9 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand well known editor, and as head of Penguin India has been active in building up Indo-Anglian writing (that red link doesn't speak too well for wiki!). His one book was noticed in India, sold well, and was widely read. Bambaiah 09:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dictionary definition with nothing else significant. Wiktionary already has an entry: Wiktionary:ream. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef, especially if it's already in Wiktionary. Jaxl 8 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)
• Replace entry with {{wi}} template --BaronLarf July 8, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity. Contains no information that could be used in any future h3knix article. Graham 8 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)
• Delete - a very nice list but completely unencyclopeodic A curate's egg 8 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Jaxl 8 July 2005 13:04 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 8 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

• Delete ad. Jaxl 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
• Delete advertTobycat 8 July 2005 23:44 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertising. FreplySpang (talk) 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

• Delete it is a promo. Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep but move to child abduction Dunc|☺ 15:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedic term, it's 2 words put together. Information about child stealing should be put into the proper termed articles such as Abduction or Kidnapping. The Child stealing isn't worth an article. Elfguy 8 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

• Clearly it has a stupid title, stealing is not abduction (we generally do not consider children to be property or slaves); but Move to child abduction (which is currently a redirect to "child stealing", and keep as a particularly nasty form of abduction. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
• Cleanup I do not think it should be moved "child stealing" gets 10,000 hits on Google, so clearly it is a widely used term. Also, the original meaning of kidnapping (i.e. "kid nabbing") should be explained. -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
• Rename to child abduction. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Dunc. Yes, child stealing gets 10,000 hits on Google; but child abduction gets 264,000. In the battle of the synonyms, the wider use wins. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 17:14 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Dunc. I was thinking that when I saw he beat me too it. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
• Keep and move per above. The article should have a title that reflects the most common terminology.Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

I always heard it as kidnapping or child abudction, but not as child stealing. Keep and move as per the others. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

• Keep and move per Dunc. --Idont Havaname 20:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Child abduction. Add links (see also, or what-have-you) from both Abduction and Kidnapping to wherever it ultimately ends up. RoySmith 23:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the therm is widely used to refer the systeatically abduction of the childs of peoples disappeared in Argentina Dirty War Qsebas 01:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to child abduction - Skysmith 11:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. Woohookitty 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non notable, 1 liner Elfguy 8 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

• Delete no claim to notability. vanity -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
• Delete - nn vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
• Keep, see my edits on that article. He is a well known teen actor in the Philippines. --Jojit fb 08:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say "advertising"? I knew you could. Delete. — JIP | Talk 8 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)

• Delete-agreed PeterLean 8 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
• Comment As mentioned on the page - I am a new comer and you are requested not to bite off the heads of New Comers - as I have just been reading! -80.176.204.162
• Delete not notable, and the name is actually more widely known (but still not terribly notable) as a brand of camping equipment and bags [13] -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
• Comment So - you guys just delete my last request for help - and still don't help by offering any advice? I am sorry, but I find that really rude! You even deleted my apology so no-one else can see it and my offer to remove the page and my statment asking what I can and can not do - may I ask why? So no-one else can see that I am a newcomer just trying to add content and aking for help? I have just read you're not even suppossed to delete without justifying. The company has nothing to do with camping stuff and is called Nalpeiron - PRO-Tector is just their technology. Are you in the IT business?, but what's that got to do with it - is no-one going to help a new comer here? Do you want new editors to help here? Is anyone going to give any advice that may actually help me and move forward Wikipedia?

Hi there. No, I did not delete your comment, only the cut-and-paste of your previous comment from the article page (which anyone voting here should be looking at, anyway). You should read the comments that I left you at User talk:80.176.204.162, though creating a real user account would surely help out in our conducting this discussion.

As for the "camping stuff", what I was saying was that, if anything, the name "PRO-Tector" is notable only as a camping equipment brand, and no notability could be established for the software you reference. You see, Wikipedia doesn't just list anything, and there is a specific list of those things that Wikipedia is not for, that you should probably read.

Thank you for contributing. I know VfDs can seem rude and impersonal, but this is the kind of process that WP needs to have in place to keep the encyclopedic nature of the site thriving. I hope you understand and choose to contribute more in the future! For any further discussion, please use my talk page or yours -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you so much - now I'm getting somewhere. I will read your links and amend appropriatley. This is what I am looking for - what to do and what not to do - there is no real "start here" on the main page - so new comers don't know. Again - thank you.
• Delete, advertising for non-notable product. Dcarrano 16:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete™ - Thatdog 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable ad. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
• Delete nn ad. But note that the author appears to have actually taken the points raised constructively. He makes a good point about the main page, too. -Splash 9 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. But since the poster is wailing that we don't help, I will tell him to go to Yellowikis. -- RHaworth 2005 July 9 06:37 (UTC)
• Comment Forgive my Wailing - are you all American by the way? Is this just a US based encyclopedia? I don't want to go to any listings, I just want to inform of new technology that I thought was relevant - obviously I have completely the wrong end of the stick. I see I have also had my entry on the main copy protection page deleted even though that had no advertising in it. Why - will someone tell me why? There's even still an advertisiment in their for Macrovision - so how does that stack up then? Why is this that you take such offence to outsiders trying to join in and add to this encyclopedia? Why is it instead of adding constructice advise to others you insist on continiung to say the same old thing - delete because of advertisng - when I'm only trying to find out what I can and can not do. Sorry if I have invaded your own private domain and you think I'm wailing. Neither are you in actual fact helping in anyway by sending me to a listing - why would that be of interest to me? I will remove all my listings and go elsewhere - meanwhile, this section on Digital Rights Management will remain woefully out of date and will not be of use to anyone. -(unsigned by 80.176.204.162)

I've said before, and I'll say again: create a real account, and I'll be happy to discuss this on your user page and address your concerns. You'll find that we're not just singling you out for some kind of random abuse, but implementing a well thought-out policy which is applied to everyone. -Harmil 17:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever gave you the impression we're all Americans? Perhaps the most of us are, but a good deal of us aren't. As a case in point, I'm not American. I'm not even a native English speaker. I'm from Finland, northern Europe. And I definitely do not want this to be a US based encyclopedia. I've tried to weed out US-centrism from non-US-related articles as best as I can. — JIP | Talk 12:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising. Though one of the better grade, still advertising. Unless the writer can rewrite it impartially(and how to write impartially is a subject of English language, not Wikipedia) it has no buisness in WP. Loom91 12:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy. Deletion carried out by Tony Sidaway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

tea-sucking was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-01. The result of the discussion was keep as rewritten. The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tea-sucking.

This is a copy&paste of the original, unrewritten, version of tea-sucking, with the picture (Image:Tea Sucking.png) removed, that was heading directly for deletion the last time around, before it was completely rewritten to be about tea sucking rather than about teabag sucking. As I said before about the original, this article doesn't cite any sources at all, its proponents (the author and 1 other) have proferred no sources (despite the fact that this lack of verifiability was mentioned the last time around, moreover), and there are no sources to be found documenting the practice of teabag sucking; all of which make this article original research. Although the author here is anonymous, Grlea (talk · contribs) asked in the original VFD discussion for the "original content" to be "restored" and is now stating on Talk:Tea-sucking that the rewritten tea-sucking "should be removed". Uncle G 8 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

• Delete per Uncle G. I would have voted redirect, but tea-sucking isn't really about teabags at all. -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Shake my head in sadness at the things people think belong in an encyclopedia.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
• This is very frustrating. The tea-sucking VfD became a heated argument, and led to an excellent re-writing of the article to conform to WP standards. Now, someone just blithely puts the old article back up as if that argument, consensus, and re-writing never occurred? Why do we even bother to discuss things and try to improve the site, then?? Strong delete. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tea-sucking so that the creator will be redirected there and won't crete it again. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
• Delete one of these articles is enough. Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: I'm calling this one out for an unnotable vanity. A search for "Remonshagrunbeanie" returns 226 results, nearly all deviantART pages. A search for "Remonshagrunbeanie -deviant" returns 62 results; only one has anything to do with Planet Erk (the rest are either deviantART or avatars), where Remonshagrunbeanie is the administrator. Also, this page was created by a user with the same name (Remonshagrunbeanie). -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

• Delete NN, and the image is a copyvio -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
• Delete nn, apparently vanity. Friday 8 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 20:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a hosting service for discussions. Not encyclopedic. --BaronLarf July 8, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

• Delete It's a fine idea for some other site, but it's not encyclopedic. -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attempt to communicate. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

• On second thought, I do believe it isn't a speedy, since it is just text of comments, and doesn't ask for more comments.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

• Delete, though I don't think it's speedy. Original research, POV, etc. I think its creator user:Philippe A. MARTIN who has also created structured discussion has made some mistakes regarding what we are and what we're notWP:WIN. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Delete: Agreed, nonencyclopedic. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 8 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a discusion forum. DES 8 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a discussion board. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be a pretty large consensus. Any reason to continue this debate, 10 days later? --BaronLarf 20:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 05:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable artist vanity. Less than 50 Google hits, for some perspective I googled other minimalist artists like Sol LeWitt and Donald Judd and they were each in the 40,000-60,000 range. I also nominate Field Gallery, his gallery, google search of "field gallery" Michael Paul Oman-Reagan returns 8 results. TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

• This is an interesting point you make in your vfd request. Let's look at it from another perspective. If I google Bill Doss I get 985 results. However if I google other Musicians like Michael Jackson and Madonna they are in the 6,960,000- 21,200,000 range. Clearly this means...? Nothing? Something? you tell me. Apples and oranges, does that mean apples don't matter? 66.108.21.54 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

• Weak Keep- articles like Pandeism are kept with a lot less google hits and my understanding the google hits is a guideline instead of official policy. He has a total of 37 relevant google hits, so I vote a week keep. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
• Delete. No entry or appearance in the Grove Art database. No entry in any biographical database I searched. No trace of him shows up in a journal article database. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
• Keep If you google just Oman-Reagan you get over 99 hits for this artist. Additionally you will find him mentioned in Modern Painters magazine and ARTnews magazine. More important is the Field gallery listing. It really is an important institution. I say, keep him and add more information about his role as the founder of the gallery. July 17 2005 unsigned vote by 66.108.21.54,

The preceding keep vote was written by the creator of the article, as was the one that originally followed. --TheMidnighters 20:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That is correct, the above Keep was written by me, the author of the article. I am working on a history of a particular art movement over the last decade in Portland, Oregon and the artists who were involved. This article is an artist who was part of this movement. This movement and the artists have been repoted about on CNN, written about in Art Forum, ArtNews, Art in America, The Oregonian, The Organ, The Portland Tribune and more. It has been discussed by Jerry Salz art critic for the Village Voice (he called it intimidating), as well as Larry Rinder, former curator of the Whitney Museum of American Art. The following keep was NOT written by me, but rather by a user who shares the same wireless internet connection as I do, as does an entire building and possibly more. His comment is pointless, nevertheless, it is a keep vote as he is a distinct person.66.108.21.54 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no shortage of storage in this world. Enlarge yours duplicate vote (actually not a duplicate vote, but using the same internet connection)

• Please provide links or citations to these mentions if possible. Gamaliel 00:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no shortage of storage in this world. Enlarge yours

From Guide to VfD

"Do not strike out, remove or modify other people's votes or comments, even if you believe them to be in bad faith, unless they have been banned from editing the relevant pages"WP:GVFD 68.174.126.204 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are the sources:

Richard Speer,“City Focus: Portland” ARTnews(Oct 2004)

Jeff Jahn, “Something to Prove” Modern Painters(Spring 2003)

And here is a recent article describing Portland's most important collector and her interest in and ::collection of Oman-Reagan's work: Joseph Gallivan, “The Accidental Collector” Portland Tribune (21 Jun ::2005)66.108.21.54 00:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is here and does mention him, but only in passing. Gamaliel 00:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more articles mentioning Oman - I don't have a complete list, but I'm working on it. The Portland art scene has really exploded and I'm trying to document the key players. Next will be Jeff Jahn, Jane Beebe, William Jameson (just had a park named after him), Miranda July (whose new film "Me, You and Everyone We Know" is taking the country by storm), Harrel Fletcher, etc..

Daniel Duford, “Core Sampler” The Organ (Nov Dec 2003)

Richard Speer, “First Impressions” Willamette Week (12 Nov 2003) D.K. Row, “Shows of Note” The Oregonian (7 Nov 2003) Jeff Jahn, “Core Sample” nwdrizzle.com (Nov 2003) Jeff Jahn, “A Completely Biased History…” nwdrizzle.com (Oct 2003) Jeff Jahn, curator, “The Best Coast” Exhibition Catalogue (Portland 2003) Michael Klein, curator of the Microsoft Collection, “Art for Life” Exhibition Catalogue (Portland 2003) Jeff Jahn, “Something to Prove”, Modern Painters (Spring 2003) Stuart Horodner, curator, “Bid” Exhibition Catalogue (Portland 2003) D.K. Row, “Making a Name, Paying the Rent” The Oregonian (24 Jan 2003) Jeff Jahn, “Potential Hullabaloo in 2003?” nwdrizzle.com (Jan 2003) Richard Speer, “First (Thursday) Impressions” Willamette Week (9 Oct 2002) Jeff Jahn, “History Surprise and Risk” nwdrizzle.com (Jul 2002) Ed. Staff, “Best of Portland” Willamette Week (24 Jul 2002) Karrin Ellertson, “Seeking An Alternative” A&E The Oregonian (7 Jul 2000) Karrin Ellertson, “Clean Art Review” Portland Mercury (Dec 2000) Lisa Lambert, “Art Review: Clean” Willamette Week (Dec 2000)

• Strong Keep This sort of article is the kind of rare bit of information on a relatively obscure contemporary artist that is SO helpful and one of the reasons I always check wiki when I can't find something elsewhere. If Wiki just had what you can find everywhere it wouldn't be useful. Having said that, the article is in shambles, it needs a re-write desperately. 151.202.8.52 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried editing this a bit. Hope that helped.151.202.8.52 05:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting thing - I realized while editing this that I throw the word vanity around a lot but haven't read the definition for a while. For example - wiki definition of vanity page says: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". This is a tough one - what establishes importance? For example, I just noticed Richard Tuttle doesn't even have a page, he's having a retrospective at the SFMOMA right now and is probably one of the most influential artists at the moment. Just my few cents. 151.202.8.52 05:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• GREAT point! I found today that Gamaliel started a Tuttle article and I added to it. I hope you'll add to it as well. Richard Tuttle

66.108.21.54 20:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article doesn't appear to meet any of the critereon for deletion: It is not "original research" (sources check out), it is not an "inappropriate user page" (not a user page), it is not a "vanity page" (sources check out, wide press coverage - though provincial), it is not "advertising" (nothing for sale or promotion), it is not a "Hoax" (sources check out), it is not "idiosyncratic"(seems to not be structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group.) Although, article does contain source text, perhaps that quoted text should be removed?68.174.126.204 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef entry for archaic slang. Entire entry is "An Oik is an old public school derogatory term for someone of a lower social class" jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clear vanity. Created by Astarry who has also made edits to List of magicians and Escapology advertising the same book. Identical edits by 69.119.198.146 were reverted. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

• With the book being listed at amazon as 385,106 in book sales, I can see why he'd be advertising it. Delete. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
• Not Clear vanity. Just because I've taken the time to add information which may be of value to those using Wikipedia as an expert in my given field does not make it vanity. It's called generosity. I've been an established magician for thirty years in Idaho, California, and Texas, and a past president of the Idaho Magician's Guild, member of the Society of American Magician's, Texas Association of Magicians, The International Brotherhood of Magicians and The Magic Castle. Recently a friend of mine and I have opened The Magical Arts Centre in Hastings-on-Hudson, NY. My escape pictures from the burning rope are highly regarded as some of the best in escapology. As far as being an advertisment for my novel, nothing could be farther from the truth. THE MAGIC LIFE was ranked #72 on Amazon.com during the year of it's release, six years ago, right next to THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE. It was a top ten finalist in the Hemmingway first novel competition and has been recommended by Classbrain.com as one of the most motivational novels for students. It was also published in Japanese by a major publisher Fuso Publishing. Noting it's current ranking and adding "I can see why he's advertising, is a personal smere. Not only am I not interested in selling books through your site, I know that it is something that wouldn't happen. Checking Amazon, the previous voter should have been noticed that it is unavailable. However used copies are from which I wouldn't make a red cent. And as for my informative links being reverted, the information I provided is for the reader not self promotion. I've been out of the escape business for over 15 years, simply because I'm too old and out of shape. However, I my escapes have been included in the Houdini Museum, honored by the Escape Artist Industy and those thousands of people that have visited my my escape web pages have written to me telling me how much they enjoy them. - Ace Starry
  • Writing an article about yourself is generally considered bad form, no matter how altruistic your intentions; read Wikipedia:Autobiographies (which I thought was a guideline, but is apparently classified as only an "essay") and WP:VAIN. I am sure Scimitar's comment was not intended as a personal smear; at first blush, it does look like you're using this article for self-promotion, and Amazon's sales rankings are a bit confusing, to me anyway, and have probably been misinterpreted here. (Anyone have any clue how they work? This question has come up elsewhere.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 17:02 (UTC)

• Comment Re Amazon sales listings - I think the number indicates where the book is on the sales popularity list, so the new Harry Potter is probably in the top ten, and no. 52,849 means 52,848 books sell better than no. 52,849. I think. --Mothperson 8 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
• My apologies if my comment was taken as a personal smear, it was certainly not intended that way. I just have a little bit of knowledge about the publishing industry from personal experience, and understand how hard it can be to market a book; I also know what some people try. As for your contention that it's unavailable, I just tried to order a new one and had no problems, so I'm not sure what you mean. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
  • Response - When I checked the book myself, it comes up with a disclaimer: "Availability: This title usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks. Please note that special order titles occasionally go out of print, or publishers run out of stock. These hard-to-find titles are not discounted and are subject to an additional charge of $1.99 per book due to the extra cost of ordering them. We will notify you within 2-3 weeks if we have trouble obtaining this title. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com."

• Tentative Keep. Given the claims made here by Ace, he seems to pass WP:BIO muster. If the above claims could be added to the article along with sources, that would improve the article significantly. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 17:02 (UTC)
• Now for his next trick.... THE AMAZING EXPANDING EGO! Delete, unless proof of decent Amazon placement, or some other evidence that this book made a significant impact, is given. Being a respected magician, just like being a respected member of most professions, is not gonna cut it. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • Wow, this certainly sounds like a personal attack. Though I'm not certain that he realized that I'm something of a newcomer to this, let me enlighten us as to what I discovered by reading some of the guidelines in Wikipedia:
  • Please do not bite the newcomers
    • Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource.
    • Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who edit are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.
    • So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules.
    • Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
    • Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project.
    • Remember that you were once a newcomer also. Treat others as (if possible, better than) you would be treated if you had just arrived at Wikipedia.
• Delete. A notable performing magician would make it into the news media reasonably often, for reviews, show listings, and the like. LexisNexis finds basically nothing for "ace starry", aside from some 1999 listings for book signings and shows at local bookstores in Texas and Louisiana. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

• • Response - I'm not familiar with the extent of LexisNexis coverage. I've had numerous articles written about my appearances over the years: book reviews, reviews of appearances from comedy clubs and bookstores, mentions in the magic trade journals, Magic Magazine and Genii Magazine, One article in the mainstream that I can point you to references me as an expert escape artist in Maxim Magazine Article, Escape From Restraints - November, 1998. page 34. I'm mentioned in two doctoral papers that I know of, Florida State University, 2003 - The Secret Lives of Adults: Stories, By Ryan Walsh, "I found my feather in The Karate Kid, and he found his in escape artists like Houdini and Ace Starry."The other is called Literature at Lightspeed found at http://www.lespagesauxfolles.ca/Academic/chap02.htm which mentions the earliest literature on the web.User:astarry 12 July 2005

• Weak Delete. I have only a passing familiarity with performance magic, so I'm not an authority; however a Google search for "'Ace Starry + magician" turns up only 356 hits, most of those small blurbs about his apparently semi-notable book. I'm leaning towards delete if only because he wrote the EnWiki article himself, but if it stays I won't rend my clothes in grief. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

• • Response - I wasn't really trying to "toot my own horn" when I added to your page. However, you've created a situation in which I feel the necessity to "be bold" as the guidelines suggest. While a search on Google using search terms "Ace Starry" and "magician" turns up "only 356" hits, (the guidelines suggest that 100 hits is reasonable) a search under "Ace Starry" brought up 722 hits. Almost half are referenced to the novel, but as is suggested in the guidelines an author who demostrates sales of over 5000 demonstrates sufficient public interest for inclusion. Though I have no way to demostrate exactly how many copies I've sold, my Japanese publisher alone may have sold that many copies. Note that many of the pages that come up are quotations and reviews in Japanese. Many are mentions from professional escape artist's pages. Some are fan linking pages.
  • It should also be of note that many of the pages include quotations from my book, done outside the US. User:astarry 12 July 2005
  • Among the URLs from Google, these should be notable:

Lexigram created for the name Ace Starry http://www.goodworksonearth.org/acestarry.html Guide to Essential Reading: Philosophical Fiction - http://www.sminkworks.com/books.htm SEED Related Books - http://www.reiki.com/seedbook.html Best Motivational Novel - http://www.classbrain.com/artaskcb/publish/article_108.shtml Literary Leaps Recommendations - http://literaryleaps.com/leapaisle.cfm?aislenumber=3&lastfound=461 Performers.net Formum - Good Performing Related Books - http://www.performers.net/forums/printthread.php?s=23badb213a62bd8ffe39c1aa94002919&threadid=1729The Polite Side of Magic User Forum - http://www.politemagic.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=MagicTalk;action=display;num=1026685677 Quoteland .. Good Beginnings -- http://forum.quoteland.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=586192041&f=436194441&m=1391917162&r=4891944176Site Rated on Illumirate - http://www.illumirate.com/opinions.cfm?cat_id=426784&item_id=32154 The Striatjacket Bibliography page- http://sj.blacksteel.com/media/books.cgi Misc. Writing - News & Yahoos - http://www.mw-land.com/news.shtml Fan Site - My Favorite Sites - http://scott.endsley.com/sites.htm Escapoligists.net - http://www.evenden-jones.co.uk/escapology/Links.asp The Houdini and Escapology Page - http://community-2.webtv.net/rsrestraints/Houdini/ Escape Artist Cinthia Morrison's Page - http://www.palmbeachweb.com/boldwolf/links.htm Escape Artist Weasel Dandaw's Page -http://weaseldandaw.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page7.html Entertainers and Escapologists - http://www.entsweb.co.uk/entertainers/escapologists/Prophesies, Ancient Mysteries and Cyberspace Adventures - http://www.biddle-audenreed.com/SP2.html Google Answers: One's Purpose and Identity - http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=403322 Volunteer Service & Resource Project - http://www.geocities.com/givestore/wblnk13.html SF and Fantasy Authors Reference Page - http://www.sflovers.org/Reference/books/authors2.html

• Delete Writing an autobiography must be POV--Porturology 9 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap. The article purports to be about a "comic company" created by a 12 year old. Suffice it to say that this is utterly non-notable, probably vanity, very likely a hoax, and just a waste of time. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

• Though it is rather cute. I once started a company when I was twelve, and I helped with a newspaper when I was 11. None of which is notable. Delete.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 20:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by User:Karada. Also category:Structured discussion and structured discussion on abortion (also on vfd). No vote, though I think its creator user:Philippe A. MARTIN has failed to understand what Wikipedia is, though this shouldn't be held against him. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

• Delete, original research / solicits opinions rather than states facts. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Tentative Delete No sources are cited, no references are given to any use of this concept anywhere else, and the page is entirely the work of a single editor. This looks like original research. But for all i know this way of representing or conducting an arument is in common use soemwhere, or at least is the product of some academic enterprise. If appropriate sources were cited showing that this is not original research, then I would have no problem with it. DES 8 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Delete. "Structured discussion" is not in common English usage as a substitute for its apparant synonym, debate. Original research to boot. If we can see some more citations, I'll change my vote. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
  • Comment A google search on the phrase brings up over 30k hits. I looked at the first 25 or so. Most are using it as either a specialized debate format, or as some sort of mediated and facilitated discussion that is not a debate in the classic sense. many are using it as a term of art. None seem to be using it as the sort of formal logic structure described in the article. DES 8 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia isn't structured. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:06 (UTC)
• Delete, would be a good "how to" but Wikipedia is not a instruction booklet either. <>Who?¿? 22:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This article consists of: (col.) pōōf’ē - a descriptive word referring to a fluffy quality with added depth and softness, e.g. Look at those poofy clouds! OR My, that kitten is poofy. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

• deltee dicdef. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef and not even a particularly good one. Doctor Whom 8 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
• delete looks like a prank of some sort.—Tokek 8 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)
• Doesn't even mention cheesy poofs. Delete. (Isn't this a speedy?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 9 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to poof. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Delete very different meaning in Australia and UK--Porturology 9 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as copyvio --Allen3 ^talk 14:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a text-dump to me; possibly a copyvio as well, although I'm not sure on that. Whatever it is, it isn't encyclopedic, at least not in its present form. Plus, the title is ridiculous. Delete Scimitar 8 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

delete - also copyvio from [14] --Melaen 8 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

• Delete: While these people are well-known authors and inspirations to the Pagan and Wiccan communities, this particular list is unencyclopedic. I can't see the site linked to above, but if it is a copyvio, that's just another reason. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
• delete reasons above incl. copyvio. —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
• Comment - there is an attempt to grant permission here [15] - I'm not sure what this means for the copyright process for this page. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
• The copyright owner gave permission for educational use, which is not compatible with the GFDL, do I've deleted it as a copyvio.--nixie 02:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non notable map merge or redirect with Kingdom Hearts -- Melaen 8 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

• Delete, gamecruft/site advertising. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:31 (UTC)
• Delete nn gaemscruft. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

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

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

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

3 Reasons: 1. I verified with a native speaker that this word does not exist, 2. this is taken from a flash animation and therefore surely crap, 3. it is offensive. Therefore I say: DELETE IT ASAP (nominated by Waltersimons

• Delete. dicdef (and a wrong one at that) --BaronLarf July 8, 2005 16:46 (UTC)
• Delete, though only reason #1 is enough grounds for deletion here. If reason #2 were valid, then Homestar Runner and All your base are belong to us would need to be deleted. And as for #3, Wikipedia is not censored. Still, this is an incorrect foreign dictdef, thus the delete vote. -- Grev -- Talk July 8, 2005 17:31 (UTC)
• delete dictdef, and the article fuck contradicts this. —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

  Addendum: 1. Just because a native speaker doesn't know doesn't mean the word never existed. There are lots of Old English words that I don't understand. —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

• Delete. I wonder what "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is in German? - Thatdog 8 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia ist kein Wörterbuch. Uncle G 01:59, 11 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to verify this. 32 hits on Google for "Paul Wyss" Colonel, none of which seem to be connected, though since I can't speak Swiss I could be mistaken. If kept, the article will need to be moved. Scimitar 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

• Oh, just to be clear . . . delete. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Karol July 8, 2005 22:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Icelight July 8, 2005 22:28 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 9 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
• Abstain. Members of parliament are notable, even if they're not from an English speaking country. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
  • I agree MPs are notable, but I can't verify this, and I don't think it's particularly helpful in any case in its current state. --Scimitar 9 July 2005 17:30 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More non-notable b.s. This one's not even well-written. How soon can we get that petition to change speedy rules for vanity completed? jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

• Delete; 0 google results. [16] Jaxl 8 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't this qualify for speedy? Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not yet. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 9 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
• Delete My name is Christopher Paul Steiner, and I go to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. UGH! Don't write pages about yourself. --[[User:cpsmath|cpsmath]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what this is, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
• Delete The ACM ICPC is notable. This apaprently ad-hoc group is not, or at least the article cites no evidence that they are -- none of the links refer to the group as such, on a quick scan. 205.210.232.62 8 July 2005 21:42 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Accidently made this article when I thought it would link to User:Y0u's "theme sandbox", hope it gets deleted quickly. Please don't ban, it was a complete accident.

Just added to VFD log. You (Talk) July 8, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Elitejeff123 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Delete for reasons above. -ShadowMan1od 8 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

• Delete. author requested. —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Should be able to speedy this per creator's request. No worries, this won't cause anyone to be banned. Quale 8 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
• Fits criteria for speedy delete. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable character from movie; should not be redirected to movie since, in all likelihood, someone looking for "bene" would probably be looking for the Italian word rather than a Star Wars character.--BaronLarf July 8, 2005 14:54 (UTC)

• Delete - quite ridiculous A curate's egg 8 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable; I mean, movie characters are okay, but this is ridiculous. -- 130.14.254.25 8 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
• Delete. Confusing, NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
• Mere to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. It's all 100% true, and she's about as notable as the other characters on that page. -LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)
• Merge with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters.--Kross 02:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've gone ahead and transplanted the info to the list.--Kross 02:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of Mir spacewalks. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of List of Mir spacewalks. -- Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 16:44 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicate. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:19 (UTC)
• Redirect no need for vfd. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 22:47 (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 redirected to Trailer park trash. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per attacks on many people --Lord Voldemort 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

:It should probably be a redirect, and that seems to be a good idea, so I am going to do so. --Lord Voldemort 16:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... someone beat me to it. --Lord Voldemort 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Added by a recurring vandal who, by his talk page, has been blocked several times in the past. TexasAndroid 8 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Trolling. —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates Trailer park trash except in a POV and offensive way. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:25 (UTC)
• Delete. Trailer trash already redirects to Trailer park trash. This alternative capitalization is unnecessary. - Thatdog 8 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
• redirect to trailer park trash, since that article exists and redirects are cheap. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
• Delete Urm, some members of my family resemble this! :P But yeah, POV attack page. --Etacar11 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Brightorange. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:25 (UTC)
• Redirect. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
• Redirect without merge to trailer park trash. --Idont Havaname 20:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect ditto Idont Havaname--redir, no merge. --Smooth Henry 07:52, July 10, 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, nn.-- BMIComp (talk) 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
• Delete nn genealogy. --Etacar11 9 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
• Delete non notable genealogy. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:38 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable, not notable, no context.-- BMIComp (talk) 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

• Delete; nn, nothing on google. [17] Jaxl 8 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

• Delete - Apparently a criminal executed in Florida. No notability established. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
  • Who murdered a woman he had just had consentual sex with... So he wasn't a homosexual pedophile. Not the same person referred to here? Delete --Etacar11 8 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
    • I agree--I think that may be the reason my search on google came up with nothing on the Glen Ocha mentioned in this article's context. My vote remains delete, though. Jaxl 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
• The amount of detailed information available on him is in any case remarkable "Final Meal: A chicken breast, potato salad, corn, two biscuits and a large glass of Pepsi."[18] Abstain. Uppland 8 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Is Not... a webdirectory jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/ad, reason above. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
• Delete another close one. Alexa ranking has gone as high as 70,000 in recent months, but as worded, it's useless, and for a site like this, I would think the lack of a decent article for it is a hint... -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:39 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement and vanity (see also: Geogre's Law). If kept, it needs some NPOVing. Is he related to Fred Phelps by any chance? Uppland 8 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable, vanity, advertisement. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 8 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
• Delete - reasons above. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
• Delete Very slightly notable, but IMHO, not enough for inclusion. I'd say come back in a couple years -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:43 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, vanity. Delete or move to Userpage GTBacchus 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Has this been cosidered for deletion because of Vanity or Jealousy?

How do you exclude the year 1960-1980 years of hipsterism on your site in favor of fifeteen years of mediocrity? Hipster of 1990 onward are more "Hippie" than the real hippies were in the 1970's. (unsigned comments by 69.104.76.195)

Dicussion of the hipster article should take place at Talk:Hipster. See you there, Mr Teague? GTBacchus 8 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. Note also David C.Teague, up for deletion. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
• Cleanup vanity and POV as written, but with cleanup, he's at least worth a stub for his work on Sabrina. In much the same way as WP:MUSIC, I would expect that having 3 DVDs that are a spin-off of a popular TV show is worthy enough for inclusion. -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 8 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, vanity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Userfy, I'm sure you're a talented dude, but thousands of people are employed in the entertainment industry working on well-known projects.... that doesn't make those people themselves notable. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:29 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. DS1953 July 9, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Delete. You qualify for IMDB, sir, but not enough notability for here. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. An impressive resume does not translate to notability. --Misterwindupbird 06:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good enough for imdb... Redwolf24 06:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio, already deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the page was originally a cut and paste copyright violation (see page history). OK, so he has co-authored a few papers, but nothing seems very notable Bobbis 8 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

• Speedy delete copyvio, user page, resume, vanity, nn -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
• Delete: what's left is vain junk. Has no user page to userfy too. How surprising. -Splash 9 July 2005 02:02 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title of series. According to IMDb, it's called "The Oz Kids", and there is no such thing as "Little Oz Kids". Furthermore, the whole thing is non-notable, and a vanity page created by David C. Teague, an animator who worked on the project. If anything, it should become a redirect to The Oz Kids, should someone decide to write that one. GTBacchus 8 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

• Move and redirect notability is borderline, but it seems to have spawned at least three sequels, and that makes it more notable than a LOT of what's in WP today. -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Delete, subject of article simply DOES NOT EXIST, and we'll deal with The Oz Kids if and when someone writes it. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:23 (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. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. Probably a very unambitious person's autobiography. Maadio 8 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. He is a notable director of several major films, including Old School, Road Trip, and Starsky & Hutch. - Thatdog 8 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
• Cleanup notable director -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Hollywood director. --Madchester July 8, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per Harmil. Jaxl 8 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
• Keep. I cleaned it up. He directed the recent comedy hit movie, Starsky and Hutch and Hint: it may save VfD time if in future you look directors up on imdb.com to see if they're biggies. Then you'll be able to clean the article up yourself, if he is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. --Etacar11 9 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
• Keep notable director. DS1953 July 9, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough director. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what ds1953 and Cptlstrdstr had to say. MLSfreak777

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, cleanup. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

non notable website Melaen 8 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

• Cleanup Google says it's fairly popular, but the article needs a re-write. -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Notable in the webcomics community. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
• Keep. Moderately popular webcomic hosting site, along the lines of Keenspace or Modern Tales. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
• Marginal keep, with persuadability. Alexa rank of 85,000 so not tooooo bad, but 7 unique Google hits for DrunkDuck "Dylan Squires". Lots for just DrunkDuck, though. -Splash 9 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a web guide. Really low alexa ranking and no other evidence of notability presented. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 03:45 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vanity Melaen 8 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Thatdog 8 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
• Delete - yep. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity w/picture. --Etacar11 9 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 9 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)
• Delete. I could write an article 10 times as long on myself and it still would be more notable and less vain. Tomer ^TALK July 9, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. Delete the picture, too. Chinbeards are de rigeur for 20 year olds. Geogre 9 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Carnildo 9 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. vanity. jni 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
• delete this please it is really vanity Yuckfoo 9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
• Delete Clear vanity. The vote tampering doesn't really help either. -- BMIComp (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable martial arts school. Also others with the same name. Feydey 8 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

• Delete nn -Harmil 8 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, 8 google results. [19] Jaxl 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:42 (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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable and non-notable micro-movement. All information in the article comes from members of the movement or its website; the small number of google hits lead to the website, or Wikipedia and its mirrors. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree, unverifiable and non-notable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 8 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
• Keep. I consider this article to be a borderline case, and my philosophy is, "when in doubt, don't delete." I have seen this movement raise its head elsewhere - such as on a mainstream Messianic blog, where Julio Dam had a fringe presence. David Cannon 9 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:22 (UTC)
• Delete What Jayjg said. I'm a moderator at Jews for Judaism, and I've never even heard of these guys until today.--Josiah 02:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I know my opinion and backing are weak... but, I think it should be kept. gren 04:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A Google search for "Messianic Renewed Judaism" (with quotes) returns 241 results. "Julio Dam" (again with quotes) returns 878. As such, I'm calling it out for non-notability. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, --Eliezer 06:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonnotable. That the only place anyone else has seen this is on a messianic blog where this movement's founder has a "fringe" presence only strengthens the case that this group is not sufficiently notable for a WP article. Having a WP article in this case amounts to using WP as an advertisement for the group. Tomer ^TALK 19:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable and non-notable Internet based micro-movement. All information in the article comes from members of the movement or its website; the small number of google hits lead to the website, or Wikipedia and its mirrors. Most of the article is a POV re-write of Christian history by one member of the "group". Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree, non-notable internet micro-movement. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
• Comment this article has been around for a long time so I'm leaning keep. And is this a translation of Wikipedia or the other way around . [20] and what about his [21]. There is also reference here [22]. And here [23]. That link connects it to this [24] which is verifiable. What do you think? Falphin 8 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'm changing my vote for now. Delete Falphin 8 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
  • Those links are all to Wikipedia mirrors, or translations of the original Wikipedia article. That's the problem when you leave stuff around on Wikipedia for so long, it propagates. As for the link to to the article on Karaism, the Karaite movement has been around for at least 1300 years, so Karaism is indeed verifiable. However, that has nothing to do with "Talmidaism", which was apparently invented in the last 5 years by a couple of former Christians who met on the Internet, and who do not consider themselves to be Karaites. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
    • I meant the connection the article made when it stated a more conservative form of Karaism or Talmidaism. Another question what about their claim to Sefer Yeshua? Falphin 8 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  • They can claim a connection to anything they want; they've added information about their movement to a number of articles. As for Sefer Yeshua, that article was written by one of the "movement's" two founders, User:Shmuliq, who also wrote much of the Talmidaism article. Thanks for pointing that one out as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
    • I posted another link above that is on wikisource that has the text. Not sure what you want to do about that. Falphin 8 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
  • One thing at a time. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
    • Ok well here is one more article, Iggeret Ya'aqov. If this is deleted on the references on wikipedia to it will need to be deleted.Falphin 8 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
  • Added to the list of VfDs. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable despite their efforts to appear so. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:20 (UTC)
• Delete the claims of notability don't fool me. -Splash 9 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Delete As Jayjg explained above. --Eliezer 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has been an eyesore since I arrived on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 12:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems contrived to me. And incorrectly spelt, it should probably be Talmudism. ~~~~ 22:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are probably incorrect about the spelling. It has nothing to do with the Talmud. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was submitted after requests for information about Talmidism by Athanasius and Wetman. See Ebionite Talk Page Nov, Dec 2003. Jayjg, it's intersting that you describe the artice as a POV rewrite of Christian history since you spent so much time editing it. I think the POV is all your own. --Ovadyah 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jayjg, could it be that you are trying to accomplish as an Administrator what you could not do as an Editor? I witnessed similar extensive deletions to the Nazarene page, and I think the pattern of your behavior is obvious. --Ovadyah 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to be an admin to nominate an article for VfD. If voters disagree with the nominator, the article is kept. Carbonite | Talk 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough evidence of notability. Carbonite | Talk 16:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This stuff should have been removed at the same time the "Nazarene Karaites" rubbish was removed. Tomer ^TALK 18:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I began this article because I was asked to do so; when I saw how many people disliked its existence I tried to delete it; the article was restored within days. People around Wikipedia (in other articles) have made comments like, "It is not clear what Talmidaism stands for," or "Talmidaism has no clearly defined beliefs." So, I responded in those articles by giving clear, detailed, information. These were objected to, and the information promptly deleted. If people here consider that an article about a faith which teaches others to love one another, and to practice one's religion with humility and compassion, is an eyesore, then it might as well be deleted. As for myself, I would like to practice our faith in peace. Spirituality is not about persecuting and saying hateful things about those who wish to do good; it is about trying to get in touch with something greater than ourselves....PS the majority of the assumptions made here about us and our movement (even my personal biography) are incorrect. However, I have no inclination or desire to correct those assumptions, since they will probably be amended or deleted. This is the last post I will make anywhere on Wikipedia - but please do not think I harbour any bitterness; it is not our way. I wish you all long, prosperous and fulfilled lives. May God bless you all. Shalom and farewell to you all. Shmu'el ben Naftali, 20:58 13 July 2005 GMT
• Keep. This is not an individual's vanity fantasy. If the movement actually exists and uses this title, it belongs at Wikipedia, no matter how much we may disapprove of them. Google pulls up some 400+ hits, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. But here is the webpage of Talmidi Judaism which might be the better title. It should be noted that User:Jayjg has recently been blocked in his efforts to merge this page with the Nazarene page. --Wetman 20:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse my calling the "Nazarene Karaites" stuff "rubbish" with my comments regarding the so-called Talmidi Jews. The Nazarene Karaites stuff was similar to this stuff, but completely unverifiable, since no such group ever existed except as a single person's concept, relayed through 2 other people into a WP article. Literally, "from my mind to another person's WP article". This group at least happens to exist. Be that as it may, however, the group is not noteworthy, for a number of reasons, including:

1. Their approach to scripture is not innovative
2. Their membership is miniscule
3. They're brand new

etc. As a little test (perhaps someone should take this up as a project somewhere), they have fewer than 1000 adherents and they're historically non-notable. Take the Samaritans on the other hand. There are only perhaps as many as 500 of them, but their sect has been around for 2500 years. There are whole libraries of material written about them, and museums dedicated to them. They're noteworthy. As of yet, these "Talmidi Jews" are not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. Tomer ^TALK 20:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• The Talmidi approach to scripture is not innovative. It is based on Ebionite traditions going back to the 1st century. That relates back to my earlier point about why the article was contributed. It seems to me that the criteria for being "noteworthy" is highly POV here. --Ovadyah 21:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The sect is still small, that is true enough. Maybe you can relate to what it's like to be a despised minority. Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about the group is that modern-day Ebionites are finally standing up to discrimination. This article is the proof. --Ovadyah 13:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who despises or discriminates against these people? This article is not proof that anyone is "standing up", the more I look into it, the more it appears to be little more than sheer conjecture. There are, to be sure, modern groups of Ebionites, but no evidence that there exists any "loose grouping" called Talmidaism, nor "Talmidi Jews" as the article was first named. Please review what wikipedia is not. Tomer ^TALK 19:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Because of the lack of credible, independent sources, the article has no chance of becoming encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I did some checking and found that all articles contributed by User:Shmuliq were marked for deletion by User:Jayjg on the same day, and all without comment. Articles should be evaluated for their merit individually, and some discussion is warranted before a decision is made to delete them. This smacks of some kind of polemic against the contributing author or the group. Jayjg's issues with the group can be found on the Talmidaism talk page along with my replies. --Ovadyah 21:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, VFD is seeking community consensus. It can be taken out at any time on any article (unless obviously frivolous). Go VFD some of Jayjg and my contributions, and see how you fare. The fact is that Wikipedia is not the place to describe a tiny group of people endeavouring to live by a what they think authentic philosophy unless it has some form of notability. This seems to be lacking. JFW | T@lk 00:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was informative to me. I would like to see it stay and be added to. If User:Jayjg has another view of history, I think he should add it as an alternate contention instead of deleting the part he disagrees with. If you look at User:Jayjg's edits, you can see a clear pattern of revisionist history through the deleting and reverting of articles. Everything he's doing on this page seems like part of the same pattern. --Zephram Stark 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Information doesn't hurt people; censorship does.[reply]

• The article itself says that it is "history" from the Talmidi POV. As for the rest of your comment, it appears to be a personal attack that has nothing to do with the reasons for putting this up for deletion, that is that it is unverifiable and non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments on this article are certainly not a personal attack. Your motivation in proposing this article for deletion is entirely relevant. Your pattern of doing this to other articles that disagree with your POV is also entirely relevant. I agree that the article in question may be POV, but the generally accepted method of dealing with POV articles is to change them or to add the opposite POV, not to delete them. More information is good. Censorship is bad. Agreed? --Zephram Stark 20:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Zephram, normally I'd agree with you about how to handle POV in articles...in this case, however, that's impossible, since the entire article is someone's POV. You can't NPOV a POV. Tomer ^TALK 20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Short of the heavens opening up and God declaring his intention for humanity, I don't know how you would verify the claims of any religion. --Zephram Stark 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not in verifying their theological claims, but in verifying they exist, have a history, believe the things they say they do, are organized in a certain way, use specific holy books, have various rites, etc. from credible sources. You can do that for most religions, and certainly for encyclopedic ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. So you want verification of the existence of Talmidi and, if they exist, you want verification that they practice their religion in the way that the article claims. That should be easy enough to verify. There are three links to Talmidi sites on the bottom of the article:

Followers of the Way

Ebionite Community

World Fellowship of Followers of the Way

The information on each site is consistent with the article. I have emailed Shmu'eyl Nappach, one of the Talmidi, to verify his existence and that his beliefs are consistent with what he purports.

Dear Shmu'eyl Nappach (shmuliq_ferreira@hotmail.com),

In order fact-check a Wikipedia.org article, User:Jayjg would like to verify that you exist. Please send back an email with verification of your existence as a Follower of the Way (Talmidi). With existence verification, please also verify that you believe what you say you believe. Thank you for your patience with User:Jayjg as we are forced to comply with his verification demands on a regular basis here at Wikipedia.org.

Yours truly, Zephram Stark

If and when Shmu'eyl Nappach verifies that he exists and believes what he says he believes, one would hope that you honor what you claim to be your concerns and not invent any new ones. --Zephram Stark 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. Anyone can put up a website claiming anything. The key here is to have independent confirmation of these claims, so that they can be verified. The fact that the two individuals who created this religion, and the articles on Wikipedia about it, and their webpage, will be willing to e-mail you back saying "yes, it's all true" is not verification. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your suppositions about my motivations for nominating the article are, in fact, both a personal attack and entirely irrelevant. I have no issue with the POV of this article; it seems written in a reasonably NPOV way, in that it attributes all beliefs to those who hold them. However, the majority of the article appears to be original research, that is, proposing a novel view of history. The other problem with it is that it is not verifiable. Original research and unverifiable material are not "information", they are theory and rumour, and removing them is not "censorship", but rather is Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be negating yourself, Jayjg. If the article is "written in a reasonably NPOV way," why did you claim in your introduction that "most of the article is a POV re-write of Christian history?" When it comes to religion, it's kind of hard to verify your material. The only difference I can see between this article and the one on your religion is the popularity of the sect. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a contradiction at all - the problem with the POV is not that it violates NPOV, but rather that it violates NOR. That is, the article itself admits its a POV re-write of Christian history, and since it cites that, it does not fall afoul of the NPOV policy. The problem is, the vast majority of it is original research, written by the article author. As to your other point, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "your religion", but as I said above, it's easy enough to verify that most religions exist, have a history, believe the things they say they do, are organized in a certain way, use specific holy books, have various rites, etc. from credible sources. You can't do that here, because there are no verifiable sources on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The longer a VFD page, the higher the probability that the original poster will be accused of censorship. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Membership is probably in the dozens at best. – Smyth\^talk 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for most of the above reasons, but maybe as a matter of compromise the article could be trimmed down to a paragraph or two with a link to the website? These folks certainly aren't more notable than that, but I don't know that I could say for absolute certain that they're not serious in their belief. I would hate to be accused of actually oppressing a genuine religion, no matter how completely fabricated it might appear to me. Junjk 23:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My name is Shemayah Phillips (Ebionite COmmunity) and I'd like to say that "Talmidaism" is not a large phenomenon, and a splinter group from my own. An addition to the Ebionite wiki page might be enough with a link. But I wish some more time was spent, and had been sent doing more research on both ancient and modern Yeshuine groups, and a more honest analysis of ancient Judaisms. Yes, JudaismS. Talmidaism should be mentioned for the simple reason that is part of a growing attitude taking place among people of Jewish background (often removed by generations due to forced baptism, cultural pressures, persecution, etc.) who are rediscovering their family's past (as I have, and many of the Ebionites, including many of Latin America of Marrano and Crypto-Jewish families). Additionally, gentiles are also seeking conversion to some form of Yahwism. Gentiles have always done so, even before the predominance of Judah or rabbinic Judaism. Symmachus was a Ebionite convert to Yahwism (since we have to be careful not to use the word Jew when not referring to the modern monopoly on Judaism). Not only this but the same people may be attending rabbinic synagogues, assisting missionized Jews to rejoin rabbinic communities, and various groups who "Judaize." The reason we know so little and must do the research today concerning Yeshuine groups, and Christianity is because of censorship and control of history by single POV people. So the notability of this small group may not be there, but the trend it is a part of certainly is, and Wiki has an opportunity in recording this. How, on what page/article, etc. is the question. Also some comments have been made concerning this group's relationship to "official" Judaism (i.e., Orthodox Judaism whose importance may also be a matter of non-objective POV). I do not know the Talmidi relationship with the Orthodox community other than some mention in these comments about hatred. The Ebionites are not recognized by the Orthodox community---officially. But rabbinic Jews have been present at b'rit milah for Ebionites as witnesses and to read blessings, and even people of Jewish background go through hatafat dam b'rit or milah. Ebionites have been assisted by Chabadniks against Christian missionaries, most recently collaborating in Latin America; Ebionites gladly take the grief from the Christian community for converting Christians to Judaism whether these become Ebionite, Qaraite (Karaite, if you prefer), or rabbinic Jews---while the rabbinic authorities can still maintain dialogue with the Christian community. Muslims have even helped Ebionites in combating Christian missionaries. I do not know how much of this could be true of the Talmidis, but know they take the same view concerning Christian missionaries. Now we are the most extreme of such groups (one missionary group called our site the most blasphemous ---to the Christian view-- on the Internet! ;-)) Add to the phenomenon "Jewish Roots" groups and other Christian and former Christian Judaizing groups. As part of all this, Talmidaism is notable as one of the components. I think the short section on Modern Ebionites in "Ebionites" is appropriate. It says that there are people still practicing a form of Evyonut, and allows them to follow links. Maybe something similar, in an article discussing the modern Judaizing phenomenon would provide notice of Talmidaism, and other similar groups. But it is a disservice to vote them out of existence on Wiki because of more a censorship type response than objective expression. Also there is a problem concerning the difference between Nazarenes and Ebionites. Let me suggest a better way of looking at the problem than calling people Jewish-Christians, etc. Yeshuines (who were not Christians at all) were concerned with the man Yeshua (Jesus) as known from his life example and teaching. Paulines, and related groups like the Gnostics (Paulines or Pneumatics) were/are concerned with the resurrected Jesus (the Risen Christ) as revealed in visions and spiritual/mystical communication to Paul of Tarsus and others. Of course, I think the Pneumatics are full of it---but that doesn't matter because they sincerely believe in these revelations as much as we seek more rationally derived infomation. Ancient Nazarenes came to compromise to certain Pneumatic, Pauline doctrines. Some Ebionite later took up Gnostic/Pneumatic beliefs. I hve an article from a Christian biographical dictionary that makes this distinction (Ebionites Proper vs. Essene type Ebionites) well.

I don't think deletion is the answer as much as placement and revision. shemayah@ebionite.org

For whatever it might be worth, I agree with you. There are indeed modern-day followers of the belief system espoused (according to Christian polemicists, at the very least) by the 3rd and early 4th-century Ebionites. This is a noteworthy phenomenon in the context of the Ebionites article. The terms "Talmidi Judaism" and "Talmidaism", however, have never, as far as I can find, ever been applied to such groups, collectively or otherwise, except for by one specific group of claimants to this tradition, who use the term gratuitously to describe everyone with whom they think they agree on theological and eschatological issues. Such sheer conjecture is not encyclopedic, hence my opposition to the continued inclusion of this article in WP. Tomer ^TALK 07:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I would just like to clarify something about the expression Talmidaism. This label was created by Jayjg because he could not bear to use the terms Talmidi Judaism and Talmidi Jews. I let it stand as a compromise with him in the course of editing the article. It's all explained on the Talk page. As far as the origin of the term Talmidi, it's a modern designation. It's inception and purpose are also explained on the Talk page, as an umbrella term to include more Yahwistic groups than the Ebionites. --Ovadyah 13:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belongs on the talk page of the article. Can you restrict comments on this page to the issue of whether the page is to be deleted or retained? Thank you. JFW | T@lk 16:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is relevent to the discussion at hand because web searches for such terms are being used as criteria for exclusion of the article. Thank you back. --Ovadyah 17:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPThe ebionites really did exist. Why would you want to do away with the truth that the Ebionites were Jews not worshippers of Jesus? The early church fathers speak of them and in a quite negative way. My guess is that the church attempted to erase them from history being that their writings no longer exist. What little we know about the movement 2000 years ago shows that they didn't accept the virgin birth, trinity, or the writings of Paul. Early followers of Yahshua were Jews. They weren't looking for a new religion but reform within their own. Any true studier of the scriptures will eventually come to realize that most of the church doctrines are nothing more than tales of pagan dieties transferred over to a man named Jesus/Yahshua. Those that birthed the religion known as Christianity voted these pagan stories in example: Council of Nicea. Gentiles find themselves extracted from the churches as they begin to question as they learn. This is a great article to show them that they are not the only ones out there. Many go on to convert to Judaism or to be Noachides. I think it would be ashame for this article to be removed. Bethany
  • OOOH! Sockpuppets!!! Yippie!. Sockpuppet Bethany: noobdy's saying the Ebionites didn't exist, see Ebionite. Nobody's even saying they don't exist today...just that they're insufficiently noteworthy, as well as insufficiently noteworthy, for inclusion in an independent WP article. Tomer ^TALK 21:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not me Tomer. I don't need to resort to subterfuge to make my arguments. And as far as I know, Shmuliq is gone from Wikipedia. There is no reason to think this Bethany person is a fake, other than your own wishful thinking. Speaking of sockpuppets, it sounds like you could use one. Stop being such a sourpuss and let others have their say. --Ovadyah 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you assume that it was you that was being accused of being the sockpuppet? Carbonite | Talk 23:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Loremaster 23:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Bethany is an Ebionite from our group. She is giving her two cents, which looks to be one cent more than some. I think some editors take themselves a little too seriously. The one notable difference is from a few (Loremaster, Wetman?) who recognize that an attempt should be made to chronicle rather than suppress things they may not understand or have the scholarly background to tackle--like some of the Users. I vote Keep to make a point that some folks voting Delete are fabricating excuses based on something other than editorial issues. Also it is apparent to me that while a good number of written sources Ebionites were consulted, contemporary information was not checked. I had to make corrections as to the year we started, and a claim that I was a Baptist minister (!!!! Never !!!!) and this incorrect information is still mirrored and cached all over the internet. The way to improve Wiki is to research the information from actual living sources, rather than delete everything outside your experience. Loremaster (if he is responsible for Ebionites) took corrections I placed, while I tried not to place an ad, and presented them in a responsible way. I think something can be learned. What the hell is a sockpuppet? Sounds like adolescent slang for something derrogatory.
    • See Sockpuppet. Please review WP:Civility and WP:AGF. Please also consider getting an account. That said, by your own admission, you are a member apparently of the "Talmidi Jews" or whatever, which is nice, welcome to the project, but you can't just write up a description of your beliefs and publish them on WP. This is an encyclopedia project, please see what Wikipedia is not: it's not a forum, it's not an advertisement board, it's not a webhosting service. To establish this, WP has a very specific policy prohibiting what is called (on Wikipedia) "original research". Including mention of this group is, as I've said previously, far less questionable in a section on "Modern Ebionites" in the Ebionites article, but as only one claimant to that title, and with such poor verifiability using outside sources, there is no WP policy that supports maintaining this article, either as "Talmidaism" or "Talmidi Jews". Tomer ^TALK 16:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Shemayah Phillips, if that's who this is, is not a member of the "Talmidi Jews". He is the paqid of the Ebionite Community. --Ovadyah 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sorry, I did not identify myself in the Keep vote directly above. And it is true that I am not a talmidi. I am a member, but joined only to make a correction concerning the Baptist minister matter. I don't want to participate--not that these comments I have made would prove it--edit articles, etc. It was a means of correcting the info. in the Ebionite article. I will look at the Tomer links given above.Shemayah Phillips.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable work written by the anonymous creator of the Talmidaism movement and article (see above). From what I can tell it has not even been published, merely produced online. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
• Keep. Minor notability, unless this is a hoax. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

  Withdrawn. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Delete. Temple Sholom Cookbook has sold more copies. Tomer ^TALK 19:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable writings of User:Shmuliq. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn --Eliezer 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable unpublished book from non-notable movement. See above. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
• Keep. Minor notability, unless this is a hoax. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

  Withdrawn. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Eliezer 9 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)
• Delete, there is no useful information on this page. It could be merged with the other talmidi (or whatever it is called) page --Josiah 02:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not a repository of articles about unpublished hypothetical manuscripts. Tomer ^TALK 19:35, July 13, 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 copyvio, already deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement for non-notable company (Alexa rank >1,000,000) Bobbis 8 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio from here [25], the page should probably be marked as such (I was getting to it but you beat me there with a VFD) Mr Bound July 8, 2005 20:11 (UTC)
• Delete definite copyvio. Jaxl 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 9 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
• Delete copy violation, advertisement —Tokek 9 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article is composed of a dicdef and examples of the dicdef. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary. As original author and new to the pedia world, I was not aware of the Wiktionary. Sorry for messing this great site up. I also believe that the "I heard gullibility wasn't in Wiktionary!" image is an excellent examble of Gullibility (with humor). July 12, 2005
• Move to Wiktionary. Karol July 8, 2005 22:03 (UTC) Delete. Karol 06:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef - and its first statement is false 'gullability is an adjective' no it's not - it is an abstract noun! --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
• delete dicdef with incorrect definition —Tokek 9 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)
• Delete, if only so people can do the "I heard gullibility wasn't in Wikipedia!" jokes... but seriously, folks, dicdef. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
• Wiktionary doesn't want this rubbish when it has adequate gullible and gullibility articles already. Please choose other courses of action. Uncle G 02:18, 11 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. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

non notable Elfguy 8 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

• Comment. Apparently he got a Forbes writeup: [26] Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
• Comment: 461 hits on google; quite a few seem relevant. He may be notable enough. [27] Jaxl 8 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
• Keep. This person is a notable educator. The text should be expanded and wikified a bit, and categorized. Besides that I don't see any problem with it. Karol July 8, 2005 22:06 (UTC)
• Keep. I get 543 Google hits which wouldn't be enough usually, except that they all do seem to be him and he gets coverage in a wide range of media. Seeing as he has the (faintly ridiculous) title of " High Arc Grand Principal" at a school (groan...) on which we have an article, High Tech High, he qualifies as notable. -Splash 9 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator fails to demonstrate non-notability. Please try again. —RaD Man (talk) 9 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was already redirected. Woohookitty 05:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV, original research, promises of more "wiki articles" to come...joy. I tagged it as a speedy but another user disagrees with that assessment, so here 'tis. Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

• Delete inherently POV title --Doc (?) 8 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Lucky 6.9's Faulty View ;) Sorry, I had to. I'm not sure it qualifies as speedy, but I'm more than happy to say Delete on your grounds. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  • Time to get my eyes checked.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
• Keep edit out POV keep the content. very good topic once it is NPOV'ed 134.161.244.216 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
• Delete; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jaxl 8 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
• Delete, Blatant angry non-NPOV.--Vizcarra 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme POV --Neigel von Teighen 8 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
• Neutral could be kept and if the tone was made more sophisticated and it was moved to a more sensible name. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful, of which there may be none, into Young Earth creationism. There's a short section on dinosaurs there already, and it could be lengthened with a de-POV-ization of parts of this article. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
• Merge. Even if we were to somehow eliminate the POV tone, it would have to be moved as the title doesn't meet WP nomenclature guidlines. Merge into Young Earth Creationism if anything is salvageable. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
• Merge if possible, per above. If nothing can be merged, then delete. I left a note on the page for the author about the POV issues with the article but I don't think the author cares.--Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 23:52 (UTC) Delete. I originally raised the issue of this article not being a candidate for speedy delete b/c the author was a newbie and could possibly learn how to do NPOV. This is not happening. I also don't believe the article can be merged at this point. Delete this now and move on to other issues.--Alabamaboy 14:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a total rant and I don't think the author deserves the benefit of the doubt that any of his info is worth merging anywhere. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Delete ranting POV, original research. -Splash 9 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Merge into Young Earth creationism. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
• Abstain, but I believe more dispassionate content of this sort would belong as rebuttal in Young Earth Creationism. Xoloz 9 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:07 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant --Russ Blau (talk) July 9, 2005 11:18 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This article's creation was an accident, see the creator's talk page, where he says "So can you delete the article from this site, please?" (Crazyharp81602 (talk · contribs) --brian0918&#153; 9 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • He changed his mind. I urged him to participate in this discussion. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to speedy delete. The page has been blanked. - Lucky 6.9 9 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• Actually, no it hasn't.... I just went there... but I'm going to vote Speedy delete as attack page/rant too. --Idont Havaname 20:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing worth merging from this poorly written rant. Denni☯ 23:46, 2005 July 9 (UTC)

• Delete - POV --InformationalAnarchist 23:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ok everyone, I've look at your neutral point of view page and I got the message. I went back and fixed my entire article to fit in with what you want out of an wiki article. Is my article exactly what you want? I hope so. Plus I would like to make a request. Since I'm new here and I can't rename the title of my article just yet, can you please rename my article to Dinosaurs: The Young Earth View and the Critic's Objections of it? I would really appreciate it. Please do not delete my article. Let me keep it on your site and merge it with the Young earth creationism article. Hopefully this is what you want.Crazyharp81602 10 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

• It's nice, for a change, to see someone actaully go and read the guidances as a result of their article turning up on VfD. However, in the very first sentence you say "Young Earth Creationists (YECs) holds a very bizarre belief " — without reading any further, that is still POV. Reading further, the article still has profound POV problems in at least several places. Also, an article of this nature, and without verifiable references to externalize the viewpoints, is original research which is also disallowed, I'm afraid. -Splash 17:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author fixed the opening and has inserted some references. I believe this definately fall under the "don't bite the newbie" rule. Since the author is very willing to work to bring this article to acceptable standards, we should not delete it. The title, though, will have to change. Any suggestions? (BTW, in light of the author's willingness to change the article, I have changed my vote to keep.--Alabamaboy 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I don't think my comment bites the newbies at all. And it still stands, since there are many parts of the article where the emphasis is clearly that the creationists are wrong, another example would be "When confronted with the true notion, given out by critics, that plants do die after they are eaten, YECs would counter this". I still think that the article remains essentially POV original research. As for the references, they are so POV they almost need removing on the spot, saying "they don't mix" and calling it a "heresy". It's good that the author wants to improve it, but I think the article should be deleted and the author work on it in their userspace until it it can be made an article again. -Splash 21:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article still has major POV issues. I recommended to the author that he keep working on the article--especially on the POV issues--even if it is deleted. Perhaps he could title it Dinosaurs (Young Earth creationism). I just hate to discourage a newbie (esp. since I'm such a newbie myself).--Alabamaboy 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right. However, if this article text is deleted and the content recreated on another page, it would qualify for speedy deletion as reposted content. Hence my suggestion to copy it to the author's userspace, where this kind of thing is ok. If it survives the VfD there is of course no problem. -Splash 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I believe the article should not be deleted. Why not give the author and others a chance to finish rewriting the piece, to achieve NPOV and so on? --Alabamaboy 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because, personally, I do not think there exists an encyclopedic NPOV article to be made. Sounds harsh, but that's just the way I see it. -Splash 15:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Inherently POV. ~~~~ 22:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 'keep any inherent POV is due to creationists being morons, not in the article.
• Delete "A Creationist's Faulty View." You can tell it's POV from just looking at the title. It also is not written very well. -- BMIComp (talk) 01:21, 14 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.