Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

[edit]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NigSek

[edit]

Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 00:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the Google hit count hasn't changed. I said unique Google hits. Just including all of them is rather misleading because the remaining 680-odd almost entirely come from a single source: www.gaminw.net which just has loads of internal hits for this one piece of software. It's important to scroll through the first few pages of Google hits in cases like this, as Google helpfull indicates the correct number of true hits by truncating the list. -Splash 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right but I'm not changing my vote. RPG seems such a niche hobby. --Vizcarra 01:06, 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.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 20:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Brent Shaw

[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. It appears to be true that he did write one published book review, but considering also that a google search of "brent shaw" + University of Lethbridge (to get rid of false positives for this presumably common name) gives 23 hits, it does not establish notability. Delete. --Dmcdevit 00:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Eeks! I'm certainly not happy about this nomination. I should have researched it more fully, (Amazon next time as well as Google). Thanks for the catch, and I'm blushing brightly in front of my computer screen. (In my own defense, I was finishing up someone else's nomination, and so gave it less thought than I normally would have). Speedy keep and bonk the nominator on the head (speedily). --Dmcdevit·t 08:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn per nominator. If he had written one published book that would be different. -Splash 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Forbsey 01:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A professor who has produced eight pages of published work in 11 years probably should worry more about keeping his job than about his placement in WP. Okay, he published a little more than that but I still vote Delete. Publishing in one's field is a requirement for a professor, not an accomplishment. To be encyclopedic, one should have to be regarded as a special authority in that field; otherwise, one is just an academic. Dcarrano 01:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has made a significant contribution to the study of "Environment and Society in Roman North Africa" [1]. Of course you get a low number of google hits when using an extremely restricted search, it's not a valid test. Kappa 01:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have written one book, edited at least one other, according to Amazon. [2] Expand and cleanup, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:56, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
  • Keep based on amazon.com findings and expand article. Postdlf 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is noteable; expand. Phoenix2 04:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep due to amazon. Benna 05:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per comments by Dcarrano. Writing one book just isn't that notable for an academic. —Cleared as filed. 05:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • More than one, if this item from the Princeton Weekly is any indication:

Shaw will come to Princeton from the University of Pennsylvania, where he has been a professor since 1996. From 1995 to 1996 and from 1989 to 1990, he was a visiting professor of Greek and Roman history at Princeton. For 15 years, starting in 1977, he taught at the University of Lethbridge in Canada.

Specializing in Roman history, religion and material culture, Shaw's books include Spartacus and the Slave Wars: A Brief History with Documents, published by St. Martin's Press in 2001; and Variorum editions of Environment and Society in Roman North Africa and Rulers, Nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa, published in 1995. He earned his B.A. from the University of Alberta and his Ph.D. from Cambridge University.

  • I say keep. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable historian with a number of published books on Roman history. Capitalistroadster 06:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable academic with several published works. And don't just use Amazon, use library catalogues. All the catalogues of all the best and largest libraries in the world (Library of Congress, British Library, Bibliothèque national de France, all national and major university libraries in Europe and North America etc.) are freely available over the net. This is not just directed at the nominator in this case, but to everybody who makes nominations of this kind or votes on them. This should really be in the instructions somewhere. Uppland 08:48, 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. Postdlf 05:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris RPG Online (http://solarisrpg.com)

[edit]

Non-notable website with only 37 displayed hits for "Solaris RPG Online". Niteowlneils 00:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And even that truncated search term only gets 62 displayed hits[3]. Niteowlneils 01:34, 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.

The result of the debate was DELETE.

ArabJet

[edit]

A 'planned' airline that gets less than 10 displayed hits, with about half being other uses or Wikipedia mirrors. Project was announced last August[4], and http://www.arabjet.com still says nothing but 'coming soon' with an email link to get any info. Barely verifiable, and WP is not a crystal ball. Niteowlneils 00:22, 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 SPEEDY DELETED as vandal hoax, confirmed by comment from article author on this VfD talk page. Postdlf 10:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle bakke

[edit]

This page is either prophetic - or lies. You decide. I vote delete --Doc (?) 00:22, 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. Postdlf 05:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C Programming Mistakes

[edit]

(Please also review Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Summit for a related entry)

  • Delete or move to Wikibooks. —BenFrantzDale 20:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up. There's a lot more useful content here than in some rather-popular Wiki articles. Atlant 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Wikibooks -- not encyclopedic, and much of the content is of dubious correctness anyway. Neilc 01:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Many are also vague like "Consider providing Error Stratergies" or "Do Not Create Buffer Overflow problems", which is about the same as saying "do not write code with bugs". —BenFrantzDale June 28, 2005 14:20 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Wikibooks. Whether or not the content is objectionable, it's certainly not in the format of an encyclopedia article. The C article already extensively discusses problems with C, which covers much of this, and anything it doesn't could be merged into that section. Besides, much of the advice is not specific to C. Be gentle on the contributor though — they're obviously new and probably didn't realise this material was inappropriate. I'd suggest merge and redirect, but the title is nothing someone could conceivably type in a search box. Deco 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Also note that the bottom portion of this article (the part that looks good) is copied directly from C programming language without credit. This is not only dishonest but kind of silly, since the writer evidently didn't actually use any of these sources. Deco 21:45, 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.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christine eckerfield

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect → Slut (Definition already on Witionary) --Allen3 talk 16:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hussy

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Videos

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
History Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete non-notable series of amateur videos. Unreferenced Mayalld 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, although the current version does nothing to address the issues for which it was deleted (notability and verfiability). I'm not a big fan of rerunning AfDs simply because we can. Besides, our inclusion standards have tightened up considerably since then, so extremely few things deletable by our 2005 stardards would be keepable today. If anything, the fact that nothing significantly new has happened in the previous two years suggests our decision then was spot-on: that this is unverifiable, unreferencable, utterly non-notable and completely unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was sorely tempted to speedy as a G4, but suspected that it would keep getting recreated and that somebody would cry foul for relying on an old AfD, etc. etc. Mayalld 16:49, 3 December 2007 (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. jni 11:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splank's Law

[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. CDC (talk) 01:50, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Entire content was "Long Lake, Ontario." Postdlf 03:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long Lake (Ontario)

[edit]

Empty article PhilipO 01:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC) PhilipO[reply]

We cannot delete something that isn't there. Delist. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:55, 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 merge and redirect to Franz Kafka. -- BD2412 talk 03:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dora Dymant

[edit]

Barely notable with Kafka and almost invisible without. brenneman(t)(c) 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Franz Kafka. Pburka 03:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, and merge only that she lived with him. The rest of this sounds horridly suspicious. They dreamed in 1924 (a single year) of moving to Tel-Aviv? Was there a Tel-Aviv? He wanted to be a waiter? He then got into the Talmud? Excuse me, but I want bullet proof references for every one of those statements, and even that she lived with him. Geogre 15:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect warily. Yes, Tel Aviv has existed since 1909. Besides that, it all seems flimsy. royblumy 22:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Pburka. Dcarrano 16:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that the article I wrote doesn't meet the requirements, and I'm surely after the deletion. Most of the information is gotten from Kafka for beginners by David Zane Mairowitz & Robert Crumb. — Amakuha 23:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martinsburg and Winchester metal and punk

[edit]

Bandcruft -Tydaj 02:23, 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 jni 11:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck In Kaos

[edit]

Bandcruft -Tydaj 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Band vanity. No AMG entry, no listing on amazon.com. Some web presence, but according to their website, their only album was "recorded ourselves in the basement of our then band room to set our songs in concrete and to get something out there to start promoting ourselves." Their upcoming second album, which also appears to be self-recorded due to the glaring lack of a label mention, will only be sold at their live shows and through their website. Stuck in nonnotability... Postdlf 03:02, 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. jni 11:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damnatus

[edit]

Advertising, nn Atratus 02:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is one of those that fails by its own terms—"amateur movie project"=nonnotable vanity/advertising. Postdlf 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may be a fan movie, but within the 40K community this is a milestone movie. A large following has grown around what is a feature length amateur movie. Wikipedia has kept worse than this. I do agree it needs expanding and fleshed out a bit more though. Ben W Bell 08:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for a non notable fanflick. JamesBurns 08:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertising, non-notable. Naturenet | Talk 11:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it gains notability after it's release, we can talk. NN. Not a crystal ball. Wikibofh 14:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 1) doesn't exist yet, so nothing may be said; 2) not a major release or one with distribution; 3) advertising for downloads of the sountrack -- sorry -- epic soundtrack. If it gets finished, gets exhibited, gets press, becomes a leader or exerts influence, then we can have an NPOV article on it. Geogre 15:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Dcarrano 16:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 22:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete (with open mind) fanfiction work-in-progress. The most notable thing about the situation is [the Games Workshop] flexible attitude toward intellectual property that allows this sort of thing. Someday the film, if completed, might rate a footnote on the Games Workshop article or it might rate an article of its own depending on fan response, as noted above. The article certainly could find a home at another wiki. I personally am going to bookmark the site and watch their progress with interest. A lot of talent, energy and hard work is going into this labor of love. ~ WCFrancis 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was the one who originally started the article - I heard about this movie and thought that it would be a significant thing for people who are interested in Warhammer 40K in that there has never been a movie set in the Warhammer 40K universe. Given the amount of information about the games etc in relation to Games Workshoop I think that it would be remiss if wikipedia didn't contain something about this. BTW I am not accociated with the movie in any way - I only put in the info about the soundtrack because I thought that it would be of interest. Gil-Galad
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:48, 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 keep. Barely. Woohookitty 06:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barney & Friends episodes

[edit]

Um, since I hate Barney more than Hitler? No? Ok, how about "not ecyclopedic"? brenneman(t)(c) 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing that list out to me. No disageement about the validity of pop culture for inclusion, just of the merits of a list of this nature. Is there any reason these aren't merged into their parent articles? (Changing this into an unfortunate pseduo vote for merge.) brenneman(t)(c) 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length of the article is usually the concern for splitting these off, because these will typically have episode summaries added that would just make the main article far too long. In this case, given the current size of Barney and Friends, I'm fine with merging until the content grows enough to necessitate splitting back off. Postdlf 03:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides length, I have also noted that FAC nominations tend to hit a brick wall if the articles are too list-heavy. If anyone wants to put the main article up for Featured Article status, they pretty much need to spin lists off into their own articles. 23skidoo 13:00, 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. jni 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filler fan

[edit]

Delete neologism/message board vanity. Postdlf 02:50, 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 redirect to Arbitrary precision. -- BD2412 talk 20:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Infinite precision arithmetic

[edit]

Quite difficult to form an opinion based upon what currently exist. However this turns up very little, and Wolfram has nothing.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:58, 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. jni 11:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity niches

[edit]

Mostly finishing incomplete nomination, but inclined towards delete--seems awfully subjective, thus POV. I mean yeah, Terri Garr and Lisa Kudrow are often compared, but Dustin Hoffman and Zack Braff? And is "Charlie Chaplin --> Johnny Depp" accurate, or should it be "Charlie Chaplin --> Robert Downey Jr."? Niteowlneils 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - It does seem very subjective. I wouldn't even agree on the Chaplin -> Downey idea. Chaplin acted, wrote, directed, and scored films. The closest comparison I can think of there might be Woody Allen or Ruben Blades. I think might be better without the examples, but it's hard to understand the description without some examples. Maybe it could use one or two solid examples to give the idea. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think an argument could also be made for "Charlie Chaplin --> Paul Reubens"--also a writer, producer, composer, and director, in addition to acting, plus is better known for physical comedy, rather than Allen's more cerebral. Just more evidence of the slippery slope of the article's premise. Niteowlneils 04:48, 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 No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 talk 16:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

David_Madden

[edit]

While he's the current champion on Jeopardy! and dominating his games so far, his streak really isn't long enough to be noteworthy quite yet. People have done better than he has and lost sooner. OntarioQuizzer 03:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've already commented on this in the main article but I feel this also bears repeating here. Whether or not the encylopedic nature of an article is in dispute does not mean it's an excuse to goof around and pretend this is an Uncyclopedia article. We do have to maintain a certain professional standard in our article writing, and certainly avoid inserting biased opinions meant primarily to mock instead of inform. Like I alluded to, there's Uncyclopedia if you want to goof around that badly. Also, I think someone should add a clean-up tag (maybe that would be more appropriate than a VfD tag?) User:24.9.10.235
  • Keep. He's already broken Tom Walsh's record (two, actually). If we delete his article we might as well delete Tom's and merge with the main Jeopardy! or Ken Jennings article then, going by the logic by some here. User:24.9.10.235
    • Well you can't break a record that's already been broken; it doesn't work that way, or else I would have broken the 1880 land speed record on my way to breakfast this morning. -R. fiend 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to your logic, Wade Boggs' (whose about to be inducted into Cooperstown in a few days) entry should be denied because he never has done anything truly exceptional, or John Elway or Dan Marino should be removed from the Hall of Fame because they've never done anything truly Earth-shattering such as Terry Bradshaw's Super Bowl winning record (hell, Marino has never won a single Super Bowl!). For that matter, according to the same logic Tom Walsh's page needs to be verified for deletion too, since Madden (let alone Jennings) have proven it's hardly an insurmountable figure (let's face it, it's only seven games). The reason why it is an important milestone is because this is only the second time that record has been surpassed (although I personally believe it will hardly be the last) but for now it's at least as notable as Tom Walsh's old record.
        • Nope, I'm just saying he didn't break a record, which is true. And, indeed, I'm no great proponent of Walsh's page either, but (like it or not) he did hold a few records, which Daveyboy has not done. And if old whatshername had realized that the Ode to Joy was not 70 minutes long (no matter how slow its played) Dave would be yesterday's news already. I'm not saying he won't be the next big thing in game show contestants; I'm just saying as of now he isn't. -R. fiend 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • He may not have broken any records yet but for the time being he's a notable player and it looks like he'll surpass the 15-game mark many people have mentioned as being the threshold allowing him an article. Once again, according to your logic many notable people should be ignored, a logic I frankly find to be ignorant at best. Think of it this way; if he does manage to win $1,000,000 in non-tournament winnings he'll still probably become a 'cause celeb' and yet still be about a third from Jennings' total winnings. Because the new records are so insurmountable, I think we shouldn't be so hung up on them.
            • Nowhere did I say he needed to hold a record to be notable enough for an article, I merely said a record would likely justify one. My main point is that the Walsh comparisons were flawed because Walsh was both a first and a holder of three records (and even his notability is somewhat questionable in my book); Madden doesn't fit either of those criteria. Maybe he will soon warrant an article, but I don't think he has yet, and he certainly didn't when this article was written. -R. fiend 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • To tell you the truth I've been kinda waivering between "keep" and "delete" myself, but I think we can give Madden the benefit of the doubt and keep it for now. I don't think it will be too much longer for him to gain noteriety (he's only $200,000 away from half a million; that may seem like quite a bit but it took him only, what, two weeks to get $200,000?), and if he falls short we can always delete later. Or whatever the Wikiministrators decide.
  • Keep. Why don't we just give this situation the benefit of the doubt? After all, it would be much easier to decide to delete the article if he loses on tomorrow's episode, for example. Why jump on it now if the possibility exists that he may become noteworthy later on? In fact, David only has to win once more to tie the previously-held record of wins prior to Ken Jennings which was Tom Walsh who was the first contestant to win more than 5 games when the 5-game rule was eliminated. asert 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the season ends next week, and won't start up again until September. ral315 13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Now, the number of wins stands at seven. That ties the record of Tom Walsh, so it is noteworthy. asert 01:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here really. If he actaully approaches anything like Ken then we can create an article on him. This doesn't say anything anyway. Alex uses the K-word once in a haphazard remark and everyone thinks this guy's on the way to win 70 more games. I think a good test will be to see when and if he's mentioned outside of the show (and internet forums on the show). After Ken won about 12 games or so I think it was, Letterman started talking about him, as did others. Doesn't seem to be happening with Dave yet. All this "chronicling the next Ken" was all over wikipedia the moment he lost, and nothing panned out there. Patience. -R. fiend 06:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable contestant. JamesBurns 08:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no match for Ian Lygo on that king of quiz shows 100% -- the wub "?/!" 12:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would support him receiving an article after about 15 or 20 wins. However, he's only won 6 games (to put in perspective, nearly a hundred contestants won 5 games and then were forced to retire before the rule change). Besides, his 15th win wouldn't air until September. ral315 13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - and yawn... A curate's egg 15:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A contestant. Ken is in because he was a cause celeb. There is no indication whatever of this fellow being referred to in the general media, that he is a cultural signifier. He's just a person doing well on a show. There have been legions of such. I wouldn't want an article on him no matter how many wins unless he were a subject requiring explanation to an educated reader of the future. We are not the high game counter of TV shows. Geogre 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per R. fiend and Geogre. Dcarrano 16:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Qualified delete, perhaps include the info in a brief elab on a List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. knoodelhed 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP because seven days is a rare occurrence on Jeopardy, and it is noteworthy. If he lasts longer than Tom Walsh (and that would be one more game), then definitely keep it. Jordan Elder 17:29, July 13 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if Tom Walsh gets an article, so does this guy. Radagast 02:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've added somewhat to the article's breadth with some biographical details. Radagast 01:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Jordan Elder & Radagast. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 02:51:09 Z
  • Delete there is notthing noable about this contestant beyond his time on the show. --nixie 04:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Tom Walsh probably shouldn't have an article either. I guess he does only because he was the first player ever to appear on a 6th show, which had basically nothing to do with him, but everything to do with a change in the rules and good timing. (Well, not nothing; he had to win a bunch of games, which isn't trivial, but not exactly encyclopedic). He also held several Jeopardy records. Madden is only 70 games and about 3 million dollars away from holding one himself. -R. fiend 04:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to the game show. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! Have you guys ever even seen David on Jeopardy? Won't it ever pass your [thick] skulls that eight consecutive days is a rare occurrence on Jeopardy? In fact, this is the third time it's happened, with Tom Walsh and Ken Jennings before him. He might even be the next Ken Jennings, but he already is the next Tom Walsh! He is notable! Besides, I checked the deletion policy and this article can stay, according to it. Why delete it? Jordan Elder 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rare" is not "encyclopedic". I could do all sorts of rare things. 8 appearances on Jeopardy will not be so rare much longer as people are no longer cut off at 5 games. In fact, the 5 games limit had only been removed a short while before someone exceeded it by 15 times. As I said, Tom Walsh held 3 records, Dave is nowhere near even one. When he gets his record, he'll get his page. In fact, I'd like to make a Game show records page as place to cover these contestant stubs (like Walsh) as well as some of the info on Ken's page about records he's held. The only problem is that other than Jeopardy and Millionaire and a few others I'm not entirely sure where to find such information. And to cover all, or most, game shows it would be quite a substantial endeavor. If anyone else likes this idea let me know and maybe we can work on it. The best I can see Madden getting is a runner up for most Jeopardy (regular season) appearances if he gets that far. -R. fiend 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Last summer, when Ken Jennings was at the peak of his popularity (middle of last July), he had over 23,000 hits on Google (for ' "Ken Jennings" Jeopardy ') and 914 Google News hits. ' "David Madden" Jeopardy' has 118 hits on Google, and 0 Google News hits. Ken Jennings has an article because he transcended his genre. Now people are going "9 games? Who cares!" Tom Walsh has an article because at least a modicum of normal people cared about his 7 wins. Dave Madden is still not notable in the context of his newsworthyness, meaning he really does not deserve an article in Wikipedia. --OntarioQuizzer 09:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: And it's like any person can get 9 games, right? Jordan Elder 19:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: 9 games is an impressive streak on Jeopardy, and whether or not he has Google news results (he has one now) has little to do with noteworthiness. If you took Google results into account, you'd be trying to delete Ian Lygo's page. He has 122 web results and 0 news items. Can't you at least give some respect for David? He's probably making more money than any of you.
Note: This is the 3rd Keep vote from this user (Jordan Elder) in this discussion.. --OntarioQuizzer 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is definitely now in my view worthy of the article (the 'keeping him in light of Tom Walsh's article' argument seems more than valid also). --DanielNuyu 07:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Madden is currently notable only to Jeopardy viewers, but I think this vfd is premature. Why don't we wait and see how long he makes it? If he's eliminated soon and thereby becomes nonnotable, we can always delete the article. If he wins a lot and becomes noteworthy, we won't have to come back and recreate a deleted article. As it is, his chances could go either way. I would suggest waiting until we can be sure. Binadot 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The show's 21st season ends on Friday and goes on hiatus until September -- should we be waiting around for 6 weeks for a streak to go over the edge of notability? --OntarioQuizzer 11:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a keeper. Dan100 (Talk) 12:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barely notable in the realm of Jeopardy! translates into not notable for encyclopedic consumption. The arguement that he has performed a "rare" feat is also misleading because Jeopardy! has only recently implmented the format that allows a champion to remain more than five days and much of that period was dominated by a single individual. There is not enough data to determine how rare this feet truly is. Indrian 15:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly we need to be somewhat cautious about namespace pollution, but we're not EB, neither. --Baylink 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Mwl 01:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- just in case my nomination doesn't count. --OntarioQuizzer 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If consensus is judged to be Keep, a disambig should be created for David (considering there are two other David Maddens referenced in other areas of the project. --OntarioQuizzer 12:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the big deal? Isn't this wikipedia thingy supposed to have _everything_ in it? David's a geek who is doing right by himself, and deserves any minor fame he achieves. Besides, he keeps winning and will probably finish the season, and you'll have no choice anyway. Ted from Ontario. 20 July 2005.
Comment: What Wikipedia Is Not -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. David's notoriety is the subject of the discussion. --OntarioQuizzer 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Derktar 05:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC).
Comment: Is this user related to Jordan? I really hope he hasn't started meatpuppeting. --OntarioQuizzer 10:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not related to Jordan, we are both inclusionists though and as inclusionists we are working to keep articles, see:m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members and m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians -- Derktar 19:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC).
Thanks for the clarification -- I noted both of your last names being Elder and figured I should ask. --OntarioQuizzer 02:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppeting? Jordan Elder 02:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-evaluate in a month -- Right now he seems to be somewhat notable enough for mention, this may not turn out to be lasting, it seems hard to say. --Mysidia 02:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't say I'm opposed to the idea, but I just want to point out that Jeopardy! goes on its annual 6 week summer hiatus after tomorrow's episode. Meaning that he'll be at about this level until early September. --OntarioQuizzer 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this debate should have ended by now. He has won 14 in a row which is double that of Tom Walsh. If he is not worthy, then Walsh certainly is not as well. I would say the standard should probably be 10 in a row. As a long time Jeopardy fan my guess is that only 1-2 people per season of Jeopardy will accomplish that feat.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Liberatore

[edit]
  • Delete Poorly written Vanity Page -- PhilipO
  • Delete, even though he's a total cream fest. Joyous (talk) 03:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Invalid vote) KEEEP!1 SAM LIBERAOTRE IS AWESOME I KNOW HIM -dana carroll, rockledge FL
65.33.6.143's contributions. brenneman(t)(c) 06:55, 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 merge with Playpen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Play Pen

[edit]

Dictionary definition. See also: Onesie, High chair, Changing table, Playsuit, Baby Powder, Baby Oil, Blanket sleeper, Plastic pants, Shortalls, Rhumba panties. Please note, no value judgement is intended or implied. brenneman(t)(c) 03:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these entries so offensive to you all? Please explain. Dave 02:23, 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.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Tyria

[edit]

non-notable, probably self-promotion, exact phrase "Dustin Tyria" produces 1 Google result Delete. Joel7687 03:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best first draft of a vanity article I've ever read. Delete anyway. ~ WCFrancis 00:17, 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.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbin club

[edit]

A 6th grade club, that has made millions of dollars selling bobbins. Joyous (talk) 03:48, 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 speedied as re-created content. Joyous (talk) 17:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Krocsyldiphithic

[edit]

Does WP:FICT cover things/themes talked about by main characters? brenneman(t)(c) 03:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The old VFD (nominated 17 April 2005, deleted 1 May 2005) is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kroxyldyphic. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:36, 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. jni 11:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Refai

[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Complete contents: Danish Refai is a teen studying in Mahatma Gandhi International School. He loves playing football and he swims fast. He likes to eat cheese a lot. he dosen'y like to have butter. He is a nice boy Bovlb 03:58:51, 2005-07-13 (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. jni 11:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sagal issak

[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Complete text: Sagal is a woman reknown for her incredible beauty, adventurous spirit and her endless love for her husband Remco Bovlb 04:04:28, 2005-07-13 (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 merge to Orc (Warcraft). The merge has already been carried out, so nothing left but to redirect. -- BD2412 talk 20:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Chaos Orcs

[edit]

Delete as gamecruft. --Halidecyphon 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete If we start posting stuff like this, then this place will just turn into a giant game manual --Dr Ingel 01:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment - How is this different from the Pokemon stuff? -- Dpark 20:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The Pokemon people point out that Pokemon is a TV show and set of stories, and individual pokemon have a following and are as notable fictional characters as many cartoon characters or characters in books. Personally, however, I believe that most of the Pokemon do not deserve article as they are not notable. Note that the Pokemon rule is merely a rule of thumb accepted by some wikipedians, and by no means the law of the land. Whether you accept the Pokemon rules or not, Chaos Orcs are far less notable than Pokemon because they do not have movies about them, cult followings, or life stories.--Halidecyphon 21:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I feel that I should point out that this article isn't about individual Chaos Orcs, but about the group as a whole. And I daresay that Warcraft has a significant following. Perhaps someone would be willing to improve the article. I don't know enough about Chaos Orcs to input anything useful, but I bet if someone took the time to lay out their abilities and weaknesses, and whatever else, the article would flesh out.
      • Comment. The pokemon deserve their own articles if we are to accept WP:FICT as policy (or pseudo policy), by point 3: Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. --Jonathan Christensen 06:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. Not all pokemon do. Hiding 16:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote for the time being. I was originally going to vote delete, and then I was going to vote to merge it into an article such as List of species in Warcraft (species? units?) but similar articles have been deleted in the past. If there seems to be a consensus that lists of units in computer games are not notable, then it hardly seems the units themselves are notable. The WP:FICT policy appears to suggest merging in point 2: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of minor characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. However, if we were simply to delete that list at some later time as gamecruft, that doesn't make any sense. --Jonathan Christensen 06:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, quite right. I didn't realize that article already existed. I now also vote for a merge and delete (or possibly redirect). -- Dpark 04:03, 21 Apr 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. jni 11:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akj

[edit]

Google search on name yeilds nothing as spelled, and very little as google suggest it be spelled. However thare are two groups under the second spelling and I know next to nothing about sikhism. So, Delete, but open to information. brenneman(t)(c) 04:08, 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. jni 11:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Gunz

[edit]

Not yet notable brenneman(t)(c) 04:17, 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 no consensus. The votes are: 3 to delete (including the nominator), 2 to keep. -- BD2412 talk 20:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890

[edit]

This "article" has such minimal content about the book (an advertisement that's practically a dicdef) that it's just listcruft, which is enough to delete it to begin with, but this list in particular I find is also a blatant violation of WP:NOT Indiscriminate Information. The Literate Engineer 04:31, 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 speedy delete, see my comment below, Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakkaran

[edit]

Personal attack/vanity. Unencyclopedic. "He was an under performer in all examinations. His hobby is drinking and fall unconscious in city gutters." Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 04:31, 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.
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 redirect. --Michael Snow 15:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Luther Manson

[edit]

I don't think just being Manson's son justifies to be on wikipedia if he never did anything else worth listing here. (clem 18:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 redirect. --Michael Snow 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Manson, Jr.

[edit]

I don't think just being Manson's son justifies to be on wikipedia if he never did anything else worth listing here. Also his suicide is mentioned on Manson's main page already. (clem 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheatplanet

[edit]

Non-notable game cheat site. Vanity page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as advertising, but the content of the site appears to be decent, perhaps add as an external link to Cheat_code --Mysidia 11:12, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Vote by anon under false signature ignored. Postdlf 05:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChessRally

[edit]

Currently this is simply a vanity page, although if it is notable enough, it might be recoverable. Icelight 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

  • Delete Icelight 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for non-notable product. Dcarrano 16:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as an avid chess player I've not heard of it. The article also reads like a advertisement, so if there is a decision to keep it, it must be rewritten. Barneygumble 20:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable product, even for casual chess players. Clean it up and make it more objective if you feel it is vanity. royblumy 21:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are plenty of chess playing programs and this one isn't notable. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This has been heavily revised (to be non advertisement-ish, which was NOT the intent) since all previous votes, and it IS actually a notable software entry. It's newness to the industry belies its growing popularity, hence some have not yet heard of it... clearly some have :-) If you all feel it needs further revision, no problem, just post in discussion, and I'll be happy to oblige (P.S. If I'm not allowed to vote on my own article, then I humbly apologize in advance!) Rcryniak 22:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • You certainly allowed to vote, but as an article author would be nice if you provide some proof that the software is notable (see request for references on Talk page). Please also indicate if you ask people on external discussion board to come here and vote. I see votes of people who never was on Wikipedia before start appearing. Andreas Kaufmann 07:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Looking at the revisions, the latest seems good, worthy of keeping I think. The product is getting fairly well known, I've used it myself and I'm friends with several International FIDE tournament players and I know a couple of them use it. Dutch1124 0:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese whisper marketing

[edit]

Finishing this old nomination. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 04:46, 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. Postdlf 05:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wolfe

[edit]
  • delete. Not notable. -Wiccan Quagga 09:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Wiccan Quagga. Phoenix2 04:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: does discovering a number of asteroids make you notable? Meelar (talk) 14:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO, not unless the asteroids in question are notable. Delete. Dcarrano 16:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (hate to do it to a fellow astronomer), but I think he'd need a few more honors to make over the bar into notability: Awards/discovering comets/moons/having something named for him. Did he obtain a PhD? Where is he now? --Etacar11 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 21:40, 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. Postdlf 05:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atlassian Software Systems

[edit]

There is nothing noteworthy or encyclopedic about this company; it appears to be nothing more than a corporate ad and link to the company website. —Cleared as filed. 01:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. Even "USA" and "Sydney, Australia" are external links to their website! -- RHaworth 08:55, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant link spam. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising for non-notable company. Dcarrano 16:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert royblumy 21:40, 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 already redirected. Actually this should not be done before the VFD debate is over. Anyway, no big deal. I'll let the redirect stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timbs

[edit]

This article isn't encyclopedic, it's just a dictionary definition and maybe a neologism (found no links on Google about this definition, but it does link to Timberland). —Cleared as filed. 21:44, 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. jni 11:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raup

[edit]

Hardly an article, and a search on Google for "michael raup sheep husbandry" returns nothing indicating it could have any merit. —Cleared as filed. 21:48, 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. jni 11:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avanade

[edit]

Nothing but a corporate ad/self-promotion. —Cleared as filed. 21:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Language includes: "Our people help customers ...", flagging it as promo material, certainly not encyclopedic or NPOV. Notability not established, there are thousands of MicroSoft thralls partners.--WCFrancis 03:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merely because it's advertising (and not because it has two parents from hell, Micro$oft and not-Arthur-Andersen). -- Hoary 12:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. royblumy 21:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:51, 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. jni 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy-Lee Robinson

[edit]

Political vanity page. 62.252.64.18 21:18, 25 Apr 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. jni 11:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clever

[edit]

This article has nothing of real value in it.

CurtisWoodworth 7 July 2005 10:46 (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. jni 11:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton marks

[edit]

A summer job at MedSeek and having hobbies does not automatically make a subject notable... --Mysidia 05:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(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. jni 11:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Fun Guys

[edit]

No google hits. Nothing to establish notability, and much against it. Bovlb 05:27:01, 2005-07-13 (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. jni 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal City Tours

[edit]

Fictitious entity from books and author for which I was unable to find anything notable on Google. Joel7687 05:34, 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. Postdlf 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with lists in the lyrics

[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, undefined (and perhaps undefinable), excessively recursive, listcruft Xoloz 06:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. What's next, List of songs with lists of songs with lists in the lyrics? --Angr/tOk t@ mi 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well-defined type of song. And since List of songs with lists of songs with lists in the lyrics is a sublist of this list, we only need this list for now. ;-) —BenFrantzDale 07:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I must disagree -- Are two things a "list"? "Three"? "Abraham, Martin, and John" for example? Should that be here? Without some more restrictive criteria, at the very least, it will more remarkable to be a song with no list in its lyrics. Mind you, that is only one of my objections. Xoloz 08:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another hypothetical that I find troubling for this list: Without too much stretching, one can reasonably call The Battle Hymn of the Republic a "list of actions taken by (or in response to) God" or The Star-Spangled Banner a "list of impressions recorded at the Battle of Fort McHenry. Without serious clarification, list really is a term in the eye of the beholder. Xoloz 11:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the criteria as an explicit list of ten or more items, given examples (The Alphabet Song and We Didn't Start The Fire), and removed a few items as a result (notably 99 Bottles of Beer On The Wall); more vetting is still needed. —BenFrantzDale 16:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Why ten? Why not nine, or 25, or 1,000? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. It was a first stab at clarifying the criteria for inclusion and in response to Xoloz's valid criticism that 3 items a list song does not make. Perhaps "The majority of the lyrics must constitute an explicit list." If you have a better idea, feel free to change the criteria. —BenFrantzDale 00:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. I don't believe there are criteria for such a list that would make it encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 08:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, irrelevant - Skysmith 09:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, great list. Kappa 10:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculous, unencyclopedic. Taught me a great word, listcruft. I'll bear it in mind. Naturenet | Talk 11:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly listcruft --Doc (?) 12:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclo. Radiant_>|< 13:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xoloz. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but include exactly what a "list" is in the article. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's the point of this? None I can see. Nabla 15:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is exactly the sort of list that makes me want to propose a "Lists may only be permitted as part of larger articles that could stand on their own as articles with the list removed. Otherwise, attempts to form a list as an article must be merged with a legitimate and actual article, converted into a category, or deleted." as a policy. The Literate Engineer 15:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The inclusion of songs like "Kokomo" and "Walk on the Wild Side" make it clear that one man's "list" is another's "motif", "repeated phrase" or "chorus". Too subjective, and honestly accomplishes nothing anyway. The purpose of lists is to shed light on the underlying subject, e.g., the list of songs about drugs helps us understand how drugs are regarded in pop culture. Do we learn anything about "lists" from this article? Obviously not. Dcarrano 16:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree it needs cleanup but with the clarification I gave, that cleanup is now possible. I don't think we learn anything about lists from the article, but we do learn about songs and what people like to sing about. For me this list answers the question "What other songs are like The End Of The World As We Know It and We Didn't Start The Fire?" It may not be a deep question, but I find it fascinating. —BenFrantzDale 17:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep as per BenFrantzDale --royblumy 21:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your trying, but the "list" needs more of a definition than a number (and any number has the problem of arbitrariness.) Blowin' in the Wind is quite literally a list of 12 questions punctuated by its chorus. It is a list with more than ten items, but it isn't what you're looking for (I think). I honestly don't know how to qualify things to get what I think you want. Together with others, even if you did have a foolproof qualification, I'm not sure the list serves an encyclopedic purpose. It would be possible to start a List of songs whose first lyric word is "Since", and that might be curiously amusing, but it is essentially an exercise in the absurd. Xoloz 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Trying to get at a definition is tricky. I'd say Blowin' in the Wind doesn't count because it has a collection of sentences not a list in the typographic sense like We Didn't Start The Fire. (If you remove all the "Yes and"s from the lyrics, then it might start to be a list song.) As for List of songs whose first lyric word is "Since", I don't think there's any point to lists of songs when the list could be derived from a complete database of lyrics and metadata. (The same goes for List of songs by Muddy Waters.) I see the song lists as a good place to collect songs that fall into more-essoteric categories. —BenFrantzDale 06:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
              • When you it put it that way, I am afraid the list violates no original research. See, if there is an esoteric genre of "long, rapid-fire list" songs, there should be an article on that topic, citing primary sources that have discussed this genre. One can't "sneak" esoteric, original research into the encyclopedia by way of a list. I think my point here echoes the Literate Engineer above. Xoloz 08:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But it made me laugh. Moncrief 21:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting idea, but firm criteria for inclusion need to be developed. Gamaliel 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unencyclopedic, etc. --Joel7687 10:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subworthless listcruft. Although there must be a few hundred rap songs that would have fulfilled the criteria for this list (especially as every rap song sounds like an angry man reciting his shopping lists). Proto t c 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep please there is nothing wrong with this list Yuckfoo 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to collect a random group of objects together using a set of esoteric criteria. Indrian 15:50, 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 KEEP. I see only one useful vote after the cleanup, but there's no point relisting it on VfD because he would plainly be kept. -Splash 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Bloomquist

[edit]

This is a joke and not a real article. There is a question as to whether he is of enough signifigance to earn a Wiki page. D Wilbanks 07:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least keep it true and clean and let it stay. Stop messing with it folks.

Not a real article. As a Seattle Mariners fan, I like to rag on Bloomquist as much as any other fan, but Wiki is not the place to do it. Bloomquist is not really of enough signifigance to earn his own Wiki page.

It's fine now. I don't see why he wouldn't deserve a page, he's a MLB regular and linked to by two other articles. He's also a local fan favorite.

There's nothing wrong with a Wiki page for Bloomquist; the problem is the kids who keep changing the entry thinking it is "funny."

  • As the article seems to be cleaned up now, keep--subject is a Major League Baseball player, all of whom are inherently notable. Meelar (talk) 14:28, 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. jni 11:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progress of true science

[edit]

Looks like either original research, or some tidbit better merged elsewhere --Bletch 12:36, 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. jni 11:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voidmazun

[edit]

Vanity-- BMIComp (talk) 07:48, 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. Postdlf 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of chess problems

[edit]

Mere collection of chess problems doesn't belong to encyclopedia. More appropriate place for this stuff is e.g. Wikibooks. Andreas Kaufmann 21:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't even show the problems directly but links to yet another page on the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Mgm says, all it does is link to tactical chess problems which doesn't look like it should be hanging around either. Dcarrano 17:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless royblumy 21:37, 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. Feel free to recreate as an appropriate redirect if you desire. Postdlf 06:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CookBookWiki

[edit]

Webvertisement --Amoore 20:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect A redirect to the described website could prove helpful. --Soltak 00:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't redirect an article to an external link. Redirects are for article space → article space only, except in special cases. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement, WP:NOT a web guide. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, soft redirect to our Wikibooks Cookbook. Radiant_>|< 14:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement, then redirect to Wikibooks Cookbook. Dcarrano 17:08, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal reality

[edit]

Recent and not that well-known, likely vanity/self-promotion; Alexa ranking is 3,554,475 at the moment Joel7687 09:31, 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. Postdlf 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ManageEngine OpManager

[edit]

Advertising -- Ferkelparade π 09:38, 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. Postdlf 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon del Pozo

[edit]

Don't see any notability here, am i wrong? Feydey 09:42, 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. Postdlf 06:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GASH

[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unnotable. Delete MAdaXe 09:55, 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. Postdlf 06:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Saklad

[edit]

Tagged as a speedy by User:Lucky 6.9 with the reason "Please tell me this doesn't have to stay up here for five days. Please." Sorry, but none of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion are fulfilled. But here is a delete vote for non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 13 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.

i'm confused. is the writer[8] being defined as a notable kook or me? which makes me[9] notable again. but what do i know about these things? oh well.-- [email protected] 04:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure that User:Donwarnersaklad is actually Don? Yeah, I know, it can be hard to tell... -- Kaszeta 14:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the person writing the User:Donwarnersaklad material isn't actually Don Saklad (if it's Don's account, he's letting someone use it). It's not in the real Don's writing style. -- Seth Finkelstein
somebody's figured out that i got a cutout -- [email protected] 16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He's been a long-time eccentric usenet personality, and has plenty of web pages dedicated to him [10][11][12], unlike your typical small-potatoes run-of-the mill kook. He also seems to get around, I've seen him on Slashdot[13], Livejournal[14], and even here. If Archimedes Plutonium gets a page, Don deserves one too. -- Kaszeta 14:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Invalid vote) Strong Keep for me too. I am one of the moderators of a well-established library-related listserv that is one of the few places his posts are welcome, per listserv policy. Don is weird, and in the multitude of places he posts his stuff, it is rarely on point. But there is something notable about being the town crazy. He forms a kind of reality check for the rest of us. I believe in this respect he has achieved a kind of notability that is worthy of inclusion. Like his posts, you don't have to read his entry if you aren't interested. James Quinn --Jamesiegod 18:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit.
  • First edit.
  • Okay, so my vote was marked "first edit", and the informal policy that goes with that cheeses me off enough in itself...but why was it also marked with the words "invalid vote"? Same reason? --Takeel 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also cheesed that somebody edited my own vote text, but I'm not about to start an edit war over it. Just wanted to make my displeasure known. --Takeel 22:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's such arcane criteria. That looks like criteria made up by throwing dice. -- [email protected]
  • I've looked for the policy page that mentions this, and I couldn't find it. Could I please be pointed in its general direction? --Takeel 00:37, 21 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. Postdlf 06:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Llama tribune

[edit]

Vanity page, effectively an advert for an external website. Thedatastream 11:10, 13 July 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. Postdlf 22:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brennon Guilbeau

[edit]

No indication as to why he should be here — no notability mentioned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops; when I first nominated this for deletion, I made a mess on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page, which neither I nor anyone else noticed. This VfD has therefore not been officially posted. I've posted it properly now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 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. Postdlf 06:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Birch

[edit]

An advertisement for the author's books. -- Hoary 12:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The IP that created the article has now radically shortened it. -- Hoary 12:50, 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. Postdlf 06:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Glicker

[edit]

Initially listed as a copy vio, but according to the talk page, the person concerned agrees to it being here. However, this person is not very notable. Kurando 12:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yuck! Flowerparty 16:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa for his website = 397,775. May be a very successful programmer/entrepreneur (although, hmm, why no NAMES for his various "multi-million dollar" accomplishments?), but unless that has given him fame, which it apparently hasn't (35 Google hits, I don't think it much matters. Dcarrano 17:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. Friday 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 01:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable in the gaming world for his work, as well as notable for his podcast which is regularly one of the highest (if not the highest) ranked gaming podcast. The article would need some work, of course, and I would be willing to do this. There are no names for his multi-million dollar accomplishments because of agreements he signed when selling his company. Also, Steve regularly releases information on his site, especially concerning the game Spore, well before most, if not all other news sources get the information. syphonbyte
  • Keep If you search for his radio show Gaming Steve on Google you end up with about 3600 hits which is what his "claim to fame" would be. FYI, I heard about his site through a friend who heard about him through work in a small town up in Canada. So he is definately generating a following. Sure the entry needs to be cleaned up but as someone who hopped on wiki to learn more about him, I can attest that I was personally interested in learning about him... so it's not just vanity thing going on. Granite T. Rock 00:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I just had an after thought. It might be appropriate to rename the article "Gaming Steve" which would outline his show. Part of the entry would include his bio info as contained on this page. Granite T. Rock 00:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a good idea. The article already contains more information on the show than Steve himself. syphonbyte
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 06:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with a double-barrelled name

[edit]

Silly, unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, listcruft. Ask yourself - 'who would look up this article and for what purpose?' --Doc (?) 12:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! Obviously I have an interest here, as I created this thing, but allow me to vote nonetheless. I have asked myself this question. The answer, *I* would look up this article, to find people with a double-barreled name! You see, if you ask a silly person about a silly article, you get a silly answer. Brequinda 12:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc Glasgow. No-one is going to look this up and the names are UK-skewed anyway (two contestants from present series of Big Brother?) David | Talk 12:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; trivia, unmaintainable and overly broad. Radiant_>|< 13:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! (close to Strong Keep) - yes it's silly, but these people are all notable, and agree with Brequinda that this is actually an encyclopedic gem! (maybe its just a Brit thing....) - would probably recommend Rename to 'List of Celebrities with Double-Barrelled name'. - Petesmiles talk
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Double-barrelled name appears to be a neologism based on raw number of Google hits, but if it's a UK thing, maybe that's why I've never heard it. In any case, if this article is kept, it needs to be renamed to something that non-Brits will recognize. Also, change people to notable people. (Celebrities is also good, but "List of notable x" is how these kinds of lists are usually named, IIRC.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say that Brit English should get equal footing with American English. I would suggest that the list focus only on double-barrell last names.Youngamerican 15:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irrelevant list. What's next? List of people where 'xyz' is a substring of their name?. Nabla 15:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • further to previous - how about a Keep, but rename to 'A List of Notable People With Double-barrelled name' - is it in fact possible to have a link in an article name ('scuse ignorance)? - and a personal note - this list is of course fun, and a bit silly - but the collection of these names IMO is encyclopedic in the broad Wiki sense, and brings interesting questions of class / power relationships to mind - and could be a useful resource for related research, that's my two pennies! Petesmiles 15:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how does this bring power/class questions to mind? How is it useful for related research? I can see no use for this! What about 'list of celebrities whose surname relates to an occupation - or whose middle name begins with a vowel - or who don't have middle names - are these also encyclopedic? Stop the nonsense here! Delete --Doc (?) 15:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", including "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Double-barrelled names quite rightly have an article. Various examples in there (as it has for triple-barrelled names) are certainly appropriate. A list of all of them? Not a significant enough common thread, even if it gets moved to list of celebrities. Make sure the most famous examples are in Double-barrelled name, and then I'd say delete the list. I suppose you could make a category of it, though. The Literate Engineer 15:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another pointless list. -R. fiend 16:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly useless list, basically information-free CDC (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify, list is objectively definable but as Doc points out, sheds no additional light on any encyclopedic topic. I assume here that the claims above that "double-barrelled name" is the best way to describe this are correct. Dcarrano 17:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless, potentially huge and unmaintanable. Martg76 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wtf, there are millions of such people!!!  Grue  21:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate most of these 'list of ...' lists but this is particularly pointless. Redlentil 21:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless, unencyclopedic, and unmaintainable list. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 08:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, irrelevant since most people with double-barrelled names have nothing else in common - Skysmith 11:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. At most, add notables to double-barrelled name. -Sean Curtin 06:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MakeRocketGoNow 20:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Indrian 16:04, 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 keep. -- BD2412 talk 20:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indian_Rugby_Team

[edit]

I don't think teams that have never qualified for a world cup should have a page, 92nd in the world - we do not need 92 articles on national rugby union teams as the standard of play falls very quickly after the first 10. GordyB 12:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm going to lose this. The difference between the Indian rugby union team and the Monaco football team is that 99.9% of Indians have never heard of rugby union where as in Monaco football is the number one summer sport and if there wasn't an article on Monagesque football there'd be no articles on Monagesque sport at all. I don't think it is possible to expand the article, the Indian rugby union don't have any staff at all and as a consequence have no website or press officers. I'd rather see one page with mini articles on 'minnow nations'.GordyB 21:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've expanded the article a bit now, and as India's results improve, there's still more to beef it out with. Who knows, one day an Indian rugby fan will expand it even more. There are 13,200 players ([15]) after all, some of them are bound to have computers. Although, if you wish to start an article on all the minnow nations and incorporate this content...Be bold! Sam Vimes 21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the tag as I'm obviously on a loser. Don't see the point in waiting 7 days.GordyB 23:25, 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 KEEP due to lack of consensus. Postdlf 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darvish-khan

[edit]

Hardly worthy of an encylopeadia. NN A curate's egg 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : He is an Iranian musician of quite a repute though the page needs an overhaul. I found quite a few (running into at least half a dozen pages on google) references to him on google. His claim to fame is not his accident but his music. The page needs to furnish more detail about his musical life. We may not want to remove a page about a prominent Iranian musician just because the author of the page did not focus on his music but put a silly reference to a traffic accident instead. Manik Raina 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First Iranian killed in a car accident? Nothing on Google for that claim. Seems very dubious, until verified this short stub should be deleted. JamesBurns 08:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't buy that being in a car accident would make him notable. However, he is a musician... so can any evidence be provided of him passing WP:MUSIC? If so, keep. Until then, weak delete. Radiant_>|< 12:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • According to [16], he "died at the age of 54, on 22 of November 1926, in an accident. His carriage was hit by a lorry automobile which was very rare at that time." (Maybe not the first, but apparently one of the early ones.) No vote yet; I'll wait to see if further information is added to the page. --Metropolitan90 01:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notify me if anything is actually added to this article - Tεxτurε 19:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

He is famous in Iran. --Mani1 20:39, 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 merge with Matt Hardy. Hmm... I don't really know if the contributors to that article will be too pleased with adding this list of trivia, but if they dislike it they can start trimming and editing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mattfacts

[edit]

Doesn't warrant separate article. Merge to Matt Hardy. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Then I might suggest removing them completely. This information, while possibly valuable to a rabid Matt Hardy fan, has little real encyclopedic value. I alter my vote to Merge (as above) or Delete.
  • Proposal. How about merging a trimmed down version of the list to the Matt Hardy article. It doesn't seem necessary to have all of them added. Perhaps take the most interesting or information and leave the rest out. -Soltak 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My vote is still to Keep but if your going to keep them, keep them all, not just some
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkass

[edit]

Another gamer vanity.... Delete -- Gunmetal 14:00, 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. Postdlf 07:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey pokerson

[edit]

Neologism claimed to be a pleasant greeting or statement of affirmation. No googles. Meelar (talk) 14:05, 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 already SPEEDY DELETED.[17] Postdlf 07:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pork and egg

[edit]

Delete.Not Notable and badly written. A curate's egg 14:06, 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.

Star Wars kid

[edit]
This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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 was Keep.
 BD2412 talk 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 16:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

David Phillipe Desrosiers

[edit]

obvious vanity Robinh 14:26, 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. Postdlf 07:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okaysports

[edit]

The original VfD tag (from May 26) was fixed to point to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/OkayBlowhards, but it was never mentioned there, so I complete the nomination here. Nabla 14:38:19, 2005-07-13 (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 merge and redirect to McDonald's massacre. – Rich Farmbrough 02:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Pérez, David Flores Delgado, Omar Alonso Hernández, Matao Herrera, Carlos Reyes, Victor Rivera, McDonald's massacre/victims

[edit]

Not notable. Should be redirected to McDonald's massacre along with

brenneman(t)(c) 14:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've gone to each of those pages and put up a VfD redirecting to this page. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:56, 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. Postdlf 07:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge X & Y, Oliver Viveier, and Matthew Viveier

[edit]
Completing nomination, no vote here. Nabla 14:52:05, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

The band seems harmless, but Googling only results in 21 hits. Its only two members are the (assumedly related) Matthew Viveier and Oliver Viveier, both of which seem non-notable. Seems like more bandcruft; Delete. jglc | t | c 13:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: articles' creator blanked them. jglc | t | c 23:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- I am experimenting and assumed I would have the ability to delete my own articles. Sorry about that!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.191.29 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kubus media

[edit]

This page seems spam, it should be deleted Cate 14:53, 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. Postdlf 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressed People

[edit]
Completing nomination from July 4. no vote here. Nabla 15:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:48 (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. Postdlf 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three Choirs The Vineyard Restaurant

[edit]

advertisement from an IP address associated with frequent vandalism Doctor Whom 15:20, 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. Postdlf 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madness Temple

[edit]

There's no point in it. Madness Temple is an enclosed forum. We rarely get new users. If someone wanted to know about the site, they's actaully visit it or type it into google. This article does not serve a purpose at all. Can we be rid of it again, please?

Jakemcmahon 16:50, July 13, 2004 (GMT)


An apparently non-notable website created a few days ago. So new it does not even have an Alexa ranking. Andris 12:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sheesh. Vanity/advert; delete. Lupo 12:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the idiots from my board (yeah, the temple) trolling this page. Note: the page was created by a non-admin member. I believe you both have a point, and support the deletion of this page. Alreadyinuse 12:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I'm one of the people that created the Temple. I can assure you it was a member who created the entry. However, if you wish to delete it... then you will, I suppose. Which is a shame, as it's a completely valid site. The only decent case you have against it is the Alexa thing. Never mind. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What he said
  • Comment I'm another person from the Temple, yes its new, but why should that mean it gets deleted. freakimus
    Because it is non-noteable, and also because Wikipedia is not a web directory. Lupo 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising new sites; even a "spin-off" of Slashdot probably wouldn't make it here. --Ianb 12:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess this is a losing battle (and quite a pointless one at that) but the fact is that Madness Temple is a fast-growing community. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The point isn't that it's a fast-growing community- it's that the temple isn't really a notable site. b3ta has tens of thousands of members, it has got a lot of press attention and it is very well known around the web community. Madness temple has been up for about five days. Hardly anyone knows about it, and it's done nothing particularly important. Yet. Alreadyinuse 13:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. We'll see what happens in the future. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the piece...I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to inform about various issues, including sites on the Internet? I wrote the piece from a neutral standpoint as requested (writing only to inform, as is the whole point, and without giving an opinion either way) and stressed heavily the fact that it was new and a b3ta spin-off of sorts. I didn't realise that Wikipedia only lists major sites; to me, that seems rather moot, as everyone knows all about the major sites anyway. I felt the MT had enough noteworthy stuff on it to deserve a place here, hence my entry. Heh, please don't bash, 'twas an honest mistake if it can really be considered as such. Feral.
  • Delete: Wikipedia does not offer web guide functions. Geogre 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - neither notable nor encyclopedic - the sort of article that makes me think that the criteria for speedy deletion should be more widely drawn. Cutler 22:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory/promotional tool. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Hedley 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik_heumiller

[edit]

NN Vanity --Gunmetal 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE NN Vanity --Horkmiller 12;13, 13 July 2005 (EST)

  • I didn't know personal articles were taboo. I planned on expanding it later, when there was new, and more relevant information. Now that I know it's frowned upon I'll just make an article for the new and more relevant information when that time comes, and not include myself. --Horkmiller 12;25, 13 July 2005 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 07:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perseus_-_The_Movie

[edit]

Vanity, not notable film produced by high-school students. BrianSmithson 16:21, 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. Postdlf 07:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhauser

[edit]

Non-notable, unrecorded school band du jour. Name alone gets plenty of hits because it is a surname. Bernhauser flores gets no relevant hits other than the band's website. Nothing at allmusic, and the band's article and website don't establish notability. Also, based on their website name matching the contrib's username, self-promotion. Niteowlneils 16:36, 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. Postdlf 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Moto's Rice Box

[edit]

Non-notable restaurant, relevant Google results are restaurant guides [18], possible advert, nothing else links to it -- Spotteddogsdotorg 16:44, 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 Keep, but may be userfyed by reasonable request of only contributor (presumbly until safely set up). Hedley 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject National anthems

[edit]

Firstly, I know this is a WikiProject. However, the success of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias has prompted me to create a VfD for this project. My reasoning is that, like several WikiProjects, there is no interest in it whatsoever. In two and a half years only one 'edit' has been made to the page, which was adding it to a category ([19]. Also, i'm unsure theres any need for such a WikiProject. Certainly, when it gets this inactive (the creator was an anon who hasn't edited since 2003) it should just be deleted. Hedley 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If there are clear criteria for deletion of WikiProject pages, someone please point me to them, otherwise I will assume that total inactivity for a year is a reasonable benchmark. -Harmil 17:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure that it would be wise to set a policy of permanently deleting WikiProjects, even if they are inactive. A new set of wikipedians could conceivably find the project interesting and be able to work on the foundations of those before them. Perhaps some method of archiving them would be better. --BaronLarf 21:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, given the state of this one, theres nothing to archive. Its three years of bear bones - One list, a badly spelled introduction sentence, and some comments about renaming it which were made in 2002. I doubt theres anything worth keeping anywhere. Hedley 21:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Granted, there are few people who are interested in national anthems (like me). However, unlike the one VFD mentioned above, this is not dealing with POV but of national symbols. Plus, if the main concern is about who will run it, then I will. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Zscout will run it. Kappa 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zscout370 wants to run it, and I agree with Zscout370's argument about difference between the two WikiProjects being compared. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 03:04:10 Z
  • Delete long term inactive project. JamesBurns 08:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wikiprojects have no expiration dates. I would not suggest deleting wikiprojects (unless they are potentially offensive) if they are inactive or even if their purpose would have been fulfilled (which I do not think would happen any time soon). Interest in a specific wikiproject waxes and wanes just like everything else in this world. Note that I am not active in any wikiproject. Maybe Wikiprojects could find a way to periodically try to attract interest of new contributors? - Skysmith 11:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to fix capitalization. The difference between this one and the anti-jewish bias one is that this one is pushing verifiable information, while the latter is pushing POV. We have a category for this, Category:Inactive WikiProjects. Radiant_>|< 12:18, July 14, 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. Postdlf 07:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Dozen Furies, Gizmachi, Wicked Wisdom, all created by User:69.177.239.229

[edit]

All four are seemingly non-notable band entries. Articles' creator was compelled to fill the articles with first-person pov narrative and dialogue. Delete ASAP. jglc | t | c 17:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least the first two are copyvios and I've just tagged them as such. I believe the third to be as well and will tag it when I get to it. - UtherSRG 17:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • The third is simply junk and I've deleted it (such articles should be tagged with {{d}} instead of {{vfd}}). - UtherSRG 17:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Normally, I would do so with no hesitation, but I felt that I'd might as well lump it in with these others on VfD. jglc | t | c 20:40, 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. Postdlf 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artext

[edit]
  • I'll risk making myself unpopular here, but this three-month-old article is about a company which I personally can't really establish the notability of. They appear to have only a single product, and it is a trivial product (any script kiddie can write this in 10 minutes); the article doesn't state anything else, nor does their homepage. — Timwi 17:12, 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 --Allen3 talk 17:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

MAISTRY

[edit]

This article clearly needs some cleanup/wikification at a minimum and probably needs moving, but does it need deleting? Stewart Adcock 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This page appears to be incorrectly linked from VfD page. Dcarrano 18:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a truly exemplary human being, but neither jobs held nor 5 Google hits for Mervin Maistry suggest notability. Dcarrano 18:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of the Google hits, most are for a different Mervyn Maistry, a magistrate. There's only one for this particular person. It's just some businessman. A Whois search on the poster's IP checks out to Deutsche Telekom AG: the page says MM lives in Berlin. Vanity page. Tearlach 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:30, 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.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Aura programming language

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted as a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent toothbrush

[edit]

Hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax. Fluorescent plastics were invented before 1990, and the only mention of "Earl Retman" that Google can find is here, and the article was the sole contribution of an anonymous IP. Kill it before it metastasizes.DS 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 18:27, 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Miss Alli

[edit]

One of the founders of the website Television Without Pity was previously ruled not notable enough for an entry here; using that reasoning, I don't believe a recapper at the site should be either. Qaqaq 17:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable webmistress with little exposure outside of her website. Her reign of terror ends there. --Madchester 23:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I used to read her Big Brother recaps. Very funny lady. Of course she isn't getting an article here, though. Mike H (Talking is hot) 14:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What was the rationale for deleting one of TWoP's founders? There are articles for founders of sites such as Kuro5hin, Ain't it Cool News and Metafilter. In terms of notability, TWoP should be at least comparable to those.
    Miss Alli did not found TWoP. That would be Sars, Glark, and Wing Chun (and I believe one of those three came along later). Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    I know that, but one of User:Qaqaq's reasons for deletion is that an article on a TWoP founder was also deleted. I'd like to know why.
  • Comment I wasn't part of the vote, but a page for Glark was eliminated within the last few months; I believe non-notability was the reason. Qaqaq 18:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    Not non-notability per se, but the fact that they didn't write it about the person, but rather "Glark," the screen name, and that was a big factor in why it was deleted. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    That's pretty actionable. They don't exactly keep their names secret. It could probably be found by a couple of quick Google searches. Miss Alli, for example, is named Linda Holmes.
    I'd still vote to delete Linda Holmes, because she's a person who writes recaps at a website. I don't find it notable, even though you do (and don't even sign your posts, at that). Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    Easy there. I didn't vote on this. I haven't argued for keeping Miss Alli and I'm not that fussed about what happens to this page. I was just asking about the deletion of an article on a TWoP founder.
    Sorry about that, then. But yeah, that's why it was deleted, from what I read. There was an argument about "why do we write articles on screen names?" "No! Let's delete!" Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    Don't worry about it. Thanks for the info. BTW, is there any way of getting an article like Glark undeleted?
    WP:VFU, but you'll have to register an account first. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment. Online personalities like Maddox or Harry Knowles actually have some mainstream prevalence beyond the internet community. Miss Alli has little notriety outside her inner circle. --Madchester 23:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Euroboy

[edit]

Non-notable musician. delete UtherSRG 17:36, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Visible balance

[edit]

rather uninformative.


(Page was nominated in May by an anonymous user who forgot to finish the listing. I'm just tidying it up. For the record, I agree - delete.)DS 17:39, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

CCleft

[edit]

non-notable student group. delete UtherSRG 17:38, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hoyay

[edit]

Def of a term used primarily at one website; seems deletable on grounds of both definition-ness and irrelevance. Qaqaq 17:39, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steely McMichaels

[edit]

I don't think this asinine waste of server space meets any CSD. Nonetheless, it is nonsensical and totally devoid of actual informative content. The Literate Engineer 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was wrong about CSD. Good to have learned. The Literate Engineer 21:57, 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 KEEP: 5k, 2d. Counted brand-new author's vote since article clearly created in good-faith. -Splash 01:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O-Pearl

[edit]

Simple link and image without text. Questionable value PhilipO 18:32, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Kagan

[edit]

Vanity --PhilipO 18:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like this user believed he was editing his User: page. --PhilipO 18:46, 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 Speedy Delete as nonsense. Deletion carried out by Tony Sidaway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Demunican Party

[edit]

Nominated for deletion because I can't find any record of this party existing (despite the fact that the article's believable enough internally). I tried searching for anarchists in West Paris but had little luck. I think it's a fake. Jwrosenzweig 18:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (Note: Please forgive any formatting errors here -- I haven't vfd'd something in months.)[reply]

Although I am not a user on Wikipedia I live in Paris and have heard rumors of such a party, however it is very low key. I am surprised to see an article on Wikipedia about it and believe that it is important that it remains on. -In-hawn Yeo

  • Can you provide any news clippings about the party? If it's an actual organization, that would almost certainly change my position -- as it is, I can't find one site on the Internet that mentions "Demunich Gum", the alleged founder of the party, nor can I find "Demunican" used as a word in any context. Is it possible it's spelled in another way? Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in France and I think I have seen one of the minor parties named Demunican on a list. Although this shall be soon verified as to see if it really does exist, from what I have found so far from past achieves, there are traces of its existence. It would seem that there is a distinct connection between one of the german parties hence questioning its origin. Could it be that the Demunican party is related to Demunication that is a currently a small but influencial movement that is being issued in Paris? - Seijin Oh

Having lived in Paris for a considerable amount of time and being immersed in the french culture for a considerable period of time i can verify the existence of the Demunican Party or more precisely that it is rumored that a party that goes by that name does exist. However there is no existing proof of who actually is a member and hence due to the lack of knowledge regarding them there are no mainstream articles available.- Cormac Vizzard

I am also not a user of Wikipedia but as Mr Yeo, I am also familiar with the party and its whereabouts. I am a resident of the neighbourhood of Passy and come into contact with the headquarters (located on the corner of Rue Beethoven and Rue Chardin). It seems to be very popular with the youths of the nearby schools, but as far as I can tell, it was founded in 2002 and would most probably qualify as a "One Member Party" as described in the article concerning the French Political Parties. It seems to be low key more than anything, and thus would be widely unknown as I doubt their base is strong enough for any actual Political action as

  • Well as I study political sciences at Sorbonne I continuously hear about different low-key parties with few members that one can not hear about via the internet. This is the first such group I hear of, and I believe it is important to leave the article on as it will most likely encourage the other small political parties of Paris to make themselves more public rather than remain private and exclusive clubs. It would also greatly aid my research project on such groups, so would you please let the article remain on Wikipedia. -In-hawn Yeo
    • Gentlemen (or ladies), thank you for your comments, but you don't seem to know about Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Unless you can produce reference to this political organization in published books, news media, or some other independent and reliable source, we can't leave it up. If you know it's been mentioned in newspapers, post some links so we can see that. If you don't, it doesn't matter how many people believe the party exists, we can't keep the article up. Jwrosenzweig 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

believe the term party is a glorification of their existance...more like hooliganism with ideals...but then again what is else is a revolution...but it is true they do exist...their most famous appearance was at the St. Lazare metro station where in 5 minutes like a swarm of ants they tore down every piece of advertising in the station and dissapeared...again there is no positive proof to say it was them as officially they don't even exist...but being a journalist in this city you learn things most others don't and I would be willing to wager that it was none other than the Demunicans

  • Fortunately I was able to find an article I was looking at about these so called "Demunicans" and I have scanned it and uploaded it to my yahoo webpage. Hopefully this will verify their existence. demunican
  • Delete. Political parties unverifiable except from geocities pages don't belong in Wikipedia.--Scimitar 20:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it actually exists as a one-member party, it is not sufficiently notable for
  • Delete*Deleteinclusion.Martg76 21:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and probably not notable if verified. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Who is to say what type of knowledge is notable or not. Isnt the very purpose of an encyclopedia to gather information from as many different resources as humanly possible in order to further our knowledge and understanding of the world we live in today. The fibre that separates an internet encyclopedia from one in binding is that here space is limitless causing knowledge to be limitless and the thirst for knowledge to be perpetual. Hence those for the deletion of this article should think once more about what they are truly asking for and should learn to see the world from outside the claustrophobic environment they choose to inhabit.

  • Delete. Nonverifiable, possible hoax. -- BD2412 talk 23:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. Scan looks like it's from a really old newspaper, not something recent, but I can't understand French so ?. --Etacar11 00:56, 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fullpower

[edit]

Sems like a non-NPOV promotion to me --PhilipO 18:50, 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!) 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cillín J. Perera

[edit]

Vanity PhilipO 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Actual true and verifiable example of extreme multiple citizenship. If world's tallest man and Jennifer 8. Lee are notable, why not this? (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
  • Comment: I have a hard time believing that four passports is an actual world record. It doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult. Is it actually that difficult? -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, I wouldn't think four would be the record. If it's "verifyable" (or "verifiable"), please do so. Delete for now. Dcarrano 19:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is pretty difficult due to restrictions placed by governments on multiple citizenship. Also, over the last 10-20 years many governments have withdrawn citizenship rights purely for birth. This means that for the newer generations (those more likely to get two citizenships from parents), one needs to be born abroad in a country that still gives rights (UK, for example, DE, etc, don't) to two parents of different citizenships where both parent citizenships are be transferrable (some countries only transfer from the father or the mother), naturalize to a fourth, and have all four parties accept the arrangement. So, yes, it's not easy. And verifiable through Guinness, i believe. (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
  • see http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/personalexamples.html for a list of examples. (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
    • Comment: I fail to see what this page proves - it has no names, no statistics, no real hard facts. This page couldn't be considered a valuable reference or verification. Still Delete --PhilipO 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, last comment. do a google on 'four citizenships', you get 5 claims. two of these include a chinese citizenship - china doesn't recognize dual citizenship. one of these contain an argentinian citizenship - argentina only recognizes dual with spain. one contains israel, jordan and palestine - palestine is not a recognized state. the final doesn't list the countries. there is nothing claiming 5 or 6. (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
      • Comment In any event, there is no way of verifying that you have four citizenships (apart from your statement). Verification usually requires a reference to a news source or reputable record. IMHO this is still a vanity page, created and mostly maintained by the author about himself. --PhilipO 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after some research. If this information can be verified by an independent, reliable source, then Mr. Perera probably does deserve a mention in the article on multiple citizenship, but not an independent article unless he becomes particularly famous for it or does something else of interest. On a side note, to the author of the article: great first effort! Why don't you register an account and stick with us? If you are Mr. Perera, we could move this article to your user page. Also, you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Then we can tell who is talking to us. :) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if verifiable and true, big freakin' whoop. Delete obvious vanity. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/no verification. --Etacar11 01:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self-promoting vanity, rather hard to verify from anywhere, has really done nothing of note - Skysmith 11:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a friend with 5: UK, Eire, European Union, South Africa and Australia. It is not hard to do.--Porturology 13:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cape Lookout, North Carolina

[edit]

Delete North Carolina does not have a Palm County. Furthermore, I would be surprised if the Rambot missed a city of over 30,000 people. There is a geographical feature in North Carolina called Cape Lookout, if someone wants to write an article about it, but this isn't it. Icelight 19:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Cape Lookout for now, until I come up with something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least do the redirect indicated above. BTW - The creator has added a series of fictitous pages on non-existant NFL teams and stadiums, many now speedily deleted. --EMS | Talk 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Metronidazole. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MetroGel

[edit]

Delete Product promotion. Icelight 19:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, obvious ad. No need to merge with rosacea since that article already mentions metronidazole; brand names need not be given. Dcarrano 19:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Metronidazole, nothing really to merge. JamesBurns 08:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam! -- FunkyChicken! 05:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illuminatiary Electric Riot Society Of New York

[edit]

Delete. Probable utter nonsense; no google for "electric riot society" and no imdb on Arabella Zanzibar. knoodelhed 19:51, 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 per user consensus agains new user votes. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Gian Andrea Scarello

[edit]

A bit on a non-article, although more complete versions are on the Italian and German wikis. However the artist appears non-notable (Google only give self-authored links) and this may be self promotion. There is a related article at Contemporary Baroque Art which is also dubious, but I've yet to form a view on that one. Delete, or ask the Italian wiki whether they believe he is notable. Solipsist 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - I'm not convinced that SpeedyDeletion is appropriate. Its not vandalism, its not patent nonsense, and although there is little content, the interwikis to the Italian article shows it has the capacity to expand. The real question is whether he is notable. -- Solipsist 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but the .it CBA article used to invalidate the "no content" reasoning reads as a Scarello fan club register. But you're right, it does fall to notability, so I'll change my vote accordingly. --Gunmetal

Speedy, like I originally tagged it. -- Gunmetal 20:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Delete NN per Solipsist. --Gunmetal 22:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Mr.Gunmental to change the own opinion, it means not to have idea on the article! Not credible ballot --Peterloud 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mark out my vote. You've had enough of your own, I think I am due at least one. --Gunmetal 20:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
your ballot is not ' credible, to change continuously is not credible, of it you make one issue of personal pride without having acquaintanceof the argument --Peterloud 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the rule that says I am not free to change my vote to better accord with the rules laid forth in the deletion policy (a policy you would be well served to investigate fully... please stop striking out all my entries.) I have not made this an issue of personal pride, you have. I have only asked you to provide some sort of proof of notability (from multiple independant sources), which you either refuse to or can not do. Questioning MY credibility is not going to serve you well in this discussion. --Gunmetal 21:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


" Strong- Keep " All the artists cannot be famous as leonardo da vinci ,we must clear what means: to be or not to be famous. All the painters are not famous..... only when they are died. The career of this artist is much rich one of happening This type of art is a movement,It does not take advantage itself of the classicism. [20][21] this art has many fans. [22] etc.... --Yermet 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment None of these linked pages reference Scarello, they are merely isolated usages of the term "contemporary baroque art" (except the last one, which isn't even that). Nothing here indicates a defined art style or lends credibility to the importance of Scarello. Dystopos 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment : Keep We do not have to use only material that we find in Internet.

for knowing to write sure critical comments ,on the artistic disciplines, before we must go to the school....but not of poor journalism...sorry my Friend. As an example, If you want to visit an of this painter, you can go in Quanzhou, in China, One of the more famous Exposure of contemporary art; where to a smaller number of European artists (only much famous and a lot important)can participate . In adding: if the critics of art estimate its paintings,so very expansive (as an example 60000 US Dollar and more!!!) will be a reason... O.K. it is not famous as the statues of my Greece but we must to do attention...not to offend sure personalities.

Friend, I understand you, do not exaggerate, do not write a long article...But the short biography I find it just --Yermet 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (As you might expect, a new user with 5 edits, most in relation to Gian Andrea Scarello. -- Solipsist 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

    • Comment I have not (yet) voted to delete the article, but I have mentioned that I suspect the information is not verifiable. Nothing has been added to this discussion to shed any light on the verifiability of Scarello's standing or importance (which is subtly different than his fame or acclaim). If you have access to resources which would verify the claims, then please share them with us. From what I can tell, not being a reader of German, it seems that if Scarello has any note, it is as a founder of a small Commedia dell'Arte theater company in Mainz, and certainly not as the founder of school or style of art, or as a painter. [23] Dystopos 21:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very-Strong- Keep If you have doubts that it is also a painter, I invite to you to watch some paintings of he: [24]--Yermet 09:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen those. Evidently he paints, too. And wants a whole lot of money for the paintings. No evidence that his influence or accomplishment as a painter is in any way notable. If you have doubts that he is not a notable painter, I invite you to the same gallery. Dystopos 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the matter is that we are not art critics, we are encyclopedia editors. I have yet to see anything from an independant reliable source that validates his inclusion in this encyclopedia. --Gunmetal 13:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very-Very-Strong- Keep 

It is not an argument on the personal pleasure.

The painting is one free and conceptual art.The painters who make commerce are not important and they do not cost more than 3000 US dollar..., the art is not commerce even if the paintings cost...

I believed that:

Wiki is not an advertising newspaper. Wiki is not a Chat for poor arguments. Wiki is one free encyclopedia. But it does not have to be manipulated... Everyone of we gives its knowledge on specific topics. Without valid scientific goals they do not provoke argument. I it respects your opinion, but me he does not seem reliable. Too much mistaken and with contained not expert. I do not allow myself to write arguments on articles that of which I am not much expert. Even if sure times if these me seem improbable, I do not make comments.... I could be mistaken and write stupid things. For this I understand some various reactions in the argument, it must make much attention... In adding this artist is the much most famous one than other personages who fill up the pages of wiki... I would want to end the argument here (I already I am admonished in order to have too much written ). I want to leave all your common sense and, I hope, to logic of the disciplines of the academic knowledge, etc. ...Thanks and good continuation--Yermet 14:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable --Forig 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- just created account today, and looks like a sock puppet. --Gunmetal 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important Italian artist,famous for his paintings about the Italian Theatre. Also in Austria, it will be possible to admire some beautiful works of him.From May to November 2006, in the Castle of in Trauten_fels . Organized from the Landes_museum Joanneum-Graz Peterloud 14:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- just created account today, one hour after the last post by Forig. Also looks like a sock puppet. --Gunmetal 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- ???What you allow to write these stupid things about of me? I am entered from one hour (only), but it is better than you go outside! I am not a sock or puppet! Shame! I am not the Mafia)--Peterloud 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gunmetal meant no great offense. A sockpuppet is a user account created by someone for the purposes of trying to vote more than once and sway a VFD vote (usually). See WP:SOCK for more info. Someone who creates an account and immediately votes on a VFD is always looked on with a bit of suspicion. --Etacar11 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • explanation - The term sockpuppet has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and VfD is one of the more battle-tested sites for dealing with the phenomenon. Basically what we are looking for with this vote is a consensus of the Wikipedia community. The WP community is made up of editors that are objectively concerned with the project as a whole. Therefore, in determining a consensus, the comments of people whose concerns extend only to single issues can be justifiably ignored. People who have apparently only registered to enter a vote on VfD can be assumed not to be part of the community yet. The comments of people who do not assume good faith or who engage in personal attacks will also be ignored. Furthermore, these tactics tend to reflect poorly on the possibility of legitimately justifying the article being disputed. It is presumed that strident arguments that have no substance to them indicate that no valid arguments exist, or they would have been brought to bear already. Dystopos 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks of the information to Etacar11 and Dystopos  : but this user (Gunmetal)is not reliable, it changes continuously the idea on the argument,It does not possess valid arguments and it "attacks" the others user.. It is also a newcommer in wikipendia: perhaps the sock... he must to give it to... him --Peterloud 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed my thoughts on this argument. I only agreed, after Solipsist's point, that this is simply a Delete instead of a Speedy Delete. My point remains the same, there is simply not enough third party information available on this individual to claim notability. I'm sorry if you feel that by having this opinion I am personally attacking you; that is not my intent. --Gunmetal 20:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Not problem my friend, dear Gunmetal( and all Wikipedia-Friens), I want to ask You to find a compromise, it is important that this argument supplies a good Wikipedia-example. The opinions are too much various: too much negative or too much positive .What I propose? As an example, with a short article(but not too mutch) Me it seems just to propose a not long article, a compromise for all the opinions...This argument resists from too many days, it is right to allow the administrators to close it, with wisdom and intelligence. Pleasing all we. --Peterloud 12:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to No vote - I just took a whack at correcting the grammar in the recent edits. It was a difficult task and the original text made the subject unclear. Can someone verify that we are talking about an artist? Many references to "it" made me unsure. If the subject is actually a type of art just revert my attempt and start over. - Tεxτurε 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dear Tεxτurε, please, do You want to control this German article? , perhaps you can translate it:[25] --Peterloud 13:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one controls an article. I made a first attempt to clean up the syntax. Hopefully, the next person can take it from there. I am not knowledgable about the subject and probably someone else can give it the proper perspective. I hope I have done some good. - Tεxτurε 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC))Dear friend Texture , I believe that You have made a good job, I would make the article little more short--Peterloud 19:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I know that inclusionists like to include every article no matter what, but many people seem to have a skewed view of artist notability. Its really not sufficient to have just sold a painting or something, for the most part that is a level of notability equivalent to having a job. Cambridge, where I live, is less than half the size of Venice yet has several hundred active artists (you can find a subset here), very few would really merit an encyclopedia article.
Now this weekend I started an article on Afewerk Tekle, Ethiopia's most famous artist - we didn't have anything before, although there was an article on the German wiki. In the process, I came across this list of other Ethiopian artists. Notice how many of them have had solo exhibitions, have exhibited internationally, and have their work in national collections. I doubt we will have articles on any of these artists any time soon, but these are the sort of criteria that should be considered with respect to notability. I'm sure that for most of the artists in that list online verifiability will be difficult, but I'm equally sure that if asked, many of them could point to publications where their work is discussed.
In general, self promotion is one of the required skills of a modern artists. However, if an artist is writing articles about themselves, but isn't able to point to their national and international shows, or their work being discussed in art journals and the like, it is a fair bet that their notability falls well below the professor test. I can't see why Wikipedia should help promote their work over and above the work of the several million similar artists. -- Solipsist 14:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your doubts are the test of Yours little acquaintance on the argument. They are not only famous,the Africans artists who work in England. Other artists, that You do not know, and that they work in other regions, they come just recognized like "famous". This does not mean, that those that You do not know, they are automatically not famous.I do not believe that someone tries to make "promotion" of if same (!?)(an accusation without reason, my user-search on i.p. number ) . I Believe, that the artists of Cambridge , they are not happy of what You write, Yours opinion are without critical-explanation ... You remove they every hope ....but Your opinion is not new: many other sages,many years ago , it had the doubt on the importance of "Van Gogh".....p.s. perhaps I have time to visit Your article aboute the Africans artists, and to open one new nice discussion)--Peterloud 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused. Afewerk Tekle does not live and work in England, although he did go to school there. As it says in the article, apart from a year or two traveling and giving lecture tours, he has spent most of his life living and working in Addis Ababa. -- Solipsist 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment You have reason, as You can well understand, I do not know the artist, famous (?), of which you write, exactly as You do not know the artist, famous (?), of which I write in this page....perhaps we are confused, both... --Peterloud 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Invalid Vote) Keep Yes, personality --April12 11:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A smarter than average Sock puppet. Got rid of the red name immediately. Here's April12's contributions:
      * 06:41, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (→Keep) (top)
      * 06:28, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gian Andrea Scarello (→Gian Andrea Scarello) (top)
      * 06:26, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cape Lookout, North Carolina (→Cape Lookout, North Carolina) (top)
      * 06:09, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Bennett (manga artist) (→Steve Bennett (manga artist)) (top)
      * 06:01, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George Howeth (→George Howeth) (top)
      * 05:59, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Playstation 4 (→Playstation 4)
      * 05:58, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) User:April12 (top)
      * 05:51, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6 o'clock in the morning (→6 o'clock in the morning) (top)
It would have been more convenient if they had chosen the username July27... -- Solipsist 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Friend I believe that You have reason Mr.Solipsist . April me seems a not fidabile "month" ....or "girl" --Peterloud 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]


Definitely a familiar voting method.... we've seen that a few times in this particular VfD so far. At least this time he kept the vote text short, so his writing style isn't as identifiable. --Gunmetal 14:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Definitely a familiar voting method ? You are too much against to the article in discussion . It is "April" parent of your "family voting method" ? It is only my thought, naturally without offense ... but I begin to believe that You are a sock puppetIf it is not true ,what I say, then I excuse with You, Mr.Gunmetal --Peterloud 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
I'd love to form a quality retort to that, but I've read it 5 or 6 times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. Instead of attacking me, perhaps you should focus on providing some evidence of notability for Scarello. That is, after all, the only issue of importance here. --Gunmetal 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Comment

  1. But this is not discussed! If You are not expert , it cannot be discussed. About the "Scarello" there are more information than what You ask , and of what the Vote of Wikipedia demand . I Do not want more to discuss with You.You provoked to an enormous pressure against this article (intellectual violence), To my opinion, Your reliability dont convince me.On Your opinion , there is something of strange, without reason: something that does not have relationship with the article on the Scarello. Like suspicion a Tandem-Voting-job with the User "Solipsist" ("Familiar voting method" ? Or , perhaps, it is a a new mode for convincing :"Vanity-Tandem-Vote voting method" ? )
  2. About Notability: In your voting, used too many different measures. As an example: between the article of Scarello and the article on the African artist , that You have written, it appears clearly that: Your African artists,Afewerk Tekle,has very, very, much less of the evidence of notability of Scarello ,that you do not recognize, also against every strongly personality evidence.For this example I do not want more to discuss about your incompetence about this ! If you do not have idea of this Scarello-article, please not tried to deny, with strange comments and without reason, the Voting of the other Users.
  3. 'I ask,kindly, that an administrator puts this argument in the archives.
  4. After this comment I do not want more to write and to answer to you . Now You can try to convince other Users, Your attempt with me has not had effect. The Voting is democratic and free,like a Your opinion, but now You cannot hide behind the evidence of my affirmations. Getlteman I pray You not to call itself more in cause on this disussion .

In every case, dear "Tandem Company" Thank You for Your denied supporting comment.Please you do not take this like a personal attack, but in this argument it is important to donate tests and not only words. I repeat my Vote it remains: KEEP . Thanks--Peterloud 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I take great offense at the implication that Solipsist and I are involved in some mastermind scheme to destroy this article, I'm going to let it go because it will serve no one to argue with you any further. I hope your experieces on this VfD don't keep you from contributing useful articles in the future. Best of luck. --Gunmetal 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(This is this user's first entry --Gunmetal 19:28, 28 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!) 12:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Interconnectedness of All Things

[edit]

Oh dear! People call me deletionist but I let things like this live. Almost speedied but I decided that though it's nonsense, it's not quite patent nonsense. The qualifier can't be superfluous. Original research/ essay/ non-encyclopedic? Cutler 20:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

ROFL. Real vote: Delete. I don't see anything of real value ~ WCFrancis 21:53, 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applesauce Records

[edit]

Delete nn vanity page. 4 hits on Google. [26] Icelight 20:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Speedy keep I have seen them mentioned on other forums. I don't think it was put up for vanity either because if you read their message board, they are surprised about their inclusion (even though they were discussing whether to make one or not).

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 12:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Studio elves

[edit]

Delete non-notable neologism. Returns only 24 hits on Google. [27] Icelight 20:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Speedy Keep Have heard the term used many times on campus radio.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Chido

[edit]

Delete Slang dic def Icelight 17:01, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

EverQuest game commands

[edit]

This is hardly encyclopedic. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

  • Abstain - I just wanted to note that I'm the poor moron who re-formatted this page. Don't let the formatting fool you, this page was just a raw dump of the output of the /help command in EQ. I see almost no value to this article, but discussion apparently started at Talk:EverQuest#subsites?, which you should probably read before voting (this was intended as a sort of reverse-merge of an unmanagably large article) -Harmil 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
    • Delete - Consider: Would you think a list of UNIX commands would have a place in WikiPedia, especially if such a list did not explain the greater majority of them? -RandomName 7 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
      • Comment - You mean something like this? List of DOS commands I don't see how the EQ list is different. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
      • Comment - Exactly. Thus I'll (probably) be VfDing that one as well. Although this is not always a pertinent exercise, try and imagine what you would use these lists for. If, for example, you were writing a year ten report on everquest (or DOS) what place would a list of commands have in that report? If one of those commands had an intersting or unusual history, that would (perhaps) rate an entry in your report. Both of these lists as they stand do not merit inclusion. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
      • Comment Quick Q upfront. Would it make sense to move the discussion to the original page, so only votes appar here? secondly, in regards to the comment of evolving commands...that actually is the case. remember the /LFG command - only was introduced with the "legacy of Ykesha" expansion. /makeleader? makes more sense since GoD with Leadership points. /invite? can do that serverwide since patch June 29, 2005. These are just the first ones I documented so far.--Kajolus 8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
        • It would make great sense to move the discussion to the discussion page and leave just the votes here. However, in practice that is almost never done! Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
  • Delete - (vote changed July 15, due to wikibook being available now). well, first of all sorry for almost simply pasting the raw output from EQ (well, at least I sorted it). I am not much of a Wiki pro, so simply posting the raw data seemed appropriate - as I always consider WIKI a teamwork. I simply wanted to start the page. That the style was simple (mildly put) I know. As Harmil points out (btw, thank you for reformatting!), yes, it started on the discussion page. I am a vivid EQ player, and I am personally missing a list of (evolving and changing - thus Wiki style pages usable) game abbreviations/acronyms/commands. If this is the wrong place, sure, delete it. Although then I don't see the reason for keeping explanations like KEI/SOW etc. on the mainpage. please also check the discussion page though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EverQuest_game_commands), there is at least one more person quite happy with the existence of the page per se. PS. Rome wasn't build in a day either ;) --Kajolus 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
    • Kajolus: First off, welcome to Wikipedia! I know having a VfD on your contributions can be frustrating, but please don't take it as an insult. VfDs are just one of the many ways that Wikipedia constantly asks the question, "just what is it that we're doing, here". I'll take my other comments to the talk page to avoid cluttering the voting.... -Harmil 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm still trying to figure out a way to keep the page. I can go either way on the criteria for "what wikipedia is not" and while I agree it leans towards that, I dunno ..the list is just such dang good info =/ --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 03:40 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikicities. Dcarrano 00:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if possible, or delete --nixie 04:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide (or at least not yet; it's on its way). Maybe another wiki wants this, though I can't imagine why they would. -R. fiend 05:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a games guide, as per r.fiend. JamesBurns 08:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of DOS commands points the way, but not in the direction that Nahallac Silverwinds thinks. List of DOS commands is a poor article. But note the reference in it to a far more comprehensive Guide to Windows commands Wikibook. Similarly, to echo Aaron Brenneman's point about lists of UNIX commands, there are several Wikibooks that have guides to UNIX commands, in particular the Guide to UNIX commands Wikibook. Wikibooks is where instruction manuals, giving lists of commands and what they do, belong. There are many instruction manuals for games sitting on the Games bookshelf at Wikibooks. I've just begun one more: EverQuest, wherein you will find a chapter on EverQuest/Commands. It should have a ring of familiarity about it. Delete. Uncle G 19:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - Tεxτurε 20:02, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evrard de N...?

[edit]

A nameless non-person, the prior of a non-existent priory? --Wetman 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was deep. But yes, a person without a name who supposedly led an organization that turned out not to exist = Delete. Dcarrano 23:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existence. --Etacar11 01:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reason for a separate article to exist until and unless this person is identified in which case there might be grounds if it proves that he did anything else interesting. —Phil | Talk 12:28, 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. jni 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Face changer

[edit]

Finishing this nom that was never listed. --Dmcdevit·t 20:26, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer and Irwin

[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable company. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:30, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faschingschwank aus Wien (op. 26) . . . . 1839

[edit]

See discussion page (almost a speedy delete, I guess). --Missmarple 10:26, 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. jni 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a smoking pipe from an apple

[edit]

A how-to, and not an extraordinarily useful one--I'm not sure wikibooks would want this. Delete. Meelar (talk) 20:33, 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. CDC (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExtraLife

[edit]

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 20:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It's a very valid entry, and the webcomic has a large web presence. Google up Extra Life and this webcomic is the first result. Impressive noting how long this term, taken in a gaming related sense, has been around. Many other web-comics have a presence on Wikipedia at the moment as well. 24.61.90.121 21:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Does this webcomic not fit the Alternate Proposal listed on this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COMIC AfterSpencer 13:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep with over 100,000 unique visitors per month and a lage 'industry-insider' fan base, I'd say that it is not "non-notable". Keep it. (Unsigned vote by 128.231.88.4 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatman (Villain)

[edit]

The text appears to relate to an entire tranche of existance otherwise unknown to Wikipaedia. there are no in-links, and no contextual conections to enable anyone to place this within the stream of human wisdom. Besides, it would require a disambiguation and several other pages, to cover all the other villains "known" as Fatman (let alone politicians who have had that epithet attached to them, and who would therefore qualify in most eyes as villains of the deepest dye) 62.25.106.209 13:39, 25 May 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!) 12:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of the Star

[edit]

Vanity page for what appears to be a boy's club. No Google verification --Porturology 01:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect Technotronic; little support here for this as a separate article, and a redirect doesn't lose any information, as they key bits are already there. CDC (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Felly

[edit]

This seems non-notable to me. Do we have a name? Is this really all there is to tell? --Wetman 06:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Only TWO valid google hits. One is a blog mentioning her appearance on an album cover, the second is a wikipedia article about that album. Tobycat 00:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 00:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. "Pump Up the Jam" hit No. 2 on the Billboard magazine Hot 100 in the USA, and was apparently a big hit in the UK a well, and it was credited as "Technotronic featuring Felly." This would normally qualify Felly under WP:MUSIC criterion no. 1 ("a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country") ... the problem is that she didn't actually perform on the single, she was just hired to lip sync in the video. She is certainly verifiable (a Google search for (felly technotronic) yields 797 hits [28]) but doesn't seem to have attained much fame in her actual profession of being a model. I found a biography of her at The Eurodance Encyclopedia but it doesn't add much more information. Still, keep on the grounds that she was credited as a recording artist on a major hit single. --Metropolitan90 02:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Technotronic, appart from her association with that group she is not notable. --nixie 04:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Technotronic, and only because redirects are cheap. Insufficient notability for an article, either as a musician (she performed no music) or as a model. Barno 14:46, 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fierce Legends Software

[edit]
Finishing up this old nomination. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 20:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable organization? Oklonia 22:09, 7 May 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!) 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Stage

[edit]

Finishing an old nom never listed here. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 21:04, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finepoint

[edit]

I couldn't find a thing on them on Google. Do these band members have names? :) Ash Lux 6 July 2005 00:48 (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: 5m, 1k, 1d.. Anon IP not related to article discounted. Duly merged and redirected. -Splash 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire drill regulations in Rhode Island

[edit]

Delete - Why do we have this page, but not one on fire drill regulations in other states? Unless Rhode Island is special in its ways of conducting fire drills (I doubt so) it should be deleted. (preceding unsigned comment by 205.188.116.69 05:06, June 25, 2005 UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), but possibly move. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ideepthroat

[edit]

Marked as speedy, doesn't qualify. Mu.  Grue  21:13, 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. CDC (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars hutt

[edit]

Marked as speedy, doesn't qualify. Delete, non notable, vanity.  Grue  21:13, 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. Postdlf 19:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Love (novella)

[edit]

Maybe the author wrote this novella, for no google or amazon search reveals any such novella. No author, no plot, and obviously the author of the piece has lost interest in Wikipedia. Judging from what he wrote in the talk page, he doesn't know what Wikipedia's about. There is, however, a very famous First Love under the misleading title First Love (Ivan Turgenev Novel). My idea is to shift that entry here. Mandel 21:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete First Love (novella) as unverifiable. The information (what little there is) must be incorrect because there is no information to be found on a novella of that title with that plot and character names. Maybe the title's wrong, maybe something else, who knows, but without any context as to author or publication date, no one can ever really find out what it's supposed to be. Postdlf 21:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this as unverifiable, and you can do what you like with First Love (Ivan Turgenev Novel), although if it is a novel rather than a novella, I'd suggest First Love (novel). Dcarrano 00:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace content. I did a rather extensive search to find this and checked online sources to determine if in fact this was referring to the Turgenev novella, but to no avail. I'm interested in moving the aforementioned First Love (Ivan Turgenev Novel) to First Love (novella) to better match current naming guidelines, but was blocked by the existence of this page. Rather than deleting the page, the content could be swapped ... if that would be an acceptable solution, then I could handle the mechanics (would not require any admin powers). My interest in this is from my participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation rather than a personal interest in the novel. Courtland 17:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "swap" the content—merely cutting and pasting to change an article name is frowned upon because it doesn't move the edit history. The only proper thing to do, if the Turgenev article should be at "First Love (novella)", is to delete the unverifiable latter and then move the former to that title. Postdlf 18:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The impact of this depends upon how extensive the edit-history and the perceived importance in preserving it (always important, but less so in some cases). Mind that the history is not destroyed but is accessible as a manual x-reference if the proper edit-commentary is added. Note that I'm not in the habit of doing this often; there are some cases where it can be used without undue negative impact, though. If this is one of the cases where it is felt the impact is not justified, which might be the case, then I'd gladly abide by consensus in the matter and not boldly edit where noone would wish to edit (so to speak). Courtland 19:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Considering how long this VfD has been going on, I'm just going to go ahead and delete the article per consensus, and then you can move the Turgenev one there if you like. Postdlf 19:23, 24 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. jni 11:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AANYL PANE

[edit]

Vanity page for a band, apparently copied entirely from the band's (impressively obscene) web site. This article should be deleted. Ken 21:23, 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.
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 both (fair majority). GarrettTalk 05:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGet and GetRight

[edit]
  • Delete Appears to be advertisment Refdoc 10:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is legit software. A little story: I am going to be downloading an extension for Mozilla Firefox that is an autodownloader but you *MUST* have a download manager installed for it to work, and it lists ~15 that are compatible. I came here looking for info on download managers and one that is compatible was FlashGet. What do I see when I get here, people trying to delete the info that I needed, stop it ;). My second comment is that if you look at this article it is not an advertisement, and if it was then delete the parts out that are NPOV that make it an 'advertisement'. It isn't that hard. --ShaunMacPherson 01:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to sound rude, but I'm curious... WHY would you come to an encyclopedia looking for compatible files for ("Gotright", is it?) when that product's own page would clearly say which ones it supports??? Master Thief Garrett 07:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete FlashGet, Weak Keep GetRight, we are NOT Download.com, go there if you want files. This is shareware, and shareware by its nature is a self-proclaiming ad whether you like it or not. Wikipedia is not to be a vehicle for indirect ads, nor in any way to be seen as promoting or recommending or influencing the purchase of product(s). Please, delete. Master Thief Garrett 07:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Added GetRight; if FlashGet is to go, then, by that logic, it's only "fair" that GetRight should go too. Despite being a fan of Getright myself, the point is that it is not necessarily encyclopedic. Master Thief Garrett 07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete FlashGet and Keep GetRight. The latter is well-known software; the former is not. Firebug 07:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, or Rewrite both. --minghong 10:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite both. FlashGet is quite well-known - maybe not as much as Getright, but that didn't stop a popular local computer magazine from bringing FlashGet on the accompanying CDs years before they did the same with GetRight. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are rather well-known. -Hapsiainen 11:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least with GetRight - it is a respectable program that is very well-known. Go to any site with an unorthodox download system which doesn't work too well with download managers, and GetRight is the first example that they will always quote. Could do with expanding though, I'll take on the task later on if the deletion doesn't get carried out. - Jamyskis 17:09, May 12, 2005 (CET)
  • Keep. I definitely know that FlashGet is VERY popular software in Russia, not just yet-another-shareware-downloader. You allow here articles about MS Windows, Opera etc., don't you? That is just the case. --Anthony Ivanoff 15:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how it matters that they're shareware and contain ads (a lot of programs do, e.g. Opera); they're well-used, and popular enough to merit a mention here. The articles' existence are useful even if only in comparison with other download managers, which I think is important information in an online encyclopedia. If necessary, rewrite the articles. --Phoenix-forgotten 04:28, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know all Download Managers, but I knew FlashGet and Getright. While I accept that their inclusion is somewhat weird, an article about Download Managers justifies a list of download managers, and that list justifies both articles. Another Wikipedian 03:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep. Notable software. Factitious June 29, 2005 02:08 (UTC)
  • Keep both per above. Dcarrano 23:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Getright and a Weak Keep for Flashget, following on from reasons above, and I'd also echo the rewriting requests. In fact, would it perhaps be better for us to merge all these download managers into a single page/list? There doesn't seem to be that much that is remarkable about each of them individually. --StoneColdCrazy 05:30, 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 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. jni 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 852

[edit]

Non-notable advertising. --Laura Scudder | Talk 09:43, 16 Apr 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. jni 11:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock site

[edit]

Nonsense. -- RHaworth 21:57, 2005 July 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 all. CDC (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rex the red , The Bob , Sewer Scourge , Fishlips

[edit]

All characters in a java-script computer game from a website with a Alexa rating of 300,000+. (And, yes, I tried the game and its pretty crap) --Doc (?) 22:05, 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 keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well... I was going to close it myself, but it's cool. Concur with vote results. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew

[edit]

The previous VFD on this article was effectively sabotaged multiple (in some cases self-admitted) sockpuppetry, and was closed as "inconclusive" - i.e. it was not possible for the closing admin to determine what the votes actually were (as opposed to "no consensus").

Due to the sockpuppetry etc. involved previously, if you have under 200 edits prior to the re-opening of this VFD (which was at 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) your vote is likely to be discounted (particularly if you sign as another user, and make comments as if you were the other user rather than yourself).

  • The previous VFD, for anyone interested, is here.

Manner vote conducted

[edit]

It is divided up by Keep, Delete, Merge and Comment. This is to make it easier to administer. Given the ridiculous situation we had last time, Ta bu shi da yu has imposed order on this vote!

Please keep comments short, and only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page. You can always link to the discussion from your comment. Any rebuttal should go in your comment(s) and be kept brief - if you wish to give more extensive reasoning, do so on the talk page or elsewhere and link to it. If you don't wish to vote, but wish to make a comment, please leave it in this section.

Ta bu shi da yu will administer the vote to deal with sockpuppetry etc. I will administer the vote. He will look at each accusation of sock-puppetry individually, and on their own merits.

Comment from TBSDY: I suggest that if new users want to have their vote count that they give a decently explained reason why it should be deleted/kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Garrett: I numbered the votes for easier counting, hope you don't mind. GarrettTalk 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I appreciate the gesture, but I'll be checking each vote one by one... not all votes will necessarily be counted (though they might possibly). We'll leave it numbered, but it might not reflect the final figure... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for VFD

[edit]

This article is basically original research.

  • It relies on assuming that Jerome's statement about a "Gospel of the Hebrews" was accurate
  • It is an almost universal opinion amongst academics and non-academics that Jerome's statement was an (innocent) error caused by lack of information, and that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" that he refers to were in fact 3 seperate texts -
  • It contains an opinion of why people might have wanted the Gospel of Matthew to exist
  • It presents an extremely POV view of the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, which is totally inconsistent with either the conservative religious view of their origin, or the critical academic view involving
  • It bases all of this on a totally non-sequitur argument that as Eusebius said that "matthew wrote in hebrew letters", there is an entirely different gospel for the hebrews which is not dependant on Mark, and forms the basis of Matthew, and that this must therefore mean that the above 3 gospels (Hebrews/Nazarenes/Ebionites) are in fact 1 gospel not 3 despite the near unanimous opinion amongst academics and non academics to the contrary.
  • The origin of the Gospel of Matthew should be, and is already, discussed at Gospel of Matthew
  • None of the references actually support the argument of the text but instead either adhere to the standard critical academic view, or propose an entirely different argument altogether.
  • The article is even written as an essay/thesis, with introduction and conclusion.
  • The author of the article added detail to all articles relating to this area of the bible supporting the POV of the article. The only people setting up links to the article or even mentions of its thesis are 202.176.97.230 and the article's author themselves, and they may very well be one and the same.
  • The earlier version of the article had extensive duplication of source texts which are already on Wikisource - [29] - when this was removed, it was restored by editors with very few edits indeed.
  • The author of the article has gone to extensive lengths, including RFAR (failed), to preserve it, and there have been many sockpuppets (many of which were admitted to be so - [30]).
  • The article has been reviewed by an editor (not me) who has a doctorate (PhD) in the study of the New Testament, and been said to be unsalvagable original research by that editor.
  • Even the article's title is POV
Keep
[edit]
  1. Keep content, but Move to appropriate title (this is a valid topic for an article independent of Gospel of Matthew. Any salvageable material will obviously have to be NPOV'd, and this time, I would like to strongly encourage both combatants and their armies of beady-eyed undergarments to work disputes out civilly on the talkpage. Tomer TALK 04:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Keep. There's obviously some material that's not original research. Once the frenzied atmosphere of the VfD is over, the article should be cleaned up and probably retitled. JamesMLane 01:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep the unoriginal research.  ;-) —RaD Man (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep. No case has been made for the "original research" claim; this VfD seems to me to have more to do with -Ril-'s feud with the writers of the article than anything else. The article certainly needs considerable work, but that's not the issue here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply not true. I have absolutely no feud with the article's creator outside the article. Indeed, I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE IN ANYTHING EXCEPT CONCERNING THE EXISTANCE OF THE ARTICLE. ~~~~ 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Keep and cleanup. Potential for a valid article. Contains some original research, but that can be excised. -- Visviva 09:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Keep. It needs to be cleaned up, but there is potential and it doesn't seem to meet the standard of original research Salsb 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keep. The version I read Friday was a clear object for deletion, but the original research that was there has been removed, & although I'd prefer this article to have a different title ("Authentic Matthew" strongly suggests a specific POV to me), the version I read today seems to be a reasonably objective & nonpartisan discussion of the issues. -- llywrch 22:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keep- though controversial, the topic seems to be legit. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keep, as I voted on the previous VFD. Well writte article on a notable subject. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keep - Needs a cleanup but an interesting article that is noteworthy. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strong Keep This vfd is nonsense. freestylefrappe 02:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Keep Very good--April12 11:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- user's 8th edit. jamesgibbon 13:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
[edit]
  1. Delete in the strongest possible way ~~~~ 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete. Original research, NPOV. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete based on most but not all of the preceeding arguements. Hamster Sandwich 01:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete I don't see anything substantial in this article which does not already appear in Gospel of Matthew. Disucssion of the various theories is fairly complete there. -Harmil 02:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. stone with stones; this depends entirely on Jerome being right about their being a single writing. However a mention of this possibility (possibility, mind) in a parent article would probably be good too. Also I'd say the bible scholar's "damnation" of it carries a lot of weight. Oh and a heap of brownie points go to Ta bu shi da yu for bravely overseeing all these contentious Vfds of late. Good to know the result will be guaranteed "barefoot". :) GarrettTalk 03:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. VORPED (Vanity - Original Research - Personal Essay - Delete!) Stirling Newberry 06:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Delete as original research. --Carnildo 07:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Delete, I don't believe that anything in this piece warrants an article separate from the main gospel of Matthew entry jamesgibbon 10:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Delete: The amount of tinfoil hattery around the early Gospels is extreme. This article ignores everything from Higher Criticism on to weave together a wishlist view, arguably to support a further POV (not in the article but which the article will be used to support) for one heretical view or another. Honestly, these schemes and arguments are thick as flies in history. There can be no merge, as that requires equally merging in all other variant readings of the origins of the Gospel and non-Q sources, and we would indeed run out of not-paper doing so. There is no keep, because there is no support for this view that makes it representative enough to need explication, and it obviously isn't just "true" or "accepted as true" by the wider community. Geogre 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Delete, for reasons given. While I wouldn't necessarily oppose the verifiable elements being included into Matthew, ascertaining what those elements are would likely be an enormous headache, and not worth the trouble. I'm sure it would take multiple RfCs. I love the title though. Maybe we can get a page on Amazing Larry and Erudite Steve. -R. fiend 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Delete. Seems to be hopelessly POV. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Extremely strong delete – I have researched and taught New Testament, and I’ve never even heard of ‘Authentic Matthew’. This article takes all sorts of (disputed) asides from the Church Fathers, adds them to several unrelated scholarly theories about synoptic origins – to produce what is a piece of (bad) original research. It is about as factual as the Da Vinci Code! Any (notable} proto-Matthean theories should be discussed under Gospel of Matthew or Synoptic problem. Links to this drivel have been inserted into other Biblical studies articles. --Doc (?) 21:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Delete POV-pushing original research. If there's anything encyclopedic here, it could go in Gospel of Matthew, but not in this POV fork. CDC (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Delete as per Harmil and nominator. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:15:28 Z
  15. Delete original research/essay. JamesBurns 06:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Delete per above.  Grue  08:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. DELETE. The argument that it is cited does not justify its validity, as even original research must be cited for publication. There is no such term as Authentic Matthew (see my Google search on previous VFD) as verified by Doc above, so it should at least be moved, if worthy of that, or merged, as already attended to. Davilla 10:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Delete - changed my vote because everything useful was already merged. Renata3 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Delete - POV original research. carmeld1 23:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Delete - POV/original research/all usable material already merged/name inherently violates NPOV policy -- and how can you have a recount without telling those who voted originally that they have to revote, I'm lucky I saw this. DreamGuy 05:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Delete - While an article with a different title and wholly different content could be written on this subject, it would far better to start from scratch. - SimonP 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]
  1. Merge what is verifiable with Gospel of Matthew.Capitalistroadster 04:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merge whatever pertinent information that isn't covered under Gospel of Matthew, then Delete for most of the reasons listed above (except for the last three). khaosworks 02:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Merge anything salvageable with Matthew the Evangelist (more appropriate IMHO than Gospel of Matthew). --Angr/t?k t? mi 06:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merge - put some reference of "alternative theories" on the Gospel of Mathews page. Renata3 17:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looks to have some verifiable and useful information despite its poor presentation. Merge with Gospel of Matthew or other relevant pages, then redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:13, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]
Please add your comments here, if they are not direct responses to votes. Please also make it short. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were allowed to vote, I would vote keep because, if the Gospel is true, then who wrote it is a separate issue from its existence, and if it is not true, then no amount of writing about it will ever make it true. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke: when an eminent [bible scholar] says something is impossible, it probably isn't. Respectfully, Simon Cursitor 12:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simon, the argument here is not whether this theory is correct, or even possible. It is whether this is a position being argued by any notable scholar, in a way that WP can record. It is not (although individual bits of it may be) - and thus it is original research. Even if the thesis was factually correct - it still would have no place here. --Doc (?) 21:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to whichever admin closes this VfD — -Ril- (talk · contribs) took control of the previous VfD, deleting and moving to the Talk page comments opposed to his position, while leaving in comments supporting him, including many of his own (including personal attacks and unsubstantiated guesses at sockpuppetry presented as dogmatic claims). He made a real mess. This VfD contains FALSE information. Please check the record of the previous VfD.--Mikefar 15:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations.

  • Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

and

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Comment I have no desire to get involved this farce but Ril, you are not being honest. Mr Far clearly has not written this article, and you are lying. What worries is that you and other are hurting Wikipedia. Closing admin should use care. Ril, Shame Shame

unsigned by 209.53.181.47 (talk • contribs • block), identical to 209.53.181.26 (talk • contribs • block) ~~~~ 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr Far" claims to have been the one who wrote the article - evidence: [37] ~~~~ 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you are clearly a sockpuppet. ~~~~ 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BODMAS

[edit]

I think this article is a hoax. I can't find any substantiation for any such group on Google, and the claim that any record sold 2 billion copies (and I can't find the record listed with Google either) seems absurd. I asked the editor who created the article if it was real, but they did not respond John Barleycorn 22:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bodmas are a real band they played at Wembley a while back. I think their in Africa now doing a concept album or something. They have a site, its on google.

    • Can you give us the address for their website? I tried to find something on Google which mentioned this band, I kept getting order of operations information, but when I typed in the supposed albums, I got nothing. The assertion that the band sold 2 billion copies of their album also seems suspicious. I apologize if my listing was incorrect. John Barleycorn 18:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, the website sems to be http://www.bodmas.tk/. But their FAQ posted on the website says that their first album is "due to be realised soon", so the contention in the two articles that they have released four albums and sold 2 billion copies seems to be incorrect. John Barleycorn 18:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • BODMAS apparently has quite a following in Norway. Overzealous fan, perhaps?
  • I got bold. I'd have preferred to nuke it altogether, as I'm not at all sure that the mnemonic is common enough that it needs to exist as a redirect. I did nuke the one with the exclamation mark. Geogre 19:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then recreate redirect as above. Postdlf 00:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Order of operations, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 01:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear hoax.KeithD 19:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last time they are a real band. Can't any of you people read or do you all just happen to be retards? Just because they are not on your precious google, doesn't mean this is a hoax. When I search for myself on google it finds nothing. Does that mean I don't exist? Am I not real just because I have no entry on an internet search engine? It's people like you who made wikipedia what it is today. Have you ever read a BOOK? Or gone to a LIBRARY? Next time try to get your facts straight before you criticise other peoples articles and for once in your lives, try to use more than one type of source. Thank you </rant>. Heltery 21:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hmm, I have reviewed literally thousands of England-based bands, from the hugest to the obscure; I'm not saying that BODMAS, although it seems like a really unfunny joke to me, are not obscure; but they certainly aren't 'one of the biggest bands' in the UK! Cop onto yourselves, sock puppets, the joke really has gone dry. IINAG 22:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Well, let's see... the UK has a little more than 50 million people, so for a band to sell 2 billion copies, I guess each UK resident owns about 35 copies of it. Now that's what I call being prepared. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. jni 11:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BODMAS!

[edit]

This article is a copy of BODMAS, which I also listed as being a possible hoax. I can't find documentation that such a band or their albums exist, nor that any record sold two billion copies. I asked the person who created it for some documentation, but they did not respond. John Barleycorn 22:40, 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 keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay cruising grounds in Britain

[edit]

Unencyclopedic and no hope of becoming so. Wikipedia is not a travel guide nor a directory. Joolz 22:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: expanded considerably since nomination - David Gerard 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to make clear what we're arguing about here, because the waters are getting muddied. The real question we need to be answering is does a list of gay cruising areas belong on Wikipedia? The answer, I think, is yes. There are dozens of lists on Wikipedia, many of them related to sexuality and sexual behaviours and acts, and many of them far less interesting, useful or long as this. As to issues of naming, those are separate from the main question. Exploding Boy 20:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note all votes from this point on deal with the expanded version of the article. It's no longer just a list. -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:51, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Juice

[edit]

Delete. It was insulting when it redirected to wine, confusing when it redirected to Michael Jachson, and is zero-content as is. Decapod73 23:17, 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!) 11:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Qiong

[edit]

Notability not established by article — Pekinensis 23:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to believe and change my vote, but could you elaborate or give some evidence?
I'm in China now. I asked some friends and workmates and a few had heard of her. My girlfriend's mother had also heard of her. Kojangee July 22nd, 2005 00:20 Beijing Time
I note that the Chinese Wikipedia does not seem to have an article about her.
(As an aside, there is an article about a distinguished medical scientist of the same name who recently passed away, and a google image search[39] seems to indicate that there are quite a few men and women by this name.)
— Pekinensis 14:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep articles in order to make someone notable. This is something which should be demonstrated within the article. If someone can present some evidence of this persons notability I would be happy to vote to keep it as well. Hall Monitor 18:06, 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. jni 11:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith and the Marzipan Soldiers

[edit]

Band meets none of the criteria for notability in WP:MUSIC Kertrats 23:38, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chase bridge

[edit]
  • Delete School vanity page. - Forbsey 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. -- Joolz 00:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Chase Bridge Primary School. It exists, and it's a school. Delete, I misunderstood the British school system. Dcarrano 00:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, article doesn't provide remotely interesting facts about school or its history. Decapod73 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete all primary shools, especially ones with incorrect names. --nixie 04:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it seems verifiable, and not limited to original research, particularly with this report of it by the BBC: [40]. It isn't really written in the style of vanity. The BBC report lists it as 'Chase Bridge Primary School' so perhaps a redirect to there. Here's some more info: [41], and PDF reports are definitely professional looking: [42], and it's even listed here as a school: Twickenham#Infants, where other schools already have their own articles, including another infant school, Orleans Infants School. Well from what I've gathered I see no reason to delete it, I am also curious as to User:Dcarrano's reason for a change of opinon? Thanks, Seeaxid 00:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the US, we don't normally use the "primary"/"secondary" school terminology as far as I know. I thought for whatever reason it was more like what we here would call a "high school," although even then I jumped the gun since I don't think every high school should be included.Dcarrano 00:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • The primary/secondary terminology is sort of retained in the term post-secondary (to refer to anything after high school). At least, it was in my high school. Interesting, if not particularly relevant. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone bothers to at least try to add some material explaining why it is notable or interesting. (I figure that if the original writer doesn't care enough and the VfD process doesn't shake anything out, it's unlikely that it will ever be expanded.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) (I'm now removing my vote since it's been expanded. Move to Chase Bridge Primary School is fine. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Just to clarify: move and redirect to Chase Bridge Primary School. Notability is not a policy. I think the following web site moreover affirms that the school is also refered to as: Chase Bridge alone: [43], as is indicated by only those words being bolded, as opposed to say, Carlisle Infant School, where that entire sentence is bolded.
There's absolutely no sense in deleting valid information just because it's not "interesting", how subjective's that. If "it's unlikely that it will ever be expanded", then merge it with Twickenham, rather than pointlessly removing useful information.
And I may mention that I've also expanded it. Seeaxid 05:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion. (By which I mean is that it's used by so many people that it doesn't really matter if it's policy or not.) Personally, I feel that a school article should at least make a half-hearted effort to explain why anyone should care, since they tend to be of interest to only a very small community (i.e. people who went there or whose children may go there). As long as there is some effort made along these lines, I'm willing to opt on the side of inclusion and let it be. This is my personal choice and you are welcome to disagree. But in light of your expansion I'm removing my delete vote. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Lack of notability is a valid de facto reason for deletion." If it isn't policy or guideline, or anything definitive, then it defies logic to state it alone as a reason for deletion, were it policy one could argue, and come to concensus to alter the policy. As there is no place to change the policy, simply stating it as definitive itself, giving no logical basis to support it (which a policy page would act as) it is simply irrational. [annex: this comment is essentially based on the contraversial nature of deletion in regards to schools, and that for most other general topics there notability guidlines at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents as you may well know]
You had also said: "I feel that a school article should at least make a half-hearted effort to explain why anyone should care,", now let me quote Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments: "Those who advocate the deletion of schools sometimes use an argument to the effect that a school that doesn't have some special attribute--apart from being an institution of learning--has no identity and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
This is a case of special pleading; there is no Wikipedia policy requirement that corresponds to this, it's just an ad hoc condition constructed to justify opposition to school articles." Seeaxid 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the point of Wikipedia:Schools is that there is not a clear consensus on what should be done ("It's been done, and we should all agree to disagree."). Often there turns out to be lack of consensus to delete, which qualifies as consensus to keep only by default. I am familiar with all of the arguments. (I remember when most of them originated.) I judge each school article on its individual merits and I intend to keep doing so. The beauty of the system is that we are free to disagree with one another on this. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:George Michael - Faith.jpg|right|thumb|200px|You've gotta have faith.]]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_13&oldid=1081092082"