Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 3
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous (probably because of the way the former vote was transcluded in). SimonP apparently decided to keep for now. I am attempting to close the discussion. Rossami (talk)
Uncleanupable POV, essay, with a constituency that seems intent on spreading it through various catagories. It's a cancer, kill it. Stirling Newberry 19:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think this has any chance of becoming a valid encyclopedia article. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Though, actually, I see this is a sneaky (note the uppercase Postmodernity) re-listing, since the article (barely) survived VfD less than two weeks ago. I have transcluded the previous VfD below; perhaps we should just extend it since the majority of delete votes was nearly a consensus. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't here when that vote was taken. Stirling Newberry 21:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete essay. Nearly all of the citations are on computers or postmodernity separately, so that the conclusions are essentially the author's. Gazpacho 07:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete original essay. There is some possibility for an article on this topic, as there have been a number of people that have written about it (which BTW do not appear in the bibliography), but this essay doesn't even do a very good job of summarizing what is said in the sources listed there. older≠wiser 04:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was carried out by User:SimonP
Exists but seems incredibly minor; was speedied earlier. Vote delete as non-notable. adamsan 11:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons above Hoary 11:14, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete. Mailer Diablo 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've restored the version I deleted earlier to the page history. Delete again Dunc|☺ 12:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a speedy though. --fvw* 17:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Verifiable, well-written, no logical place to merge this material. Keep. Meelar (talk) 20:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The character exists and stars in a recent video game. I've removed some of the more flowery language and gotten it down to a more straight-forward article, but it's just as justified as several other pages out there. Sir_Slush 20:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep agree with above two votes. Maybe merge with rareware. Kappa 23:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, needs a clean up though. Megan1967 02:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: subtrivial. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: It's a notable part of Rareware history, and doesn't really fit anywhere else. --The Cube 06:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- User has less than 50 edits at time of writing. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just because I have less edits doesn't mean I'm wrong. That's like saying Stephen Hawking is less credible than Stephen King because he's written less books. --The Cube 19:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- User has less than 50 edits at time of writing. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: It may be mildly silly, but its still good solid information. Also, it isn't really found anywhere else except the memories of fans. This could be a good resource for someone who didn't live the events. Sparky_Z 08:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No such user Sparky Z; vote by anonymous user. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: He is a now established video game character featured in a game with its own page on this site, which might I add is not up for deletion. Also, there are many, many video game characters with pages on this site that do not have even half of the amount of writing this article currently possesses, and have made just as "trivial" appearances, and they are not being targeted for deletion.--SeanKing64 20:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Only editing here since Dec. 24. RickK 22:48, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- During which time I have made two fairly large-scale articles and made extensive corrective edits to other ones, even going as far as to completely rewrite certain ones so that they would fit into Wikipedia's requirements. What's your point?--SeanKing64 02:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep:Same reasons as above, can't be merged anywhere else and is more justified than other characters which aren't being targeted for deletion.
- Anonymous User:141.168.54.225. RickK 22:48, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep He's a legitimate character, there's no other relevant place for this, and it's more well-written and informative than some articles without votes for deletion. -User:AtomicLead5 Jan 2005
- Possible sockpuppet. Comment originally made by anon User:68.80.98.117 who then signed in. Both the anon and the account have only edited this discussion thread so far. Rossami
- "Keep" If there's a page for Ed McMahon's teeth, Mr. Pants certainly deserves one.
- comment by anon user 63.155.196.156. This is his/her only edit. Rossami
- Keep There's really no reason to delete the page. He's just as much a video game character as Wart, perhaps even moreso. The page in question is well written too, so I don't know what the problem is. --Glancy 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Possible sockpuppet. This is only the user's second edit. Rossami
- Who knows if it'll help my case any, but I redid and added more info on the page for Pip (South Park) before actually getting an account here.
- Possible sockpuppet. This is only the user's second edit. Rossami
- Keep This page should not be deleted as it is an interesting article about the evolution of a very memorable video game character. Not to mention very well written, and easy to understand.--Zinger 01:07:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Mr. Pants is a character of extreme character. He deserves his own page just as much as anyone else does.--Fleur64
- Possible sockpuppet. Comment was actually made by Zinger II. This is his/her only edit under either ID so far. Rossami
- Comment: New users should be aware that votes by anonymous and very new accounts are generally very steeply discounted during these discussions. We have had significant problems in the past with abuse of the voting process and attempts to bias the outcome by users creating sockpuppets. Hard facts which add to the discussion are appreciated. Opinions and qualitative judgments are likely to be ignored. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, re-creation an abuse of process, as are the many sockpuppets voting to keep it. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- How is it non-notable? He has his own game, and he's a part of Rareware's history. If Goombario, Mewtwo and Joxer can all have articles, I don't see why Mr. Pants shouldn't. I can also imagine that if you found the game without knowing how Mr. Pants came into existence, this would be a good way to find out. --The Cube 20:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: If obscure Pokémon can get their own pages, why can't a video game character with an international cult following?--Chiphead 20:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that we are being unfairly targeted for no real reason. This page gives out information and he is a large, well known mascot in videogaming today, yet you guys seem to think that he doesn't deserve his own page, yet characters like Toadette who nobody cares about aren't being targetted at all. And with how many edits, who cares? That's like saying JK Rowling isn't a good author seeing she's only written 6 HP Books and RL Stien is because he's written hundreds. And you instantly claim that every person voting keep is a sock puppet as to make sure this page gets deleted, which is unfair and is abusing the voting system. If you so badly want him out, why not go ahead and delete the page than then go through a voting process which we know has been rigged to ensure that he gets the boot?
- Keep Aww, I remember this guy. Ashibaka tlk 07:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
I am a mathematician, with some knowledge about spectra of differential operators, which this article is about. As many people guessed, this article just gives a badly explained description of the spectrum of the Laplace operator with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. There is not much value in this article, and there will not be more if it is properly wikified and integrated with other articles. To make this article at least somewhat meaningful, one would need to talk about the physical interpretation of the laplacian, (e.g., the fact that the eigenvalues are the frequences of a drum in the shape of the set \Omega), the uses of the defintion in here, and other things. Also, one would need to put at least some justification or references for the many claims stated in here.
In short, this article the way it is is a worthless definition full of math lingo, and it would take lots of work to put it in good shape, which I doubt is worth it. Any other ideas? Oleg Alexandrov 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete please. hydnjo talk 01:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unhelpful fragment. Wyss 03:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete please. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It'd have my keep vote merely as an argument for keeping the ugly math template, but seeing as that's already deleted, delete. --fvw* 17:15, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Why is this page still standing? Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A schoolteacher. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Gzornenplatz 23:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Rje 01:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A lot of work went into this. Um, Polite Delete. hfool/Wazzup? 01:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Move to user namespace.-gadfium 02:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn genealogy. Wyss 02:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Maya (software)? 137.222.10.67 00:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone looking for Maya won't look under maya Maya, I think. Delete, no redirect. hfool/Wazzup? 01:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as a mistaken heading. Wyss 02:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect. Though it was nominated by an anon, I would've nominated it too. Mrwojo 04:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What, it's not a link to my personal tribute to Maia Morgenstern? Delete of course. But I couldn't help being amused by its resemblance to the title of something I'd written... -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Cleduc 07:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity/Hoax --cwols 01:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like speedyable nonsense to me. David Johnson [T|C] 02:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete-gadfium 02:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is also speediable as silly vandalism. Wyss 02:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. er, yes, this is self-promotion. Cleduc 07:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-encyclopedic vanity. Mgm|(talk) 11:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Rje 12:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a speedy. --fvw* 17:16, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Not notable, no meaningful content, possible vanity page -- a dead-end orphan with no potential to become encyclopedic. ➥the Epopt 01:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.-gadfium 02:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as spam (ad platform for a link). Wyss 02:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, not-notable, selfpromotion. --Wikimol 10:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)(if you agree this stuff should be speedy deleteted, you can vote for extension of speedy deletion criteria, proposals III and XI)
- Delete; vanity, nn. Newfoundglory 16:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- 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, after discounting obvious (G)astrotufing. Guy 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't delete!" Third most influential Christian in America by a recent survey of other national church leaders. Sure, the post could be edited some, but certainly he is worthy of mention on Wikipedia
- Don't delete A very influentail christain pastor.
Don't delete Andy Stanley, along with Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Jon Dupin are quickly becoming the leaders of a new Christian movement.
- Don't Delete. OF COURSE NOT!! He is one of the most influential Christians in the United States and he is a rising public figure in Christian Circles.
- Don't Delete. I and most of my Christian friends in the UK have heard of him, as have a bunch of people I know in Germany. He is important in Christian circles.
Delete, not notable. This is linked to from Dallas Theological Seminary though.-gadfium 02:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Really, it's so fragmentary and lacking in context it's a speedy. Wyss 02:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Rje 12:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Delete. Check out the latest edits. He was voted the 13th most influential Christian in America and North Point church was voted the 3rd most influential church in America.
- Delete as nom. C56C 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete Not notable? He is important and notable in the Christian community.
- Delete As noted above, this is not a notable individual. Tarc 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete His ministry has influenced 10's of thousands locally and probably more through books and mass media.
- Don't Delete A person who has authored twelve books, pastors one of the largest churches in the US and was voted the 13th most influential Christian in America is very notable. Celzrro 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete!! Just because some people haven't heard of NPCC and Andy Stanley doesn't mean he isn't note worthy. If you threw out all the "lesser known" people on the site, you wouldn't have anything left. Don't Delete! Andy Stanley is a very influental person in the Christian world.
- Don't Delete If Phil Pringle quotes him he is worthy of note in my book. --Killerisation 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete --LifeStar 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Delete, self-promotion.-gadfium 02:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Also see 667 Dark Avenue and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/667 Dark Avenue. Ливай | ☺ 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Wyss 02:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Somebody in the WWW 05:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. promo. Cleduc 07:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Hoary 08:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable website. Mgm|(talk) 11:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, self-promotion. Rje 12:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not sufficiently notable.-gadfium 02:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this seems to be ad with some sort of stealthy agenda- no band member names, no evidence of existence at all. Wyss 02:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. smells like teen promo. Cleduc 07:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- These cats may be Buddhist, but their notability isn't established. Delete Hoary 08:35, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete not even well written. --AmeenDausha 20:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A page about an agnostic Marxist who is going to turn 16 this month. Let's wait until he heads this massive revolution he's planning before we include him, shall we? Ливай | ☺ 02:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I tried to make this a speedy candidate but it didn't fit. Totally fails to establish notability and I strongly suspect vanity by a close relative. Anon IP responsible resolves to Michigan. Dbiv 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no importance or relavance. Cacophony 04:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Rje 12:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, good call. --fvw* 17:18, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete, but well-written genealogy like this shouldn't be speedied... something might be missed. Wyss 04:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete obviously not a notable. Sandover 06:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zero google hits for this strangely vague POV and original research type future prediction. Dbiv 03:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If this isn't original research, it certainly looks like it. Maybe we need Wikidamus, where budding prophets can upload their predictions and the rest of us can watch and laugh at them when they don't come true. --Kelly Martin 08:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. speculative fiction. Cleduc 09:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Del Original research. Or is there a wiki to transwiki this?--Wikimol 10:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.
In its defense, the spelling "October conflict" gets about 300 hits, though not all deal with this matter. At any rate, the Google test is hokey anyway. Possiblyrename the article, or merge into an article such as Projected Sociological Evolution of the United States or Scenarios for the Overthrow of the Corporate Elite. EventHorizon talk 18:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)- In fact, I can't find any evidence that there's anything notable or special about the specific name "Oktober conflict", although I've heard/seen it used a couple of times. Definitely keep this information, but in a different article. EventHorizon talk 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User:EventHorizon created the page.Dbiv 19:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. EventHorizon talk 22:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: User:EventHorizon created the page.Dbiv 19:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, I can't find any evidence that there's anything notable or special about the specific name "Oktober conflict", although I've heard/seen it used a couple of times. Definitely keep this information, but in a different article. EventHorizon talk 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I question whether theoretical, hypothetical musings on possible 'sociological evolutions' belong in a general encyclopedia under any circumstance. They should only be included if they describe a "notable" theory, which requires that the theory be forwarded by a prominent person or captivate a substantial portion of the public. Does this theory meet that test? --Kelly Martin 22:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. Megan1967 02:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Unless this can be definitively sourced as an active discussion outside of Wikipedia, delete as original research. Speculation about future events should pass a high hurdle before being included as an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, though very intersting. hfool/Roast me 23:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Genetic engineering. (This VfD was originally closed by User:SimonP on 19 January 2005, but he forgot to add the actual conclusion.)--Aervanath (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Illiterate title. Appears to be someone's weird effort to create his/her own article rather than collaborate at Genetic engineering. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- How come the only time it's misspelt is in the title? Merge any useful content and delete. Lacrimosus 06:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone should request that this is speedy deleted. Brownman40 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I put the writer's article in Talk:Genetic engineering. Brownman40 07:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. already merged, so delete it. Cleduc 08:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. It would be harmless, and would prevent this from happening again.— Ливай | ☺ 13:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Misspelled redirs are OK; redirect. Meelar (talk) 14:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Thue | talk 20:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I am the one who created the article. I am sorry that the title is misspelled. Perhaps the article can be redirected to a page with the title "Genetic Engineering Career"? JarlaxleArtemis 01:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, anything that is useable out of the article then
deleteredirect. Megan1967 02:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Amended above vote. Megan1967 00:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge useful material and make this page a redirect in case the original writer wonders where it went ;-) 23skidoo 06:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing useful here. Genetic engineering is not even a subfield of bioengineering. Josh Cherry 02:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing useful here. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect the article, and merge anything that is useable out of the article. Carioca 21:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Dicdef with no google hits. Asks if I want necroticism, which is mostly about an album. Tuf-Kat 04:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- My guess is that this is a botched translation. Delete unless someone rescues it before them, in which case probably still delete. --Kelly Martin 08:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. probably misspelled. not worth saving.Cleduc 08:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 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 keep, sources found. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable club that used to exist in Finland. Tuf-Kat 04:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not enough information to warrent an article. Cacophony 04:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I recall hearing about Lepakko when it existed, but I doubt there exists enough encyclopaedic quality information to write an article about it. jni 06:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Good thing it was torn down, too. Cleduc 07:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Is that your argument for article deletion? The Merciful 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note (just in case): You're replying to the first AfD, made over two and a half years ago. JIP | Talk 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! Didn't notice that. Makes me wonder why this article has been AfD twice, tough. It's not like the notability status has changed. Oh, well... :) The Merciful 10:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note (just in case): You're replying to the first AfD, made over two and a half years ago. JIP | Talk 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That Google search produced for example this: [1]. Quote: As far as I know Lepakko was squatted in the early 80's and hosted many of the most legendary punk shows in Helsinki. The Merciful 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously. Jmlk17 06:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Lepakko was vital part of Finnish youth, rock and punk culture during it's time! Examples:
- Want to know about Finnish Goth subculture? Then you need to know about Bela Lugosi club which operated in Lepakko.
- Want to know about the history of Finnish radio? Then you need to know about perhaps the most influental of the first Finnsh commersial radio stations, Radio City, which operated in Lepakko.
- Want to know about Finnish youth music? Then you need to know about ELMU ry, which means you need to know about Lepakko.
- Want to know about history of youth activism in Finland? You need to know about Lepakko.
- The place could be compared to, say CBGB, in realtion to Finnish culture. All this is really common knowledge in Finnish rock/punk/underground/etc. scene. All this is quite verifiable (tough most of the material in of course in Finnish). Digging trough YLE's archives should yeld plenty of material.
- This nomination is obiviously pased on nominator's ignorance on the subject, not on lack of notability of the subject. If people think the article is of insufficient quality, then it should be tagged for expansion, not for deletion. The Merciful 11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's two sources: review on a book about the building in the online edition of Helsingin Sanomat (English translation from the international edition of HS) and a 30 minute report from Yle -- NordicStorm (t/c) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Perfectly notable. --ざくら木 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems notable as regards to Finnish culture. Just needs expansion. --Belovedfreak 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, seems to be somewhat notable if in an "underground" way. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per sources found above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Lepakko was a very important place in Finnish culture for over a decade, see the above sources. JIP | Talk 09:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, should have been flagged for expansion. -Yupik 20:44, 5 August 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.
Hoax. Tuf-Kat 04:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense. Cacophony 04:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Young person vanity, perhaps?. jni 06:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. vanity smurf. Cleduc 07:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Rje 12:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
He's in the optical importing business, which doesn't make him notable enough for an article. Tuf-Kat 04:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 06:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delte. --Wikimol 10:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Rje 12:56, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 14:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept
An incoherent and possibly nonsensical dictdef. ➥the Epopt 04:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An accurate and eminently expandable stub. Keep. - Mustafaa 06:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. Google finds few pages that hint takfir is indeed a concept in Muslim jurisprudence. On the other hand, article reads like a nonsense and is not usable to someone who doesn't know the concept already. jni 06:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Takfir seems like a bad thing, so this sounds like an attack on Qutubism. Kappa 07:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.
Needs a lot of work, but the concept is potentially notable.Article is perfectly fine now, no reason to even think about deleting it. --Kelly Martin 08:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (updated Kelly Martin 19:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)) - Keep. Though I'm no imam, this seems like a valid term. Cleduc 08:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It would seem that Takfir is a verb denoting "to declare someone a kafir(non-believer). So, while this brief synopsis might be POV (by suggesting this is done without evidence to support it), it nonetheless could be a worthwhile concept to be further developed by future generations of Wikipedians --Rexrexilius 10:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but someone (not me) needs to improve it. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Stick a cleanup tag on it, if it doesn't get cleaned up within some reasonable time I'll vote for deletion. Currently it's not encyclopaedic. --fvw* 17:20, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Comment: Cleaned up now. - 64.81.54.23 00:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, incoherent and un-encyclopaedia. Megan1967 02:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep makes perfect sense now. Kappa 04:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I will put some work in on it as well.Stirling Newberry 23:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (oops)
- Keep ~ 193.118.65.66 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~ (that was me ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~ )
- redirect to kafir. possibly merge some stuff into it, although it is slightly incoherent. how did this get on VfD in the first place? dab (ᛏ) 17:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't attack other people's motives. Did you check the history to see what the article looked like at the time of the vfd listing? RickK 22:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- sorry, no offense. But crappy article content is no reason for deletion. Only unsuitable article subjects are. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm curious to know whether you really believe that. If I were to write a nonsense article on an obscure topic, should the article should be preserved for however long it takes for someone to come along and write a real article? I don't think so, do you? With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 18:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- sorry, no offense. But crappy article content is no reason for deletion. Only unsuitable article subjects are. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't attack other people's motives. Did you check the history to see what the article looked like at the time of the vfd listing? RickK 22:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- keep. The article looks decent now. PMLF 05:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- keep. Article's fine now. Also note that if it's removed, something needs to go in excommunication. --Andrew 07:32, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Within an inch of speedy. Letter about Thomas the Tank Engine. DJ Clayworth 04:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- delete Paul August ☎ 05:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Should be speedy. Cleduc 08:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and yes, this will probably soon be a speedy. Wyss 04:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
apparent nonsense google Michael Ward 05:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, either vanity or hoax or both. Lacrimosus 06:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. hoax. Cleduc 07:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Massively not worth a separate article. Should really be one sentence in Ali G. CXI 05:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Waste of VfD's time. If you yourself think it should be merged then do so and make this into a redirect. -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Do you mean it should be "one sentence" in Ali G Indahouse? Regardless, merge and redirect. --Slowking Man 06:01, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Cleduc 07:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge Kappa 15:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Megan1967 02:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. GRider\talk 19:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fancruft. If it is really all that importent, merge with Vegeta (which already has an outline of the attack. ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Only one arm? Delete. Lacrimosus 06:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or merge with Vegeta. jni 06:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge no hurry Kappa 16:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. P Ingerson 16:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC).
- Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All that is intresting has been merged. Sure no more than Vegeta's second most powerful attack. To execute this attack he charges up a huge ball of energy and unleashes it on the target. He uses this attack to destroy Android 19. is required? This article should be deleted. ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:01, 19 Jan 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 - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Alan Liefting 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but edit some more to conform to NPOV. Useful article for those overseas people who don't get NZ humour when they arrive. Goldfinger820 05:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand humour, apart from some of the topics, is very little different from any other humour. Better dealt with under the general article, New Zealand. The present article would be more accurately entitled Australian Jokes about New Zealand; very one sided and probably written by an Aussie. ping 07:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep
Delete. WP is not a humor repository. Cleduc 08:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)It's been fixed. -- Cleduc 07:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Canadian humour was recently vfd'ed, and quickly rose from a useless sub-stub, much worse than New Zealand humour at present, into a wonderful and entirely encyclopedic article putting it into the context of Canadian culture and society, with sections so far on literature, music and television, and it's still growing. Keep and watch the (inevitable) organic expansion. Samaritan 08:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and let grow. Dan100 21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Move to Australian humour or equivalent. Canadian humour is by Canadians, not about them. Kappa 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and fix. Although, if this page is deleted after a voting call by a New Zealander, then it proves that at least one New Zealander has no sense of humour. FeebleSheep 05:14, 4 Jan 1999 (UTC)
- Keep and agree with FeebleSheep. GRider\talk 18:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep
Delete — in light of the content of 'the character of the nationality's humour' in other similarly named articles (British humour, Russian humour). — Leedar 07:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)Fixed. — Leedar 23:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Keep. Heh... Ping - you might like to see what the article looks like now that I've had a bit of an edit of it! Grutness|hello? 11:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep now that the article has been expanded and significantly improved. Jonathunder 00:56, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is bizarre that anyone could have thought that this subject could be dealt with adequate with a short section in the main New Zealand article Philip 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep ; good ole Grutness has done a sterling job. The article was previously ugly anti-NZ mockery, now it's actually about the NZ sense of humour + comedy. Informative --- Papeschr 03:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Good work Grutness. It's worth keeping now; can I un-nominate it? ping
- Strong Keep. Any article written by a Kiwi, especially a Dunedinite like me, is a good article, according to me. Big shout outs to the St Clair Massive for writing this good article! Scott Gall 10:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but needs a triffle NPOVing. -- AlexR 17:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but it still needs to be almost rewritten to conform to NPOV standards; it is still largely biased and in some parts about Australian humour, not NZ humour. Neonumbers 01:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but it does need some work. There is too much opinion and self-congratulation in it at the moment (some might suggest the latter is also a NZ trait, but I don't want to prod any hornet's nests). In all fairness, something should be said about the succession of failed attempts at sitcoms over the years. Billy T and McPhail and Gadsby went on far beyond their shelf life, and they were two of the more successful shows. There really were some dire efforts made by others, eg the Lloyd Scott vehicle 'Between the Lines' (wonder if anyone remembers anything about it). A mention of the Topp Twins should also be made, if it hasn't already
- Strong Keep: Which dumb Australian nominated this for deletion? --Thematrixeatsyou 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As far as I can tell, this is a vanity page. There are about 30 people in the directory, and a Google links search on link:http://www.digitalspark.net/ returns only nine hits. I see no evidence of encyclopedic signifigance. --Kelly Martin 06:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity Page Kensho 06:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article states its self-nonnotability: "...designed specifically for a small group of friends...". jni 06:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn promo. gosh, even says it was made by a troll. Cleduc 07:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious vanity --Wikimol 09:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (if you agree this stuff should be speedy deleteted, you can vote for extension of speedy deletion criteria, proposals III and XI)
- Delete, way nn. Wyss 04:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's a student club in a university - not even for all students but for a small subsection of them. The article is short, not particularly encyclopaedic (and probably never will be), and whiffs a little of vanity. The relevant info from it could be moved to the University's article if necessary. Grutness|hello? 06:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Perhaps redirectable to Ingsoc? --fvw* 17:22, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete not notable Cdc 17:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is so wrong (nn). Wyss 04:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and I attend the University of Canterbury. Evil Monkey → Talk 05:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
A quarter of all undergraduates at Canterbury join ENSOC voluntarily each year. For many it is a deciding factor in attending the University. It is a very memorable part of many peoples lives. It was established in 1897, incorporated in 1968 and has a turn over of NZ$0.25MPA. The biggest tradition mentioned on the University wiki entry is an ENSOC event - the "Undie 500". Please do not delete this reference to this learned society with an extremely proud history. www.ensoc.com
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged
This article is written in a barely disguised first-person tone and has no possible interest to others than family & friends of Mr. Burch. All content besides spelling, grammar, and NPOV were submitted anonymously. This is a vanity article. -- Cleduc 06:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated -- additional content and sources have been added, NPOV has been established. It does not change the fact that Mr. Burch is not notable except in the context of Ambrosia Software. The content should be merged into Ambrosia Software and this article should be deleted. -- Cleduc 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious vanity. --Wikimol 10:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (if you agree this stuff should be speedy deleteted, you can vote for extension of speedy deletion criteria, proposala III and XI)
- Keep. No, Matt Burch commands massive respect throughout the very large Ambrosia Software community. --Prophile 2:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is this user's only edit. RickK 06:33, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Worse than that... he has gone on to make only two other edits: Ambrosia Software and the VfD for Andrew Welch. I guess that's what they call a single-issue voter. -- Cleduc 05:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Condense further and merge into Escape Velocity (computer game), as his notability (if any) seems limited to his authorship of this game. -- Hoary 03:29, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
- Delete, nn and yes, the computer game market went beyond super-saturation years ago. Wyss 04:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and repair. --huwr 07:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and repair as well.After reviewing the history of the page, this does appear to have been made by Matt Burch. It should probably be merged with the Escape Velocity page. Norg 13:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)- On second thought, I don't think this was written by Burch. From what I've read of him, it does not seem to be something he would do. At any rate, I hope that should this get merged and not deleted, I've at least updated it with some actual information. -- Norg 21:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Escape Velocity (computer game) unless someone can come up with some additional material about Mr Burch. -- Kaszeta 18:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. I think he's notable enough for inclusion (I may be biased; I've wasted countless hours of my life on Escape Velocity), but since his fame is pretty much restricted to the game I think merging would be a good idea. — Ливай | ☺ 00:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and repair. Matt Burch should not be merged with Escape Velocity's page, he deserves his own page. However, it does need some work. Also, Prophile is a member of the ASW web board, and has most likely been directed here from one of two topics on seperate boards there. --Steelix 17:17, 8 Jan 2005
- Note that this is the user's fifth edit. — Ливай | ☺ 15:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say keep -- I have to say that real people doing notable things (even if they aren't famous) have a lot more reason to stay in Wikipedia than random fancruft that fills this site up. He has provable credentials, he is important in the field in question (Mac games) if not to the average person on the street, and wiki is not paper. In Encyclopedia Britannica he obviously would not rate, in an encyclopedia about Mac gaming he would. Wikipedia is lots of different encyclopedias all rolled into one. (And should there not be consensus to keep, Merge and Redirect with Escape Velocity is preferable than total delete.) DreamGuy 13:28, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable organisation. Probably should have been deleted on Jan 3rd, 2005, but debate was never closed. See old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trees for Canterbury (1st nomination) Mikker (...) 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn organisation. 556 Ghits [2] — Kimchi.sg | Talk 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above, 125 unique hits. Royboycrashfan 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn organisation Gu 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. James Kendall [talk] 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn org. --Terence Ong 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was
This article is written in a barely disguised first-person tone and has no possible interest to others than family & friends of Mr. Welch. All content besides spelling, grammar, and NPOV were submitted anonymously. This is a vanity article submitted as cover for another vanity article (Matt Burch). -- Cleduc 06:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Though this article has been updated with some interesting information, Andrew Welch is not notable other than as President of Ambrosia Software. This article should be Merged and redirected. -- Cleduc 05:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, even Maelstrom, the sole claim to fame fo the company he is cliamed to be the president of is very close to non-notable. --fvw* 17:27, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Delete. While the Ambrosia Software entry is decently encyclopedic, if nothing else can be said aside that Mr Welch is the president, then the entry is not notable.. The page has been significantly updated, and seems to now show potential as a page (although needing more work). Keep -- Kaszeta 18:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Delete as vanity and be done with it. Wyss 04:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. His only claim to fame is Ambrosia, which should be covered on Ambrosia's page. --foobaz·✎ 03:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Whoa... it's odd randomly running across a series of delete votes that I strongly disagree with. Ambrosia Software is hugely significant within the Macintosh software community, and quite well known. Andrew Welch, as the lead spokesman has shown up all over the place in magazine articles and so forth. I vote Keep with the hope to expand it, and at the very least if you take the article away it should be a redirect and not a total delete. This person is way more notable than gobs of articles in this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 22:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ambrosia Software holds a major place in the Macintosh community for both its games and utilities. The articles on the company and its related entries are being updated and I'm sure that that article will become more than a stub. It certainly was not created by Andrew Welch.Merge and redirect. Norg 13:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Creation history shows that it was probably created by Matt Burch when he wrote his own biography (see deletion vote two above): both were created by the same anonymous user at the same time, who somehow knew all about the personal aspirations of Matt Burch. -- Cleduc 17:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Though I stated it in his bio VfD thread, I now don't think this was written by Matt Burch. From what I know of him, it's not his style. Whoever did do it, did a poor job. I've tried to update both this article and the Burch one, the latter being quite spare.-- Norg 21:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Creation history shows that it was probably created by Matt Burch when he wrote his own biography (see deletion vote two above): both were created by the same anonymous user at the same time, who somehow knew all about the personal aspirations of Matt Burch. -- Cleduc 17:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - But I agree. It does need some fixing. --huwr 22:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Andrew Welch is a friendly, intelligent, committed man. Matt Burch would not create an autobiography like that, he is a very modest man. --Prophile 22:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This vote is Prophile's second edit (his first was on the VfD of Matt Burch). --fvw* 00:04, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
- I suspect that Prophile is a member of the Ambrosia forums and not, as I suspect you're implying, the originator of the original entries. Prophile, would you like to clear that up? --Norg 05:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Friendly, intelligent, and committed does not mean notable and suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and my position on Andrew Welch stands. The compliment paid to Matt Burch puzzles me - shouldn't that have been made on the Matt Burch vfd page? -- Cleduc 04:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Your position was: This article is written in a barely disguised first-person tone and has no possible interest to others than family & friends of Mr. Welch. All content besides spelling, grammar, and NPOV were submitted anonymously. This is a vanity article submitted as cover for another vanity article (Matt Burch). The article has been significantly altered and clearly has interest to persons aside from friends and family, if these comments mean anything. All the content has been updated, changed and reformatted. The vanity portion is clearly unsubstantiated, but even if it were a mask for the Matt Burch article, it's not so in its current form. Your position falls. --Norg 05:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your argument and understand that the article is no longer in its original form. I still don't think Andrew Welch has any notability outside of Ambrosia Software, so I advocate merge and redirect. -- Cleduc 05:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. My original vote has been amended above. -- Norg 06:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your argument and understand that the article is no longer in its original form. I still don't think Andrew Welch has any notability outside of Ambrosia Software, so I advocate merge and redirect. -- Cleduc 05:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Your position was: This article is written in a barely disguised first-person tone and has no possible interest to others than family & friends of Mr. Welch. All content besides spelling, grammar, and NPOV were submitted anonymously. This is a vanity article submitted as cover for another vanity article (Matt Burch). The article has been significantly altered and clearly has interest to persons aside from friends and family, if these comments mean anything. All the content has been updated, changed and reformatted. The vanity portion is clearly unsubstantiated, but even if it were a mask for the Matt Burch article, it's not so in its current form. Your position falls. --Norg 05:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This vote is Prophile's second edit (his first was on the VfD of Matt Burch). --fvw* 00:04, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
- Keep - He who adores Ambrosia's games knows that its fearless helmsman, Andrew Welch, has a place in Wikipedia. So, too, does Matt Burch, but I lack the compassion to edit a Keep in over there, yonder. --129.219.179.173 05:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Mr. Welch is a fabulous lover, and deserves a spot in the Wikipedia --Steelix 17:08, 8 Jan 2005
- Note that this is the user's fourth edit. — Ливай | ☺ 14:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Likewise, Jesus is not notable other than for founding Christianity, Bill Gates is not notable other than as the founder of Microsoft, and search engine should be deleted and merged with Google. I have significantly updated the contant on Mr. Welch. -- 129.219.179.173 06:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Probably a stretch as an analogy. We could attempt to guess the intention of the anonymous user at IP address 129.219.179.173, but it would be easier if s/he would cast a vote. -- Cleduc 09:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have already cast it, above. The analogy was a response to the modified proposal. Therefore, my vote remains Keep rather than merge and redirect. In principle, I think a change in the proposal should be brought up as a new item and thus considering the delete proposition closed. 129.219.231.173 08:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- See the previous vote by an anonymous user at 129.219.231.173 -- anonymous votes don't count. Cleduc 16:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have already cast it, above. The analogy was a response to the modified proposal. Therefore, my vote remains Keep rather than merge and redirect. In principle, I think a change in the proposal should be brought up as a new item and thus considering the delete proposition closed. 129.219.231.173 08:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Probably a stretch as an analogy. We could attempt to guess the intention of the anonymous user at IP address 129.219.179.173, but it would be easier if s/he would cast a vote. -- Cleduc 09:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. it is an outrage to suggest Andrew Welch is not of note. User: gaming121
- User's only edit. RickK 10:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment (Note I edited the above two comments to make them conform to the page) gaming, saying it's an "outrage" is going a bit overboard, especially on a free Internet encyclopaedia. If people don't recognize someone, it's kind of hard for them to consider that person "of note." I certainly didn't know who Sharon Turner is, but someone else did.
- Andrew Welch is of high importance in his field. While some people may not know anything about his field, that doesn't mean he shouldn't have his own page. I'm sure some people haven't heard of Woodrow Wilson, does that mean he doesn't deserve his own page?
- Though I guess this person wants Keep, there are no votes for anonymous uses (207.218.152.146). --Cleduc 15:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
*SIGH* More vanity/self promotional spam from User:Baoutrust. 9 hits on google and, surprise surprise, the top hits come from BAOU PRODUCTS. [3] Someone please help me vett out the remaining spam trail left behind by this user, ASAFP! —RaD Man (talk) 06:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, extremely. What are the qualifications for speedy deletion again? This user is spamming Wikipedia far and wide. Also see Baou Trust, Kaith and QuakeAID. (There may be many more, the assistance of the Wikipedia community is requested.) —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. spam. Cleduc 07:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --MarkSweep 10:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam, vanity. *sigh*. --kooo 11:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity, spam. --Wikimol 08:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam. GRider\talk 18:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately it's not a speedy, but it's a blatant vanity ad. Wyss 04:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity, spam, ad. Somebody in the WWW 07:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, spam.-gadfium 19:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nuke It ALKIVAR™ 05:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page should be merged into something, probably Marathon Infinity, which is a redirect to Marathon (computer game) -- which happens to already contain basically all the same content as this page. Therefore, recommend delete as already merged. --Kelly Martin 06:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn and pointless cruft. Cleduc 07:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant and trivial substub. jni 08:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
apparent nonsense e.g. "Nobody knows who his father is but they're guessing it was Liza Minelli." Michael Ward 06:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Offensive hoax, libel. jni 07:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. vanity hoax. Cleduc 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy as libel. "...banned from the Childrens Ward at St Cathedys Hospital for allegedly molestering [sic] a bed stricken leukemia suffering child..."; otherwise unbelievable hoaxy nonsense. Samaritan 08:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article doesn't reach notability. The subject is an author wannabee and a very minor actor (single credited role is on a documentary). The credit is verifiable (found him listed on a talent search agency via Google). -- Kelly Martin 07:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Wikimol 10:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Rje 13:09, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, borderline non-existent. GRider\talk 19:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, stealthy ad for a book. Wyss 04:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected
minor figure in Killian documents affair. not notable in her own right, and her role (as a secretary) is already covered in that article. Michael Ward 07:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed, not notable on her own. Gamaliel 13:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redir to Killian documents. Meelar (talk) 14:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
It's a song, and probably a copyvio to boot. --Carnildo 08:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The song's been removed, and now the article is largely content-free. --Carnildo 08:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. copyright. Cleduc 08:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think many people would be searching for it on Wikipedia. Not culturally significant. :) Cookiecaper 08:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Duplicates content from How the Grinch Stole Christmas, more or less. I'd suggest merging, but there's no reason for that since Grinch Song has nothing to add (although it might not hurt to make reference to the edits in the TV cartoon in the main article). Also anyone looking for an article on "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" would probably look under that title rather than "Grinch Song" so it was a bad article title, to boot. I disagree about the song itself not being culturally significant. Anyone who lives in North America who grew up on it would beg to differ! If someone wants to write an article about the song that isn't copyvio and has some content, I'm sure that would be cool. 23skidoo 01:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. I wouldn't touch this article with a... never mind. Already mentioned in the Grinch article. Gazpacho 06:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 11 and 1/2 foot pole! In that deep voice... Redirect to How the Grinch Stole Christmas. hfool/Roast me 23:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept
It's a copy-and-paste of section 7 of Abraham Lincoln, and doesn't appear to be part of an effort at breaking the article up into subsections. --Carnildo 08:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can we please hold off deleting this until some consensus is reached at the talk page of the Abraham Lincoln page? The main Lincoln page is quite long and concerted efforts have been made for months to break it up. See, eg., Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality, Abraham Lincoln on slavery, etc. NP And it is part of an effort at breaking the article into subsections, Carnildo. I really resent this page being listed for deletion and urge a KEEP vote. NP
- I listed it because, at the time I came across it, it had an odd-looking title, it had been created by an anonymous user, it was a straight copy-and-paste, and it wasn't linked to by the Abraham Lincoln page, giving an overall look of being a newbie test. I listed it here rather than on "speedy deletion" just in case I was wrong. This is also why I typically wait a while before voting on a page I've listed for VfD. --Carnildo 22:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep supporting NP Kappa 16:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, establish consensus first, then start splitting things off. --fvw* 17:28, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
There now appears to be a consensus that this material belongs on a different page. So a delete vote at this point means that this information is non-encyclopedic, which I do not believe to be the case. NP
- Keep, although where there is contention, Fvw's advice would usually be best followed.Dr Zen 02:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Megan1967 03:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's an appropriate split and a helpful article, although consensus for it should have been reached on the main article's talk page first. Wyss 04:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, concur with Wyss's remarks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Orphaned article full of fancruft. Maybe something can be merged to Star Trek, but as an extra complication there is a dispute over contents. Several people in Talk-page say they cannot verify the details in article, hinting that the contents are either micro-trivia even for trekkies or just made up. Delete. jni 08:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is utter nonsense, even by Trek standards. "During their civil war, 200 years ago, the f-borgs have taken over control a Xandrian Cube, who has the same description as the Borg Cube." Oh, come on. We no doubt have a fully equipped staff of Trek experts in Wikipedia :-) and even they can't make sense of it. JRM 10:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm a Trekkie and can safely say that article is a pile of pants. Over-active imagination? Dan100 11:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, undecipherable nonsense. Rje 13:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, 90% is non-canon garbage. Famartin 14:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Garbage K1Bond007 20:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as currently stands. What little is here is fanon, not canon. Pretty useless. An article on canonical Star Trek battles might be interesting, but this ain't it. 23skidoo 01:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing salvageable for a merge. I'm a big Star Trek fan, but this is just nonsense. (Although I agree; a completely rewritten-from-scratch article on Star Trek battles might be appropriate for an encyclopedia.) — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. Mrwojo 22:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Rewrite this article, but only with canonical information. Carioca 00:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Resistance is futile! This article will be deleted! Ben Standeven 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a hoax. Spectacularly fails google test. [4] [5] —Korath (Talk) 09:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless independently verified; vanity. Not a hoax as such: [6]; he seems to exist and hang out in hip-hop circles, but whether the rest is in any way true is another matter. JRM 10:22, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --fvw* 17:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Wyss 03:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless article establishes notability. Note: if it could be verified that he won two Juno Awards, that would make him notable. However, the lack of google hits makes me suspicious that he actually won the awards. Tuf-Kat 00:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
A page that has escaped our attention for three weeks. Message: You, reader, suck. Whether the band exists or not seems to be irrelevant. <KF> 10:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Horribly written vanity. "Anger-core is the heart of everything that you want to be at." Oh, I'm angry alright. JRM 10:26, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Start a fire eh, let's start with this, Delete. Rje 13:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm not angry but I could be described as being a tad annoyed. Does that count? --fvw* 17:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- I'd say so. Just don't start any fires. Me, I'm slightly miffed. Is there a doctor in the house? Ryan needs a Zoloft. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete band vanity. BTW, this article would be covered by the non-subjective speedy delete rule for vanities that I have suggested. Gazpacho 06:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as nn vanity ad (yep, all three). This could even be speedied for lack of context and/or silly vandalism. Wyss 03:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The answer to all your questions about Angry Ryan is: Delete this article. Lacrimosus 08:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This article sucks, and so do you, but your cousin's band is pretty good. Tuf-Kat 00:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
non-encyclopedic dictdef. DCEdwards1966 10:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: there's far more there than a dicdef - none of the second paragraph would find its way into a dictionary and looks encyclopaedic to me. quite interesting stub.--Tomheaton 11:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see this as an unencyclopedic topic (or unencyclopedic content), nor a dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 13:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Could do with some good and bad examples though. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep agree with above keep votes. Kappa 16:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The additions since the VfD tag was added are beginning to make a difference. This really should have been tagged for cleanup or substub rather than VfD. iMeowbot~Mw 16:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep, definately tag as needing {{attention}} though. --fvw* 17:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Keep, seems noteworthy. —RaD Man (talk) 04:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep, people often mistake icons as trivial, but they're a fundamental part of the GUIs most of us use, and many developers not only put much thought into them, but hire graphic artists to produce them (it's quite a specialty). Wyss 03:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep, Improvement a must, presenting and discussing the key techniques to design professonal icons is a good ways do develop the article (e.g. gradients, shadows, shades, perspective, abstraction, etc.) Free artists out there, please give a contribution. 19 Dec. 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.32.72 (talk)
from VfD:
fancruft. Possible merge somewhere. DCEdwards1966 10:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Pierson's Puppeteer. —Korath (Talk) 11:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Ringworld or Pierson's Puppeteer until it's large enough. Keep the redirect. Mgm|(talk) 11:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, agree with MacGyverMagic. Rje 13:01, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Pierson's Puppeteer, since this isn't exclusive to the book Ringworld. Bryan 16:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not run by the Outsiders. Merge. DS 17:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merged and expanded somewhat. Is creating the redirect OK? hfool/Roast me 00:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Not notable enough for an article, in my opinion. A guy who has his own moderately successful website. Many google hits for his name, but most of those are posts to online forums and guestbooks, hits for other people with the same name, and other irrelevant hits. Sietse 10:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
vanity DCEdwards1966 11:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Rje 13:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant vanity. Possibly may be speedy deleted because lack of context. --Wikimol 08:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as possible libel. Wyss 03:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seems like vanity to me; lots of non-existant article links. Alphax (talk) 12:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete apparent vanity Cdc 17:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, v. Wyss 03:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, He's a well known hacker. 22:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-verifiable vanity. GRider\talk 21:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I think he created RexEdit [7] and was one of UnrealIRCD [8] maintainers. 18:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- DCEdwards1966 17:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). Andrewa 16:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An, um, electrical installation.
This and several other pages of this kind (Baltic-Cable, Kontek, Konti-Skan, Elbe-Project, HVDC Gotland, HVDC Wolgograd-Donbass, HVDC Cross-Channel, HVDC Inter-Island, HVDC Italia-Corsica-Sardinia, HVDC Vancouver-Island, Pacific-Intertie, Nelson River Bipole, HVDC Kingsnorth, Cross-Skagerak, Cabora-Bassa, Inga-Shaba) are all linked at high-voltage direct current, and most of them need to be wikified.
Are they really sufficiently notable to have their own pages? Abstain for now. Martg76 14:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Martg76 03:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep these articles seem to be bad machine translations from German, but the subject matter seems verifiable. - SimonP 16:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Geekily notable. --LeeHunter 16:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No problem with topic, but it's not normally acceptable to paste machine translations of foreign language Wikipedia articles into the English-language Wikipedia and leave them in that state. See Wikipedia:Translation into English: "Never use machine translation to create an article!" and Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: "If the article is a mere copy of (all or part of) an article in a foreign-language Wikipedia, it can just get added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion: we want to discourage people who cut articles from one Wikipedia and paste to another without translating." Combining two sins doesn't seem to me to lessen the offense. Weak delete on all of these that are machine-translated from the German Wikipedia, but I'd be willing to accept a commitment to clean these up within a reasonable amount of time... -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I can't imagine why these things are encyclopedia-worthy, translation or not. RickK 22:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Read it, and one might be somewhat interested in the topic (HVDC coupling? Oh my :), but not in this individual, uhm, installation. Wyss 03:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've been working at cleaning up these articles. I think they are at least as encyclopedia-worthy as many other topics - Wikipedia is not paper. I would argue that given current interest in electric power disruptions and transportation of large quantities of renewable energy, that these articles are worth keeping. We can't keep the computers on with out electricity - and HVDC is *all about* electricity in gigawatt quantities. --Wtshymanski 23:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep We have articles on individual railroad lines, individual streets in some cities, and individual fictional characters in sci-fi series, and we can afford articles about individual major electrical power transmission projects. Unlike a paper encyclopedia, there's no physical limit on how many articles our encyclpedia grows, as long as there's disk space and the willingness of folks to write and maintain the articles. Atlant 20:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
I don't think that this person is really that encyclopedic. OK, he has a hobby that takes him to exotic locations, but if we had a page for everyone who did that we would need a lot more servers. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vanity. Delete. Phils 15:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Same as above. Delete. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. (I've changed my vote - the revised article establishes notability.) --LeeHunter 17:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless a kayaker could persuade us otherwise. (Even though he seems a million times more notable and interesting than Neutron Stampeder, which doesn't even exist. Oh, right, "Neutron Stampeder" appeared in a TV series.)Hoary 05:53, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) Neutral; I really don't know. -- Hoary 06:59, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)- Delete, vanity. Wyss 03:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I Dont Care, deleted Wikipedia page would be funnier and make an excellent point in Who-is-Who. At least fi.wikipedia is run by Juvenile Nazi Rats. by Timo Noko
- That comment was added at 18:38, 2005 Jan 5 by 62.248.166.74 (no other contribution so far). Still having distinctly mixed feelings about the article (including the idea that a famously boring person who actually appears quite innovative is hugely more interesting and encyclopedia-worthy than yet more shovelfuls of Star Trek fancruft, etc.), I've tweaked the article slightly. Hoary 03:41, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, definately not a pan-european celebrity. --fvw* 07:41, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
- Correction, celebrated (sortof :-) also in Netherlandian TV: http://www.omroep.nl/nps/tv/urbania/cityfolk/cityfolkafl5_04.html . Timo Noko
- Why?, I made an entry of the most celebrated Noko ever, black african named Ishmael Noko. This arcticle seems to have deleted automatically. This system sucks more than I thought it would. Timo Noko. ... added by 62.248.176.87
We pause our list for one moment. Look, IP number(s) who claim(s) to be and may actually be Timo Noko, the sole question here is whether Wikipedia (and not Timo Noko) benefits from having an article on Timo Noko, or more strictly whether this article falls in one or other of the classes for deletion. You may think that this procedure is more or less unsatisfactory, or that the rules are silly, but this isn't the place to express such opinions. Please make a username for yourself and use it; you can express your opinions on Wikipedia on your user page. Incidentally, the article on Ishmael Noko still exists. And now, back to regular programming. -- Hoary 11:52, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
- OK, Khmer Noko seems to be popular fella also. --Timonoko 13:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The Point. May I point out that the very moment I started planning this entry some corporate rat (of Nokia) started to vote it out. I really am not no-body. Very nasty legal action and revealing TV-show about hiring practises of The Company (Nokia) is pending. It is not all about me, two of the long-standing chair-members (of Nokia) have resigned right after reporters started asking questions couple of months ago. I am of course on a personal vendetta (against Nokia and associated persons) and may not be available, when everybody asks "Why?". This is why I would prefer this self-made encyclopedia entry.. --Timonoko 15:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. He is not notable here in Finland or anywere else for that matter. There are some Google hits because he has been quite active in the Internet, but not much more than other long time net users. He has been mostly touting his hatred towards Nokia in Usenet. According to his own homepage, he was fired from Nokia in 1990 for "continuously neglecting his duties" and has been unemployed eversince due to alleged world-wide conspiracy of tech companies agains him led by Nokia. Quite a sad story, but we must draw the line what is encyclopedic somewhere. Other reasons for deletion besides notability include vanity and self-promotion. jni 19:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This farce has served its purpose. But before you do, please read the transcript of yesterday's TV-show: http://www.yle.fi/mot/kj050117/englishscript.htm -- --Timonoko 22:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moved to User:Timonoko and deleted. RickK 06:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Was tagged as speedy, but does not meet speedy criteria. Still looks rather non-notable. -- Ferkelparade π 15:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Does not establish notability. Delete --fvw* 17:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Wyss 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not established. Also see Sean McCarron and Destroy All Robots. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not even well written. --AmeenDausha 20:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The author doesn't intend to clean it up apparantly, and I don't see how this could become worthwhile. --fvw* 16:00, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently just a family name. Google shows 17 hits for Kholousy and 172 for Kholoussy with nothing that indicates the family itself is notable (or has connections to royalty). --LeeHunter 16:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article provides no evidence of notability. Geneaology. Wyss 03:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Works in the back office of a major league baseball club. --LeeHunter 16:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless, banal vanity. C'mon, Mark! You're obviously a bright guy. Why not establish an account and contribute for real? - Lucky 6.9 00:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, CV, vanity, sounds like someone was bored on a bad day. Wyss 03:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is far too coherent to be nonsense, but I found nothing whatsoever on Google for anything pertaining to it, even when I tried with various alternate spellings, which leads me to the conclusion that it's bullshit. I'll admit that "Hrun" is quite a common string, though. DS 17:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- delete unless reputable source discovered. nothing on google. nothing in no.wikipedia.org Michael Ward 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Previously undiscovered ideology. --LeeHunter 03:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vandalism, non existent cult with non existent ideology.Stirling Newberry 04:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) Vote for Speedy and banning of the User who blanked this page to hide the VfD.
- Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 03:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. There was a clear majority to delete but not clear concensus. Further, the later votes are consistent in their recommendation to redirect. It is likely that several of the earlier voters would have supported that view had the redirect suggestion been made earlier. In addition, this is consistent with the decision to redirect the Baou_Trust article to QuakeAID where a reader can the relevant information about this company and its cut-outs. I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
More from Baou Trust, who blanked it, probable vanity, difficult to verify its notability, but doesn't seem praticularly so. 17:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- the diff claims copyright permission revoked. i imagine the GFDL license implicit in submission is irrevokable. anybody know? but delete regardless. Michael Ward 19:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Our policy page says GFDL may not be revoked but User:Kelly Martin recently argued here that this clause is not enforcable. However as I understand it, his right to revoke GFDL permission was effectively voided as soon as any other editor modified the page. He may then request the page's deletion (and in this case we seem to agree) but he may no longer require it. Rossami (talk) 01:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment 2: If deleted, also delete the redirect Officialwire Rossami (talk)
- Delete this advertising Hoary 06:05, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
- Delete, advertising, Wikipedia is not an advertising board. Somebody in the WWW 23:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as ad. Wyss 03:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nuke It & Redirect MarkSweep makes a good point, I think it should wind up a redirect instead. ALKIVAR™ 05:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- De-1337. (Delete). Spam. --kooo 23:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to QuakeAID, which contains some background on OfficialWire and the people behind it. --MarkSweep 06:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if not too late to vote. Like the others said, spam spam spam spam. --Modemac 18:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to QuakeAID or delete as spam. GRider\talk 17:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to QuakeAID - All the sister pages need a reunion. --Godric 21:12, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: VfD for Baou_Trust also has a vote going on there (mostly delete and one redirect so far). I suggest that if OfficialWire gets a consensus on "Redirect to QuakeAID", Baou_Trust should also receive the same treatment (redirect), since they are both sister pages of QuakeAID that contain background info and preserve connections.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. While we're at it, we should delete Karny and Korndog, which both redirect to here. DS 17:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, delete, all three delete. Michael Ward 18:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Punk kids. :) Delete. -RidG (talk) 20:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable 15-year-old. — Ливай | ☺ 02:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete A.S.A.P. Vanity.MpegMan 02:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. GRider\talk 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all three, vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete them, v. Wyss 03:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
typical tiresome me-and-my-friend-made-up-a-game article. notability negligible. Michael Ward 18:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --fvw* 19:21, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't think this is going to be a widely-played sport anytime soon. RidG (talk) 20:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Wyss 03:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This seems to be a mildly widespread folk version of basketball. Perhaps a merge is more appropriate? Gazpacho 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's not evident from the article. The google link does show some minor evidence for a folk game of that name (someone growing up playing "crateball"). But this article is about a game invented in 2001 of no apparent note. Michael Ward 16:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks like just a website adverticement. In any case it is not an encyclopedic article... Thue | talk 20:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia articles are not #11: Mere collections of external links. — Ливай | ☺ 02:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy, both as spam and as a recreation of a previously deleted article. It was speedied, after my nomination, at about 1am (UTC) yesterday morning. Rje 02:46, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Prior speedy deletions may not be used as justification for the argument to "speedy delete as previously deleted content". I can find no evidence that this was previously deleted except through speedy deletions. This should have been a regular VfD. Rossami (talk)
Not notable. Thue | talk 19:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Clear Vanity page MPS 20:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Vanity. I almost feel bad for the kid. I mean, "known among his peers as a person who has overcome the massive descrimination against 'nerds'"? Good lord. -RidG (talk) 20:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Uber-vanity. No need to wait Egil 21:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, vandalism. Dbenbenn 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the article and associated images, speedily if possible but I'm not entirely sure it fits the criteria. — Ливай | ☺ 23:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vanity is still not a speedy criterion but is clearly in the list for deletion.Dr Zen 01:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted, not as vanity, but because it has less context than the example given for CSD#4. Except for two images and an external link, the entire contents of the article was
- Chris S. Bingley (July, 1988 - ) is the inspirational leader of a group of students in Colfax, California. Bingley is known among his peers as a person who has overcome the massive descrimination against "nerds" and is looked on as a hero by all who know him.
- He is sometimes known as "King Bing."
- Bingley currently has no biography or autobiography.
- End of copied text. SWAdair | Talk 05:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does not qualify for notability. Being elected as #17 for hos party in the local municipality council, and having been member of a school board or two is not reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. (If it were, then >10.000 people from Norway alone would qualify). -- Egil 20:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Wyss 03:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article ended up on vfd a while ago (there's a copy here) and the consensus was to keep at that point. I don't think anything has changed since then. --DMG413 02:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is madness. There was no consensus at all. Does the Wikipedia community understand what a consenus means? Most people said delete. Also: DO people know what they are letting themselves into here? There is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia can maintain biographies of all council members of reasonably size towns. We are probably talking millions of people on an international scale. Heck, most members of parliament are pretty un-notable. The only reason this article is here is that the guy wrote an auto-biography (an anon, the IP is to an ISP in his municipality). Nobody else in their right mind would write this biography. Egil 02:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, a city councillor in a major town. - SimonP 05:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone is having fun with Wikipedia. Mahlum 21:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. --fvw* 22:25, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Why is this up for deletion? Nothing is wrong.
- Unsigned comment left by User:66.176.9.197 — Ливай | ☺ 22:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Ливай | ☺ 22:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come on guys what is the problem? Why are sites like eBay and Amazon listed?? THEY are websites.
- Yes, but those are famous websites whose influence on society has been significant. For example, those are websites that are frequently mentioned in the national and international media. However we can't just go around listing every non-notable message board, fan page and blog out there, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. For every article we must ask ourselves "Is this a generally well-known topic in its field?" If the field is the Internet as in this case, then for the vast majority of individual websites the answer is no. — Ливай | ☺ 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why cant we just let this go. If you go to the site you will see it is very active and full of information, very useful. I think it should stay.
- If there's anything people agree on about Wikipedia policy, it's that it should be applied consistently. We delete articles on websites as non-notable as this on a daily basis, and the consensus has come to be that a website should show some signs of being especially prominent in the Internet community before it is deserving of an encyclopedia article. There are millions of "active" and "useful" webpages out there, and we've decided it's best to leave it up to other projects on the web to document them all. — Ливай | ☺ 23:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable web site. Its activity, utility, and information content may make it a great site and one to make a link to from your personal site, but I see nothing about it that belongs in an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 01:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable DCEdwards1966 01:40, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a web-guide. Rje 02:32, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, expressly violates the rules on not pushing a website on a wikipage. Stirling Newberry 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. Hoary 05:57, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. A website is not inherently notable or encyclopedic. Wyss 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Obvious haox. --fvw* 22:38, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Yes, obvious hoax. Everyone knows that "Operation ToastWomble" was the government's secret plan to take down the breakfast cereal industry. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. GRider\talk 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, prank. Wyss 03:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. — Apr. 2, '06 [05:20] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 22:45, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete not notable Egil 20:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Wyss 03:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a highway numbered at the state level, and is state-maintained. We have all the state highways for some states (New Jersey State Highways); just because Texas is so big that it needs multiple systems doesn't mean we should delete this. --SPUI 08:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Why is notability so important? And I agree with SPUI also. SECProto 23:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - SimonP 06:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Bellhalla 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 23:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Yet another blatant vanity. I'd really like to see those who insist this kind of stuff has to be deleted by VfD to do it themselves, but as not to hurt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, delete. --Wikimol 07:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, v. Wyss 03:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Wikimol, this should definitely be speediable, hopefully will be after the vote.Michael Ward 16:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 23:14, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete. - probably speedy after the vote. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 23:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, though I am not sure it qualifies for speedy. -RidG (talk) 02:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Verging on speedy. --LeeHunter 04:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant vanity. Unfotunately output of the vote isn't sure (As I understand it, some do consider decisions like this "highly subjective"). --Wikimol 07:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Pure vanity Egil 20:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a speedy, just egregious pimple puff, v. Wyss 03:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 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 procedural close as this AfD has not been closed after 8 years. Non-admin closure with NPASR. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity: web vandals in business for a year. --LeeHunter 03:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-aggrandizing. RickK 22:08, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until the indictments. Wyss 03:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep this page, they have been responsible for number of political hacks.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.