Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.77.153.149 (talk) at 15:25, 7 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 6

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Purpleback Swamp Alligator

Delete - Extremely non notable (fake creature mentioned by a character in a non notable book) --Spangineer (háblame) July 6, 2005 00:09 (UTC)

  • Delete: crap. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
  • Delete, but make one into a stuffed toy. - UtherSRG July 6, 2005 00:54 (UTC)
  • Delete, I concur with Alex123's eloquent assessment of the article. - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Delete; useless. Jaxl 6 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
  • Delete totoally non-notable. Tobycat 6 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
  • Delete: I concur with all of the above.Atheistrabbi 6 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
  • Delete- I have no option, but to agree to above.--Bhadani 7 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Omar bartej

Article about an apparently nonexistent folk hero. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. Zero Google hits. - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn sounding like a hoax. -Splash 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
  • Delete possible hoax. Jaxl 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
  • Delete - complete drivel A curate's egg 6 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)
  • Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
  • Delete: The guy can't even spell or use grammar + zero google hits.Atheistrabbi 6 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
  • Delete: He's obviously talking about himself. 6 July 2005 13:29 (EST) (vote by 69.90.203.28, user's only edit)
  • Delete Hoax/joke, even someone who doesn't speak English very well wouldn't misspell every other word. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Brooke evans

Vanity Groeck 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clear-and-present vanity. Apparently, "[[she] should be in charge of the english language" but is slightly unclear on the customary rules of capitalization. Lower-case surnames are a dead-giveaway!-Splash 6 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
  • And I wondered why I took a vacation from this site for so long. Then, it hit me: Crap like this! Just delete this idiocy. Quickly. Painfully. - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
  • Delete; blatant vanity. Jaxl 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
  • Delete As Splash points out, "Geogre's Law" is usually a giveaway. Grutness...wha? 6 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
  • Delete So young. So vain. So 16. Sirimiri July 6, 2005 06:10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a "my friends" booklet. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity A curate's egg 6 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)
  • Keep I think I know her... wtf... birthdate seems close enough to match (she was a liar anyway). Delete her even so, the little tramp. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) July 6, 2005 07:47 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no need to call her a liar, but this is indeed vanity. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:33 (UTC)
    • Clarification I meant that the girl I met often claimed to be older than her actual age. Not calling any users a liar. Plus it's probably not the same girl anyway (common names). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) July 6, 2005 08:48 (UTC)
  • Delete I guess 16 year olds white girls in Saudi have to make their ownfun--Porturology 6 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Delete Not yet 16 (unless it's already October where you are), but oh so delete-able. --Habap 6 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 14:16 (UTC)
    • Question: how do we userfy an anon contribution? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) July 7, 2005 06:42 (UTC)
      • Drop a note on the talk page for the anon IP nicely asking her to set up an account... unlikely, I admit, which is why I say "if at all possible". -- BD2412 talk 15:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (8 Keep, 6 Delete), so keep --Allen3 talk 21:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Erik Hinds

vanity. Why does it seem that so many musicians think Wikipedia is free ad space? delete UtherSRG July 6, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

  • delete Yes, vanity. Mrendo 6 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
  • Delete, musician vanity. Does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Jtkiefer July 6, 2005 06:35 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity A curate's egg 6 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm not certain that he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; he has released some music that has been favourably reviewed. Also, H'arpeggione and Fred Carlson seem to hold up to googling very well. Those who've seen my contributions to the VfD before know that I despise musicians using WP for promotion... but I'm not so certain that is what Mr. Hinds is doing. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Keep. His Allmusic profile shows that he is a notable avant garde musician with two records to his credit. [1] . Neither has charted but that is not surprising given that he is an avant garde musician. Arguably meets WP:MUSIC and certainly significant within genre. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with jglc and Capitalistroadster. Seems to me to be of enough interest in indie circles. Google has many hits for reviews and CD sales. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above. Mackensen (talk) 6 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be above notability bar. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 7 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Allmusic.com entry establishes sufficient notability. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient notability to comply with WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia is not free ad space, but there should be room for diversity on musicians and genres of music. -Thepinterpause 7 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MST (band)

Not notable vanity; 21 hits on Google Groeck 6 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

  • Delete, bands with a single "small quantity" release do not pass WP:BIO. - Thatdog
  • Delete; fails to meet any criteria for WP:MUSIC. Jaxl 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wednesday 13 or keep. Kappa 6 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)
  • Delete "The band had only one self-titled release, which was released in small quantity, and only on cassette." Clearly nn. And for using cassettes. =P
  • Merge into Wednesday 13, doesn't deserve its own article. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Mahfooz ali

Either non-notable or unverifiable. There doesn't seem to be any relevant hits for "Mahfooz ali" Faizabad or "Mahfooz ali" Gorakhpur, and zero hits for "Mahfooz ali" "Lullaby for a missing child". Niteowlneils 6 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

  • Delete; more searching came up with nothing: [2] Jaxl 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
  • Delete' -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/unverified, no one with that name that came up in seach seemed to be him. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
  • Delete- clear vanity / information provided would not qualify the person to be notable for a page here.--Bhadani 8 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 01:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grazielle Corapi

This likely vanity article just narrowly survived VfD because it was lumped in with a few other articles. This person allegedly was in some minor made for TV movie that may have aired in Brazil. No imdb entry for her, and the only google hits are wikipedia. Not notable, vanity, and unverifiable. The VfD trifecta. -R. fiend 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

  • Delete Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. Also I would suggest that the "made for TV movie" is just some kind of cable access film created by high schoolers. Here is a photo from the movie's "official website": I highly doubt the New York Times ever reviewed the movie and called it "even better than Doce 14" (which was the other movie in the last VfD). HollyAm 6 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
    • That was already VfDed and didn't reach consensus due to fears of "systemic bias" against Brazilian unreleased movies. If anyone can establish that it is some high school video project shown on cable access and not an actual Brazilian film I think that could warrant another VfD, based on previous voters being mislead about the subject. -R. fiend 6 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
      • My sources knowledgable about anime (i.e., my teenage sister) tell me that it is unlikely Ken Akamatsu would be involved as the screenplay writer (as asserted in the WaterEffect (2005 movie) article) of this minor TV movie. What's more likely is that it was written by a 14-year-old, Franco Poltronieri, based on Ken's story. According to the official site again, Franco co-wrote the script with Ken. HollyAm 6 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be hoax based on above comments. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 06:02 (UTC)
  • Delete: nn, also delete WaterEffect (2005 movie) as that is nn as well.Atheistrabbi 6 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already been deleted. Woohookitty 02:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (mind control)

Original research, describing a purported method of mind control as if it was undisputed scientific fact. In current form, Delete. (If evidence was turned up to demonstrate that it represents a notable "theory", it might be worth NPOVing and keeping, but I'm not going to change my vote until such evidence is more than hypothetical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

  • Delete; hoax. This is a writeup of a plot device from Frank Herbert's "Dune" novels. If I was sure what sppedy delete meant, I'd probably recommend that. Monicasdude 6 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. If this is inadequately covered in Dune universe articles, then the issue should be addressed in those articles (but the length could still be cut down by, I dunno, 95% or so.) Dcarrano July 6, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dune universe. A quick search doesn't reveal The Voice or mind control being mentioned there. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:36 (UTC)
    • Note: Someone has tagged this as a copyvio from the Dune Encyclopedia, see WP:CP. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 10:45 (UTC)
  • Merge copy edit & shorten. --AI 6 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
  • Merge into Dune Universe but first make a rewrite. Falphin 6 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gigli syndrome

Dubious neologism, apparently used once by Stuart Townsend to describe cliché-filled star-studded flop movies. Phrase gets 16 Googles. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

  • Delete, already mentioned in the Gigli article. Jaxl 6 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that the phrase was added to Gigli (movie) by the same anon IP who created this article. (diff) The reference should be removed from that article as well, unless there is evidence that the phrase is in common use. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. In that case, Delete both the article and the instance of it in the Gigli one. Jaxl 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable neologism. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
  • Delete There is either an older term for this or no need to invent one. --Habap 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. Extremely POV. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism carmeld1 8 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Soundflavor

Delete,reads like a commercial ad for a websiteSalsb 6 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable advertcruft. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen mcgrath

Delete Vanity page of another musician Mrendo 6 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, vanity. Jaxl 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
  • Delete, musician vanity. Does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
  • Delete YAVP. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 04:26 (UTC)
  • Delete --Wetman 6 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable vanity. The "lowercase surname" rule works here too. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen musician vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wright of Brazil

Does not establish notability. Appears to be valueless vanity that slipped through the cracks (it's been up since June 24). -- Hadal 6 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

  • Delete; nothing on google: [3] Jaxl 6 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Joyous (talk) July 6, 2005 04:00 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, google hits galore if you take out "Brazil"...but then.... Sirimiri July 6, 2005 06:21 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity-doesn't assert any kind of notability. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Article said he likes to avoid attention, so let's pay no more. carmeld1 8 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geodogging

Either a neologism or nonsense, I'm not sure which - FabioB 6 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

  • Delete due to its neosense status. (Neosense: A crazy mix between neologism and nonsense.) Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
    • Comment: lol... So, so appropriate. FabioB 6 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. A crazy mix of a dic and a def. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Original entry has now been updated --SockpuppetSamuelson 6 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

  • Delete anyway -- neologism. (Doesn't seem to have much to do with dogging anyway -- you'd expect the cache to contain a naked woman or something.) Haikupoet 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought I remembered this getting deleted once before (with a definition more related to dogging) but I can't find anything in the log. A neologism anyway. DS1953 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 30 Countdown

And which of seven bazillion Hot (your number here) countdowns might this one be? Denni☯ 2005 July 6 03:11 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unnotable -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 6 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  • Oh, Denni, you silly guy. If we keep this, why, I can promote every little promotion and sales gimmick that are put on by the two stations I work for! This is a delete vote, BTW. Believe me, not everything radio stations do warrant encyclopedia articles. - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
  • Given that it is a week-nightly, nation-wide broadcast, I believe it should be kept, so long as it is re-written and expanded. -- Cyberjunkie TALK 6 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Merge reference to the countdown into , then delete the article.--Takver 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
  • Delete Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 6 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)
  • Merge. Into Austereo Radio Network. Fernando Rizo 6 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable radiocruft. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mackensen (talk) 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notableness. -Splash 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
  • Keep - nationally (Australia) broadcast program for many years, sufficiently notable--AYArktos 7 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
  • Merge into Austereo Radio Network. carmeld1 8 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no concensus (which defaults to keep for now).

In my role as an ordinary editor, I am going to "keep" this as a merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Thomas (storyboard artist)

Delete. Non-notable. Just a storyboard artist. Vanity, perhaps? Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Pikmin series. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louie (Pikmin)

Article has expended all available information. Merge back into Pikmin series Nifboy 6 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Church of Happy Goodtimes

A fine idea, but not notable. You're not going to get to Secular Humanist Heaven on 15 Google hits. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 03:37 (UTC)

  • Delete Personal invention. No objective reality--Wetman 6 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
  • Delete, no third party info sources for verification. Non-notable. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:41 (UTC)
  • Delete church vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, but a merge may be in order. There is a tie vote between "keep" and "merge and/or redirect". Please settle this question on the article's talk page. -- BD2412 talk 19:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Olimar

Content redundant with Pikmin series, Merge into Pikmin series. Nifboy 6 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. VfDing something if you just want to merge it is unneccessary. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
    • My bad (it's just that I see a lot of stuff on VfD that's "Merge and Redirect" so I assumed this was the place to get a concensus). I have since done similar redirects with Hocotate and Hocotate Freight Company. Nifboy 6 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pikmin series. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Redirect -- --SockpuppetSamuelson 6 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thing is, both installments, IIRC, have hit one million copies sold. And with a sequel coming out, and a rumored DS sequel along the way, I have to believe that the character is notable. Throw in some of his personality, and you have a very notable article. -- A Link to the Past July 7, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
  • Keep - Derktar July 7, 2005 18:42 (UTC).
  • Keep - Pikmin is a series Nintendo would seem to have big plans for. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 2005 July 8 05:45 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. "Notable character in a popular series" does not mean that the character could have enough written about him to merit branching off a separate article. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 03:03 (UTC)
    • But you're only ASSUMING that it cannot have enough extra stuff written. With Wikipedia, you give an article the benefit of the doubt. Maybe not with one silly article, but when it's about the star of a multi-million dollar franchise, you don't even seem to be BOTHERING to give it a chance to improve. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 03:33 (UTC)
    • There, I've improved it, adding several bits of information that, if you were speaking the truth, couldn't have been added, because there would be nothing to add. But then, I showed that there was. And with the upcomming Pikmin 3 game, even MORE information will be added. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 03:53 (UTC)
      • All you did was give a synopsis of Pikmin 1 and 2, as well as mention a future game (all of which is more relevant on the Pikmin Series page), and mention the SSBM trophy (which is fairly trivial, given there are hundreds of trophies). All information on Olimar should go on the Pikmin series page. IF and WHEN there has been enough written about him to justify splitting it off, then we should make Characters of Pikmin. If there's enough written about Olimar himself to justify splitting him off from that, then he can get his own article. Nifboy 9 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
        • There IS enough information, if you had ever read the logs. It delves in on his personality. For one, SSBM was always there. Pikmin and Pikmin 2 may tell the plot, but they ARE the plot. The character has a wife as well, which is not mentioned in the Article. If that's not mentioned, imagine how much else isn't. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
          • I still stand by my previous statement. If and when enough information is written about him (as in, on Wiki) then we can split pages off of the Pikmin series page. Nifboy 9 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
            • For one, there IS enough content on him. Several paragraphs on the star of a million-dollar franchise WITH plenty of content to add onto the article is no grounds for deletion! You're basically saying that a character IS well-known, popular, notable and has enough content, but should be removed until the content is added. As long as it is known that the content is coming, there should be zilch for a problem. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 04:49 (UTC)
              • And, like I said, almost all of what is actually there is a repeat of what's on Pikmin series. There's no reason to have two pages with the exact same content. Nifboy 9 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks like an okay page. Sandy M 9 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
    • I don't really see what everyone's problem is with this. It's pretty well-writen, it's accurate, it's formatted, it has several paragraphs of information, and there's plenty of information that can be added to this. And if you say that we can't use log books, a lot of other famous characters use stuff that's not even in the games. Even Nifboy conceded that Olimar may have enough content to be his own page, but we should 'delete it until he does'. You know what? Why don't we delete that single paragraph of plot in Pikmin series? Then there'd be no need to merge, delete or redirect, because there's no duplicate information. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
    • And to debunk the idea that it's not good Wiki to describe the storyline that surrounds them, look at Link. His article has a large section about the story for each game! And that's a featured article, too. I don't see why telling the plot of Olimar's or Link's games is bad; the games are ABOUT them. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page is very useful and informative and it is ridicuous to merge this page with the Pikmin series because of the content, while admittedly sharing info with the Pikmin series, is enough to stand on its own. -- Cvxfreak 9 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Olimar article has a whole lot of depth outside of the Pikmin series, but that can be fixed. Keep for now. Andre (talk) 20:13, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rats off to ya

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Forced "catchphrase" from single episode of Tom Goes to the Mayor; submitter failed to check his fiction. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

  • Delete, tom-goes-to-the-mayor-cruft. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --Wetman 6 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. A catchphrase from a single episode doesn't warrant an article. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:42 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 03:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism/def

This page is nothing but original research ramblings about anarchism. Does not belong in wikipeida's main article space. I recommend deleting it. Tobycat 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

  • Delete - highly biased, false, and unencyclopedic. --albamuth 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
  • Delete, collection of unsourced dicdefs. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
  • Delete article subpage, list of dic defs. By person who isn't working together with others on the actual Anarchism article. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
  • Delete individual is going crazy creating all sorts of pages to repeat/support his arguments on talk page. Kev 6 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  • Delete but wonder if Wikipedia is an anarchy. Shame he isn't applying his efforts to the Anarchism article. --Habap 6 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a list of definitions of "anarchism." First, there is "one stop", a page that gives definitions from many, many online sources. Next, there are quotes from leading anarchist luminaries. Why delete this useful page? Apparently the socialist POV clique doesn't like to be reminded of the real definition (they are trying to hijack the article) so they want to bury the evidence. Duh. Hogeye 7 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not even a proper article or has the hope of ever becoming one. // Liftarn 7 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 03:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus production

Delete. Too vague and nonencyclopedic Zpb52 July 6, 2005 04:12 (UTC)

KEEP!. I change my initial vote. Good stuff now! --Zpb52 July 7, 2005 00:01 (UTC)
  • Keep, worthy topic, with plenty of opportunities for expansion. The current content is bad though, and it needs expansion. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
  • Keep - Important topic that has shaped development patterns across the world - but especially in California. Orange County, anyone? Cleanup and expand per Thebainer. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as above. But Jesus, the article has been in this state for over a year. --Moritz 6 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)
    • I'm adding an expand template. Is this okay while the article is still in vfd? --Moritz 6 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it. It still needs more work but now I think we should keep it.--Dave63 6 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
  • Keep, good topic in need of expansion. I will be working on adding additional information. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish July 6, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
  • Keep now a good little article thanks to Dave63 and Jareth. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stuff now. -Splash 6 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like the originator retracted his VFD. ℬastique▼talk 8 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. Interesting stuff! -Uris 04:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. 6-3 if you include the nomination. It can always be recreated if he gets big. Woohookitty 03:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vince young

Too bad about that shaky throwing arm. Stop by again if you make the Big League. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 04:16 (UTC)

  • Delete, being a potentially good player does not make someone notable now. When he does become "the next Michael Vick" then the article can come back. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:46 (UTC)
  • Delete If he gets into Heisman consideration, then he'll deserve an article. Otherwise, he's just another John Navarre (notice the redness of the link for the U of M grad, who was third string QB for the Arizona Cardinals in 2004) Also, can someone tell me how teenagers learned that family names are no longer capitalized? I want the taxes I pay into public education back. --Habap 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Keep When I looked at the UT site, it didn't see anything about the Heisman. Since he is a top pre-season candidate, it is appropriate. --Habap 7 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
  • Keep According to Fox Sports he's the #2 candidate to win the Heisman trophy this year, and other sources share similar opinions. He's not so notable that it would be a travesty not to have a page, but as long as this exists, it seems reasonable to keep it. (After renaming to fix the cap issue, of course. This is the first time I've ever voted to violate the usually reliable Geogre's law) --Arcadian 7 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
  • Keep per the links provided by Arcadian. Though it needs to be renamed, cleaned up, wikified, and NPOVed. And an article about John Navarre would be more than welcome. This is my second time claiming an exception to Geogre's Law. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
I might go ahead and create an article on Navarre. He might have trouble staying on the Cardinals roster this year, as they added Kurt Warner and a rookie from Hawaii who broke some WAC records. --Habap 7 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
  • Delete: If he, JUST A RANDOM man, can get himself into wikipedia, without doing anything great and any good deeds, then that doesn't that mean that 6'000'000'0000 people in the world can get their own page? think about that. Also, his surname doesn't have a capital letter, could be sign that it was rushed just to get public appearance. (Brag in other words) - 8 July 2005, 16:19 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was deleted. – ABCD 20:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast Of Gevauduan

Full story listed on wikipedia. Unencyclopedic. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, 6k, 1d. -Splash 01:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Question

Not notable -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

  • Keep, #1 on a prominent chart satisfies WP:MUSIC. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
  • Keep. The creators of a #1 song at U.S. dance clubs are notable, even if I've never heard of them.--Pharos 6 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
  • Keep, it meets WP:MUSIC guidelines Cyclone49 6 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)
  • Keep meets Wikimusic Project guidelines as top 100 hit in US as well as #1 on the dance chart. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Keep --Wetman 6 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:MUSIC. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 03:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutz

patent nonsense....and them some Sirimiri July 6, 2005 06:04 (UTC)

  • Delete and send to BJAODN. bbx 6 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
  • Speedied as nonsense with no remote possibility of encyclopedic context. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Es Ist Polysyllabic

Yet another page tagged for deletion but not added to the VfD listing. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Response: Sorry, JIP, but I think our lines crossed. Or, you came across this article while I was crafting the following VfD proposal:

Apart from claiming to be polysyllabic and posing a rather elementary semantic conundrum, this is a one-man electronica/electropop group composed solely of, you guessed it, one man. The whimsy starts there and continues on the linked website, which archly divulges little. What does seem clear is that the album mentioned in the article is vaporware. Likely vanity aside, this doesn't appear to follow Notability and Music Guidelines; delete. -- Hoary July 6, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 00:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Biggest-selling female musician

  • Delete This is just an edit war, or something worse, pretending to be an article. Ben-w 6 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
  • Keep, already was on VFD see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Best selling Female artist - Vorash 6 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
  • Keep An informative and interesting article with potential. Valid arguments are given for each artist. J2rome 6 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Interesting topic. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)
  • Delete: Edit war disguised as an article. Google test for the phrase "biggest selling female musician" receives a grand whopping total of 54, relegating this to the status of non-notable topic. Atheistrabbi 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
  • Keep Rightly or wrongly, people care about this, and having this article keeps the arguments out of the main artists' articles. Google test is misleading because the notion can be expressed in many different phrases. Wasted Time R 6 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable topic. Kappa 6 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  • Keep a decent article. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree this is an edit war, but its an interesting article. I will not fight with anyone anymore about this article as it is getting us nowhere, plus this back and forth thing is making me sick. We all need to research more so we can expand and/or clean up the article and ensure that it conforms to a higher standard. No data is to be used unless a credible and valid source can be provided.Journalist 6 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
The question is inherently undecidable because there are no certified worldwide record figures to refer to. That's why a shorter version of the article would just say, Unknown and unknowable. Wasted Time R 7 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arseblog

  • Delete - Not notable - do we need a page like this? A curate's egg 6 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  • Delete all things which are purely web fora, with vanishingly few exceptions. Ben-w 6 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable blog advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
  • What is the Alexa ranking for this thing? - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 08:49 (UTC)
    • Traffic Rank for arseblog.com: 167,462 [4] --Moritz 6 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT free advertising space for minor blogs. -Splash 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Stephenb 8 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)
  • Delete As above, not notable and advertising. sars July 9, 2005 15:33 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable information about a popular football fan blogsite which is referenced by The Guardian. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, 17k, 3d, 1m. No votes discounted including red users who have sufficient contribs. -Splash 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of United States imperialism

  • Delete This article is flawed beyond reason. The very title makes that clear. I suggest deleting it and merging any bits of useful content into other appropriate articles. Afcassidy 01:05, 02 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a widely accepted theory. ‡ Jarlaxle July 2, 2005 05:37 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously this is an extremely biased article...it is subversive to the intended purpose of Wikipedia. This article is full of opinion and subjective rhetoric intended to fulfill a divisive partisan agenda. Khatores 03:27, 02 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. American imperialism is a very established concept in American history. In fact, there're chapters in most American history books titled "A New Empire," etc. Or what else do you call Manifest Destiny and the Spanish-American War? You might want to take a look at decolonization. It's a valid topic, but that's not to say it's NPOV (I haven't given it a good look). But, VfD is not the place for POV disputes. --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Biased, perhaps, but factually correct and the subject is very much encyclopedic. If you feel that it has NPOV issues, that's another matter entirely different from VfD, as mentioned by Dmcdevit. Fernando Rizo 6 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Interesting and useful. The cultural imperialism section could do with some improvement. The US has been more invasive in this area than militarily or politically. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
  • Keep but watch for maintaining NPOV. Perhaps a less emotionally charged title could be found for it, since "imperialism" has often been overused by people opposed to U.S. foreign policy (many Soviet and Khomeini-era Iranian officials seemed unable to mention the United States without using some form of the word "imperialist"). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 6 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. This is not the proper way to resolve NPOV disputes. --Moritz 6 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
  • Keep Most objection seems to come from the use of the term imperialism & the negative perception of this term. The article itself seems fairly even handed stating mostly that some believe this or that some historians have stated that. It could do with some more references & the boxer rebellion section could be cut down significantly though as it doesn't touch on the USA actions in China for most of it. Some treatment of the modern extent of US military power & bases could be useful if properly NPOV presented & also arguments/reasons why the USA interventions/actions noted aren't imperialist but were motivated by some other causes. AllanHainey 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our Imperialism article says "Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries." The word imperialism may have negative connotations, but it is not in-itself POV. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
By the way, I speak as a citizen of the Philippines, a former colony of the United States. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
  • weak keep, this is a flawed article , its flaws mostly stemming from pov issues. Needs a big big rewrite. for instance 'the US is desribed as occupying 'the western zone of germany for ten years', this is silly cuz:

a: there wasn`t one but three western zones, of which one was US occupied b: the FRG started in 1949, the US can not have kept it 'occupied', although there was ofcourse, a military presence. --Isolani 6 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)

  • Keep Well researched and written. It has been in Wiki for some years without adverse comment. A do not think the negative concepts of the name are reason to VfD this.--Porturology 6 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
  • Keep Will this one ever have a NPOV? Lectonar 6 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
  • Keep but someone should seriously look at merging this article and Anti-American sentiment into a single, well researched, NPOV piece on how and why the US is percieved as imperialistic and/or not liked overseas. -Harmil 6 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
    • No offense, but I think that's a really bad idea. The two articles might be related, but I really don't think they can be merged. The one is historical, the other sociological. --Moritz 6 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with TheCoffee that "The word imperialism may have negative connotations, but it is not in-itself PV." Obviously, discussion of one of the most important trends in world history should be in WP, and this is the proper name for such an article IMO. The article itself may have NPOV issues, although I personally think it looks fine, but in any event, that is not a VfD discussion. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • Keep promising if imperfect article on a major topic. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
  • Keep, the US was nakedly imperialist in its foreign policy from ~1800 to 1933. Beyond that, normal NPOV policies apply Gazpacho 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know what else the historic US relationship with the Canal Zone, Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Guam etc. could be called. However, delete the references to the Mexican-American War, Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, Hawaii, the Confederacy, and Manifest Destiny, which would be POV to call "imperialism." Kaibabsquirrel 7 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
    Under NPOV policy we should explain the view that they are imperialism, not remove them. I, for one, think there are very good cases for the LP, Hawaii, and MD. Gazpacho 7 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
  • Delete unless you can NPOV it to an acceptable point (it looks beyond help at this point). -Uris 04:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with American Empire. No need for two bad, POV articles: let's get them in one place, and fix them there. Use the title "American Empire", with "history" as a section. Is the label "American Empire" POV? George Washington didn't think so. [5] --Kevin Myers 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh River Editions

Insignificant, commercial GangofOne 6 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE PRAYER WHEEL™ Program

Sounds like advertising. Bringing it here to be sure. Delete. - 131.211.210.10 6 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)

  • That was me - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems like advertising. Article names with "TM" or "(R)" signs in them are pretty good clues of advertising. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't use copyright images either. --Wetman 6 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)
  • OMG, where can I sign up! Right. Delete with prejudice any article that uses TM in the title. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
  • I concur with Scimitar - Delete with prejudice. Atheistrabbi 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising crap. Banish all who put TM on Wikipedia. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RGCapital

Incredibly stubby, provides no context. I'd say delete, but I don't feel comfortable speedying for short and contentless atm. Is it notable? Does anyone know where it's from? - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Well a google search ([6]) redirects me to "RG Capital" (with a space), which I believe is the same thing and apears notable. So I would say Move to 'RG Capital' and expand. Anser 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
  • It's the RG Capital radio network, which has recently been bought by Macquarie Bank and I think incorporated into their wider network. There's definitely room for an article on this general topic, but I'm not sure that RG Capital is the appropriate title any longer. --Robert Merkel 6 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)
  • Delete It is impossible to tell which country this is in (?Australia) let alone anything else.More confusion than illustration--Porturology 6 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
  • Move to RG Capital Radio and Redirect. DS1953 6 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline notable but not much else. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  • Delete could even be speedied on the basis of "no context". KissL 15:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic church of jesus christ cyprus

No clue whether this church is notable, but it's a misspelled advertisment. Format suggests copyvio. I recommend deletion. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 10:22 (UTC)

  • Promotional. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 6 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
  • Delete Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like another ad for a religon
  • Delete Godcruft. -EDM 6 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  • Delete it's from here, but the copyright status of that is unclear. Anybody want to copyvio it?-Splash 6 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and expand. Unanimous (expansion aside). Tagged and listed for expansion. -Splash 01:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Cornish

Non-notable, possibly vanity. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

I change my vote, as the article's been expanded since I first put it up for VFD. But I'll let it go through VFD anyway. TheCoffee 7 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. - I dispute that this person is NN, see for instance http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=596 --Excession 6 July 2005 13:39 (UTC)
  • Keep. Check out the rewrite- clearly notable once slightly better referenced. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
  • Keep per Excession and Scimitar. DS1953 6 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - How can it be vanity if the individual died before Wikipedia was founded? Atheistrabbi 6 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Being a founder of an arts college makes her notable in my book see [7]. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Appears notable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedied by request of author. Deletion carried out by Stewartadcock.

911 horoscope

POV original research. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

I do not understand what POV original research means. I am in the process of delineating the chart to state the astrological significance of the chart. I do not understand why someone would want do delete this article because I have not written anything in the article that is not true. --TracyRenee 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

The consequences of this attack were so extreme that the United States and the United Kingdom were prompted to illegally invade Iraq and capture Sadam Hussein even though they had no firm evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the now infamous attack on the twin towers or had weapons of mass destruction. It's not our place to determine whether the invasion was legal or not and making the chart would break our No original research policy. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:07 (UTC)

All of my work is original, so if you have a policy that states you are not allowed to put in any original research then perhaps it should be deleted. Would you have any objection to me just having the chart there and quoting and quoting that Ruth Montgomery predicted it in her books.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

I have tidied it up and made it as nice and pretty as possible. I have quoted the source of the date of the event as well. I would like to do a nice delineation of the chart, but I am not going to waste me time if you are just going to delete the article because delinations take a lot of time and I am doing this for free for wikipedia but would charge a lot of money if I was doing it for a paying client. I would be grateful, therefore, if you would kindly let me know what your intentions are regarding deleting this article. If you decide not to delete it then I will delineate it the chart. --TracyRenee 6 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

  • Delete and/or merge. Most of the information is just a (questionably POV) re-hash of September 11, 2001 attacks, and the prediction part could easily be a footnote in that article. However, before adding that footnote, further research should be done to establish a) did this person have a history of predicting attacks that did not come to pass b) how many othe people (besides Stanley Kubrick) made the same prediction -Harmil 6 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
  • Delete: No, just...no. POV, Orig. Res., and questionable. --Alex 6 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)--68.45.247.33 6 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. I don't even see how this is encyclopedic, regardless of any other issues --Excession 6 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Ruth Montgomery was a journalist and has written many books on spiritualism. She made many predictions re politics but the attack on NYC is probably the most notable. I do not agree with the previous comments re the article being re-hash and I don't agree that it is not encyclopedic.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense. Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:10

(UTC)

Just one question. Do any of the people who have voted for deletion contributed anything to this site other than deleting other people's work? I am interested to know how many people who have voted to delete this piece have actually written an article and put it on the net.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Check our edit histories. Note that I just moved from Alex12_3 though, where I did equally little. However, attacking us will not change our opinions. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
Anyone who's ever written professionally had screamed in the face of had that discussion with their editor. Wiki had countless editors who in addition to not giving a damn about the blood and sweat you've poured into your work are also inconsistant and sometimes just mean. Sorry Tracy, but that's how it is here. It can be very very tough to meet the standard. Don't let us "vote to delete" bastards get you down. And, in the nicest possible way: Delete, original research. - Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

I do not agree with Armadni's comment that I was attacking people. All I asked was if the people who are voting to delete my piece have taken the time to actually write an article themselves. I think it is a fair question. It is easy to criticise other people, but not so easy to come up with original work. It was a question, not an attack. I think that Mr Armandi needs to go and re-read my question. If he cannot even read a simple question then I doubt very seriously that he even read my article. I think that based upon the fact that Mr Armandi accused me of attacking him when I did not shows quite clearly that he is not a credible person to be voting on deletion of my article.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

  • Looks like a personal attack to me, and so does this comment. Implying that someone lacks credibility or didn't take the time to read your question or article is quite impolite. See WP:NPA, WP:CIV. Regarding your question, I'll turn around and ask you another one: why does it matter whether or not voters have contributed to their own articles? Removing inappropriate content is just as important, IMO, as adding good content. The content in your article is simply a POV summary of an event that is covered more completely elsewhere, and the bit about the prediction deserves, at best, a footnote in September 11, 2001 attacks, if it can be verified. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

I think that any reasonable person would realise that my comment was a question. I do not agree with you that it was a personal attack. I think that if people are going to criticise other people's work then they should at least see what it is like to produce original work by writing an article themselves. As I said, I do not agree with you or with Armandi. Your opinion that my question is an attack is POV and is not substantiated by any evidence other than your own opinion, which I believe his highly biased. Also, Aaron voted for deletion and is no longer a member. I do not think that people who vote for deletion and then delete their membership have their votes counted.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

  • Questions can easily be personal attacks. How long have you been a Communist?, for example. Implying that those without substantial writing credits on Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to determine whether or not to delete content, as you have done with your question, is akin to saying Roger Ebert ought not to criticize filmmakers because he's not one himself. Of course my opinion is POV – that goes without saying. The NPOV policy states that we should strive for NPOV in articles. "That's just your opinion!" is a valueless statement, because it's also your opinion that your article has worth. Also, Aaron Brenneman has not "deleted his membership." He simply hasn't bothered to create a user page yet. (As a relatively new user, his vote may be discounted anyway.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only one sentence of this article is on topic and not fully covered more appropriately elsewhere ("One item of interest is the fact [...]"), and that is already covered in Ruth Montgomery, which is a much more useful entry. (Also, please look up the word 'propitious') - Marvin01 6 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't vote here that often. When I do, it's because I feel strongly about some aspect of the subject. Here, it's three: POV, original research, and Ruth Montgomery. Not a good combination, in my opinion. --Mothperson 6 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
  • Delete - TracyRenee, go ahead and click on my name at the end of my comment and check out my user page; I do much more contributing than I do voting for deletions. I also vote to keep and merge articles as often as I vote to delete them. What you need to realize is that an encyclopedia is not a place for original research; it's a place to archive printed information that's found elsewhere. It's obvious that you put some time and effort into your article, and I'm sorry that there's no place for it on Wikipedia, but perhaps you can submit it to some kind of astrological or paranormal journal. Not having a home on Wikipedia doesn't mean that your article can't go up elsewhere. Good luck. Fernando Rizo 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Impossible to have anything on this page that is not either better covered in other articles or original "research." -EDM 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Delete -- another fraud claiming to have used the mystical powers of the crystal tarot or whatever to predict something FOUR YEARS AFTER IT HAPPENED. Brilliant. Ben-w 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  • Umm, yikes... delete: 1) vast majority of the article doesn't even deal with the subject in the title, but instead (poorly) duplicates September 11, 2001; 2) the (extremely brief) horoscope stuff is original research. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, original research, and my contribs can be located here. Oh, and the title is poorly formatted, too. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I wrote a really long reply to say what I thought about the comments that have been made on this page, but sadly, it did not save. Suffice it to say, I am not very happy about the things that some of the people have said and I feel that the individuals who accused me of attacking them are totally unsubstantiated in their claims and are only looking to pick a fight. I feel that the individual who said that I was impolite was impolite himself, so it is pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. I feel that the person who said the article was nonsense should not have said it because it was rude (yet I am the one being accused of being impolite). I feel that Ben should not have called Ruth Montgomery a fraud because he has no evidence and his comment is slanderous, or perhaps he was calling me a fraud, I don't know. If Ben was calling me a fraud then his comment was definately slanderous because I have never pretended to be anything that I am not. I have no motivation to retype what I said, as it is only words. I know in my heart that the people who made the most offensive comments about me and my article are deeply unhappy people who have chosen the internet as an avenue to pick fights with people and I doubt very seriously they would have the nerve to do it face to face. If the people who made nasty comments were to say those things to someone's face the person would either laugh at them, hit them, or walk away - either way they would find themselves all alone in the world, which is probably why they are spending all of their time deleting articles on Wikipedia anyway. I do not understand how Hermione could say that title was poorly formatted, now that really is just trying to find things to criticise when a person complains about the formatting of a title.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

    • No spirit guides predicted anything, no horoscopes predicted anything, you had no foreknowledge of the event, your horoscope did not tell you that two jets would be piloted into the twin towers on the day in question. None of this happened. Sorry if that offends you but what you say is not true. Ben-w 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. A more proper title would have probably been something to the effect of September 11, 2001 horoscope. I'm sorry if you feel antagonised here, but lots of articles get deleted here daily. I read through the article; not being an astrologist myself, it didn't make a lick of sense to me, nor did it seem to follow the guidelines set out in the Wikipedia help pages. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
Look, nothing is personal unless you choose to make it so. Your article doesn't suit Wikipedia. That says nothing about you, unless you choose to think it does. It would seem to make more sense for you to figure out where else your work might go, instead of arguing against what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedians do. --Mothperson 6 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, non-encyclopedic. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  • Delete high POV diatribe about the Iraq war et al, original research that, I'm afraid is non-encyclopedic. Having read it, I don't even see any reference to a horoscope save a link to Ruth Montgomery — not being psychic I can't fathom the picture without some explanation in the article. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article states that "it is worth taking a close look at the event chart of the first attack, which occured at 8:43 Eastern Standard Time on the morning of 11 September 2001" but no explanation of the event chart is given. There is a circle with astrological symbols, numbers, and colored lines, but no explanation of what any of it means. Even if the event chart were explained in the article, there would still be issues of POV and original research to deal with. Do not merge article with Ruth Montgomery; apparently she predicted an attack on New York in the 1990s which would lead to World War III, but 9/11 was after the 1990s and hasn't led to World War III, nor did she cast the horoscope which this article is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 July 7, 2005 06:00 (UTC)
  • Delete Original Research. Moreover, since the article doesn't even "explain" the chart, I don't know what purpose it was intended to serve. Even if astrological charts were encyclopedic (which they are not), a chart without clarification is of no practical use to the general public. Xoloz 7 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. original research. (oh, and FWIW - which is nil, since all editors in Wikipedia have equal say regardless of how much they've done here - I've written about 540 articles here) Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Delete for various reasons all of which have been stated already. Author even admitted that it should be deleted. Descendall 7 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)


I think that Ben's comment that me and/or Ruth Montgomery is a fraud should be struck from this page because Ben cannot prove his comments and it is libel. Ruth Montgomery is a very well respected journalist as well as a spiritualist, and if she were to read Ben's comments, which are not substantiated, then she could very well sue Wikipedia for defamation of character. I also think that the person who made the comment that the article was nonsense should delete the comment becuase it is not constructive. I am being asked not to take things personally, but some of the people who have posted comments have made some very personal attacks on me. The article was in progress and I was going to make an analysis of the chart, if anyone had bothered to read the discussion page they would see that the article was still in progress. If you would like to delete the article that is one thing, but please don't make nasty and offensive comments to me about me, Ruth Montgomery, or my article. The people who have made nasty comments like to see themselves as editors, but no true editor would be given such a position of responsiblity if they were not capable of giving constructive criticism in a positive fashion. The quality of many of the comments has not been positive criticism and I feel is a reflection of the mindsets of the people who posted them.

Libel is very hard to prove in the United States. You'd have to first prove that the comment was false, which would be impossible. Descendall 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
  • Let me try to go through this once more, since this issue is obviously very important to you. "I am being asked not to take things personally, but some of the people who have posted comments have made some very personal attacks on me." They have said things, but only you have to power to turn them into "personal attacks." Maybe some of them even thought they were making personal attacks, although I tend to doubt it for most of them. But even if they thought that, it doesn't make it real until you decide to believe it is. And even then it still isn't "real" because... oh, never mind. Let's pretend that I - in the persona of - "Icki" - am the person who has made all the remarks you consider offensive (and I might as well be guilty, because I've thought some of them even though I haven't written them down). You've then said that I, Icki, am a slandering, irresponsible, nasty, ungrateful, talentless, rude, bullying, miserable imposter of an editor, and have, by such behavior, earned unhappiness, social shunning, and an eternal damnation to a life of deleting articles such as yours. Well, everything you've said about me, Icki, is yours. What I choose to do with it is mine. I can scream like a banshee, go cry in a closet for an hour, kick a wall, fume for the next six months, or I can tra-la-la my way on to write, edit, or delete another article, grab the inner tube and head for the pond, etc., et al., ad infin. In other words, I can choose to take your words seriously, or I can dismiss them. I would bet real money Icki is doing the latter. Unless you enjoy working yourself up to a lather (and while the melodrama can create a certain adrenaline rush, it doesn't last), you might consider doing the same. It would seem you have talents that other people do appreciate, so why not give up on Icki as a total idiot, and go do something else more enjoyable? --Mothperson 7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
    • Tracy, you should bear in mind the caveat on the bottom of every edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Don't take it personally; this is how Wikipedia works. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The only new "information" is the prediction of an attack in the late 1990's. Not only unverifiable and an unremarkable prediction, but wrong by a few years. Peter Grey 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a "7 7 horoscope" article by some phony that "predicts" the tragic events in London after they happened? Ben-w 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
  • Comment No, we'll have to wait another four years for that Descendall 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Please find attached a message that I sent to a person in Wikipedia asking that Ben be banned for his comments:-

I would like to make a complaint about Ben W. He has posted some libelous comments on Wikipedia about me and he sent me an email saying that I am a fraud and a liar. He has also taken it upon himself to delete articles, and I think that someone like that should not be allowed to make any entries on Wikipedia. One day he is going to say something about someone who is in a position to sue, and Wikipedia will be in a lot of legal trouble. Thanking you from banning this individual from the site for making libelous comments about me.

I would also like Wikipedia to know that I do not want Ben to send me any more emails. If Ben sends me any emails I will take his malicious communication to the police and seek legal action against him. I will also use the malicious comments that he has made in this site and ask them to look into the matter because there are laws about malicious communication and harrassment, and I consider his emails to me and his postings on this page to be just that.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

  • Ah, the concept of "slander", a tool employed by the plutocracy to silence their critics and opponents, to suppress the free flow of information. The concept of suing someone for "malicious communication" is a slippery slope and undermines freedom of expression, which the GFDL which Wikipedia is grounded in is based on. -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Mothperson, if you don't want any more emails from me that is just fine. I only emailed you because you made a comment and I wanted to speak to you privately about it, but if you don't any more emails from me that is just fine with me. I only sent you one email stating my case and that was all, so I would rather that you did not come on this public forum and try to make it sound as if I have been sending you lots of emails, by using the plural. I promise that I will never ever in a million years send you another email or acknowledge your existance in anyway if you will promise that you will not put in this public forum that I have been sending you plural emails when I only sent you one that I am aware of.

There seems to be problems with the editing of this page because I put comments in and try to save it, and nothing comes of it.

To be honest, I would rather that you just delete the article and this page as soon as possible because I am just to upset to worry about it anymore. The article really pales in comparison to what happened today. There are more important things to worry about, such as the bombing in London. I would rather focus my energies on positive things and not this page, which has become very negative. The people in the group have made some very nasty comments that have been directed at me, and I am very upset about the whole thing. I think that some of the people who have made comments on this page have some very serious issues with regard to bullying, harrassment, libel, slander, just to name a few.

With regard to the legal issues, if a person sends an email to another person's hotmal account, calling them names and saying hateful things then that is harassment. In England there are laws about harrassment and malicious communication, and I doubt very seriously that the police are going to care about Wikipedia's bylaws if BenW continues to send me emails to my hotmal account calling me names and saying things about me.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

  • "I'd rather you didn't send me personal e-mails" doesn't imply that multiple emails were sent initially. Compare with "I'd like you to give me some more donut." It doesn't make sense without the plural. I think you're harping on Mothperson a bit too much with this. Anyway, if Ben-w sent you some nastygrams, that really sucks, but you have said some rather nasty things about him in this public forum, including unfounded accusations of libel and threats of legal action. Neither justifies the other, I'm afraid, and you continue to make blanket accusations of bad behavior and libel. Several people, including myself, have attempted to explain to you why the article and the expansion you have planned for it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia; we are met with varying levels of hostility, accusations of rudeness and libel, questions about our credibility and writing credits on Wikipedia, and veiled legal threats. The article's introduction is a summarization of the events of 9/11 and its aftermath, which you have put your own spin on. This material is covered much more thoroughly and neutrally in articles on 9/11 and related articles. A delineation of the chart, as I have explained to you on the article's talk page, would constitute original research, since you are doing some sort of astrological analysis yourself, and that sort of material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The only verifiable fact in the article (outside of the introduction) is that Ruth Montgomery made a vague prediction about the 9/11 attacks that turned out to be off by a few years, and this is already covered in a less POV fashion in Ruth Montgomery. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 23:04 (UTC)
    • "Harrassment" does not consist of the sending of one email. Harassment can only consist of repeated injurious conduct, undertaken after a request for the ceasation of the conduct is made by the complainant. Legal threats don't belong on Wikipedia at all, and frivilous legal threats really don't belong anywhere. Xoloz 8 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seeing the clear majority, I wouldn't have bothered casting a vote until I read something about veiled legal threats. I hate it when people do that. ℬastique▼talk 8 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

I do not object to deleting the article, per se. What I object to is the comments that people have made, directed at my article and me personally. People did not have to call the article nonsense and accuse me of attacking them when I asked a very legitimate question of have the people deleting the articles even written any articles themselves. I also feel that Ben W's comments about me are personal attacks. Andriod, I think that your thinking is very biased, so I am not surprised in the least that you would turn it around to try to make it seem as if I have done something wrong. I think that you would rather the people in this forum sit back and hurl abuse and say nothing. With regard to Ben W, he has sent 2 hate mails so far into my hotmail account and has said some really nasty things. I telephoned the police about the hatemail that BenW has been sending me and they advised me what to do about it. Basically, I was told to have no further contact with Ben W and if he continues to send me hatemail then they will investigate the matter. Just because a person is in Wikipedia does not give him a licence to abuse and libel people. A person can say they disagree with the article without making personal attacks. Android, all of your comments to me have been very negative and I know that you are looking for any way to discredit me. You are not taking into consideration that I have feelings and do not like being personally attacked.

I do feel that some of the comments and hatemail I have received are by people who are very clearly unhappy and are not in the right state of mind to be posting messages here. I also have not made any veiled threats about legal action because if people send malicious communication into my hotmail account then I will report the incident to the police. There is such a thing as internet crime, you know. A lot of people think that just because they are on the internet they can act with impunity, and that clearly is not the case.

I think that in light of the London bombings, it would be far better if we focused our efforts in a positive direction and not this forum, which has become quite negative. I have already emailed one of the trustees of Wikipedia and asked for Ben W to be banned because of the libelous comments and the hatemail he has been sending me, and have asked him to close this page down because of the nasty comments made about me personally on this page. I have already informed him that I have reported the hatemail I have been receiving to the police.--TracyRenee 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

People did not have to call the article nonsense... Are you seriously surprised that most people think these things are nonsense? Oh, and delete obviously MyNameIsClare talk 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
  • I think everybody needs to take a step back and breathe. I don't personally believe in astrology or anything of that ilk, and I do think that Tracy Renee is acting irrationally, but several other people have made some impolite and unnecessarily brusque comments in this VfD. It does no good to point fingers and decide who started what, but the tone of this VfD has gotten absolutely childish. As absurd as it is to throw around legal threats over something so trivial, there are also much more courteous ways of telling someone that their article is unencyclopedic. You can't correct a wrong with a wrong. People who embrace logic and disregard concepts that cannot be empirically proven (as I feel most of us here are) often succumb to condescention when dealing with "spiritual" people, and it's clear that's what's happening here. We all know better than that. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
    • Having already spent a fair amount of time on this subject, I figured sheep, lamb, what the heck. A review of history shows the user has engaged in this exact same kind of disruptive behavior before, and apparently cannot be reasoned with, by even the nicest of people, much less this group (and I mean that in the nicest possible way!). Therefore, we should probably just let this drift into the outer ether. --Mothperson 8 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 04:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osker

Assuming the contributor wrote the altsound bio as well, this is still a piece of vanity. Otherwise it would be a copyvio from [8] Delete - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

  • yurs, not one link? Cut'n'Paste for sure. Delete --Excession 6 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up, they are on Epitaph Records, seem notable enough. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. Has it been reported? I would vote keep for even a stub on this band as they meet Wikimusic Project guidelines having released two albums on a notable independent label in Epitaph Records. See [9]

Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
  • Comment. Tagged as copyvio and listed on WP:CP. --Nabla 2005-07-07 14:49:28 (UTC)
  • Keep' and rewrite. It is in fact a copyvio, from User:68.38.148.76, who's earned himself a 24-hour block for spamming over 100 band articles with altsounds links. I've been going through and reverting each one that wasn't copyvio. Thanks for your help, MacGyverMagic. :-) --Idont Havaname 01:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Keep votes from entirely new users have been discounted as they are probably sockpuppets of one user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Soma

"Jonathan Soma, is a fan created fictional character based on the Star Trek Enterprise television series". ie this is fanfiction. Whilst Wikipedia might find a home for articles about famed or notorious pieces of fan fiction, this does not appear to be so. (note google counts are distorted by the apparent existence of a real person with this name - "Jonathan Soma" +Trek, -wikipedia gets 13 hits total.) Morwen - Talk 6 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

  • Delete. No reference to which works Soma appeared in, which makes one suspect he didn't appear in anything notable. Martpol 6 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfic characters need significantly more links or media coverage to be included. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:18 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a fanfic repository. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fanfic. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)
  • Keep Soma is a popular character among Star Trek Enterprise fans. He is VERY notable and very popular. Even recognised by the writers and producers of the show. There is a reference at the bottom of the page listing where his appearence/stories can be found.Scifithings- 7 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)
  • Delete It's fanfic, all references to him in other articles should be deleted. (Alphaboi867 9 July 2005 05:27 (UTC))
  • Keep Soma rocks man! Been readin him from the begining on the newsgroups. He's better than the lame@$$ characters on the real show!! baginboy- 12 July 2005 7:59 (UTC) (Actually Bashinboy, user's first edit)
  • Keep The Captain Soma series is an extremly well written set of stories, written by a professional writer, that is quite popular amongst Enterprise' online fanbase. I don't see anything wrong with keeping the 'Jonathon Soma' entry around.alphal88t- July 12, 2005 8:05 (UTC)
  • Keep Soma is a wonderful, well thought-out and developed character. Although he's been created by a fan, he is popular with online fans and should be allowed to leave his mark on Wikipedia for all posterity!lyvidia- 12 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
    • User has two edits, both here. This is starting to look like sockpuppetry. --Etacar11 14:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Etcar11, fans are merely speaking out. If it's sockpuppetry, then the administrators will decide.- Scifithings- 13 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
      • Three people, who all come directly here for their first edits, all sign their sig in lower case, even though their User names are capitalized. Two out of three of them misspell their sigs. (Or otherwise render incorrectly) Looks suspicious to me. But, of course, it's up to the admins to decide. No offense to anyone meant. And, Scifithings, sign in before you leave a comment, so that we know it's really you. :) --Etacar11 15:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fanfic. Ken 15:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Jonathan Soma is very popular in the internet world, who doesn't like him doesn't need to read his page, who comes across his character somewhere can look him up in Wikipedia, what's wrong with that?! Just because it isn't canon doesn't make him any less real, it's the fans that have kept Star Trek alive, not canon. As a suggestion: it would help to have the article refer to the original fanfiction where he was created, and by whom. (Unsigned vote by 193.198.137.74 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • Keep Many science fan fiction readers will find this information useful and interesting. I'm a mild fan fic reader but find this character facsinating. Please keep it.Y2kelly- 14 July 2005 12:12AM(UTC)
  • Delete, the admin closing this should check for sock votes. --nixie 04:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are the second person to make this claim. The people who are voting to "KEEP", are Enterprise and Captain Soma fans. They are coming here to express their support. By all means, check for sockpuppetry or multiple voting. I would be hard pressed to believe you will find a single one. --Scifithings 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucking

Promotion + dic def = Delete - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:15 (UTC)

  • Delete as above --Excession 6 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  • Delete - heaven help us - we'll all be Waterstoning next ! A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  • Re-write to include acting like Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica. Oh wait, that would be BJAODN. Nevermind, just gimme a double-Delete-latte-delete-a-chino. --Habap 6 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)
  • Delete mixture of promotion and nonsense. KissL 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense --cesarb 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Pimp daddy ceasar

seeems like nonsense. Irishpunktom\talk July 6, 2005 11:40 (UTC)

  • Appears to be patent nonsense and/or an attack page. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 6 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete --Excession 6 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
  • Delete A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • Speedy as nonsense. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 04:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohman

Delete This looks like character assassination to me. I do not understand how Wiki can countenance it. The guy has no criminal record if he follows up. But people here are publishing emotional responses. He is not a public figure. The only way in which he is "of media interest" at this point is that Wiki has chosen to make him so. How is he supposed to get a job and move on when anyone can wiki him and read the emotional responses here? There are people on our streets who been convicted of far worse things that do not have wiki articles attacking them.

Keep This person has become an individual of media interest. In the future when one person says to another "it's like the Lohman thing" and they say what? and the first person says "search for him on wikipedia", what will this site have to say on this person of media interest? Nothing? Or a concise article?

Delete This is a vanity page, about an obscure individual, of no encyclopedic value. Furthermore, unless someone is convicted of a crime, it is prejudicial to put accusations against them and publish it in an encyclopedia. After all, you are still innocent until proven guilty. I'd hate to see Wikipedia become a platform for smear campaigns and personal grudges.

Comment I don't see any indication that the accused here is claiming innocence. In fact, he's pleaded guilty in order to avoid jail and to be diverted to an intervention program. Also, I don't see any evidence that the authors of the article have a personal vendetta or grudges.

keep We don't require a conviction for inclusion. This submission is unlikely a personal grudge. This was quite the sensational news item not only at Princeton but in college circles. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) So Wikipedia is now a forum for listing everyone arrested for something? The accused is not a professor or a politician or even a public person. How is this appropriate for an encyclopedia? Furthermore, this seems likely to be applied in a discriminatory manner, since obviously 99% of criminals and accused criminals won't be listed. 2) This could open up Wikipedia for lawsuits of people accused and later proven innocent. Especially bad is when the article is NPOV and states things like "On several occasions, he would cut the hair of Asian women without their knowledge or consent." Typically newspapers and other reputable source make sure to qualify statements with "so and so is accused of ..." or "allegedly".
Comment All of the above were reported similarly by mainstream, non-student news sources because the guy has confessed and admitted as much, making the cautionary language unnecessary. Howee 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, the guy has pled guilty already, so there are not legal issues to consider.

keep The only real problem I see with the existance of this article is the point that it could be construed as a personal attack - however, I think simply what already happened, without a conviction at this point, is noteworthy - the accusations caused a great deal of buzz, conversation, anger that students weren't aware of suspicion earlier, and will likely have long-term effects on the university. If in two years that is not true and/or he is suprisingly cleared of charges, then the article should be deleted - the problem is not that it's an inappropriate topic, it's just that it's not a resolved story yet, and that resolution may, in fact, eventually make it non-notable, but right now I think it is definitely notable - this is not an obscure name in Princeton, certainly... that's the only area I can speak for. Sirmob 21:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


keep I don't see how this page could be viewed as a personal attack. It's a NPOV article that simply recounts what the police report stated. The page also cites third party press articles about these alleged acts. There is no conclusion of Michael Lohman's guilt or innocence so it is not correct to state that this article may potentially open up Wikipedia for a lawsuit. The language in this article is no more discriminatory or libelous than any standard newspaper article. And, as others have pointed out, when this story broke, it attracted a lot of attention. Do a Google search for "Michael Lohman" and you will pull up multiple newspaper articles about this story. For better or worse, the story attracted lot of attention so Lohman is now a public persona. westworld

delete now that he has not been convicted, the page strikes me as dubious. Also, I don't like the precedent of non-notable non-public figures being posted. Is this moving into Megan's Law style sex offender lists??? See lots of potential for abuse, revenge, harrassment of private individuals. Willowx 6 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

Comment This is a really old discussion, neither the person who put this up for VfD nor I (at that point) had really figured out the whole VfD thing, and so it never got listed and after a few weeks it appeared that something like consesus had been reached - I removed the notice instead of listing it under VfD, which I now realize to be inappropriate but forgot to correct and apologize for playing god administrator. I still believe that the person is relevant due to the impact that he had in and out of Princeton. Sirmob 6 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Why does this entry attract so many deletionist? The man is quite infamous. I even saw someone using "mittenswithhair@domain.com" email address last week. And no I'm not a Tiger - just a crappy state school kid in San Diego. All the more reason to support keeping. lots of issues | leave me a message 6 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
Comment This guy has pled guilty which gives you the same legal status as being convicted, when you're convicted, you're found guilty
Howee 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, the acts of harrassment cited–though certainly indicative of abnormal psychology–are not unusual enough to warrant an article on the person in question. We don't write an article on every alleged criminal, pervert, or wacko. If you want to be famous for bottles of urine, you have to be Howard Hughes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every criminal act that gains its perpetrator his 15 minutes of fame also gains him a permanent spot in the encyclopedia. This misses the mark for me. DS1953 6 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
  • Transiency is absolutely not part of the Wikipedia inclusion criteria. And I wonder for how many years this anecdote will affect the enrollment of Asian chicks at Princeton. lots of issues | leave me a message 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
  • Comment Not all criminals or criminal acts get nation-wide media coverage Howee
  • Delete. Appear to be crimes of mainly local interest and therefore not enough to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we get a good number of cites outside of the Princeton/N.J. area. Keep, evidence provided of larger-scale impact. Dcarrano 22:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable about someone who apparently won't even get a criminal conviction to wave around the notability room. Also had little or no impact outside the immediate locality. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
It's been pointed out that the upset was wide than just his locality. True, but he still isn't a criminal for it (even though he plainly ought to be, IMHO) and this erases the notability of his acts. Non-criminal misbehaviour is non-notable. My vote stands. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
Comment "Pleading guilty" in order to enter an intervention program establishes same level of guilt as being "found guilty", you're guilty nonetheless Howee
  • Delete I don't see the notability of this man. Redwolf24 7 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)


  • [10] San Francisco
  • [11] Non-princeton blog, refers to New York Post article
  • [12] Asian Week article (appears to be the San Francisco area)
  • [13] Non-Princeton blog, calls for action against the D.A.'s office it seems
  • [14] Cornell Student's blog, refers to (probably the same) N.Y. Post article.
  • Comment This is just a selection of the Googlings I turned up. I do very much hope this counts as a "good number of cites outside the Princeton/N.J. area," and in light of looking all of this up I have expanded the article a good bit. Sirmob 7 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
Plus the item made its way into News of the Weird, a nationally syndicated column.

Let me try to illustrate the shock of this story and why it reverberated further out than the campus. There are 6500 total students at Princeton. Half, 3250 are females, and 10% of that number forms the Asian female population. The man was involved in 50-60 lewd acts. An entire ethnic body nearly systematically targeted! This was a petty pervert but he pulled off an intimidating feat. You can imagine why Asians far from Princeton reacted to this as a shocking hate crime. lots of issues | leave me a message 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

  • Delete until he becomes a real criminal. Alternatively move it to Wikinews.--nixie 7 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Delete until notability established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not a list of criminals A curate's egg 7 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
Comment The man "pled guilty", establishing criminal status, and the case was covered widely by national media outlets, a pretty good indication of notability
  • Keep. This case received a great deal of attention. Pburka 9 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability beyond local community/ethnic minority not established. This story will likely see whatever little notoriety it's achieved vanish whether or not he's ever convicted. But certainly until he's convicted this is just a story of local/special interest group interest only.

carmeld1 06:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had promised myself I was going to stop commenting on this VfD, I apologize - But is it really a legitimate critera to say that something that is only shown to be important to Asians is unimportant to Wikipedia? Sirmob 13:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm more than a little disturbed to see comments from some people saying that this Lohman story is not notable beyond "an ethnic minority". In my opinion, some of you are basically saying that because his actions only affected non-Caucasians, it doesn't matter. And I'm sorry, but that attitude is verging on being racist. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it sure sounds like it to me. As for this story only being a "local community" (i.e, Princeton University) story, that is clearly not the case. The story attracted a lot of attention from nationwide press, as others have already pointed out. In addition to the ones already listed above, here's a few more.
  • [15] Boston Globe
  • [16] Lousiana State University student newspaper
  • [17] The Advocate, Baton Rouge daily newspaper


  • [18] Claremont College newspaper
  • [19] Yale Daily News
  • [20] Blog discussing the Lohman story.
  • [21] Another blog discussion
  • [22] Yet another blog that mentions the story.
  • [23] Another blog (all the rest that follow are also blogs of one kind or another)

Clearly this news article caught the attention of a lot of people beyond just Princeton. I don't think it's valid to say that he is not notable or notorious.


  • Keep The main arguments for deletion seem to center on three issues: 1) the lack of a criminal conviction 2) the lack relevance to a non-Asian American (e.g. Caucasian) audience and 3) and the lack of national notability. I think if we examine each issue, it becomes clear there is insufficient cause to delete this article.
1. lack of a criminal conviction
this does not seem to be a particularly useful criteria for notability
for example, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted of a crime
2. lack of relevance to a non-Asian American audience
as pointed out above, even if the story was only of interest to Asians/Asian Americans (highly unlikely given the number of stories in non-ethnic, mainstream press e.g. Boston Globe, NY Post, ABC News, college publications, etc.), there are plenty of Asian and Asian American users of Wikipedia
3. lack of national notability
as noted above, media coverage was not isolated to local, or even regional outlets, but included national outlets
Howee 00:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, Google search for ""Michael Lohman" +princeton" produces 250+ results. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I just read over the guidelines for VfD. Based on the "Google test", the lack of a clear consensus, and the principle of keeping articles when in doubt, it seems that there isn't sufficient evidence/support to justify deletion. Also, it sems that this VfD process has gone on quite a lot longer than it should (5 days). It would be great if an admin could please remove VfD notice. Does anyone know how to request attention to this effect? Thanks! Howee 03:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No listing. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles abotu Missouri bowling alley by 24.107.196.241

Someone tagged these as speedied, but they don't fit the criteria at the moment. User is writing articles about people who (as far as I can tell are non-notable bowlers who frequent a non-notable bowling center. I suggest we delete the lot and gently inform the user what wikipedia is not and how to format entries. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Damn, just saw this now, probably would have saved me some trouble. They're all listed in sequence a few entries down. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi

Non-notable, no actual google hits (i.e. none of 74 or so hits refers to this person. Most are wikipedia mirrors of this stub.

  • Delete: Non-notable. Vanity page. --Ragib 6 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
  • Grilled cheese sandwhich i like those --boooya! 4 July 2006 21:09 (UTC) (This nonsense added by 64.12.116.8)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McIngvale

Personal vanity and promotion.

  • Delete: non notable, non-verifyable. Vanity page. --Ragib 6 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
  • I looked up and found references, however, as of now, the article still is a vanity page or sounds promotional. So I change my vote to Weak keep. --Ragib 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. He is notable and the information is verifiable. He is the owner of what is said to be the largest furniture store in the world, a published author and a noted philanthropist. Good enough for me. DS1953 6 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand/cleanup. Apart from having the world's biggest furniture store, he has written a book Always Think Big published by Dearborn Trade Publishing. ISBN 0793153731 Capitalistroadster 7 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strike 'n Spare

A bowling alley chain in Missouri. Not notable (in my view at least). TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, no refs, probably weak attempt at advertisment. --Excession 6 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
  • Keep all bowling alleys!!! Just kidding. Delete. nn, advert. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  • Concur Delete in the first frame. --Habap 6 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bowling alley vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
  • Strike. Spare us. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Glaze, Kyle Runge, Huevos Grandes, Jeremy Jones

A minor league bowler from Missouri. not notable/vanity. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

  • Comment: merged four virtually identical vfd nominees for efficiency. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 14:27 (UTC)
  • Delete all, non-notable. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 14:20 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable bowlers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bowler vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
  • Delete all, non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holdingcell

Originally for speedy, not a candidate. Not notable, never produced anything. Delete. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

  • Delete - they must be good if they've written 7 songs - which are still unrecorded! Back tot he garage boys! A curate's egg 6 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
  • Delete unrecorded artists. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 18:27 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, no links, full of errors, this is just ridiculous. KissL 15:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incineration Demon

no context, name returns 2 results total on google, no idea what this is supposed to be. Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skrunk

Delete Neolgism. Wikibofh 6 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

  • Delete - looks like a hoax A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. The first Google hit (yes, I checked) has this dynamically-generated summary: "Urban Dictionary is a slang dictionary with your definitions. Define your world.". I giggled, and then realised WP:NOT. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense, could even be speedied. KissL 15:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD 20:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fleurier Quality Foundation

Also trawled from Speedy. Looks to be advertising and spam. Delete. ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. – ABCD 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tobril

no context, full of broken links Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Hizb ut-Tahrir: 3r, 1k, 1 ambiguous. Even taking Fred's vote as a delete, there is a consensus to keep and a consensus among those to redirect. -Splash 01:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir

Listed as Speedy, but is not a candidate. Abstain, because I am not knowledgeable in this field. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

  • Keep - But Cleanup --Irishpunktom\talk July 6, 2005 14:37 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hizb ut-Tahrir- but only if POV is cleaned, else delete -- Fred 6 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
  • Redirect there is no useful information on this article that cannot be found in the Hizb ut-Tahrir article, as it stands it is far too POV anyway. Furthermore there are ansolutely no cited sources. I'm surprised my speedy deletion noticed was snubbed it seemingly has no redeeming features.
  • Redirect. Kappa 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hizb ut-Tahrir. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)


-I changed my vote to redirect, contingent upon this article no longer existing and a simple redirect to the better article is the course taken. It has been five days - I suggest it is time for action to be taken.

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J Culture

Also trawled from speedy. This is what I get from Google when try to clear out unrelateds. As you can see, there are still many unrelateds. Delete for possible vanity and NN. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, OR, whatever it is it's unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Joseph T. Underwood. Jaxl 6 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
  • Delete whatever it isn't, its unverifiable, POV, OR. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect to culture of Japan. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 03:06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasKEEP: 4k, 2d inc. nominator. -Splash 01:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Howard

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

  • Delete - so the guy had a horse! NN A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
  • Keep — he is notable.[31] Multi-millionaire; named the "the world's largest motocar dealer" during the 1920s; he essentially saved GM with a loan. — RJH 6 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
  • Keep per RJH. DS1953 6 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand/cleanup as well as success as a car dealer and owning Seabiscuit, he founded a hospital and was a notable bicycle and motorcar racer see [32]. However, the article does not reflect notability and needs expansion. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. The racehorse he owned was probably the most famous in the world ever and I've corrected the link. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime Computer Solutions

Looks like a nice place to have in town, but as it stands it's not notable, POV issues, therefore advertising. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

RANd0msNARk

It is nonsense and NN A curate's egg 6 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

  • Speedy. It's nonsense, so the {{nonsense}} tag would be appropriate. Wikibofh 6 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity, NN. Not actually nonsense, I believe, since it's at least legible. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete very short articles providing little or no context. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

Speedied. No context and illogical. Therefore, impossible to expand. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Circus Fire Memorial Foundation

Unless someone wants to rewrite this, not a proper encyclopedia article Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Love

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Phi Psi Fraternity,

A new "cruft": Fratcruft! Advertising, POV, vanity, rubbish. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn/vanity. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
  • delete , vanity --Isolani 6 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Though I think frats could be encyclopedic, this article is clearly advertising, POV, and vanity, as ArmadniGeneral says. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup. Their website indicates chapters at five three universities in Ohio - easy enough to verify, and sufficiently notable in my book. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
    • Vote withdrawn pursuant to further research - they appear to have three active chapters with a fourth planned, but each has only admitted a handful of people. That takes it from "sufficiently notable" to the grey area between weak keep and weak delete. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levent Onural

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.  Grue  19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K!TV

I have never even heard of such a thing being invented in my life, I alos think that it's a bit far-fetched and un-realistic. It is also fat, far, far too short to even qualify as an article. 213.122.37.67 6 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand — TV cards for your PC have been available for a while now, and so has supporting software. The SourceForge statistics for K!TV show 27,000 views and 3,600 downloads during the past year. It also has 6 developers; usually there is only 1. So it appears marginally notable. — RJH 6 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Well, now you know! But does every project on SourceForce[sic] really deserve its own page? I guess it isn't different than the 1000 other software stub pages. - Marvin01 6 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  • Keep- should be expanded. Note that such technology has existed for a long time: I'm watching CNN on my computer right now on a PCI card that only cost me $30. Also, I've heard of this application before. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are several TV applications available. Is this one expandable? As anon says, it's currently a one-sentence stub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly merge to a new subsection of TV tuner card. All that can be said about this software is already said. Will never qualify as an article. KissL 16:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per KissL. Nabla 17:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List_of_open-source_software_packages where it's listed and where many other such software packages have a one sentence description (and because the article's text is but one sentence long) Silles Sellis 11:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 2 to delete (including the nominator), 2 to keep, 1 to "keep or merge". Some form of merge may be in order. -- BD2412 talk 01:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

High Guard

NN. This all fantasy stuff - there is no High Guard in the real world!A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

  • Keep — material on established television Sci-fi series. Plenty of precedents for this type of material exist in wikipedia. — RJH 6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
  • weak keep or merge but rename it into 'High Guard (fictional) , or whatever. --Isolani 6 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles on fictional subjects are fine as long as they say what they're from. Do not rename, since [[there's no need for disambiguation. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
    • Not quite unique... there was a High Guard in Heinlein, I think. [pokes] ...in Between Planets (There's a page for every one of his novels - I'm impressed). I suspect it may be a reasonably common name for fictional military forces of one stripe or another, though the only one I could find on a cursory search was this. (No vote) - also, an early iteration? of the RPG Traveller. Shimgray 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Delete; although I recently voted to keep a similar Star Trek article, that was because it was Star Trek. Andromeda minutiae don't rise to the same level. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:40 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lil ceez

Delete, non-notable/vanity --Spangineer (háblame) July 6, 2005 15:40 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn/vanity. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
  • Delete- thirteen years old. I ******* hate teenagers. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds likes fun, Lil Ceez, but you don't yet make the WP:MUSIC guidelines. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen rapper vanity. Come back when he makes it big. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, but move to the non-abbreviated first name spelling at Michael Resnik. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Resnik

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

  • Delete - written by Mrs Resnik? A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn, despite being a favourite amongst the students. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • Keep. He appears to be notable per the "professor test" at WP:BIO. His books appear on a number of college syllabi and philosophy reading lists on Google; he has the title "Distinguished University Professor" at the University of North Carolina. Valid stub, but needs work. DS1953 6 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)
  • Keep, per DS1953 . --Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Professor with large volume of published work. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why is this article under "Mike" when his publications (the source of his notability) are published under the name "Michael"? --Tabor 7 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Michael Resnik. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:00 (UTC)
  • Move to Michael Resnik. Keep and expand. Appears notable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Thornton

Page is unencyclopedic. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

  • Delete - its worse than that - it's nonsense! - Speedy delete A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
  • Concur with Speedy delete. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  • Change vote to delete per clarification of article below. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Actually, this is verifiable, just really poorly written. Let me translate: "Kirk Thornton, also known as Sparky Thornton, is a voice actor who voices the character Satou in the English dubbed version of Rurouni Kenshin". That said, I don't think English voice actors are particularly notable. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
  • Delete if he had that many credits as a regular actor, maybe he would be notable. But not as a voice actor. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
  • Rewrite or Delete. Haikupoet 6 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)
  • Delete unless cleaned up in time--probably deserves an article, this just isn't a decent start. 30 years in the entertainment business isn't too shabby[35], and while I don't consider voice actors limited to dubbing encyclopedic, nor am I very impressed over the video game voice work, but there certainly have been notable voice actors, and Mr. Thorton has also had some on-screen work. The main problem is that it seems hard to find much about him other than lists of roles. Niteowlneils 04:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hahaha this is the worst written article I have ever seen. POV, Lack of Conventions, Non-notable, stub......... Redwolf24 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rllmuk

This article was very obviously created in the first instance by some joker with a chip on his shoulder. It is of no general interest, and has been through numerous revisions, all adding joke-like insults about what appears to be an insignificant Internet forum somewhere. Even the current brief entry has Edge Magazine linked to gay magazine. The article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and exists only for a few geeks to play around with.

  • Delete, Site full of gays and pansies who couldn't go 30 minutes with Dynamite Kid in his prime. Rllmukeration-x (No such user, vote actually by 62.252.128.18)
  • Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:44 (UTC)
  • Delete. Haikupoet 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
  • Delete forum cruft. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable forumcruft. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
  • Delete currently no content, previously patent nonsense, should be speedied IMO. KissL 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Soong is a legend. (Unsigned vote by 80.3.64.9)
  • Keep, FAF is even better than Soong. (Unsigned vote by 81.178.121.13, user's only edit)
  • Delete As a moderator of said insignificant Forum, I vote to please get rid of this. It's not appropriateAnon 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC) (Vote by 217.42.76.161, user's only edit)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added some content to the page, added stubs etc. I would call possibly the largest games forum in the UK significant but that's me. I'll keep my eye out for vandalism of the page. Halo 22:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A fantastic forum, always informative and entertaining. (Unsigned vote by 62.254.32.18)
  • Delete Importance of the history of the forum is no longer valid. Entry in wikipedia unneeded. --4.154.30.156 14:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blank mall

Googling "Blank mall" results in 130 hits, none of which appear pertinent. Two-line article is ostensibly about a yogurt and cream dessert, which seems to be unencyclopaedic. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

  • Delete; I don't buy that this really is a phrase and if it is, entry is dicdef. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:45 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable – I can't find any Deimann's Dictionary that claims to be the source – and, at best, dicdef. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. KissL 16:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  19:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z-movie

Neologism, no relevant google hits except the page itself Tom k&e 6 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

  • That's not true. I heard it used on Teen Jeopardy! once, a while ago, and I say keep. -Litefantastic 6 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've used this term from time to time myself (and I assure you, I could not possibly qualify for Teen Jeopardy! if I wanted to). Fernando Rizo 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Exploitation film. This term is in use, but it's basically a pejorative term for a low-budget exploitation flick. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
  • Merge explanation of term and redirect to B-movie. --Tabor 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
  • Either keep or merge with B-movie (and perhaps Exploitation film).
  • Keep I know this term and heard a professor use the term a few times. Its notable enough to merit entry
  • Keep Although it is more of a definition than an encyclopedic entry. Maybe Move to wikitionary? I don't believe it is the same as an Exploitation film. Who is Plan 9 from Outer Space exploiting? Vampires? UnHoly 01:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An exploitation film doesn't necessarily exploit anyone (except maybe the audience). It's synonymous with "grindhouse film": the sort of movies shown in cheap, disreputable theaters or drive-ins, usually with very short runs (one book I own on exploitation flicks is titled "For One Week Only"); mostly cheap independent productions with few, if any, aspirations towards anything beyond making a buck. Many of the better-known are now considered "cult" movies. Practically every movie Roger Corman or William Castle ever made was an exploitationer. Most exploitationers made now are direct-to-video. — Gwalla | Talk 03:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Crawford

vanity. Delete TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

  • Delete every article on 17-year-old bon-vivants. --Habap 6 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
  • Delete I think he/she's 26 but nn vanity all the same. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Guy

Tagged on May 14 but not listed on VfD. no vote here. --Nabla 2005-07-06 16:42:31 (UTC)

  • Delete, something cant be a phenomenon when it has only been around for a couple of days. Maybe in a couple of months if people are still interested or talk about the Wall Guy, then maybe it will become encyclopedic. --Howard547 01:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not be deleted, as it falls under the "Bizarre Internet phenomenon" column, such as "Goatse" or "All your base."
(by User:219.185.204.50)
  • Seems to me if All your Base can have a Wiki, so can Wall Guy.
(by User:12.223.62.55 )
  • From m-w.com: "b plural phenomenons : an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence". Hmm, nothing temporal here, guy. Guess Mr. Encyclopedia should check Mr. Dictionary more often, eh?
(by User:24.152.176.16)
  • Seems his popularity is still growing as a french mag used it. Well if it's fake it's still being talked about at the very least. Christ there is a fan club for this guy http://wallguy-club.1up.com/
(by User:222.2.54.201)
  • Don't delete--Wallguy is certainly notable--perhaps not in all circles, but in the gaming community at the very least. This entry is golden.
  • Delete. Not notable. Can be added back later if it becomes notable. --Grouse 13:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — WCityMike (T | C) 19:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn --Nabla 2005-07-06 16:42:31 (UTC)
  • Delete: The creator and his people can say "keep" as much as they want, but it's still got no popularity. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 6 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, forumcruft. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:47 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and sockpuppet-supported. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable forumcruft. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Skelly

More vanity. Delete TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

  • Delete: Away with it. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
  • Delete art student who is "relativly unknown". DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
  • Delete nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kawymeno

Not notable. One google result. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

  • Delete. I suspect it is notable, however, the one Google hit is in German on a page that seems to be down. I invite the author, who claims to be a doctor, to write a proper article with sources, no OR when he has time. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verification is provided. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Stephen J. Kopp. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Kopp

non notable or vanity. 20 google results. Delete. Incorrect spelling of Stephen J. Kopp. Merge as per DS1953.TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

  • Strong keep and expand but move Merge and Redirect to Stephen J. Kopp. He was named President of Marshall University in June. See [36] for Google hits with correct spelling of his first name. DS1953 6 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
  • Merge as per DS1953. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Prohibition (drugs). — Trilobite (Talk) 02:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War On Some Drugs

Tagged on Jun 23 but not listed on VfD. No vote. Nabla 2005-07-06 16:55:02 (UTC)

  • Delete - isn't there a wickiurbandictionary type thing where this would belong, if at all? Has no internal links pointing to it Sherurcij 08:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologistic title, contents are just POV. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Merge. Perhaps merge with Prohibition (drugs), or at least some of it. Not the best article around, but perhaps some info could be useful. I am not too sure on my vote and could be swayed either direction if there is a better argument made. --Lord Voldemort 6 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
  • The term itself isn't notable, being just an offshoot of the "War on Drugs" phrase. But the substantive points made critiquing the War on Drugs are well-stated and would indeed make a fine addition to that article, so yes, Merge with Prohibition (drugs). Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:51 (UTC)
  • Merge - common phrase, good information. There is some well-written content here, which doesn't look terribly POV; it gives description of a POV Term, but that's different. A. J. Luxton 6 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
  • Merge - It is a phrase fairly commonly heard in criticism of the War on Drugs, so at least a redirect would be appropriate. The information looks to be useful, as well. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 02:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

West Vancouver Secondary School

Tagged on May 19 (also West Vancouver Secondary School,, now a redirect) but not listed on VfD. No vote here. --Nabla 2005-07-06 17:05:53 (UTC)

Vanity page (unfortunately not accomodated by speedy deletion.) Deltabeignet 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article without the comma at the end How is this a vanity page? It is a an article on a school. Schools are inherently notable. Needs to be expanded but should be kept. However delete the article with the comma at the end of the name, poorly spelled and unneccessary as the other article exists. -CunningLinguist 03:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cleaned up the article a bit, if anyone can clean it up more please do so. Also this VfD notice should be split up into two seperate VfD pages. It is somewhat tricky nominating these two together because one is a rather obvious delete/move vote (the one with the comma at the end) on the other hand the other is not a clear delete vote, by tying them together you make it harder for people to vote. -CunningLinguist 03:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll do a bit more, I can add to the IB section, I'm in IB.-catmka
  • Delete. Just a school as any other school. At least delete the useless redirect. --Nabla 2005-07-06 17:05:53 (UTC)
  • Keep the school, per precedent. I don't think they're notable; however, they are never deleted, so why even bother trying? Delete the redirect, though. Also, CunningLinguist, if you check the vanity definition, it makes specific reference to high schools, which is part of the reason I disagree with the pro-school campaign. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
    • Jimbo doesn't seem to think "school vanity" pages are automatically a bad thing... [37] Kappa 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
      • I'll reply on your talk page. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
  • Keep. 119 school deletion listings in May/June, only one deletion and that was a copyvio. Give up and stop wasting time. Apologies, tagged in May, comment not relevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony. Jaxl 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
  • Keep please stop wasting our time. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
    • Comment. Wasting your time? This is a leftover tag from May!! Apologies accepted--Nabla 2005-07-07 03:48:43 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools.DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent and also see wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. Goldfish. —RaD Man (talk) 6 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
  • Keep. --NormanEinstein July 7, 2005 01:29 (UTC)
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 7 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Let's not get into writing articles about everyone's high school. Sunray July 7, 2005 05:39 (UTC)
    • The debate over inclusion of schools that some have referred to above is, as far as I know, primarily an American one. They have great lists of schools and many articles, mostly unencyclopedic, unverifyable, and boring (to all but a select few). Let's not go there. Sunray July 7, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
      • If you can find an unverifiable school article, I think we would all vote for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take this one for example. There isn't anything all that controversial in what is said. Mostly it is just boring non-notable details about a school. However, if I wanted to verify some of the information, how, short of going to the school, could I do that? Sunray 15:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony and precedents. Xoloz 7 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 7 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per DoubleBlue's comment. Mindmatrix 7 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. Have another spoon. --Idont Havaname 8 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)
  • Keep. School. Pburka 9 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • I'm personally opposed to articles about high schools, because only a very small number of them are ever legitimately notable enough that anybody outside of the city that they're located in is likely to have ever heard of them, but deletion vs. inclusion of high schools is a pretty famous can of worms around these parts. My own vote is for delete all high schools except unusually notable or famous ones, but I'd also vote for moratorium on even bothering to talk about this crap anymore. Bearcat 21:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but why does this have a comma Yuckfoo 22:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because we might as well make a page for every other school if this page is kept. Carson.Talk 01:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was deleted. – ABCD 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master John(female)

Star wars vanity. nn.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi programming language

Advertisement for a game released around june 27. not notable.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

  • Delete ad. Jaxl 6 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh it's a game is it? I was going to say: speedy - nonsense. I still say speedy - not notable and copyvio of [38] - the article could not even get the link right. -- RHaworth 2005 July 7 01:22 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)
  • I going to abstain as I am the author of Taxi (but not the original author of this article). I would like to point out that whomever originally created the article here just copy-pasted the raw text from the website. I have replaced it with a shorter and perhaps better(?) description. Taxi is an esoteric programming language and not a game (although there is some resemblance). --BigZaphod 17:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it This is not a game, this is one of the many pages about an esoteric programming language, look in the esoteric programming language category. - 13 July 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 4k, 1d. -Splash 02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger (truck)

Not notable. Vanityish.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

  • Keep. As, I'm the author of the page.  :) This is part of my ongoing effort on Monster trucks. I've created the category, an infobox template and a bunch of the trucks. I have tried to only create the trucks that are at least semi-notable. As documented on my user page, I have no conflicting interests in this, other than my kids are fans. Facts supporting keep:
    • Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 34,500 for avenger "monster truck".
    • From United States Hot Rod Association more that 2.5 million attended events in 2003 (in interest of full disclosure, I also wrote that article)
    • I think it had a Hot Wheels made of it. (I'd have to wait until I get home and check the "collection")
    • It was apparently one of the top 8 most popular trucks in 2003, given this tshirt
Wikibofh 6 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
  • No worries. I assumed good faith.  :) Wikibofh 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient evidence of notability provided. - Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Tho Zin

Not notable. Vanity. Zero google hits.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 6 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article is expanded to prove true notability; right now, his major notability over any random professor seems to be his jacked-up grill. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:55 (UTC)
  • Delete nn professor vanity (with picture). --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 13:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romath

The voting for this proposition has been compromised by deleting entries by an anon user. Take note when tallying.

I don't really CARE what your dumb 'vote' results in. 

I have already posted the FACT that Wikipedia DOES NOT have MY permission to keep this page, and likewise, it does not have my permission to save, archive, re-direct, retrieve, or post ANY page using either my Rihannsu OR my real name.

Wikipedia had better govern itself accordingly.

This seems to have originally been a vanity page, now the subject would like it deleted - given its history, I see no reason not to delete. sannse (talk) 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

  • Delete per sannse. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:57 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly not a vanity page. Not convinced of notability - seems to just have a web presence, and I don't think that's enough to establish worthiness of a page, jguk 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
  • Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)
  • Delete. Romath, I'm sure you're very sweet an' all, working to uphold your beliefs (nothing wrong with that)... but does that and a few thousand alt.* posts make you notable? Well, um, no. Unless you've been on SlashDot or something, something OUTSIDE of your current sphere of fame giving acknowledgement of your noteriety. However if we did deem you notable enough to be here your opposition to the page would NOT be recognised. Unless you threatened legal trouble or something like that. Our goal is to provide the facts, not what people want the facts to be :) Oh and as for not being allowed to use your name, we will only honor name suppression in the case of kidnappings etc. out of respect for the family while the case is going on. GarrettTalk 12:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Romath won a Kook of the Month award, which makes her at least as notable as the GNAA. Kelly Martin 13:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. The subject's views on the matter are totally irrelevant. Subjects do not have the right to censor articles. David | Talk 13:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can provide some evidence of more notability. Fuzheado | Talk 14:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not Notable. Shanes 14:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, as I voted before. NOTE: I think someone removed a few KEEP votes, including mine. CDThieme 17:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Romath is quite a Usenet celebrity - not quite in the league of Archimedes Plutonium or Sollog, but noteworthy none the less. Both of those articles describe their subjects' kookiness without being perjorative, so there's no reason why this can't be cleaned up to do the same. --Rlandmann 7 July 2005 01:50 (UTC) + FROM Romath:
    • Are you volunteering? I'd vote to keep if there was an editor who could make this article wiki-worthy. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 03:09 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only because the talk page is hilarious. Also, documenting internet personalities who might not otherwise get coverage is something I think the wikipedia could (eventually?) become quite good at. eric ✈ 8 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kibo is notable, so in a less nice way are Canter and Siegel. Romath is famous for being KOTM. Well I've been KOTM at least twice so do I get two Wikipedia articles about me? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable Internet kook. CDThieme 8 July 2005 21:15 (UTC) revoted above.
    • Okay, does that mean I get an article on Wikipedia? There aren't that many of us Wikipedia editors around that merit an article, and if KOTM is what it takes, I believe I've won it at least as many times as Romath. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, there are other kooks that we can just Romath against. Category:Usenet people include thirteen other people, not including spammers. Is Romath of a comparable notability/verifiability to those other thirteen? -Willmcw 22:57, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN (as long as we keep the talk page too). DS 23:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough if the scope of search is expanded beyond the web to Usenet. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Minor notability, at best, but that seems sufficient for the GNAA. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Uris 04:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nonvoting comments appear below, relocated from elsewhere in the voting page.

FROM Romath: It most certainly is a page of lies and innuendo, NOT posted there by me. I came across the thing quite by accident, and only tried to CORRECT the lies in it, merely finding some fool keeps on putting the lies right back in. I even tried redirecting the page in order to have my full Rihannsu name entered, then hoopefully having a page where the TRUTH would be left alnoe, but to no avail. someone screwed that up, removed the full name refirect, then falsely accused me of trying to say 'Rihannsu'; was religion, which I never, ever did! I even tried blanking the pagew because of the all-too-frequent vandalism against it. Next, 'evil monkey; blocked me from entering in order to re-edit. I solved that crap by going to another computer and getting in. To thie very DAY-- the crap still goes on --- I re-edit to tell the truth----- certain individuals plaster the lies right back into it.

As I mentined before, this vanity page was NOT placed here by me, and since I am the person being discussed, Wikipedia DOES NOT HAVE my permission to keep this page. It also serves NO PURPOSE to see ridiculous editing wars in here, in a site that has potential as a valuable learning tool if used properly. Allowing ridiculous pages like this one to exist and remainis an error, both to the encyclopedia end of things, and legally.

As I have been asking for some timer now, PLEASE DELETE THE ROMATH PAGE. IT IS NOT MINE, I DID NOT PLACE IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND ITS LIES ARE CONSTANTLY BEING PUT RIGHT BACK IN AFTER I CORRECT THEM. DELETE IT PLEASE, AND AT ONCE. Romath

========
  • Comment. I don't believe that it was started as a vanity. However the subject has been intensely involved in editing it over the last couple of weeks, principally to correct perceived "lies" and because she is strongly opposed to having her real name mentioned (though she herself has revealed it many times). She is a famous "kook" on the Usenet, but there is no NPOV way of saying so (that I know of), so her greatest claim to fame is not mentioned in the article. Merely starting a group doesn't give her much notability. The subject's objections to the article do not seem to be a sufficient reason to remove it, but in light of her minimal notability I don't see a reason to keep it either. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 20:33 (UTC)


FROM Romath: I post my name WHERE I WANT IT POSTED, yes. HERE is not it, and I have NEVER POSTED IT HERE. 

It also has been posted AGAINST MY WILL on certainb sites, including this one, and in usenet.

As for the 'kook' crap, that is nonsense. A bunch of detractors supposedly nominated me for uisenet's kook of the month award years ago for my strong oppostion to certain lifestyle issues. Just because I am against such things, that doesn't verify I'm a 'kook' of any kind.

    • Ah, I see I misunderstood. But I think an anti-vanity page is as worthy of deletion as a vanity page -- sannse (talk) 7 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
      • Now there is a principle which should be enshrined in the guidelines. However the origins of this article are moot as it has been heavily edited since then. The latest incarnation is mostly a total vanity production which was then substantially cut and slightly re-written by me. Regarding the notability of the subject: the large number of Google Group hits indicates that she may be notable, if we can find a way of describing that notability in a neutral fashion. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 09:37 (UTC)
  • I'm with Willmcw, wherever that might be. Josh Parris ✉ 6 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)


FROM Romath:

Wikipedia DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO KEEP IT. It was placed on Wikip[edia illegally to begin with.

FROM ROMATH: You still do not have my permission to keep or use a Romath page, or ANY PAGE THAT HAS MY REAL OR RIHANNSU NAME ON IT.

GET IT OFF and kindly KEEP IT OFF.

Wikipedia doesn't need your permission to keep or use a Romath page, with or without your real or assumed name. If you feel differently, kindly cite the relevent sections of whatever legal code governs Wikipedia entries so we can judge. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Census and Excise Building (Seyda Neen)

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. A building from a video game. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

  • I probably wouldn't speedy it either, but it is incoherent and context-free enough that it might be a reasonable choice. Anyway, delete as non-notable. CDC (talk) 6 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn, should be in a walkthrough at Wikibooks or something. Jaxl 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cachero

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Somebody's MMORPG character. RPG gamer vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

  • Delete - if I was king of the world, wikipedia would have a speedy-deletion criteria specifically for videogamer vanity articles like this. CDC (talk) 6 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. In Soviet Russia, vanity articles vote you for deletion! --Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
  • Delete RPG vanity. Jaxl 6 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • Delete player characters in RPG games are not notable enough for WP articles. - Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:35 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Silver Dragon 07:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Espana

nonnotable person - J3ff 6 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel nagle sexton

nonnotable person - J3ff 6 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Snider

Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN. Less than 20 Google hits, most of them some other Sid Sniders. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Herrera Legorreta

This appears to be a vanity/autobiography page: User:Danakil appears to be Herrera. Moreover, Herrera does not seem to be notable according to Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The NGL programming language doesn't show up anywhere else on the Web (see Talk:NGL_programming_language) and I can't find anything about the revival of the oligosynthesis theory for Nahuatl language — there is a different Herrera (Fermin Herrera) who has published work on Nahuatl. There should at least be citations for this work -- Wikipedia:Verifiability. I brought up these concerns on Talk:Ernst Herrera Legorreta in April, and have seen no response. --Macrakis 6 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

  • Delete, either hoax or unverifiable. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
  • Delete notability questionable/unverified. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the author can identify some sources. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:07 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comment from Danakil: I regret not having able to respond to this before: I had to take a year off from contributing to Wikipedia (see my homepage for details). No, I am NOT Ernst Herrera Legorreta (EHL). But I happen to have met him personally (in an academic setting) while in Mexico and, being thus directly involved, it now seems to me that I shouldn't have been the original author of the bio article. Furthermore, I do agree with most of the other comments made here regarding the EHL article, and I concord with the idea of removing the bio article until more information can be obtained from other sources. The work of EHL is mostly known in the area of Programming Languages (a very serious, public source is the Mexican business magazine "EXPANSION" which has interviewed EHL at length at least two times, first in 1997 then in 1999, the records of which are available online through the magazine's web site). He has been (indirectly) nominated twice for the top technology prizes awarded by the Mexican Government (first, as the chief architect of Miramar Technology SAdeCV, and second, as the chief scientist of Tlallian SAdeCV). But of course, it could be argued that these facts, though indeed verifiable, do not qualify him for a bio article. To this I would comment that it might be reasonable to set slightly different degrees of minimum accomplishment to be worthy of a bio depending on the geographical context where the person in question mostly develops. Mexico is not the in the same league as the US in technological accomplishments. One final comment, regarding the Nahuatl aspect of EHL's work: unlike the work done in most US universities, that done in most of the Mexican ones (with some localized exceptions in certain academic areas, mostly from the UNAM and the ITESM) is *not immediately available online*, if it ever becomes so. This, I believe, explains the difficulty in finding online confirmation of EHL's Nahuatl-related work, which was done, IIRC, at the Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas and the Center for Huaxtec Studies in Tampico, Tamaulipas. I will try to find more information regarding that work and, in the meantime, I fully agree with the consensus reached about the deletion of the bio article. Nevertheless, I do believe that the NGL Programming Language (which was also removed at the time) should be reinstated. NGL is a descendant of the J Programming Language created by Herrera and about which there is firm, public information regarding its use by the government of several Mexican States (Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon being the most easily verifiable ones) in a large number of instalations covering, at least, 30 different municipalities. 201.135.18.50 07:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource, so I will keep the articles for the moment and submit them to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of beauty, The lagoon

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Also marked for copyvio, but copyright has expired: this is an essay by Ethel Dench Puffer Howes originally published in 1905. Project Gutenberg has a copy. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

  • Delete; try Wikisource. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, Project Gutenberg has a copy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikisource. *sigh* Not this guy again. He puts PD texts here, and changes them to make it look like he's the author. A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ancient_Law. He has another one that is marked copyvio right now (probably rightly so). Wikibofh 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
  • Oh, I added The lagoon to this VfD, if it wasn't already obvious. Wikibofh 6 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
  • Wikisource - but with the proper attribution, of course. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:08 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikisource with proper attribution (and a check to see if the info is correct. Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and then RD to Ethel Dench Puffer Howes. BTW this is a nice essay. Klonimus 9 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)
  • Transwiki --> wikisource. --Klestrob44 05:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki but fix his changes (dates,attribution), or better yet get a fresh copy. Leave a short article about the work and the transwiki'd reference. Rich Farmbrough 12:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, although I am unaware of just how notable a work must be in order to qualify for Wikisource, as I am unaware of how notable these particular works are. --Theaterfreak64 17:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. Neutralitytalk 14:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. Guarantee correct attribution, as others have requested. To DoubleBlue, WikiSource strives to have every primary source that could be interesting to anybody. There is no guarantee PG will be around in 50 years. We have to be independent. We should take advantage of PD material fully. Superm401 | Talk 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. --BradBeattie 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beavermatic

Simple vanity page: about the author Gunmetal 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. --Moritz 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  • Delete nn gamer vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
  • delete, vanity. Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Richard Johns

One of the first men to marry another man in San Francisco. Being one of the first (as opposed to the first) is not notable in my opinion. Sietse 6 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

  • Delete with belated congratulations--I agree. A single act of civil disobedience doesn't get you in an encyclopedia.
  • Delete, and yes, congratulations :-) Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:10 (UTC)
  • Delete and suggest Spain or Canada as holiday destinations. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sietse. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nominator --Neigel von Teighen 6 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  • Awww, that's sweet. Congratulations. Delete. DS 23:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NGL programming language

This language appears to be an experiment by Herrera (apparently = User:Danakil). In April, I said on its Talk page: I cannot find any information about this language on the Web, either substantive content or pointers to off-line publications (though there are lots of Wikipedia mirrors...). And no additional information has been forthcoming. If the language is unpublished and unavailable to outside users (no matter how good it is), it doesn't seem useful to mention it in Wikipedia. Delete. --Macrakis 6 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

  • Delete, either hoax or unverifiable. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. "NGL language" gets 36 Google hits, most for a type of spoken language called "New Generation Language". --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
  • I like to wear Hats. this really is an unfair critism of the hoggle wassucha samoans! --grilled cheese zaboni 4 July 2005 76:09 (UTC) (nonsense comment by 64.12.116.71)
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intricacy

The definition part has been moved to wiktionary. The other part of the entry only deals with an exhibition. That part should be moved to the Greg Lynn entry. Since all info should be moved, I think this article should be deleted. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 6 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

Kalev Ots

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed 194.126.101.136 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

  • Improper nomination. The person who nominated (also probably the same person who created) this article resented NPOV and stylistic changes that were made to it and asked that the article be deleted. That's not the way we do things around here. If someone feels that there is a substantive problem with an article, the relevant talk page provides an appropriate forum to discuss it. —Seselwa 6 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. If there's anything wrong with the article (which I'm not sure there is), it's definitely fixable. Jaxl 6 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
  • Assuming all this "unrecognized Prime Minister" stuff isn't total BS, Cleanup to fix grammar, add cites, and address any NPOV issues that may exist. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:12 (UTC)
  • Keep reasons for nomination are not valid reasons for deletion. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Anon should discuss his issues at article talk page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
  • Keep notable Estonian statesman. Capitalistroadster 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. VfD is not the place to take POV cleanup concerns. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:09 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Alexander Ballew

Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheris

Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

  • Delete; nothing on google [41] and fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Jaxl 6 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Paul Graham article. 5m, 1d. Sentence incorporated into that article and this one redirected. -Splash 02:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arc programming language

LISP variant that doesn't actually exist yet; no publicly available implementation, no spec, no schedule for either. Vaporware, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

  • Merge with Paul Graham and redirect. Arc is notable because it is a project of a well-known entrepreneur and author, but doesn't deserve its own article -- at least not yet. --Macrakis 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with Macrakis. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Macrakis. Jaxl 6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  • Merge. As is, a substub; I doubt anyone would have of it if not for Graham's promotion. --Maru 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree with the above points. Fredrik | talk 13:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical myths

This is not an article. A intro paragraph which gets too much honor, if called original research. And one of the mostincoherent lists I've seen here. --Pjacobi July 6, 2005 19:28 (UTC)

  • Clean-up or delete and start again. It really is a mess. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
  • Delete, classification criteria are unclear, and adds nothing that can't be covered in Mythology or Pseudohistory. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:16 (UTC)
  • Delete Willbecome NPOV very quickly if there are no criteria.--Porturology 7 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baugh productions

Delete: Appears to be vanity, or at least nn. I found less than 10 references with Google (Jim Baugh Productions is not the same), most of those being forum posts by the 11 year old manager of the production company or wikipedia mirrors. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish July 6, 2005 19:40 (UTC)

  • Delete: does not establish any notability, probably vanity. Sorry Henry. --Moritz 6 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete what they said above. --Naha|(talk) 04:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. (this was already done; I'm just cleaning up the markup). -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Pocreas

SPEEDIED Fawcett5 6 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Page is nonsense, does not seem to relate to Pokemon at all, and contains no other information. I tried to do a quick bit of research but turned up absolutely nothing on the subject. Delete. – Mipadi July 6, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

  • Delete; nonsense, only result on google is: Did you mean: "Pancreas". Jaxl 6 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Diablo (comics)

User created page and made two edits to it - all are nonsensical. Current article is simply an paperdoll image with no explanation. Character is unfamiliar to me. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense/contentless. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 20:02 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Gunmetal 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahan

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign language dicdefs. (Oh yeah, and it has already been transwikied.) Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 19:59 (UTC)

  • It's the English equivalent of the ancient Mayan word. The actual Mayan word would probably be some weird looking symbol. --brian0918&#153; 6 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a misspelling to boot - the term is "Ahau". - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netpreneur

Article is a dicdef of a neologism; I deleted creator's name and contact info, but the article is still unacceptable for inclusion. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism --Gunmetal 6 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • In my book that is a CSD #1 speedy as little or no content/context. Otherwise delete as neologistic dicdef. - Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.

To add my own opinion to the list, a discussion of their strategy is problematic in an encyclopedia. Corporate strategies tend to be transient. They rarely have the sustainability necessary to create truly independent and verifiable articles. The HP Way might be an exception based on the volume of independent press coverage it received but even that is proving to be somewhat transient. In either case, it should be discussed in context whenever possible. In other words, this content might have been acceptable as an addition to the main Cisco Systems article even though it was found to be inappropriate to have added as an independent article. Rossami (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco on Cisco

Pure advertising/PR for a company's business strategy. Written solely by an editor or editors logging in from Cisco Systems IPs. Also Cisco@Work, but that's being handled as a copyvio. Red links in articles indicate that this is just the beginning of the campaign. Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

  • Delete, spam. WTF is Cisco thinking?? They should know better. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Delete.... uh. 128.107.253.40 == sjcd-dmzweb-ce4.cisco.com. Yeah. --Jack (Cuervo) 04:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete.... Lets modify it so that it is not a Ad for Cisco, but an analysis of Cisco's business practices with its highs and lows.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: The recommendations to transwiki to WikiTravel had to be discounted. WikiTravel is not a MediaWiki project and is not GFDL-compatible. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of obscure or inaccessible London attractions

This page has been around for a while and its inadequacies have been pointed out on its talk page. It is arbitary and some of the items chosen do not even fit the title. I could produce half a dozen lists this length that would match the title better, but I wouldn't post them on Wikipedia. We have a full list of London museums and a London attractions category. Merging is not appropriate because the London article already contains too many lists and it would do nothing to address the arbitary nature of this one. So delete CalJW 6 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

  • Delete, ridiculous classification scheme. Either include them in List of places in London, or if they're not notable enough to be there, leave them out altogether. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 23:42 (UTC)
  • Delete silly, unencyc list. Also POV. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful in List of places in London. - Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
    • They're either there already or are covered under localitities or in specialised lists. The attractions lists in the main List of places in London are deliberately selective. CalJW 7 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikitravel. Pburka 9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)
  • Delete but if Wikitravel wants it, it can have it. How on earth is the British Library on the list? It's one of the biggest buildings in London, right next to three mainline railway stations on one of the main roads, and it's open seven days a week and listed in all the guide books. David | Talk 9 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons already noted. But the title seems like it belongs in BJAODN. inaccessible attractions??? The Literate Engineer 08:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Despite the very low number of participants in this discussion, I find myself agreeing with the nominator that the allegations about the company are unverifiable. This does not meet our normal standards for inclusion. The fact that the wording of the current content is hyperbolic is not really a deletion criterion but it does indicate that the current content would be of only limited help if/when a verifiable article is written on this topic. I am closing this as a "delete" but without prejudice against the re-creation of a properly encyclopedic article on this topic (if one can be created). Rossami (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuware

Delete advertising --IByte 6 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

k k

This is a pure slang / initialism definition. I've moved it to the wikitionary, I see no encyclopedic value for it here.

Originally tagged by Consumed Crustacean but not completed due to a typo. Completing VFD. No Vote --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
Eck, this is why the VFD went nowhere. Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | July 6, 2005 20:56 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was disam.. Already done. Woohookitty 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Git (software)

The current page shows an obscure usage of the word "Git", which is primarily a british slang term. It should be deleted to make way for a defintion, or a disambiguation page with a link to the definition. The page GIT, which is a disambiguation page for acronyms, should be merged with it. Artw 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

  • Disambig Git should be moved to Git (SCS) or something like that. Lets avoid systematic bias towards geeky subjects, pop culture, and pop culture geeky subjects, and treat this one fairly. Gmaxwell 6 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep--does the British slang term deserve an article? If it's merely a slang word, perhaps not. We can keep this, assuming that the slang term doesn't need an encyclopedia article. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
    • No, it's already at Wiktionary. →Raul654 July 6, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
      • That it is.. and we should provide a nice link to it from the disambig page that belongs at that name as is normal. Gmaxwell 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
  • Disambig--It's a 500 year old slang term - I'm pretty certain that given the chance an article can be gotten out of it. If not then Git should be used for a disambig page with the link to the Wikctionary being the first item. The current article is pretty Linux-specific and not at all what most non-Linux people would expect to see if looking for "Git", I see no reason not to move it to Git (SCS). --Artw 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
    • Um... you're the guy who started this vote for deletion in the first place. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry, didn't realise the first post counted as a vote. Please don;t take that as a sneaky attempt to vote twice or anything. --Artw 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiktionary will be just fine for describing the meaning and etymology of the word. There are thousands of words more than 500 years old, and absolutely no reason to clutter Wikipedia with them unless they are extremely special. - Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
    • I don't see anyone using that argument for replacing the pages for Hot or Cold with definitions for software tools (or Fanfic aliens) that happen to have that name. Definate Americancentric / Linuxcentric bias going on here. --Artw 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
      • I've changed my mind about this not being special enough (based on the comments of others). However, there is absolutely no reason for the present article to be deleted. This should have been brought up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a important Version control system. --cesarb 6 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  • Disambig. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • Disambig. What's the harm in having a disambiguation page? That way Linux users can find their term, and Brits can find theirs. "Git" is probably in the top 5 Brit-specific slang terms, and as such an important part of everyday culture. --Unsigned comment by User:Vizjim.
  • Disambig. Don't be such a git, it's a very common word out here. Unsigned comment by User:Max Kon.
  • Disambig, obviously. Dcarrano
  • Move to "git (computing)" or the like, redirect git to git (disambiguation)? No reason to delete the page, or make things too confusing, but it's certainly not the dominant use. Shimgray 6 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
    • "x" should never redirect to "x (disambiguation)". If "x" needs to be disambiguated, the page called "x" should be the disambiguation page. Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
      • Strange; was sure I'd seen this before. Perhaps it was just a temporary measure when I encountered it. Shimgray 6 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you've seen the opposite; it's common to redirect "x (disambiguation)" to "x" when the disambiguation page is at "x". --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. This certaintly isn't the way to sort out an issue over disambiguation, which the proposer of this votes for deletion wants. -- Joolz 7 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
    • Agreed, every single vote (including the nominator's) is to "keep" (disambig is a special case of "keep"). --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
      • Unfortuantly now that it's up for VfD, so it shall remain for five days, so the disambiguation which the nominator actually wanted is going to have to wait awhile. -- Joolz
    • If you go look at the talk page of Git, and the edit history of GIT (the disambig) you'll see why it was sent here. An RFC would have been more correct, but this is getting the outside attention it needed as well. Gmaxwell 7 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
  • What's the point of this VfD? Who wants to delete this? Vote for Deletion is not a place to discuss if we rename the article, turn it into a disambig or do something else. -- Taku July 7, 2005 02:59 (UTC)
  • Disambig makes sense. - FrancisTyers 7 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
  • Note: article was moved to Git (software). --cesarb 14:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template in the main article namespace, as of now included in Nikola Tesla and Magnifying Transmitter. This is not only unusual, but also irrating and inspires some fear, that it will finally end up in any article in Category:Nikola Tesla.

See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#List_of_articles_related_to_Nikola_Tesla. I'm unclear which process applies. Pjacobi July 6, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

When in doubt, VfD takes precedence. Since this page is not in the Template: namespace, TFD doesn't handle it. -- 6 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Keep, but de-transclude it so it no longer acts as a pseudo-template. I see no harm if the page can be transformed into a normal list of articles, much like what we have elsewhere. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Tesla. More seriously, convert this into a template that can be used in Tesla articles. Klonimus 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is a Tesla cat, how much more do we need? (Pj: don't forget to vote!) William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:46:49 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin, WMC is on a self described mission to purge Wikipedia of what he thinks is tesla-cruft. See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tesla's_Tributes_and_honors where a whole bunch of information was split from the main tesla article (at WMC's insistance), and now he nominates that article for deletion. Klonimus 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, category is sufficient. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 23:46 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant with the category system, and it's being used as a template -- when it's in the article space and not formatted appropriately for a template. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is why we have categories. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:12 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is a category for tesla already! Salsb 7 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. Categorify. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
  • Categorify <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
  • This vote from WP:TFD relates to this article: "Oh God, it's the Tesla cruft again! KILL IT! KILL IT DEAD! Snowspinner July 6, 2005 20:35 (UTC)". I'll let the closing admin decide if it's relevant. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 12:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either it's directly relevant and should be in the Tesla article and/or category, or it's not. Most of this list is the latter. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 03:34 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dunc|☺ 9 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "List of articles related to" anything is what we have categories for. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: categories, quasi-template, cruft eritain 22:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories, internal links, and navigation templates are better ways of alerting readers to other articles of interest. -Willmcw 23:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 'merge w teslas article. He is one of the coolest people ever, btw. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And maybe move. The List of articles related to Nikola Tesla]] is well organized and is necessary for user:William Connolley's pseudoscience project. It should stay.
    1. If it has to be "moved", i.e., retitled slightly, that's okay, as long as we keep the REDIRECTS so it doesn't get lost. Uncle Ed
    2. I count 12 delete and 4 keep. Is 75% enough to delete? Uncle Ed 16:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, kill it. I always say een 70-30 is a consensus... :-) William M. Connolley 17:33:00, 2005-07-16 (UTC).

Note that this was originally on TfD, and only brought here, as someone pointed out, that TfD is only for the Template namespace. What I primarily wanted to achieve, was to outrule its use as a template, i.e. transcluding it with {{List of articles related to Nikola Tesla}}. I count only two votes against this intention, and these two also have reservations:

  • Klonimus wants it as a Template but in the Template namespace and possible reformatted
  • Sam Spade wants the content in the Tesla articles but not as transclude, but by copy+paste.

Hopefully I've summarized this right. --Pjacobi 17:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Usagi704

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hemadrone

Seems to be a creature that is only in the head of one person on this planet, and that person doesn't even has its own article here. Google results are also quite low (below 100), so I guess this is not really notable. --Conti|✉ July 6, 2005 21:10 (UTC)

  • Interesting. This one was put on VFD, then the message was removed and the text of this message were deleted by a vandal - User:24.222.135.220. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Yes that is incredibly interesting. what a vandal! however, in this case i would like to congratulate the "vandal" for a job well done as it is clear that deleting the VFD was an astute and foresighted course of action. do i have to remind my distinguished colleagues (above) the role of the internet in establishing and propogating cultural memes? while the google results might currently be "low", i suspect that as coverage of this case expands the term "hemadrone" will enter cultural currency. it has happened before. didn't, for example, the term boogeyman begin its life as a creature inside "the head of one person on this planet"? My vote is emphatic: the entry stays. --joeschmo99 7 July 15:53 (UTC).
Well, feel free to try and create a new meme, but wikipedia is not the place for creating memes, it is the place to write about already well established memes. So if the word will be someday as notable as the boogeyman, I will stop opposing the existance of such an article. --Conti|✉ July 7, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
Interesting thing for joeschmo99 to write on his first edit in Wikipedia... I like the way he signed his name, too. Grutness...wha? 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 23:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Neuman

The subject of this article doesn't appear to be notable--nothing he's done has earned him a spot in an encyclopedia. Just a video editor (and not a famous one). Delete. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 21:10 (UTC)

  • Hey, he's two months younger than me! Delete vanity. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
  • Jesus love established, but not notability. Delete TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidlin

Original page content was a resume. (See page history.) This was replaced by a line saying "This should be removed permanently". So I put it up for VfD. Resume actually appears fairly notable. — RJH 6 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

  • Move and Redirect I've re-worked the page into a reasonable (I think) bio article for this fairly notable restoration and reconstruction expert. On a POV note, I'm glad to see film geeks like this getting the chance to do really cool work, and hope that Wikipedia honors his efforts with an appropriate (even if it's not mine) article. Note: this article should be moved to "Rick Schmidlin" once voting is over (assuming that it is kept). -Harmil 6 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to Rick Schmidlin, appears to have established notability. (But note that WP not in the business of handing out honours!)-Splash 7 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move as discussed. Tearlach 13:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirected per gfdl -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One One Se7en

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

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 23:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Aquilina

No evidence of notabliity, also was moved from "CHARLENE AQUILINA." You (Talk) July 6, 2005 21:54 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, surely. seglea 6 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an attempt to make contact. There's personal info in this as well. - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
    • Removed personal info. You (Talk) July 6, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing against very cute girls who are also fellow Canadians, but somehow I don't think this is encyclopedic. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Jaxl 6 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cute girl vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:17 (UTC)
  • Delete, being cute doesn't make one encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) July 7, 2005 08:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pelloud

On June 4, 2005, commons user commons:User:Pelloud uploaded a photo of french artist Franz-Emmanuel Pelloud to WikiCommons. 14 minutes later, on 12:55, User:82.226.28.129 created an article about same artist.

It is not unreasonable to believe that the person with username Pelloud is identical with artist Pelloud and that he has written an article about himself. French Wikipedia do not have an article called "Pelloud". This clearly seem to be a vanity article about a non-notorious person and should be deleted. Thuresson 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

  • Delete - this is just an advertisement. seglea 6 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability not established. Samw 6 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. ADVERTISEMENT. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A4. Essjay · Talk 06:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lost Warld

This page has already been deleted once, and has simply been reposted with no new content, as noted by DoubleCross on the talk page. I therefore formally propose that it is deleted again. ThomasHarte 23:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

Original discussion of deletion follows:

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Warld

I think this article seems more like a footnote for the Hideo Kojima article than something that deserves a whole page. Considering that:

  • Very little or no information is availble about the game other than what Kojima has stated in various interviews.
  • The game is unreleased and will probably stay that way for quite awhile.

What does anyone else thinks?

Jonny2x4 03:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This article was first nominated on April 24, 2005, but was never listed on vfd. You (Talk) July 6, 2005 22:03 (UTC))

Keep all commercial computer and video games. You 18:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Completely useless; it could be (and basically already is) summed up in the Kojima article without any problem. --DoubleCross 06:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN. 1980s Game that was never published, so not a "commerical" game. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
  • All non-notable unreleased games from the 1980's unconnected with scandals or other newsworthy events should be deleted.--Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
  • Delete per DoubleCross. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 23:47 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable gamescruft. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 23:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Crack Johnnies

totally not notable seglea 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity. Friday 6 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • Delete nn washed up athlete vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
  • delete I have heard this expression used disparagingly about homosexuals.--Porturology 7 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable team vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Aschbrenner

Questionable notability, delete, related to Marsh River Editions --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

  • notability not established. Delete TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, however it has been redirected as duplicate content with the other article -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amiel (aesthetics)

fixing format, no vote --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

There is already an article for the philosopher Amiel: Henri-Frédéric Amiel. Therefore the recent stub Amiel (aesthetics) is a useless duplicate and should be deleted. I have already modified the unique link that pointed to Amiel (aesthetics). -139.166.240.7 6 July 2005 23:02 (UTC) Neumeier

  • Redirects are fun and cheap. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
Henri-Frédéric Amiel was professor of aesthetics only during 6 years, before being professor of philosophy during 27 years. The title of this article is not well choosen, there are no links to that article, and an article with correct title (full name) exists. Nobody will look for "Amiel (aesthetics)" if an article on Henri-Frédéric Amiel is wanted. For these reasons: deletation --Neumeier 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Scientology

See Talk:List of articles about Scientology#Vote for deletion AI 6 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

  • Keep - The reasoning given for deletion is that it is redundant with the Scientology category - however, the category has only a fraction of the articles. Lists and categories serve different purposes - categories are only navigation, not comprehensive listing of related articles. Plus what happens when you have a category of scientologists, category of significant places in scientology and the category scientology - then you have multiple categories and no way of strong linking between them. This page seems much more comprehensive than the category. I think it has value. -Visorstuff 6 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Kappa 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Lists can go into greater depth than categories. It may seem redundant, but sometimes you want a quick reference, sometimes you want commentary. Haikupoet 7 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the wrong way to go about encouraging a move toward Categories. If you want to program a Categories system that is functionally equivalent and provide a robot to do the conversion, then we can talk. Otherwise, let the article be and engage in gentle persuasion to move toward categories. Write a tutorial, work the crowds, but be respectful and polite. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 02:51 (UTC)
  • Delete Any article that talks about other articles are dangerous meta-creations that should be removed anyway. Unless someone wants to take responsibility for transfering the information to the category system this article should be deleted. --metta, The Sunborn 7 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
  • Delete - transfer all the information to a category structure if its useful. An An 7 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
  • Comment When I first made the comment on the talk page, quite some time ago, I wasn't sure what the categories were for. Visorstuff, you say that these kind of pages are for listings, but (after every article is put in the category) won't the category pages themselves work like listings? There is no info on the page, and the headers can be made with sub-categories. Is there something I'm missing, which can't be done with categories?
Either way, I don't think it's a good idea to remove these list pages one by one. If it is decided that they are redundant, it should first be proposed to the entire wiki, and then done to all these list pages. --Dyss 7 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
I think list pages have much more merit and can go into great detail - some are very complex and there is no one category that would be able to cover more than 200 list article pages that are on some list pages - that would be impossible to navigate. In addition, many topics need a one-stop-shop for all the articles about them, and categories are too limited. I know of a couple list pages (I'd rather not draw attention to them because of this issue) that cover more than a dozen categories, but all the categories deal with one subject. This is not a new idea - even britanica has a topical guide index, if you will, that is similar, but has a category system as well as a see also system. All three are useful navigation tools and are much needed in my opinion for navigating such a large wiki. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sunborn. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
  • Delete - Create appropriate subcategories under the main category and add them into those. Subcategories link into the main category, linking them together. Skysmith 7 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Delete — There's no value-add to this list article that couldn't covered more properly on the topic pages or with categories. — RJH 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
  • Either Keep or merge important parts of list with main Scientology articles. A2Kafir 8 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is why we have categories. -- BD2412 talk 15:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This to me should be deleted and turned into a category. Rentastrawberry 23:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vote Summary: Keep: 4 Delete: 6

No consensus reached as of 8 July 2004

  • Delete. Categories were ceated for a reason. --Allen3 talk 23:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I will agree that a list article could, potentially, provide something that a category does not. But examining this list, I see nothing it offers that the category doesn't, and it seems that the category is being kept much more up-to-date than the list is. Barring a really spectacular plan of improvement, I have to vote delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar
  • Merge with Scientology under "See also" section. The number of Scientology articles can confuse those not familiar with the topic, so it would be nice to have them all conveniently listed in one place. But, as noted above, it is sort of odd to have articles about articles. I wouldn't worry about the size of the Scientology article because some of the names on the list are already in the "See also" section. CanadianCaesar 04:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gene Juarez Salon and Spa

Business vanity. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:30 (UTC)

  • Delete ad/promotional spam. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. VfD tag rm'd from article on 12 July by User:Duncharris but not mentioned here. Therefore, no counting of votes offered by me (though it's pretty obvious). -Splash 02:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbull

The contents of this article is silly nonsense (possibly even a candidate for BJAODN!) written by an anon IP. Perhaps, there ought to be a proper article about the Turnbull surname here, but I don't really have the inclination to do it and don't think it would be read by anybody if I did. Therefore, I suggest the article should be deleted. NicholasTurnbull 6 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

  • I can see why this article would concern you ;-) Delete, nonsense. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 00:01 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 00:14 (UTC) Change to Keep. Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 04:14 (UTC)
  • Make it a disambig - there are enough notable Turnbulls... Colin Turnbull comes to mind, but then, I used to be a sociologist. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
    • Update: a quick search of Wikipedia finds 13 people and 1 river named Turnbull. I'm just going to go ahead and throw those in the article... and the other stuff can be deleted anytime. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 01:27 (UTC)
  • Keep the disambig Good work, BD2412. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  • Keep the very well done disambig. Thanks for doing that, BD2412. --NicholasTurnbull 7 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
  • Keep: Now that it's a proper disambig page, good job! -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 7 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 deleteDunc|☺ 23:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph T. Underwood

Vanity. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:41 (UTC)

  • Delete along with J Culture. Jaxl 6 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
  • Delete and condemn vanity spamming. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proactionary Principle

Neologism, still warm from the oven. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:45 (UTC)

  • Delete. But put the information somewhere else. Something like a "concepts in transhumanism" page that can aggregate blurbs like this, which seem to be a lot of the specific transhumanism things, more see also links than content. Arturus
  • Keep. BrentN 17 July 2005. Important part of the debate on science and policy.
    • This user has only two other edits. Denni☯
  • Keep. Vergil 42 BC. "fortune favors the BOLD."
    • *This user's only contribution is to this VfD. Denni☯
  • Keep. The precautionary principle emphasizes the potential costs of innovation, and its advocates favor pre-emptive restrictions on new technology based on the _potential_ harm that the new technology may cause. The proactionary principle emphasizes the opportunity costs of _not_ innovating, and it's advocates favor restrictions based primarily on _demonstrated_ harm. Although a neologism of relatively recent vintage, it succinctly names a large body of thought in opposition to the precautionary principle, that has heretofore, to my knowledge, gone unnamed. Crasch 15:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Delete nn neologism. Ken 00:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Cyrius|✎ 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Lower jerk

If I ruled the world, this thing would be speedied as patent, deliberately well-formatted nonsense. But since I don't, I feel compelled to drag it to VfD.

Oh, I mean: not verifiable, hoax, and possibly an insult page, though a very abstract one if that's the intent. JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense -- Coneslayer 2005 July 6 23:47 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think it classifies for speedy as patent nonsense... --IByte 7 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense --Henrygb 7 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
  • Delete but not speediable - it's nonsense, but not patent nonsense. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
  • Delete It's already been speedy deleted twice guys, is there any reason not to just do that again? Also if I could have protected the title to keep it from being created again I would have. - Taxman Talk July 7, 2005 17:42 (UTC)
    You're right, I missed that; I didn't check for other speedies since this page unfortunately isn't, regardless of how I turn policy around. However, this is obviously going to be deleted with massive support, and it definitely can be speedied and/or protected afterwards as recreation of deleted content. JRM · Talk 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Dunc|☺ 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke skinner

Cannot find any record of this person or the group mentioned in the article. It is either a hoax, or something real but insignificant. Tobycat 7 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 03:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Folksonomy

Well written article, but it is still non-notable blogger wankery devoid of real content. Just because some self-proclaimed, vain "online journalists" repeat a meme on their web-site in every post doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 193.77.153.149 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

  • Keep. Has been extensively discussed in a graduate-level library science paper [42] and a Wired article [43], among other sources whose reputability is above that of a "self-proclaimed, vain, 'online journalist.'" 700,000+ hits [44] on Google. The "Examples" section should be either severely trimmed or removed, though; otherwise it verges into web directory territory. If the goal of the section is really just to illustrate examples of folksonomies in action, 2-3 examples should suffice. Chuck July 7, 2005 18:34 (UTC)
  • Comment - original nominator. User:193.77.153.149, apparently did not complete VfD process, so I am adding it to today's page. No vote (yet). FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
    • Oh, okay, the anon nominator added it to yesterday's log even though it was VfD'd today (according to the timestamp). Well, I've put it here and deleted it from the 6 July listing. FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful discussion of new topic in information theory, something Wikipedia is uniquely qualified to address in a timely way. betsythedevine 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
  • Keep and prune example list. From my brief review of the Google results it looks like "folksonomy" has caught on. Besides, Jimbo has been sighted talking about it: [45]. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
  • keep UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Keep the term exists, and is popping up all over... who cares if bloggers created it, and what difference would that make in any case? I came to Wikipedia today specifically looking for this word because I kept seeing it and didn't know what it meant; I see no reason to delete a term because someone has a problem with the blogosphere and what emerges from it.
First edit by 71.128.137.140 - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC).
  • Keep: a newly current term describing an interesting and specific phenomenon of the web, Wikipedia the ideal place to check and indeed develop its definition. Why on earth delete?
First edit by Ashtreex - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC).
  • Keep: tagging is just taking off. While I'm not fond of the word "folksonomy" to describe tagging, more and more people do use it.
anonymous comment from User:63.150.49.66. —Stormie 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is useful stuff Sbwoodside 00:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: i am kind of astonished that someone would vote to destroy this article. it is a fascinating idea no matter who the 'wankers' are that overuse the word. imagine if the oxford english dictionary had failed to insert words that it considered 'used only by wankers'? i heard people talking about this word as an alternative to library of congress classification and the only reason i was able to find out wtf it meant, quickly, was because i looked it up on my old standby, wikipedia.
anonymous comment from User:70.185.250.195. —Stormie 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: While I hate neologisms like blogosphere and folksonomy, the concept is certainly relevant to a significant web population and should remain as an article. The list of examples is too messy, in my opinion (though I cleaned it up a bit). Nobi 10:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a useful page that givesa good into to a topic coming up in lots of settings including higher ed...and students love wikipedia so it is great to find the concept included here.
  • Weak Keep per FreplySpang, though I'm disgusted by all this sockpuppetry. KissL 09:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While this article needs editing, it describes a real phenomenon that is gathering significant momentum.
  • Keep: Not the nicest neologism, with a potentially difficult international life, and lack of multilingual equivalents, but one that gives a name to an important alternative to traditional classification systems. David.orban 19:00 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: until now, the only people who have heard of this new term are people who actively depend on it daily, therefore other people outside of the realm of influence can't really apprieciate what it stands for or what it defines. please be in a habit of investigating a term before just impulsively disqualifying it.
  • Stong Keep: Important topic; weak justification of ignoring it.Paul.Wicks
  • Strong Keep: The term Folksonomy has risen quickly into the lime-light. The page may need some adjustment of content and some clarification but there should be an entry for Folksonomy within the Wikipedia ( if for no other reason than to prevent the Marketeers from taking it over)
  • Strong Keep: This is a real and important phenomenon. I am citing it in an academic paper right now --Aaron Krowne 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sockpuppets have convinced me. Gamaliel 04:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the term has been used and the concept employed so extensively by reputable and relevant sources such as (for example) the Guardian newpaper (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/global/whatisfz.html) that it cannot plausibly be dismissed merely because some people haven't heard of it or apply an ad hominem objection to some other, arguably less reputable sources having used the term or employed the concept also.
  • Keep: supporting terms will be defined over time Rossmay
  • Keep. I hadn't heard it before, but 387,000 google hits is enough for me. Shanes 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but send to heavy cleanup. Needs a fairly extensive rewrite or enhancement and possibly some trimming of the examples (they may need their own page). --TNLNYC 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a soap box, or a collection of neologisms, and this violates all three. →Raul654 01:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term is used widely. Rrreese 01:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary - the voting is overwhelmingly in favour of "keep", and the article has improved considerably in the last seven days. I propose removing this from VFD in 72 hours, unless someone can provide a compelling reason to continue this debate.Manning 01:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, it's overwhelmingly keep because of the blatant sockpuppetry going on. →Raul654 01:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I respect your position Raul, but I'm personally satisfied that there is something of substance here. However I'm happy to leave it on VFD though - was just trying to clean some stuff up. I'll just keep watching and allow the discussion to continue. Manning 01:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Don't know if it is so much sockpuppery as it is just lots of different people coming here after minor publick attention. See here. Don't see anything wrong with that, though. Shanes 01:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_6&oldid=18332220"