Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 1

September 1

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Hunter

Non notable bio: as author writes: "Obscure adult entertainer on the Internet." -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A search for "Tiffany Hunter" +adult on Google returns 518 results. A search for "Tiffany Hunter" returns 3,960 results. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, non entity DV8 2XL 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article: "obscure" and "relatively unknown". This is verging on Speedy territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Starblind expressed it eloquently. At least make an effort to persuade us not to delete a new article! -- llywrch 01:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under Category A7. This article goes out of its way not to assert notability ie use of obscure and relatively unknown. Rob Church's Google search confirms the description. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. Jaxl | talk 02:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Although a Google Image Search = 'aaarhh... my eyes!' Cnwb 03:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The only things that came up on a Google Image search for me were Tiffany Hunter Tiffany Hunter, Tiffany Hunter, Tiffany Hunter, Tiffany Hunter, and Tiffany Hunter, none of which would elicit that reaction. However, I didn't have "safe search" turned off. ☺ Uncle G 16:29:13, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete. nn. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --rob 05:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, asserts no notability at all. Note the use of: "obscure" and "relatively unkown". - Mgm|^(talk) 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Should have been a CSD|A7 --Outlander 14:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete— non notable.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Keep, she's not obscure at all.BillyCreamCorn 15:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please supply proof that she's not obscure. Further research fails to show a listing on IMDB for her, & the first 2 hits for possible candidates from a Google search on "'Tiffany Hunter' +adult" are to an escort service (which provides a dead link supposedly to her web page), & a some guy's testimony that "she really likes to party". We've passed the criteria of notability & are now either at "verifiable" or "vanity". -- llywrch 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- BillyCreamCorn.... LOL. Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable in the least. -- Joshua Johaneman 18:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. -- JChamberlin 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline speedy material. Hall Monitor 20:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- DS1953 00:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. but article has been redirected since vfd vote came up. Woohookitty 10:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alien experiment (Lilo & Stitch)

This page is exceptionally long and not really at all encyclopedic, frankly. No references are provided for any of the material, and it is written in a slightly strange informal narrative. It is simply a list of said characters interspersed with annotations, not an article on the subject. I am not sure whether this is nonsense or not, but either way it should be deleted. --NicholasTurnbull 00:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (largely) unverifiable fancruft; non-encyclopedic. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fancruft, as above. Stlemur 00:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked extensively on this article in the past and most of it is not fancruft. Some past revisions of the article were a lot worse and basically summarized entire episodes of the show. There have been times when erroneous entries and information have been added and this is troubling because the content is unverifiable since there's not many credible sources about the article's content. I agree that the article isn't notable enough for Wikipedia and probably can't be salvaged into something more useful. I'm a little torn on this one, but Delete --Jtalledo (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Well-written fancruft some of it may be, but nontheless fancruft. Admins, if this does get deleted, the edit history is huge; better watch out for the load on the servers! Tonywalton | Talk 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. DV8 2XL 00:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor fictional characters like these are supposed to be merged into lists like this one. It's certainly better than having an article on each one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and possibly condense if it really boils you turnips. This is essentially a list of Pokemon, with each episode of the show dealing with a different "Pokemon-thingy". Since the show's premise revolves largely around the "Pokemon-thingies", I'd say a list like this is informational about the show and not merely fancruft. User:Joylock
Keep per Starblind. An individual article for each of the hundreds of experiments would be fancruft. This list is a much better alternative. Thatdog 03:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind, Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, minor characters with such an obvious relation to each other should be covered in the same list. Fancruft is not a valid reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, unencyclopedic. Alphax ^τεχ 08:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ 11:28:43, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Keep per Starblind as well.--Matteh (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator. Weird stuff. Although I was amused by the idea of turning things into pork. Peeper 12:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator Roodog2k 13:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this is precisely the way that this information should be presented.--Scimitar ^parley 14:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scimitar
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Keep. BodyTag 15:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BillyCreamCorn 15:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind and Scimitar Sam Vimes 16:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if you think it is too large, split into an article for each series. (000 series, 100 series, etc). Acetic '^Acid 17:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - per nom. UniReb 19:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- not perfect, could use cleanup perhaps, but not a reason to delete it. JChamberlin 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is ample precident for keeping articles about major themes and lists of minor characters for works of fiction, and this is both. This is easily verifiable, from any episode guide. It is also as verifiable as any plot synopsis. ManoaChild 20:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is, apparently, a term and incomplete list of non-appearing characters on a TV show that appears to have fairly limited audience. (I mean that the UK folks seem to have never encountered it, and even the fannish Americans appear to be at a loss about it; suggesting that this is a Buena Vista syndication that just isn't being run.) This is not, as some have argued, a list of minor characters, but a list of minor characters below the minor characters (i.e. not phylum, but race). Far too narrow, too granular, too much of concern only within a fictional universe accessible to and of concern for only fans. I.e. the hated "fancruft." Geogre 22:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Show is currently being run on the Disney Channel with new episodes still being released, a newly released DVD, and a spinoff in production. Characters are not non-appearing as they appear in the episode which featured them and in later episodes. ManoaChild 22:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Starblind--Oppolo 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the cruftequences of deleting make me feel ill. -Splash 01:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This obviously has to stay. This article is useful and quite well-written, so I do not consider this to be fancruft. So much work has been put in to this article. --FlyingPenguins 05:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This is one of the worst articles I've read. However, that doesn't merit deletion and most of the entires on that list have certainly appeared on on the series, so keep. --Apostrophe 22:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe the article needs some more work, but the basic idea it covers is worthy of staying. Evil Eye 23:35, 2 September 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 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likuid ice

Guess what kind of vanity this is! Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 00:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! I'm Nick from the band and one of our friends did it. Just wanted to see us on here. Don't be a jerk and just leave it be... unsigned comment by User:Bunno14. DES ^(talk) 00:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete "Just wanted to see us on here" is not a good reason for an article to exist. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, D. Needless to say, this was that account's first edit. Trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, at least for now. To anyone associated with this article: You are free to voice your opinion; however, new accounts and anonymous votes are generally discounted. - Lucky 6.9 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity DV8 2XL 00:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate worthless band articles more then any other worthless article. They're scum and they all say the same worthless things. Down the drain you go. --Blackcap | talk 01:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not meeting WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nnbv. --TheMidnighters 01:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please don't take this as an insult. But if we let every person and every band create articles about themselves, there would be 32 million articles that are non-notable to nearly everyone except the creator. ral 315 02:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable band vanity. Jaxl | talk 02:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you'd like to see your friend's band on the web, maybe try myspace.com, Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for it. Cnwb 03:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per the soon-to-be-deleted article, they already have a web site.

Deleting is too good for this article. Fold, spindle, mutilate. Repeat as necessary. --DavidConrad 04:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't be a jerk and try to use Wikipedia for free publicity for your non-notable band. Zoe 05:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article wastes precious server space for a nobody band. Dump It! Misterrick 06:41, 01 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. They have another website than the article lists. 9here) and it lists just one gig for March 2005 and hasn't been updated much at all. They also don't seem to clear WP:MUSIC no albums or singles out yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I love being a jerk. __earth 08:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ 11:29:47, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete. Just wanted to see my name on this list of votes. Peeper 13:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC) (Btw, I thought 'Likuid' was the Israeli opposition party...or is that 'Liqud'? ;) )[reply]
Delete—vanity.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
I always thought liquid, sorry, likuid, ice was called "water". Delete, but let's remember WP:BITE and WP:civ if humanly possible, eh? Tonywalton | Talk 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I like voting :)--Oppolo 23:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When are we going to get a nn band vanity speedy delete option?? Dottore So 01:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. LOL intro too :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:18, 2 September 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 10:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop class

short stub, does not explain itself at all clearly. No indication that this technique is in wide use, or that this term is notable. Delete. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compound dictdef, delete on a laptop. --fvw * 00:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
delete no content DV8 2XL 00:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, because I do think that the term is in use, to teach Information Technology to students in developing countries, with little or no facilities. If this article is not deleted, I vote for it to be stubbed. -x42bn6 03:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I have no idea how this could be expanded... Amren ^(talk) 16:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the use of projectors is hardly new. And laptops not much better. It's really just a bad dic. def. Dismas 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and can't be expanded. JChamberlin 19:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Delete Intentionally disruptive addition by constant vandal. --!!!!
Delete; no real usable content. --Nlu 15:34, 6 September 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 10:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Fox

Delete: Looks like a ad plug. Karmafist 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete policy violation on linkpage articles DV8 2XL 00:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively. Hamster Sandwich 01:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable fansite. Jaxl | talk 02:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn fansite, Alexa rank: 1,794,543. Maybe it can be included as a link on Miles "Tails" Prower which doesn't seem to have any external links (or sources). Was Miles broken out of a bigger Sonic article? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete— nonnotable.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:43, 1 September 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 10:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abuf

Every high school has its cliques; few are worth an article. As it currently reads, this article fails to make the grade. llywrch 00:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn DV8 2XL 00:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it specified the High School, it could be merged into that high school's article. Capitalistroadster 01:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete High school club, and not even an official high school club by the sound of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 02:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"few are worth an article." Few? Few? Few? "No one knows for sure what the acronym ABUF stands for". This article tastes like burning. Please put it out of its misery. Or my misery. Delete --DavidConrad 04:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. f.u.b.a.r'd __earth 09:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I did not go to this high school but did grow up in Minnesota. This group is well known in the state and have even been documented on KARE 11 (about 10 years ago). The group is worth having a listing in an encyclopedia that wishes to inform people. There are already many fraternities listed within this website. Being sponsored by the school for over 30 years, I see no difference with this one. 167.181.247.6 12:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the club received coverage on television and in newspapers independent of the school itself, as you are implying, please cite it in the article. As things stand, there is no evidence to back up your claim. Indeed, there's no evidence presented for verifying even the existence of the article's subject. Uncle G 16:41:52, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  - I'd say that even if the part about being on KARE 11 is true, it still wouldn't be notable. Lots of non-notable stuff shows up on local TV news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete High School Fraternity GMAFB Roodog2k 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands, this is completely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:41:52, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete - un-Wikipedic! UniReb 19:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many organizations are listed in this encyclopedia, this is just one more. It has history in the state of Minnesota and is well known throughout the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. There is an adopt a highway sign sponsored by the organization (for the past 5-6 years) on Tracy Avenue in Edina. ABUF is no different than many organizations already listed in this encyclopedia.Pete1000 19:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat: Please cite sources, because as things stand there is no evidence to back up your claims. Uncle G 11:48:25, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete per nom.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Delete: The author doesn't even know what it is. It's a fraternity-like thing? This is a hoax and a speedy delete. If anyone counts the anon votes and the nonce account votes as "no consensus," then I hope that person also looks at the speedy delete criteria and realizes that this is a delete. Geogre 22:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly nn Dottore So 01:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student organizations, by and large, are nn. -- DS1953 04:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Not verified either--there are no sources. Quale 18:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quale. Nandesuka 22:19, 5 September 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 10:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Elven Alliance

Delete: Cruft-o-rama. Karmafist 01:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn clancruft/vanity. "They are not known for much". --TheMidnighters 01:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where are the cruft vikings, now that we need them most? Hamster Sandwich 01:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just about all gaming clans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable cruft. Jaxl | talk 02:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THe article already summarizes itself: They are not known for much. That and the fact the clan chief seems to totally misunderstand Wikipedia make for a big delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For the horde! __earth 08:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then burn the hard drive it was on. Then smash what's left. And then melt it down. And then burn it again. Then seal it in concrete. Proto t c 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn DV8 2XL 12:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If cool kids in a High School Frat do not get their own article, neither do the geeks. Roodog2k 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. --Blackcap | talk 18:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Can we take that picture with it? --Blackcap | talk 18:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 12:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaseidramon

Kaseidramon is a completely fanmade Digimon, as the author of the article has admitted this. This is evidenced by any informed person. A real Digimon might have a image, and no 'looks like a Mega-level "insert Digimon here."' This article may be considered a hoax, and is not suitable since it is fictional, whereas Wikipedia is for broadcasting facts and information.66.189.165.27 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orignal work DV8 2XL 12:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Cmadler 13:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 19:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation. The previous VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kaseidramon. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and protect page from recreation. --Apostrophe 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and protect. the wub "?/!" 10:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as recreation of previously (validly) VfDed material. If the creator opposes the deletion they should take it to WP:VFU. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, September 6, 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 No consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McMillan

Non-notable. Person in question appears to want it deleted, per message left on my talk page. Delete. Andre (talk) 01:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I read the talk page message, it looks like some sort of blogging feud/rivalry has spilled onto Wikipedia. Delete as NN and/or attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

MsMcMillan seeks noteriety with her blog... she does regular interviews for media outlets in Canada on the subject of blogging... she was recently quoted in at least 2 if not 3 mainstream daily publications in a contreversey surrounding Marc Emery

The real problem is Ms.McMillan does not like not having control over her own public relations.

She has made the comments that were attributed to her, re Angolans in Africa and Aboriginals, and their children needing to be "locked up" or put into residential schools

FWIW... I think racism, such as Ms.McMillan exhibits over and over again.. (see various discussions about her over at the Cannabis Culture Forum) needs to be documented and discussed, and people in Canada should be aware of what they are getting when they vote for a party of people who openly condone and support racists.

If there is anything factually incorrect with the entry about Ms.McMillan then she should be free to edit the entry like every other Wikipedian... and not just wipe out her contreversial statements when they cause her a problem, which they seem to be doing, as more media in the last week were alerted to her Angolan comments and various comments about Canada's indigenous people.

Lastly... what is Mike Brock and Ezra Levant doing with entries... when Ms.McMillan is not? Perhaps some of the progressive bloggers might be induced to comment on this. Somena 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the Truth Laid Bear ratings, the Small Dead Animals blog is at least semi-notable with 3930 visits a day and 113th in links so there is a case for it staying. However, the article needs to seriously cleaned up in terms of NPOV and wider significance needs to be shown. User Somena seems to have serious POV problems in relation to this article. Capitalistroadster 05:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somena is most likely correct when she says that we are voting on this VfD because McMillan "does not like not having control over her own public relations". Alexa rank is negligible (>100,000), but McMillan seems to be notable -- "Ms. McMillan was called an "inspiring friend" by conservative MP Monte Solberg, the opposition finance critic. She is the paid administrator of "The Shotgun", the on-line blog of the hard-right-of-center magazine Western Standard." Other reasons for notability are discussed on starblind's talk page, it seems. Having just tried to broker a compromise between warring bloggers, I sympathise with those who will have to negotiate between the blog-warring factions here. Sdedeo 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but less NPOV McMillan passes the notability test. She is on the radio alot (more than Mike Brock, another Canadian blogger who went through VfD and remained). She also seems to be quoted in the newspaper alot as a "blogging authority." Editors should also keep in mind the Systemic Bias that has been identified in Wikipedia against entries that are non-American. Bloggers generally are more notable and have a greater cultural role in Canada than elsewhere. For more info see Canadian blogosphere.--Simon.Pole 08:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person in Canada DV8 2XL 12:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the Mike Brock comparison is apt. Ezra Levant however, is a syndicated columnist, and thus much more notable than either.--Scimitar ^parley 14:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person seems to be Wiki-worthy. UniReb 21:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just Google 'KKKate' and you'll see that Somena (Meaghan Walker-Williams, aka Edward T. Bear, aka numerous other sock puppets) is pursuing a personal vendetta against McMillan. Read the history of the page to see McMillans comments, which are substantially correct. Colby Cosh is a far better known Canadian blogger and not listed in Wikipedia.--Jtk3 22:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- this is Jtk3's first and only edit. User Account was created immediately prior to this edit. For a list of other Canadian Bloggers listed in Wikipedia, please see Category: Canadian bloggers.

Comment I have actually been to this blog, which in and of itself practically makes this wikiworthy, given the minutely small number of blogs I have ever bothered to read. I am troubled, however, that the entry is currently being used to promote an anti-Tory political agenda - per Somena and her assertions - which is an outright violation. If its stands as is, with its baiting content (the Solberg quote is loaded, as is the controversy) - i.e. no one is willing to bother to rewerite it as part of this AfD process, then it should be Deleted until it is authored in a manner that conforms to NPOV, or else merged to the cdn blogger list. Dottore So 01:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. McMillan seems quite convinced of her notability in this newspaper article: [1]. I'll happily rewrite the article out of sheer bloodymindedness if it survives. Sdedeo 02:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(note on JTK3 commentator above, Mr.John T Kennedy and his wife Lynnette Warren's only contribution to Wikipedia prior to this entry has been to vandalize a page dealing with Somena. See here and here )

Why is it *anti-tory* to point out what this woman has said including links to the comments and screen captures to prove she said it. Monte Solberg doesn't have a problem with people knowing about his relationship/inspiring friendship with her... or that it is well known... he has on 3 separate occasions promoted her blog on his website, and also in an interview by Blogging Tories Blog Alliance owner Stephen Taylor which was podcast on the internet.

If the Tories are comfortable with somebody like McMillan in their ranks, it seems a little unreasonable for them say people drawing attention to their involvement, association and promotion of this woman is "unfair" or partisan.

I personally don't vote. I don't belong to any politcal party. I'm actually libertarian... and I could care less which political party is running the country... they are all crooks as far as I am concerned. But I do think Canadians should be able to see the kinds of views and positions of "tories" who openly advocate these sorts of things on-line and be made aware of what they are voting for, and what they can expect from these people if they should ever achieve power.

For instance... would it be "NPOV" to build an entry about former Canadian Alliance MP Jim Pankiw , who made several remarkable derogatory comments about Aboriginals among other things? What about to draw reference to Stephen Harper's infamous remarks about contreversial "Atlantic Canada" or the Firewall around Albert? Is it NPOV to have an entry about Svend Robinson's shoplifting? Would it be wrong to have an entry about David Ahenakew's anti-semetic remarks? Would it be NPOV to have a mention on Michelle Malkin's entry, about her defence of internment for Japanese?

No. It wouldn't and it isn't See all the entries above. These are remarkable events, and remarkable commentaries by various personalities who crave noteriety and drawing attention to themselves.

McMillan says on her own blogpage that the reason she chooses a "dead gopher" on her website graphic is because it's a reminder to people that she is not afraid of saying offensive things. In fact, that's a big part of why she blogs according to interviews she has given... she enjoys saying contreversial and un-politically correct things. Context is important in all this.

Yes... my entry on McMillan is biased. If somebody wants to present the information about her in a non-biased format... that's what Wikipedia does and is for i.e. several people add and subtract, delete and modify until the page is the most correct and neutral. But notice that's not what the subject Kate McMillan wants. She wants the facts about her to not be referrenced or linked to. She wants to have all control over what is being said about her. And if she can't have it that way... she demands that nobody say anything about her at all. Now considering McMillan's recent remarks on her blog about Marc Emery, and how she went out of her way to make sure that as many people as possible found out about contreversial statements by Mr.Emery, I find it remarkable that she would object to getting the same treatment, because of her own contreversial remarks.

Somena 02:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A brief riposte. Some of your points cited as supporting examples I agree with, but then I think we are dealing with something that is different in both kind and specie. Ahenakew, for example, was elevated to the Order of Canada, and then expelled after his anti-semitic remarks. In an encyclopedic treatment of Ahenakew, therefore, that is important. Your other examples are equally disingenuous. Robinson was an elected MP (hence notable) and resigned due to the incident you mentioned. All the others are MPs, too, for that matter. Ms. McMillan is barely noteworthy at all. To single out her comments about race, etc... is, in my view, very tendentious since it implies a notability through controversy which does not exist. Also, a small point, but why should anyone be coming here for political commentary at all. Pour la politesse aux autres, you may wish to respond to any direct points on my talk page, instead of clogging up the AfD. Fwiw, I vote Bloc, so I am not being an apologist here. ;) Dottore So 03:32, 2 September 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ggw

Nonsense about how 'GGW' is an abbreviation for Girls Gone Wild. No redirect necessary; horrific capitalization is unlikely to be used by anyone else. ral 315 02:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - unencyclopedic junk CDC (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TLA disambig. A google search actually reveals quite a few "Girls Gone Wild" abbreviations - and quite a few references to the airport in Glasgow. It's also apparently some kind of international language code for a language called Gogodala, spoken in Papua New Guinea [2], not to mention the initials of Gunther Gebel-Williams. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Convert to a disambig as per BD2412. --Apyule 06:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to proper capitalization and disambiguate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic DV8 2XL 12:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to proper capitalization and disambiguate as per Mgm ---Outlander 14:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Move to GGW and disambig as per Mgm Mcfly 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CDC
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Move to GGW. I just turned it into a disambig (since I was welcome to edit the article). -- Reinyday, 02:54, 2 September 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 10:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Singh & Mrs. Mehta

Article on a film that has not yet been made, IMDB lists its status as "announced" Cnwb 02:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until it's at least in post-production. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Reads like a first person novel too Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At very least the film needs to be in production, preferably in post. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom DV8 2XL 12:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: --Bhadani 15:25, 1 September 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 10:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt-Investigators

I can't find any outside verification. I asked on the discussion page; no response. It reads like a hoax to me. Joyous (talk) 02:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Even if it's true (and in all likelihood it isn't) it's not notable as it looks like a small group of anti-papal campaigners. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or wishful thinking DV8 2XL 12:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly true but still nn - every Pope, President or Prime Minister gets investigated by dozens of groups, it's just politics ---Outlander 14:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely nothing on google. Even most hoaxes get at least one result. Mcfly 16:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge, failing a consensus to delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Must Die

Delete fancruft. A difficulty setting in a video game. TheMidnighters 03:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dante Must Die Must Die. Thatdog 04:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Well put, Thatdog. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to have articles about every option in a video game. Every character and every place may be kept or merged, but this is going too far. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, difficulty levels are an important aspect of gameplay. Kappa 09:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even Kappa can't vote keep - that is damning. Mention the difficulty levels in the game article (if they're not already), and delete. Proto t c 10:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ 10:20:09, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete or, failing that, Merge into Devil May Cry. android 79 12:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge DV8 2XL 12:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn BillyCreamCorn 15:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This belongs in each of those articles. Amren ^(talk) 16:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. Nandesuka 19:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Amren. Alf 21:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.175.229 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-06 06:23:40

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 10:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dusted

Neologism/dictdef. Flower party 04:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And a stupid, non-notable one at that. --Blackcap | talk 04:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should be done and dusted by next week. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it has link spamming on top of that. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete fubar'd __earth 08:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, linkspam DV8 2XL 12:25, 1 September 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Ahluwalia

I'm unable to verify the claim to notability. --fvw * 04:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comment In case it will help somone verify the claim, there is a posting by a Pooja Ahluwalia on this website posted January 10, 2003 in which the poster remarks that she is a karate champion in the US but can't participate in karate championships in India due to her lack of Indian citizenship (as a US citizen).
Flimsy evidence, but I prefer to have this investigated by someone knowledgeable about Karate. They may have access to useful sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verifiable evidence of notability is forthcoming. android 79 12:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain, with a request to the editors to comment who may be aware of her notability. --Bhadani 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now, as per Bhadani. Hall Monitor 20:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. If we keep this by accident and it turns out to be rubbish, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice. -Splash 01:30, 2 September 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 10:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[[/Flamethrower Engineering]]

Delete, hoax, or obscure slang at best. Can't seem to make the wikilink work, but article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Flamethrower_Engineering - choster 04:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the wikilink. And delete, neologism. Flower party 04:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somebody's inside joke CDC (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a cool term, and I think that I might steal it, but unfortunatly it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Apyule 06:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although, an explanation of the term 'mastrubation' might be interesting. Eddie.willers 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. android 79 12:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 16:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 10:47, 7 September 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 Redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series). Fernando Rizo T/C 23:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Pierzina

Another Big Brother competitor who is nn enough not to need their own article. Every attempt I have made to redirect this has been reverted. Zoe 05:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect unless it was a major feature (like a centrefold or something) in Playboy. --Apyule 06:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think being on a well known show (more than token or minor appearance) of a major broadcast network is a straight forward keep. I base the keep only on that, since other than the one show, I'm not sure much of anything about her is verified, or will be till later. --rob 08:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So an article on every Big Brother contestant in every season in every country in the world should be created? Zoe 08:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Reply: This is no place to debate an issue not specific to this article. It was a mistake to call a vfd. A "mergeto" (or appropriate) tag should have been added to each unwanted contestant's article, which would then direct everybody to a single central talk page (for the show), to discuss and vote on the issue. A single approach should be established. --rob 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people would want to be able to look her up, as is generally the case for Big Brother contestants. Kappa 09:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all non-duplicated contents that are thought to be noteworthy into the Big Brother article, and redirect this page.—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:45:41, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Redirect all reality tv contestants that aren't winners or otherwise notable.--nixie 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant series, as per multiple precedents. Proto t c 10:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agree with nixie and Proto Peeper 14:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WP is not a Who's Who DV8 2XL 13:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per precedent.--Scimitar ^parley 14:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per rob. Hall Monitor 20:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (1st choice) or Delete (2nd choice) UniReb 21:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Create Big Brother contestants who we otherwise wouldn't have heard of (or maybe something slightly more appropriate) merge, and redirect. Alf 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedent as Proto points out. Dottore So 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either we keep this article, or we create one specific article called Big Brother USA contestants and put the descriptions of each houseguest there. I tried doing this once, but of course it was deleted. We could also create a different article for each season of Big Brother and we can describe each contestent there. This should be discussed in Talk:Big Brother (USA TV series) and a consensus should be reached. This VfD discussion keeps repeating itself in all the pages of all the contestents and it is going nowhere. Paul99 02:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - an article per series, with each individual contestant's name redirecting to that series's article is what is done with the UK version of Big Brother, and it works perfectly well. Proto t c 09:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Round and round we go. —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has several things of note to name outside of being a BB contestant. Subject is extremely popular. Merging wouldn't be the worst case, but would make the original BB page too unwieldy very quickly. Not sure why Zoe has such a campaign against individual BB pages in the first place.--66.149.92.242 13:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because just being a contestant on a TV show does not make somebody notable, and once she's voted off, we will never hear of her again. Zoe 18:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - So you are a psychic, eh? Nice! Can you tell me who'd going to win the Superbowl this year by any chance?--66.149.92.242 20:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly keep at least until and if she's evicted. She's got accomplishments other than being on Big Brother, and given the rating she has on CBS's site and that she won America's Choice I expect that CBS will be having her do other things one way or the other.--Firedrake 23:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many of the other contestants from the US Big Brother have you ever heard of again? The only one I can even think of is Josh Sousa from BB1, who got into minor modeling and has now written a screenplay. Zoe 19:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Lets see... there's Marcellas Reynolds, Will Wikle, and Alisun Irwin to name a few. But somehow I don't think YOUR or (or for that matter, MY) awareness of their activities after the show should be the standard for which they are judged. Kaysar's (the only one more popular than her this season) been on a soap so far after the show and is in talks about a possible spot on The Amazing Race. CBS isn't exactly stupid when it finds popular folks (See Rupert or Rob and Amber). I'll also note the season isn't even over yet and although the odds are against her, she may yet win.--Firedrake 19:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that Marcellas hosts CBS's online BB discussions, but what have Will Wilke and Alisun Irwin done? Zoe 21:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      - Alisun and her boyfirend were on Amazing Race. Will writes on the CBS BB site as well as a few other reality TV sites. I'll grant you that if you aren't a BB fanatic you probably won't hear a lot about many of the non-winners. My main point is that neither of us would probably claim to hold the final ord on celebrity. I would say that she's known to enough folks and has done enough to earn her a few kbytes in Wiki. --Firedrake 22:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper we have articles on characters from books, movies and television series, why not reality tv contestants? --JPotter 23:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not toilet paper either, the books will be here next year, the tv series will be repeated, reality contestants will mostly be forgotten next month. If not, then at that point they will be notable. --Doc (?) 21:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ms. Pierzina is completely notable. Especially since she's made it so far in Big Brother 6. -- OldRight 22:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Janelle Pierzina is the people's favourite to win the show. Other members who have been evicted have their own section, why can't this very popular, athletic, smart girl have one? Besides she's got a story to tell.

Gian89 02:05, 5 September 2005(UTC)

Strong Keep- Janelle is by far the most popular person left in the house and will be remembered (at least by series fans) for being one of the strongest, smartest, and most entertaining people ever to appear on the show. She has at this point secured a spot in at least the Final Four, and even if she doesn't win she deserves her own page for what she's added to the series (like Danielle Reyes). --PatadyBag 14:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Youngamerican 17:19, 6 September 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breck Wall

non-notable person Misterrick 06:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if Breck Wall can be really considered a notable person. On Altavista I found only 5 listings that were actually about Mr. Wall, two of which were blank pages, one was a old newspaper article reviewing a stage show produced by Mr. Breck's shows and the rest were just spam keyword use. Google showed little over 10 articles some of which were unsubstantiated and undocumented accusations regarding Mr. Breck's involvement and friendship with Jack Ruby. Misterrick 07:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable for his Kennedy testamony. Does anyone have any idea if the guy in the report was the same guy as the producer? --Apyule 07:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenn is WP a Who's Who? DV8 2XL 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his testimony was essentially "I don't know anything". --Outlander 14:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...unless if there can be any notable information discovered about this particular individual from an reliable source. UniReb 21:15, 1 September 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 10:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grogan

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sjakkalle. --Apyule 07:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's also a surname and should therefore have an entry as such (unless surnames/family names are not notable or encyclopaedic either) 212.101.64.4 07:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ISNOT a dictionary, slang or otherwise.—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:40:53, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete Slang def. DV8 2XL 13:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 01:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grogan is a surname, the slang version I've never heard of, and as my surname is Grogan I'm sure I would of. I assume this is an attempt by someone with a grudge to slur someone with Grogan as a surname.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.230.231 (talk • contribs) , at 2005-09-05 10:00:42

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 10:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Wilson

A beautiful, humourous article about a unique human being! Why delete it, I mean shouldn't we encourage those who are willing to help society, no matter how small their deeds are? Please leave this article be, we need more wackiness, funniness on Wikipedia! Harris Johns

Total vanity. The article even says, "His work has...not greatly affected the world today as we know it...." I wish him great hardships in this world until he can write an article worth writing. I just can't stand vanity. --Blackcap | talk 06:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UG.... claims he owns the internet LOL Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was speedied yesterday under the name Cameron Wilson. I think that we should block its re-creation too. --Apyule 07:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Del log shows Fvw deleted Cameron Wilson yesterday for "vanity, no assertion of notability". I think that was a SD; if so, CSD G4 does not apply to this page. Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 08:50:21, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Proto t c 10:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-repost}} only applies if the deleted page was deleted as a result of a VfD, not SD. Unfortunately. Tonywalton | Talk

So you're saying that if an article is deleted under A7, and it's recreated, it can't be speedy deleted without coming to AfD? Zoe 19:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Encephalon provided a useful conversation about this on his talk page below. Hope that clears things up; I found it helpful, anyway. --Blackcap | talk 19:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

WP:CSD G4 ("A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.") says: This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. If the previous deletion was a speedy (under any criterion, not just A7), it gets at least one more shot. Or even more - it could be speedied over and over again. However if it's reposted after a VfD voted "delete", then it merits a db-repost tag under CSD G4 and a deletedcontent tag on the deleted page to stop it being recreated.. What happens if, as seems likely with this article, it gets speedied due to an overwhelming consensus to speedy prior to the VfD period being up is worrying; does that count as a speedy (so db-repost doesn't apply) or a VfD delete (so db-repost does apply)? Tonywalton | Talk 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tony, I don't think this is quite the right place to have a long discussion on CSD etc, and you're welcome to post on this Talk page, my Talk page or yours; I'll just comment here that I don't think this idea is correct: If the previous deletion was a speedy (under any criterion, not just A7), it gets at least one more shot. Or even more - it could be speedied over and over again. I'm posting some thoughts on this particular AfD's talk page.—Encephalon | ^ζ 21:19:00, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd typed my stuff in then got edit-conflicted before I had a chance to read yours. I don't think we're disagreeing on the general "Make the Cam Wilson articles go away" principle, though! Tonywalton | Talk 23:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we most certainly agree on that. My only concern here is with the careful use of CSD; if improperly used it will simply prolong the deletion of vanity/inappropriate articles from WP, as these will likely be targetted for undelete/re-AfD campaigns, purely for "process" reasons. That's not necessarily a bad thing — it's important to protect the integrity of WP's policies such as they are — but I think all of us can agree it's better to be careful with the rules in the first place and avoid such situations.—Encephalon | ^ζ 04:35:09, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

So we agree that this could be given nn-bio (A7) a second time, but not deleted as reproduced (G4)?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron. No, we all agree that inappropriate articles (such as vanity articles) should be deleted in accordance with WP policies. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that it can be done in this case under CSD, while some editors (all of whom I have great respect for) do. Will comment overleaf on the Talk page.—Encephalon | ^ζ 04:58:31, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Merge Seems like an important person. He represents a new generation. Lapinmies 09:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a few problems with your vote, esp. How is he important? and Which generation does he represent? Can you please clear this up. --Apyule 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? --Blackcap | talk 17:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki since he seems to be under the impression that he belongs in a dictionary. Failing that, Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity DV8 2XL 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Cam should go out and find some friends. Ground Zero | t 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He worries me: Cameron has often talked about how he was affected in his childhood by two events, the death of his maltese - shitzyu dog, named Toby, and the loss of his friend Nicholas Meyer in car crash. In that order. Tonywalton | Talk

Keep: He's a sad little ***************** isn't he. perhaps if we left his feeble article alone for a while, he'd get bored and go away. At which point it could be quietly deleted once and for all. 212.101.64.4 15:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we do that when we can delete it now? --Blackcap | talk 17:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - because if you delete it now, he'll just create it again, and get a kick out of how he's pissing everybody off. if you ignore it, perhaps he'll get bored and go away sooner. 212.101.64.4 07:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Admits lack of notability. 65.5.74.2 16:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete  Eoghanacht ^talk 18:55, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

As per comments below about speedy delete being inappropriate, I change my vote to Quickly Delete.  Eoghanacht ^talk 20:11, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Comment I've put up the {{nn-bio}} template as there are so many speedy delete votes. --Blackcap | talk 19:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have removed the SD tag, Blackcap. I appreciate your desire to help clear the AfD candidates, but this article cannot be speedied, as Tonywalton and I mention above. For a short discussion, see this. Cheers—Encephalon | ^ζ 19:21:44, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
- Comment Got it. Sorry about that, I wasn't paying enough attention. --Blackcap | talk 19:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh, not at all. Best—Encephalon | ^ζ 19:26:56, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
- Well, it could be speedied again as sad vanity cruft, but I'd like it to merit CSD I4, as I said to Zoë above Tonywalton | Talk 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm. Having now read that link of Encephalon's I'm still not convinced this couldn't be speedied 5000 times as vanity; the fact it was vanity 4999 times previously doesn't change the 5000th. However I don't think Encephalon would disagree that G4 would stop it being recreated. Ever. Tonywalton | Talk 20:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as soon as possible. Hall Monitor 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. And protect against recreation, and warn the author. -Splash 01:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. something is seriously amiss if, as asserted above, this article cannot be speedied. Dottore So 01:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not because it ~~can~~ could be. It ~~still~~ could qualify under "vanity", just not under "repost". - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion policies are all well and good, but let's make sure that we still use common sense here. --Apyule 02:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC) I agree.—Encephalon | ^ζ 04:35:09, 2005-09-02 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been told at my office: If you have a policy, you don't need common sense. The scary part was that she was dead serious when she said it.  Eoghanacht ^talk 12:25, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

- Lol. I'm going to steal that quote! :)—Encephalon | ^ζ 12:42:15, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Comment since this article claims its notable it is not speedable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So all of those articles I delete which say "xxx is the greatest lover the world has ever known" can't be speedied? Nonsense. Zoe 18:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - You're right, Zoe, but it can't be speedied under WP:CSD A7, your example would have to be speedied under A1. Since it asserts its own notability, it can't go under A7. --Blackcap | talk 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - I've thought about this a bit more, and figured that it could also be speedied as vandalism. --Blackcap | talk 21:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - Please use Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Double_jeapordy_for_speedies for general discussion of repeat speedy implications. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cameron Wilson was deleted so doesn't it make sense that this should be deleted? -x42bn6 Talk 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, obvious vanity. The existence of a "Why Cam Wilson is notable" section is a sure sign of misunderstanding the notability criteria. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: his website is shoddy to the extreme. It consists of "Hello. I own the Internet", a picture that can't be found, and three dead links. That's all. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whenever this happens, it will not be a moment too soon. -Splash 14:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Nandesuka 22:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following votes/comments by 220.237.16.196

Stop flaming him just cause he's submitted an original, wacky, zany piece of work! We need more humour in this world. Please?
'No Delete' I think Cam Wilson's funny, leave his article be! Janis
[[I believe this is a beautiful, humourous article about a unique person. They may not have changed the face of the world, but as a user enyclopedia, should we not encourage celebration of diversity personified in this wacky but obviously passioniate person? Do not delete!]]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 10:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow

Doesn't WP:MUSIC. --fvw * 06:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not to mention being generally crummy. --Blackcap | talk 06:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete bandity Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it obeys the requirements listed here -WP:MUSIC --for example: national tour and national press. why not? crummy is just a matter of opinion, isn't there a page for John Tesh -- Zhukovsky
Keep. I did another google and found several critiques of their work (even here in the Netherlands) and their site lists national performances. So it appears they clear at least a few MUSIC guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I see some blog posts, but no Has been prominently featured in any major music media. --fvw * 08:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article is crumminess incarnate. At best it should be totally rewritten, but it currently smacks of vanity (even if they are on the way to notability). Peeper 12:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity DV8 2XL 13:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HOW ---> DELETE nn fails WP:LMUSIC Roodog2k 14:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't care, this is a waste of time. I wrote it, please just delete the page. you people are crummy if anything.Thanks!-- Zhukovsky
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:music and clean up because it is currently a very poor standard article. Capitalistroadster 19:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:MUSIC? --Blackcap | talk 19:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- National tour and release of at least two albums. Thanks to The Midnighters for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - ..ehh! UniReb 21:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a pretty good Allmusic page which states they recently embarked on a national tour (satisfying WP:MUSIC). Doesn't read like vanity, I'll rewrite it for now so it has a better chance. --TheMidnighters 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 01:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's notable enough for Allmusic to write a bio. --TheMidnighters 02:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Midnighter's rewrite. Appears to pass WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nnn. —RaD Man (talk) 06:46, 2 September 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 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Webb

nn artist, 26 unique Google hits for '"Crispin Webb" fluxus'. a search for "Crispin Webb" alone only returns 78 unique hits. His web site has an alexa ranking of 4,077,971. Zoe 06:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a copy vio from http://www.digitalsalon.com/weblog/archives/archive_2005-w16.php. --Apyule 07:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn artist. Although I don't think the alexa rank of his site is really relevant. Let's keep voting on whether we should have an non-copyvio article on the guy to avoid a second VFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, Do we want WP to be a Who's Who? DV8 2XL 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we? As long as it's a NPOV Who's Who not a vanity Who's Who... Kappa 14:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between a Who's Who and a telephone directory. It is the latter that official policy dictates Wikipedia to be not. The former, in contrast, has criteria for inclusion of biographies, just as we have. Uncle G 16:52:24, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete. People must be notable to be in Who's Who - this chap is not. Proto t c 14:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Dottore So 01:54, 2 September 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. Since we prevail on placing articles at the most common usage, and the companies website itself refers to it as KTF, I'm not going to move it myself. I will, however, create the full-name as a redirect. Since that redirect will have a trivial history, anyone can WP:BOLDLY move the existing article over it if they want to. -Splash 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTF

This was previously deleted as blatant advertising. However, on VFU it was pointed out that the article was rewritten just before its deletion, and not all voters had been aware of that. So, it was decided to give it another chance. Abstain. R adiant _>|< 07:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Large company and the article seems to be fairly neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem now. --Apyule 07:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the rewrite solved the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks alright to me __earth 08:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It's a very poorly written article. As it stands, it is a two-paragraph summary of the company's alleged business dealings. Complete contravention of the NPOV policy: everything written about it is from the company's point of view. What do its competitors think of the company? How do its customers feel about it? Any studies on customer satisfaction? If so, how well has it done? Who do the governments, local and national, think about it? Has it had legal troubles? What is its economic history? What role has it played in its industry? Is it merely one of several players? Are those claims about its finances accurate? Why is it notable, aside from having a lot of customers, which is something millions and millions of companies around the world have? What particular notability has it a claim to that warrants mention in an encyclopedia? The fact that it introduced ring tones (I don't know, I'm just asking, as that seems to be the only claim of uniqueness I can see)? These questions pertain to WP:NPOV and WP:N. Next, we have questions pertaining to WP:V. To write a good encyclopedia article, the subject must be eminently verifiable from multiple reputable, independent sources. What sources were used to write this article? I see links to the company website. What primary or secondary sources were used to write this work? Or can be used by us if we wish to expand it? Do any exist? WP articles cannot be products of original research, they must be based on multiple reputable primary or secondary sources. See WP:RS. Like thousands of other articles currently on WP, this one seems to contravene some major WP policies and guidelines. Problem is what to do with articles that may indeed be about a notable subject (and this one may well be, I don't know; not enough is said about it for one to know), but which are in their present state really weak (and will likely always be weak)? After studying the policies, it seems to me this conundrum is open to interpretation, and is in fact the source of much dispute on AfD. My vote here is to delete (mainly because I think it will be near impossible for WP editors to source the material (what exists, that is) to write a good article per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:NOR), but equally many well-meaning editors will vote the other way. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:35:19, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
One last issue: The page is currently called KTF, the abbreviated form of the company's name. As it will likely be kept, could someone check if the title is in keeping with WP:MOS? Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:38:16, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete Not NPOV. DV8 2XL 13:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "not NPOV" is not a reason for deletion, feel free to edit the article. Kappa 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep POV, needs some more verification Roodog2k 14:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant company. -- DS1953 00:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable enough Dottore So 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable company. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company appears to have annual gross revenue over US$5 billion, and is listed on its country's main stock exchange -- clearly notable. Google reveals a variety of articles referencing the company. The article should be kept at KTF as that appears to be the way the company refers to itself in English. --Metropolitan90 02:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Sensible votes people. I checked WP:MOS, which astonishingly does not appear to have a section on abbreviations, but does have one on acronyms. Cheers—Encephalon | ^ζ 04:19:55, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 17:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda fan game central

nn fan forum. 112 unique Google hits. ZFGC gets a grand total of 4 (other hits for that acronym are for other things). Zoe 07:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, being made with Game Maker doesn't mean a game is not notable, but being briefly released then taken down for being buggy and never returning does. Since this is the forum related to such game, I think it should be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn --realwingus 10:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forumcruft DV8 2XL 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The forum has sturred away from OoT 2D. It's now about all different fangames. This isn't a good reason for deletion.

what does 'nn' mean?

-- I agree, not a good reason to remove the page at all. The forum's not related to OOT2D at all anymore.

"nn" means non notable. --66.168.115.159 01:37, 4 September 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 11:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Miller Getty

nn granddaughter-in-law of a notable person, "creative ambassador" of a beauty line. I thought about speedying this, but decided to bring it here in case there's something notable about her I'm not seeing. Zoe 07:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR—Encephalon | ^ζ 09:51:07, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete per Encephalon. Tonywalton | Talk 12:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Encephalon. DV8 2XL 13:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only because it's so boring it made my nose bleed. I don't even think the subject cares ---Outlander 14:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I like that. Maybe we need WP:CSD A8: an article so boring it makes your nose bleed (with associated {{db-tedious}} tag, of course. Tonywalton | Talk

Delete, NN. -feydey 16:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very nn, Dottore So 01:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to social entrepreneurship. — JIP | Talk 16:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Young Social Entrepreneur

Seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. I requested its deletion before a lot of this additional information was added, at first it seemed like a person trying to be clever. Now I think it should be merged as FreelanceWizard said. -realwingus 07:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into social entrepreneurship. This appears to be a legitimate term in this area, specifically referring to -- you guessed it -- people under the usual ages for successful entrepreneurs. There are awards and societies for this, but it's basically just a type of social entrepreneur, and so doesn't deserve its own article. Some of what's in this article might do well over in the other article, maybe. On a side note, I'm still trying to figure out why social entrepreneur redirects where it does, so I'm going to fix that now. :) --FreelanceWizard 08:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if nessesary DV8 2XL 13:25, 1 September 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. Woohookitty 11:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laodicean Church

Does not appear to be encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting --AllyUnion (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nothing in here that could conceivably be merged into Seven Churches of Asia, so delete. Pilatus 10:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)~~Keep after rewrite. Well done!Pilatus 13:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it adds nothing to related articles. Pilatus is right. Peeper 12:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this church is directly addressed in the Book of Revelation (and there is a tome of scholarship on that), it is also mentioned in Colossians as the recipient of another (Pauline?) letter, and it is the site for the 4th cent Council of Laodicea. In addition to the Biblical accounts and Church history, there is (I think) relevant archaeology, (and, no doubt, classical references) to the ancient city. This could also be reported if renamed simply Laodicea - certainly worth an article. (If minor fictional players in transitory works get a mention (see Amee), then real ones in enduring works like the New Testament certainly do!) --Doc (?) 13:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the Letter to the Colossians that congregation is mentioned just in an aside, and what has come down to us as the Epistle to the Laodiceans is bogus. The Council of Laodicea is obscure and three centuries later than the mention in the Apocalypse. From my previous votes you know that I do not believe in splitting the information atom. Pilatus 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And expand DV8 2XL 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the hope that Dr Doc will improve the article. Uppland 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I asked for that :o - major write begun --Doc (?) 16:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable. Smerdis of Tlön 16:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. CalJW 22:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable early Christian church. Well done Doc for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repent for your deletionism. —RaD Man (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work Doc. Proto t c 12:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination? --Nicodemus75 10:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, article just rewritten since then --Doc (?) 14:06, 3 September 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 11:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentality skateboards

Page created by anonymous editor at IP 68.91.115.50. Description of commercial concern and its product line. Links to company website. Has no encyclopedic value. I stopped a SD attempt earlier, as I do not believe deletion is actionable under CSD. I do believe it should be considered for deletion here. My vote is delete. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 08:34:47, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

delete advertising. Brighterorange 13:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of No Ad policy DV8 2XL 13:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if ads were actionable under CSD, it would cut the VFD load considerably. --Outlander 18:34, September 1, 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 11:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just Drew It

nn "phenomenon". It's hard to Google for this term, but "drewing Kid" and "drewing kids" get zero hits. Zoe 09:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I have seen some pictures of this kind of behaviour. It is also very cool. Lapinmies 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, original research, unverifiable. android 79 12:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Android79 DV8 2XL
Delete WP:NOT a slang dictionary or a repository of neologisms ---Outlander 14:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 20:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change Name. Not neologism, though term has not seemed to gain wide acceptance. If another term gains acceptance, change. Change name back to 'drewing', per 'just drew it' contains unneeded reference ie 'just do it'.
Keep. I have heard at least one report from a primary source verifying existence.
- Care to share that with the rest of us, then? android 79 20:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Verification of existence does not mean that a neologism deserves a Wikipedia article. Zoe 19:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Nandesuka 22:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect and merge. Woohookitty 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A prior nomination can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Byron1 --AllyUnion (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Byron

Non-notable. Just because a person appears on TV does not make them article worthy. DooM Drat 09:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Mythbusters until there's actually some useful info to populate an article with. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, people would want to be able to look her up. Kappa 09:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per MGM Proto t c 10:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I like Kari, but she doesn't rate an entry yet DV8 2XL 13:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per DooMDrat, and previous VfD. UkPaolo 13:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per MGM. KeithD (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per MGM. Cje 17:46, 1 September 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. Nufy8 17:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Framo

300 Google hits - guy who offers counseling services, workshops, etc. Could be vanity. lots of issues | leave me a message 09:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this is not vanity it is pooly presented DV8 2XL 13:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedily, as this does not assert notability in any way. Tonywalton | Talk 20:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity --J E Bailey 15:42, 7 September 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 RESULT. Woohookitty 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming Woohookitty meant to say the result was DELETE, which appears to have been done. moink 04:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discreetlondon

Non-notable (7 uniques hits on Google) Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all whiny blogs.
Delete all blogs. Proto t c 10:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all blogs -realwingus 10:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Encephalon | ^ζ 10:21:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Delete Red Dalek 11:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't delete all blogs, but set the bar very high. The exploits of one adulterous man aren't particularly notable, no matter what medium they're recorded in. android 79 12:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DV8 2XL 14:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Below votes all cast by 132.185.144.122

KEEP! I like it. wikiwild 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a winner, don't delete!! This guy can write and it's about to be a book hangman 18:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great blog Let it stay! kimmyG 00:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete! It's better than you think megaman 01:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a keeper! Those Brits know how to write! KingGeorge 01:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete! I like discreetlondon! Yakitori 02:27, 2 September 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. — JIP | Talk 16:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameriprise

And I'm proud and honored to nominate this entry for deletion: blatant advertising Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. as copyvio or advertising. The copy is hilariously bad. Brighterorange 13:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tagged as copyvio by User:RN. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:11, 9 September 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. – ABC D✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ToxicMercury

Band vanity. A group of 14-year-olds who possess "every ingredient to become a great metal band, despite only forming in 2004." Joyous (talk) 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity --Measure 14:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete classic band vanity. Good luck guys, but there are lots of bands in the world. Friday 20:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 04:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightening strike

Spelling of Lightning is incorrect, and there is already a detailed page on Lightning. It's also written in an un-Wikipedian style

Delete --realwingus 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lightning. Proto t c 11:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Lightening strike" seems unlikely for a misspelling. The more reasonable Lightening already redirects properly. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:08:41, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
delete, no need for a redir. UkPaolo 13:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, This is an editorial. Delete and redirect to Lightning Roodog2k 14:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DV8 2XL 16:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — RJH 16:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Shazam!" *Boom!* Delete! --FuriousFreddy 23:17, 2 September 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. — JIP | Talk 16:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADIOS

Original research. Delete. Lupo 11:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

delete. Although peer-reviewed research can pass my threshold for OR, this does not. Brighterorange 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete--Outlander 14:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
userfy to ADIOS Clueless newbie. Lets not bite his head off, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt. Roodog2k 14:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above, sorry, I thought there was a ADIOS Roodog2k 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: News pages commenting this algorithm: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8802, http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/08/31/2340232.shtml?tid=185&tid=14 The actual article where it was published: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/33/11629 reprint on slashdot http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160737&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=185&tid=14&mode=thread&cid=13451664
Keep but clean up, seems notable and previously puplished DV8 2XL 16:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have tagged it as a possible copyvio--Joelito 16:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep as is. -Splash 21:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hampstead ponds

Non-notable to the max. realwingus 11:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ponds are notable allright, and already mentioned in the main article at Hampstead Heath. Redirect. Pilatus 12:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as exceedingly notable. Tonywalton | Talk 13:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect per Pilatus, Proto. Tonywalton | Talk 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh keep. Ask any Londoner. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Pilatus DV8 2XL 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as per ~~nom~~ Pilatus. Where is my brain today.... Roodog2k 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hampstead Heath, watching out for doggers and cottagers. Proto t c 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with Pilatus on this one. Redirect, nothing to merge. Radiant_>|< 15:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh ye of little faith! Just so happens I'm an adopted Londoner.... --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect slightly more info than at Hampstead Heath, but no need for a separate article. JPD 17:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonably unique facility. --TimPope 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a little history to it. --TimPope 19:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. As they have historically been pretty famous in their own right, I think they do deserve a separate article. I'd pop upstairs and grab my copy of Peter Ackroyd's London, a Biography, but we've got a guest in the room where we keep it. Will try to remember tomorrow. Ackroyd most likely has some blood-curdling bits of history; the river Fleet is one of his favorite subjects. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Hampstead Ponds have a unique place in London culture Rhyddfrydol 20:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily the most famous things of their type in the UK. There must be millions of people who have heard of them. CalJW 22:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and newsworthy. Andy Mabbett 22:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason not to. Alf 22:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as London landmark. Well done Tim Pope for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nnn. —RaD Man (talk) 06:48, 2 September 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. Not including the redlinked user (who has this single edit), but taking the comment as a desire to keep, this is still a delete. -Splash 21:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoner, Inc.

This article was listed on the VfD page by Jimau, but without a corresponding vfd tag on the article itself. I am completing the nomination, and voting delete, as this does not appear to be an encyclopedically notable enterprise. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

delete per nominator. Move along please, nothing notable there. Tonywalton | Talk 20:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - ZONER software is one of biggest software companies in Czech Republic. martyCZ 03-09-2005 22:05 (CET)
comment - Zoner, Inc. is not a small "garage" company. See google hits: 993 hits for "Zoner, Inc." 131,000 hists for "Zoner software" , 962,000 for Zoner and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, part Advertising. - --Michal Jurosz 09:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And exactly how prominent is the Czech software industry? / Peter ^Isotalo 08:15, 9 September 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. — JIP | Talk 16:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Pardo signs for Wigan

Seems like a self-written news article about a soccer/football player signing an endorsement deal. Unless there's a policy on transwikiing pages to Wikinews, delete. ral 315 13:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

'Merge' into Pavel Pardo. Not significant enough for Wikinews, I'd say; several tens of players changed clubs in the past week before the "transfer window" closed at midnight on 31st August. Tonywalton | Talk 13:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Nothing at all about this anywhere including bbc.co.uk/sport, and other news sources confirm that Wigan made only one signing before the deadline, and it wasn't Pardo. This doesn't meet WP:CSD, unfortunatle, but it's nonsense. . Tonywalton | Talk 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedia topic DV8 2XL 14:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
transwikinews Roodog2k 14:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikification to Wikinews is not legally permissible, given that Wikipedia is GFDL and Wikinews is public domain. Any opinion to transwikify has to be discounted, for not being a viable option. Please choose a viable option instead. Uncle G 17:01:05, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Comment legal or not, it's an utter fabrication.No mention of it (and there would be; this is an internationally-capped player joining a side newly promoted into the English Premier League) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4199286.stm for example Tonywalton | Talk 20:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already an article about Pavel Pardo. CalJW 22:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. jni 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sportscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:17, 9 September 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel_Krafsur

Page contains inaccuracies and is written in a pejorative manner. Does not meet criteria for a meaningful biography Ed6061 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate for Cleanup, not for VfD. Keep. Pilatus 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains inaccurate information, written in a pejorative tone, does not meet standard of significance for biography. Misinformation is potentially harmful to relatives. Ed6061 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entry is inaccurate and does not apply a neutral point of view. It also does not meet the standard for biography as being a significant or famous individual.Lauralh8 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to cleanup. Laura and Ed, the fact that ~~something is written~~ you may claim something is written in a pejorative style does not automatically qualify it for deletion; it qualifies it to be re-written in a neutral style (unless it's an "attack page", an article which has the sole goal of denigrating its subject, which this patently isn't. See WP:NPOV, WP:DEL, lend a hand and {{sofixit}}. (And crying out for it to be deletied it isn't fixing it). Tonywalton | Talk 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hardly think that the tone of the article is POV but if someone has a problem with some of the wording they can try changing it. I think it is very interesting. All the information in the article is available in other sources. The two newbies claim there is factual error but make no attempt to justify their remarks. Dwain 14:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup esp. POV DV8 2XL 14:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You would feel very different if a member if your family had been persecuted during the Red Scare. You'd feel very different if your future could be threatened by these mis-statements. You'd feel very different if someone anonymously slandered your family. Removing the innaccuracies and tone results in a page that clearly does not meet the standard set forth in Wikipedia:Biography This should be removed. By the way, I can't help being a newbie. Sight sources you ask? I knew the man! Elliot Krafsur who wrote a refutation in the talk session is S.S. Krafsur's son! Primary sources beat the secondary sources every time Ed6061 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually no they don't, in the context of WP. Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and perhaps more importantly the section at WP:V#Verifiability, not truth Tonywalton | Talk 17:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly don't blame family members for things done by someone else (someone who's now dead, in fact). So Ellitot Krafsur bears no responsibility for Samuel Krafsur's actions, morally (and certainly not legally). However, trying to white-wash history is a separate and distinct act, one which may merit condemnation. Noel (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete ignoring the factual and POV issues... Is this guy notable? Or was he just one name in a notable organization?Roodog2k 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He worked for a few years as a journalist for TASS, the Russian news agency. Hardly surprising that the KGB was interested in him. This does not make him a spy as the author anonymously claims. Ed6061 14:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Krafsur was never convicted nor charged with espionage. The biographer is clearly on a mission. Here he applies highly severe judgment based on a few interpretatively disputatious intercepts. He ignores the legitimacy of being a TASS employee in wartime when the USSR was an ally. He persists in anonymity. His subject has been dead for twenty two years. The biography will cause further harm to the Krafsur name simply by association, as has indeed happened.Ekrafsur 15:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ed6061 seems under the mistaken impression that the article was anonymously-authored. I've pointed him in the direction of the edit history on the article's talk page. Tonywalton | Talk 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the term of art would be "pseudonymously authored." Sdedeo 18:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add full citations. nobs 17:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weird, we're seeing more of these kinds of complaints on wikipedia these days. But there are bound to be NPOV issues with this: should a guy whose sourced contact with the Soviet Union lasts just as long as we were allies be termed a "Soviet Agent"? Sdedeo 18:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have tried to do a little NPOVing of the article, but it needs more work. Sdedeo 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NSA Archives refer to Samuel Krafsur as "KGB Agent Samuel Krafsur", [3]. nobs 20:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. Have updated the article. I feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing, though. Sdedeo 20:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Incorrect. A URL refers to Samuel Krafsur as "KGB Agent" but the referenced document only suggests that he might be a source for other contacts. Furthermore the only issue at dispute is whether Krafsur was a "spy". The idea of his being an actual "KGB Agent" is totally farfetched. It seems likely that the URL heading is in fact a mistake, unless of course someone can point to a specific document that show otherwise. Jdivine 06:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The URL you refer to starts with "http://www.nsa.gov/venona/" in other words, the web page at that URL (i.e. not the image of the old message, but the HTML file listing all those images) is a US Government document, one associated with the NSA archives, which does indeed refer to "KGB Agent Samuel Krafsur". It might be incorrect, but it is a fact that a formal US government document refers to him that way, and it's entirely appropriate to include that fact in an article about him. Noel (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not agree that an HTML index page, in all probability assembled by an intern, would be categorized as a "formal US government document". Based on your user bio I'd concede that you are the better judge for what standard is appropriate for Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean I buy your argument. Jdivine 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, it certainly is a US government document, even if you're going to quibble about the word "formal". It's certainly not the work of a private individual. Noel (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: the article was also listed here Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Requested_pages. nobs 21:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and CleanUpNeeds some cleaning and it looks notable and SOCKPUPPETS keep Voting Delete Which is Rare as they normally vote for keep a page not delete. I CANT stand SockPuppets--Aranda56 01:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and verifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article as written is indeed pejorative. For crying out loud, under Extenal Links we have "Spying on America." The Venona documents listed do discuss IDE but make no indication that the information gathered from him was covertly obtained. Indeed, as a journalist he would likely run across interesting tidbits of information from time to time. And as an employee of the TASS news agency Krafsur would have undoubtedly spoken from time to time with various Soviet government functionaries, some of whom were likely covert KGB. This does not make him a "spy." And frankly, if you caveat and footnote this article enough to make it "fair," it becomes clear that Krafsur is not a figure with enough historical importance to warrant his own biography. Also I note in the talk page for this topic and in their biographies that Nobs and Dwain appear to be on a bizarre quest to rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy. This would tend to lend a slant to their "POV" on topics such as these. Jdivine 07:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If he was just "a journalist", why does an intelligence officer of the NKGB say (in the message of 17 May 1944) "we propose to use him", when he was already a TASS employee at that point? (And the term "spy" is imprecise, and one not used by those knowledgeable in this field.) Noel (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - All terms are imprecise. I'm not knowledgable in the field, but perhaps you are. Could you suggest a better term and replace the phrase "Spying on America" with something more appropriate? Jdivine 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page referenced reads "... we propose to use an employee of the Editorial Office ... for cultivating newspapermen's circles ..." This "cultivation" seems something a mere journalist or an employee of the TASS news agency would not normally be "used" for. The statement is somewhat ambigous, but seems to be a suggestion that names of potential "sources" might be gleaned from this man. Jdivine 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Decrypt # 1433, 1435, first sentence reads "SERGEJ has brought in IDE but is not able to direct his work systemactically". What does "brough in" mean? It is a reference to "signing on KONTRAKTATsIYa" (contracts) as in # 705. There is plenty more from this batch of decrypts which can be shown conclusivley that Krafsur did more that talent spot & recruit, he was a purveyor of high level information without whom "we are completely powerless" [4]. nobs 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Borderline keep~~Keep. He's a pretty minor figure, and his work for Soviet intelligence appears to have been of fairly minor import, so I'm not sure he really rises to the level of notability required. Still, we seem to have articles on less notable people (all sorts of minor sports figures, etc), so it's not clear to me we should get rid of this page. Noel (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Now that Nobs has reminded me of the connection with I. F. Stone, that ups Krafsur into someone on whom we need to have an article. Noel (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Google results for Simon Samuel Krafsur come up blank; one unrelated hit for Simon Krafsur; 44 hits for Samuel Krafsur, but almost all of them appear to be Wikipedia and Wikipeda-derived results. While Google hits are not a perfect indicator of notability, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place a story appears on the web; that would seem to be the case here. If he really is notable, he'll eventually be mentioned elsewhere and can be listed here then. Aquillion 23:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed in many books. The internet is not a substitute for books and archives there are many people who are or were important that are not well sourced on the internet. Dwain 02:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Yahoo has even more hits than Google.

While I agree that visibility to Google can vary from subject to subject and should not be used in borderline cases, a subject with no google hits at all (or, as in this case, only hits from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors) is simply not notable. The extra Yahoo hits you referred to, note, seem to be because Yahoo is poorer at recognizing Wikipedia mirrors; flipping quickly through them, it seems that everything there is just the same few Wikipedia pages repeated over and over from different mirrors. That is a bad thing; when the Google search results on a subject turn up nothing but Wikipedia entries, it's a safe bet that someone is trying to use Wikipedia to push a non-notable subject into notability. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Aquillion 00:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krafsur is a direct pipleine into the White House; see discussion at Talk:Samuel_Krafsur#1433.2C_1435, and other notable comments regarding his value to KGB on that Talk page. nobs 02:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the value of your research into the Venona decrypts; but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of using Wikipedia for information that has not yet become generally accepted. I think it would be better if you published your conclusions with regard to his importance elsewhere first, outside of an encyclopedia; if he's as important as you concluded in those links, it will not take long for your conclusions to become widely-known enough to use as the basis for a Wikipedia article on him. Aquillion 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not the research of people here who brought him to public attention; his name originally came up in books by specialists in this area. (E.g. he's in the ComIntern archives book too, as well as the Venona books by West and Klehr/whatshisname). The work by people here is more in the nature of verifying the statements in those books. Noel (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --TJive 04:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT Users: Ed6061, Lauralh8, Ekrafsur, and Jdivine could all be the same person. All their edits it appears have to do with Samuel Krafsur. They all suggest that the article is biased against him and they all give the same message. They give off the appearance of sockpuppets and ostensibly are even if they are a couple of people from the same family. Dwain 18:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT by E.S.Krafsur 9/8/05: To address 'Dwain's' suggestion that those who have voted 'delete' are the same person, I can testify that they are not because one is my son, Edwin (ed6061); he and I have signed off with our given names or initials. We don't write anonymously.
Keep. TDC 01:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colis P. Huntington High School now moved to Collis P. Huntington High School (spelling)

~~Does not assert notability, and orphaned on top of that Pilatus 13:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep after rewrite. Pilatus 17:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A school that closed 34 years ago is even less notable than a school open today. Quick, post its OFSTED report and its website ... oh wait ... you can't. Strong delete. Proto t c 13:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important historical information, wikipedia is not a news service. Kappa 13:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Newport News Public Schools - I usually abstain on schools votes, but I'd have thought a sane consensus should be possible in the case of a defunct school - keep the info, lose the article. --Doc (?) 14:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn DV8 2XL 14:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High Schools are on the cusp of notability. Closed high schools are mostly NN. Roodog2k 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote as yet. I'm not in favor of keeping unverifiable articles and, although the name of the shipping and rail magnate Colis P. Huntington would be a likely one for a school in Newport News, I am unable to verify yet that the school in question ever existed. Please count this as a delete if nobody is able to verify. The fact that it's a defunct school is immaterial. If it existed and has a verifiable history then I shall be happy to write a damn good article about it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search seems to confirm most of it - although it mostly turns up as simply 'Huntington High School' see [5] and [6] and this (which does use the full name) [7]. I think that's verification enough for me. --Doc (?) 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also causes me to change my vote - I'd merge a nn closed school - but the history of this school is of cultural interest (see the above links) so keep --Doc (?) 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nnBillyCreamCorn 15:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doc. I also managed to verify it. It is referred to as Huntington High, and there were two colored schools in Newport News, this one and George Washington Carver, separated by a railroad track. At least one former Branch President of the NAACP went there, Flora Crittenden (one newspaper says it was Carver, but an official Virginia House bill thanking delegate Crittenden for her service says it was Huntington). So let's see, segregated black school in the South, closed when segregation ended. This has history coming out of its lugholes. Keep and expand. Onwards and upwards! --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D, yawn. R adiant _>|< 15:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
K, yawn. Klonimus 23:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We now have our first notable alumnus. It's a doozy! His credits fill a whole paragraph, even with severe trimming. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And another. Former US Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary is an alumna. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony, thank you for finding those. We can read the article to see further additions.Gateman1997 16:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spoilsport. Announcing the changes and seeing the votes change from delete to keep is half the fun! :) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough for an entry per Schools for Deletion.Gateman1997 16:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Interesting for historical reasons. — RJH 16:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please all high schools are notable so proto why have such a attitude? Yuckfoo 18:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only intrinsically notable, actually notable. Sdedeo 18:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
week keep No way is a school *ever* close to being intrinsically notable. However, this one has demonstrated sufficient notablity that it will suffice. Though it does sound like the first alumnus deserves her own page rather than being tagged onto the bottom othe article. Dunc|☺ 18:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not differ significantly from other High Schools --TimPope 18:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dammit, Tim, where did you go to school? I want to send my kids there! :) --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have an article yet. Its motto is non-notabile est. And yes I would probably vote delete if someone vfd'd it ;P --TimPope 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bicycle, for the usual reasons.--Nicodemus75 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the lessons learned there, and now again, here. Thank you once again, Tony Sidaway. Keep this up, and I'll call you "Professor Sidaway". Un focused 19:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - history and alumni. --rob 20:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Information about present-day schools are Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks good now. JYolkowski // talk 21:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Closure doesn't stop an institution being notable any more than death stops a person being notable. CalJW 22:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a school doesn't make it notable any more than being a person makes you notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In-fighting moved to talk page.

Keep. -- DS1953 01:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I belong to the "delete all schools no matter what" cabal described above, but this should be kept for historical noteworthiness. Dottore So 02:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- <quietly faints> --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Tony I told you there was hope for a middle ground.Gateman1997 02:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - <group hug>. :-D --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school appears to have a notable role in the history of desegregation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school Guerberj 17:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:54, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Delete not notable by any sane stretch of the imagination. Dunc|☺ 00:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 00:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this passes my notability bar. ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this pointless, time-wasting, impositional deletionist nonsense! Keep. --Gene_poole 13:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 15:27, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Nandesuka 22:23, 5 September 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power Word: IRL Name

Delete Neologism that only turns up 3 Google hits. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 13:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Policy DV8 2XL 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I did not know where to put this information when I made the article, but it must go somewhere. The google hits are irrelevant because people use many names for this. Who can suggest where to merge this article? ChoobWriter 15:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - I would suggest urbandictionary.com or a similar site ---Outlander 18:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Neologism --Outlander 18:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Urban dictionary Mcfly 20:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Merge this to the "Slang" article or a similar related article on Wiki. UniReb 21:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 23:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "power word" has 24,300 google hits. JeremyJX 14:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has only 16 edits. BTW, "power word" is *not* the relevent google search; "Power Word: IRL Name" is. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the abovementioned reasons SamsonFro 14:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has only 25 edits. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, and why is 25 edits relevant? There's no policy against voting on vfd with a young account, and for some reason i'm doubting it's an abusive sockpuppet with 25 edits, unless they're all to vfds... --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This is a c&p from Encyclopedia Dramatica. -HX 00:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being from encyclopedia dramatica, it can't be encyclopedic. :p Is this a copyvio? I looked on ED, and it's released under "no license". Does that mean it stays copyrighted to the people that write the articles then? What a hassle! --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:40, September 3, 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. Nufy8 17:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hampshire county roads

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel guide, nor an indiscriminate ~~hellpit of redlinks~~ collection of information. Delete Proto t c 13:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as per Proto. UkPaolo 13:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, wow... per nom. Roodog2k 14:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator DV8 2XL 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete - for above reasons, and for being yet another article that assumes a US default geography. --Doc (?) 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne. --TimPope 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator - if I wanted to know of roads in Hampshire I would look at a Road Atlas Rhyddfrydol 20:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "non-notable" county road in New Hampshire. UniReb 21:29, 1 September 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. Nufy8 17:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brightskies.com

nn website ad. Doesn't even show on Alexa - Google only references the site itself Outlander 14:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - advertising. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, ad DV8 2XL 14:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY DELETE all vanity Roodog2k 14:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement, pointless NRS11 7:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Redconverse- This article is not trying to advertise a website its providing information to the public about brightskies.com

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pop rivalries

No content. When an article gets created, it can be kept, providing it is NPOV. Perhaps rename to Music artist rivalries if it is kept. FuriousFreddy 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now and see if it gets worked on DV8 2XL 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rename and keep worthwhile article... can see where author is going... Roodog2k 14:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps we should leave a note for the author asking him or her to expand the article within a certain timeframe. Definite potential for article noting rivalries including Blur vs Oasis. However, will reluctantly vote to delete if author doesn't expand, keep if he or she does. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --FuriousFreddy 23:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there is an article for hip-hop rivlaries, maybe there should be an article for rock rivalries too? But if not, we can include them too. Is there a timeframe you guys had in mind? OmegaWikipedia 08:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Nufy8 17:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Fenwick

Hoax, hoax, glorious hoax. Do I detect a reference to Grand Fenwick? I think I do. Kill it with fire, as well as her "creation" TackyDax. DS 14:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hoax, speedy delete. Proto t c 14:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax: a good one, but hoax nonetheless. No relevant hits on Google for "Natasha + Fenwick"; no hits at all for the two chemical compounds she reportedly discovered. Delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Hoax DV8 2XL 15:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per DS --Ghirlandajo 15:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy SeN2? the real combination is Nitrogen selenide [8] (sometimes called Selenium nitride but it doesnt have that formula.) --TimPope 21:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- and also Se4N4 [9] but no SeN2. --TimPope 21:47, 1 September 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. Nufy8 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TackyDax

Hoax, hoax, glorious hoax, all by the creator of Natasha Fenwick and Tartan Air accident, 1971. Kill it with fire. DS 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hoax, speedy delete. Proto t c 14:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Hoax DV8 2XL 15:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors are generally not enough to determine whether something is a hoax. This is why being a hoax is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 15:35:27, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Slooowly delete, then. Hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:39, 3 September 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. Nufy8 18:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan Air accident, 1971

Hoax, hoax, glorious hoax. Redirects from Tartan Air, which is an actual airline in Prince Edward Island and has nothing to do with this idiocy and had no accident in 1971. DS 14:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it really is a hoax, speedy delete. Proto t c 14:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slow delete. Definitely a hoax (all such air accidents are easy to find with google), but "hoax" is not a speedy criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Hoax DV8 2XL 15:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slooowly delete, hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, 3 September 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 10:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seng

I would have speedied this one as vanity, but the claims are of notability, so...

Google hits for "seng" + "aztec" are few, and none in a context that would support this article. Furthermore, "seng" doesn't fit the patterns of Nahuatl word creation (and I somehow doubt that the Aztecs used English acronyms. DS 14:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per ref DV8 2XL 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reverted blanking of this AfD page by the creator of the Seng entry (211.28.164.52).
Delete hoax —Wahoofive (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – AxSkov (☏) 08:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a near certain hoax. --Apyule 10:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting- Fernando Rizo T/C 04:04, 11 September 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. Nufy8 18:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kardanathung

Non-notable, vanity. As far as I'm aware, it's a player of a game, rather than a character in a game. KeithD (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. A7 wouldn't hurt [10]. Kappa 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity DV8 2XL 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity or fancruft Cje 17:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did Kappa just...no... -Splash 01:22, 2 September 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. Considering that Wikt: has it (with British spelling), the transwiki votes aren't useful. It's not our job to recommend what redirects they might like to create. -Splash 21:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy

Dicdef. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary currenty no entry there for for this word. DV8 2XL 15:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
transwiktionary per above Roodog2k 16:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is at Wiktionary already at [11]. KeithD (talk) 16:30, 1 September 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 09:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyatech

Non-notable KeithD (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn 15:24, DV8 2XL 15:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting- Fernando Rizo T/C 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete real but insignificant —Wahoofive (talk) 04:10, 11 September 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. Nufy8 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Burrows

Hoax, although I must admit I didn't want to Google it at work.. but he's looking pretty old for a 21 year old. Delete PubLife 15:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn "Tom Burrows" gets more hits for an artist who is showing at the Bau-Xi Gallery in Toronto. DV8 2XL 15:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as probable hoax. Hall Monitor 20:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --fvw * 00:05, September 5, 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 09:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Compact

Advertising for a series of essays. Also possible copyvio. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do to POV issues if nothing else, Not even an attempt at NPOV DV8 2XL 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get the consensus ball rolling, right within the lines. Delete no notability asserted or shown; OR. -EDM 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per EDM. – AxSkov (☏) 08:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting- Fernando Rizo T/C 04:07, 11 September 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. Nufy8 18:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The medieval class

Whole topic is already covered, with far better quality, in Feudalism, Feudal society and related articles Tearlach 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything Tearlach said. FreplySpang (talk) 15:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
delete' duplicata DV8 2XL 15:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, schoolboy essay. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely poor standard - it would require a great deal of editing. With the same information repeated elsewhere, why bother? TheMadBaron 21:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Tearlach --Irmgard 21:03, 3 September 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. The two keepers, whilst perfectly entitled to participate, are both principal authors of the article. This too doens't disqualify them at all, but everyone apart from the principal authors has said we should delete. -Splash 21:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backcountry.com

Delete - Not too much promotional language, but still seems like an ad. High ratio of website addresses to content. If there is something substantial/notable/neutral to say about this company that's fine, but I don't see it here. FreplySpang (talk) 15:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Ad DV8 2XL 15:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad.BillyCreamCorn 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I removed the website spam. The company is interesting in that it is a pure open source ecommerce, and of it's rapid growth. -- yes I work here now, so take that along with my opinion. Davejenk1ns 21:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marcus22 14:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JohnBresee Pardon me, as I am a newbie and I am a founder of the company. But I have lurked here for quite a while and I run a large wiki for our intranet. My question is, how is this page acceptable R.E.I., but Backcountry's is not. They are our direct competitor and a massive big box store crushing independants everywhere. I ask that at least the same rules be applied. Backcountry has an interesting history on the Internet, survived without VC dollars and is relevant data for Wikipedia's audience. The text is not filled with hyperbole. I really hope to learn here. Thanks.
Delete. Non-notable company. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:26, 9 September 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. Nufy8 18:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zebarjadi

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. KeithD (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per referer DV8 2XL 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 16:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with above. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 07:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. moink 04:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yolk plug

Has been moved to Wiktionary. KeithD (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it speedy then~? Punkmorten 19:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it previously had a VfD which mandated a transwiki, per WP:CSD A5.
- It ought to be. That's silly. We should be able to speedy transwikis if we can give the link to where they've been put. Anyway, delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 07:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  - On the contrary, it's sensible. Your idea would make the transwiki system into a backdoor deletion mechanism. Deletion should take the normal routes. This was the subject of discussion during the recent expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. Please read the discussion. Uncle G 11:26:58, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting- Fernando Rizo T/C 04:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason for deletion given. Thanks for reposting Fernando. Kappa 08:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ouch. There is a better chance that someone will improve this substub on amphibian development than anyone will take a second look at any of the sch**l entries that are routinely kept with no consensus. Pilatus 12:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL not only do school articles improve wikipedia's coverage of education, they also help to protect its coverage of amphibian developmental biology. Kappa 13:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - To keep non-notable schools serves a function only by satisfying extreme inclusionists and (sometimes) people who attend the schools themselves. Most others either don't care or see them as obviously non-encyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not require a separate article. /Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You learn something everyday, I just did from that short article. Alf ^melmac 18:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I am sure that more could be said about these. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 12 September 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. Nufy8 18:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Werbowenko

Delete nonsense which has survived more than a fortnight. --Ghirlandajo 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per referer. DV8 2XL 16:22, 1 September 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, once I've finished rolling on the floor at the witticisms our finest Wikipedians can display when they put their minds to it ;) -Splash 01:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit fetishism

Speedy delete. The current version is unacceptable. --Ghirlandajo 15:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten. It is alright now. I withdraw my nomination. --Ghirlandajo 06:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. KeithD (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Keep. I didn't think it possible, but BD2412 has turned this into a worthy article. KeithD (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per referer. Keep good rewrite DV8 2XL 22:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep extremely poorly written, but a legitimate subject. Not that I would know. If the current version is not acceptable, then cleanup and rewrite as a stub. Roodog2k 16:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment modified to weak Roodog2k

Delete — No sour grapes, it's just bananas. — RJH 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Looking peachy now. — RJH 20:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Can be expanded...Amren ^(talk) 16:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no real content, but I will look into it and if there's any documented evidence that this exists I'll write a proper article about it. You never know what people find kinky - for now dump it --Outlander 18:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)Too late, BD2412 already re-wrote it Change to Keep---Outlander 19:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite. I may be in a pickle for saying there's no reason to squash this topic - the current version is nonsense, but a well written article on the topic would be a peach. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note - I have tossed the old, and put a totally cherry work in its place. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep BDA's excellent rewrite. All these puns are a bit hard on the ol' melon. android 79 19:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for orgasmic growth. —RaD Man (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a clear FA candidate. Proto t c 09:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment modified my vote again to no modifier. Guess we're out of the pickle, peachy rewrite is cherry, the apple of someone's eye. Good thing we didn't squash the article before it was ripe. Orange you all glad that everything came out OK in the end? Roodog2k (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references are a nice touch, but I guess when this vote is over, olive without them. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:29, 3 September 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. Nufy8 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incestalicious

Delete offensive nonsense. --Ghirlandajo 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. KeithD (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per referer. DV8 2XL 16:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as above. This isn't wikislang! Daedalus-Prime 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
De-f'in-lete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
heh, Delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:42, 2005 September 2 (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. The unsigned votes are all anons. -Splash 21:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wum

Neologism KeithD (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This article lacks information on the subject matter's importance." No kidding. Delete DV8 2XL 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (neologism - per nom) Cje 16:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this phrase is in common use in Manchester, along with chubb. It has clearly only been nominated for deletion because you're a scouser. --13:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Fd2005
Keep - it's a common saying in office environments too
Keep it!
Comment The three keep comments are the only edits of those users. Whilst that doesn't automatically negate their worth, it should be noted. (And for the record, my nomination has nothing to do with it originating from Manchester). KeithD (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WUM has been in common usage on internet forums for some time now. (Unsigned comment by User:81.76.63.196)

Make that four, not three. KeithD (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - make that five, until at least someone other than a liverpool supporting WUM suggests a delete...common usage in northern england, becoming more common on the interweb.
Delete, neologism. Until it becomes more widespread than Manchester, it goes. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 07:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - T'internet is a lot wider than Manchester. Think our scouse friend should get himself ready for a minutes silence in memory of the fact he lost this one.
Delete. Localized internet slang. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How ironic that a word is being considered for deletion for being internet slang on an internet encyclopedia.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 MERGE with Rotten Tomatoes. moink 04:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rottentomatoes Monday Photoshop Contest

Non-notable; no other articles link to this article --Ixfd64 16:00, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Delete nn DV8 2XL 16:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rotten Tomatoes, the site it references. Mcfly 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rotten Tomatoes. Too short for own article. – AxSkov (☏) 07:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough discussion for consensus, reposting- Fernando Rizo T/C 04:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rotten Tomatoes-cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RT after selective pruning. Alf ^melmac 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, merge and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:13, September 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 Userfy. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 28, 2005

Wikipedia is not a memorial. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 16:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a speedy deletion category fitting for this one. Anyway - Delete. andy 16:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
userfy He's a newbie, lets be nice. :'( Roodog2k 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~This was meant to be a day in history article. I plan to add links to canine disease and things to look for. So I would ask that it not be deleted. Thank you for your consideration. Robert Davis~~
- Based on the feedback and Wiki guidelines this page does serve a better place under my own homepage. So however pages get deleted, please feel free to do so. Robert Davis --Robfdavis1971 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Roodog2k, we are being nice, as we're not talking about him, we're talking about the article. Also, even if you add links, it's still not an article, as articles aren't supposed to be a collection of links either. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 16:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Another comment: Also, we don't have "This Day in History" articles anywhere else on Wikipedia. The closest thing we have is Current events, which wouldn't accept such a non-notable event. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 16:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- comment and someone's explaining this to the guy on his talk page? Roodog2k 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I agree with the comments. Even with links, etc, this is not appropriate. Daedalus-Prime 16:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
userfy or delete nn topic DV8 2XL 16:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Wow, way to ruin my day. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
another comment IMHO, it bothers me when we're voting to delete a newbie's apparently first page without explaining to them on their talkpage whats happening and why. Roodog2k 17:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I guess I'm more partial to getting things done the quicker way. Anyways, don't get us wrong Mr. Davis, we're thrilled you want to contribute. Just that this is not the kind of article Wikipedia is looking for. Oh, and I agree with the userfying, but now that it's done, how about a redirect to his user page? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 17:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- yet another comment As Mr. Burns would say... Excellent! I had already left a message on the user talk page, but when I userfied the page, I messed that up, since I didnt rename, I just cut-and-pasted the code, since there had not been a lot of revisions to the page. This guy really seems interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and I left a message with an admin Elf, who's really into the dog pages, to help him out too. Roodog2k 17:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I left him a note that he says was helpful. Elf | Talk 19:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Cute dog but not notable Dismas 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dude, this makes me so sad. What a nice dog. I am not being sarcastic! Sdedeo 19:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy.Gateman1997 20:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The author has clearly requested deletion above and the article has been userfied; the only substantive edits (except for the AfD tag) were minor edits by an anon (192.208.44.100). Can this be speedy deleted under G7? Sorry to hear about the dog, Rob. that's a bugger. Stick around and let's hope your future editing experiences are under happer circumstances. Your offer to edit articles on canine diseases is a good one. Tonywalton | Talk 21:15, 1 September 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. -Splash 21:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-gotta-go

I would have merged it with All Grown Up! but there's really very little useful information. Al 16:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn DV8 2XL 17:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yu-gotta-go. —RaD Man (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless detail into a non-notable and bad parody of Yu-Gi-Oh. --Apostrophe 22:38, 2 September 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. Nufy8 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detail city

Delete, advertisement for a website. choster 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement DV8 2XL 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, advertisement Dismas 17:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adver...nt-Splash 01:18, 2 September 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. Nufy8 18:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evoluvism

nn Punkmorten 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prob. Vanty. "Evoluvism" gets no hits at Google. DV8 2XL 17:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't work out what the article was trying to say even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 2 September 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. Nufy8 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roved

POV neologism Punkmorten 17:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, DV8 2XL 17:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-confessed 'logism. -Splash 01:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, also links are mostly blogs Stamford spiney 08:49, 5 September 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. Nufy8 18:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redcell

non notable and/or fancruft Dismas 17:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure cruft DV8 2XL 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 17:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RJFJR 16:43, September 3, 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. -Splash 22:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big blue room

I am not sure about this one. To me, it is a rather stubbish little definition of a phrase that, to my knowledge, does not enjoy a great amount of usage. Personally, I feel that a definition of 'big blue room' is better suited to the Wiktionary, but I am interested in hearing your opinions on it. IINAG 13:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC) (fixed nom. feydey 17:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, nonsense. feydey 17:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef at best DV8 2XL 17:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Big Blue Delete as litttle green nonsense. Tonywalton | Talk 21:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a running gag, yes, but not worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Carnildo 23:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. There's almost 1000 Google hits. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if I come across an obscure phrase, I can come to Wikipedia to find out what it means. Yes, it's obscure. So state that right up front in the article. Yes, it's poorly written right now; so rewrite it. Samw 13:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information. At best, this article would only be a dictionary definition, which belongs on Wiktionary if it's to stay on a Wikimedia server at all. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 21:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anecdotal and impressionistic spawn of boredom or mild narcotics. It's not even a dicdef, just home-cooked light philosophy. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:58, 9 September 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. Nufy8 18:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vapid

Already at Wiktionary. KeithD (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ref. DV8 2XL 17:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already at Wikt: and I don't think this can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Could be wrong though....-Splash 01:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef and I can't see any expansion either, but am willing to be proved wrong Cje 12:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Rx StrangeLove 18:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Nutrition

Non notable company. Reads like an ad, it is an ad. Rx StrangeLove 17:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad policy violation DV8 2XL 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Completely unrecoverable spam/ad. Please, let's not contribute to their Google rank by letting this vote run a full 5 days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
More from the same anon that brought you the spam at New earth homes. Any objections to my pulling the plug? Discuss amongst yourselves. :) - Lucky 6.9 20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More power to you, Lucky. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:48:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Could go with "attempt to communicate". Kappa 21:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the Delete plug, Lucky. Tonywalton | Talk 21:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Still can't find those doggone templates that box the discussion. Bear with me, all. - Lucky 6.9 23:20, 1 September 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. Nufy8 18:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pigger

Not total nonsense, so not CFD. Slang or something. Delete. feydey 17:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Al 17:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete slang DV8 2XL 18:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakastanian"? Speedy illiterate insult page. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 19:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Attack page. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologism (per my comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pegro). Tonywalton | Talk 21:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the related pair of neologisms. -Splash 01:14, 2 September 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, both on reading the debate and whichever way you do the statistics. -Splash 22:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Types of crude oil in Nigeria

Unimportant list. KeithD (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ref DV8 2XL 18:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -Satori ^(talk) 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, rename. Nigeria is one of the major oil exporting countries. Surely there is much to be said about such an important participant in such an important industry. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What would you suggest renaming it to? KeithD (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, per BD2412. Tonywalton | Talk 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, how could this list be described as unimportant? Kappa 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Economy of Nigeria (the comprehensive section on the oil industry), or move to Oil industry in Nigeria, of which it could a be a part. Not needed as a separate article, but would make worthy section of bigger article. Sabine's Sunbird 23:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Delete' and amend the content to the Economy of Nigerian article People are likely to look for this under Nigeria. When Types of crude oil in Saudi Arabia gets an article, I'll reconsider. Dottore So 02:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you voting to delete or to merge? Factitious 12:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
per Sabine, merge with Economy of Nigeria. Cmadler 12:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. I'd like to see fewer of the links on it be red. Factitious 12:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per Satori. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 9 September 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. Nufy8 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pegro

Insulting slang, see previous Pigger. Delete. feydey 18:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slang DV8 2XL 18:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakastanian"? Give me a break. Speedy racist slur. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 19:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Attack page. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
WP has Nigger, Wog and a dab entry for the racist use of Coon, so per precedent "racist slur" isn't a sufficient criterion. However "unverifiable neologism" is. Delete and i'm off for a wash after typing that. Tonywalton | Talk 21:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst as the pentagram-man says, we usually keep racial slurs, we don't just keep slang. Last I looked, WINAD. It gets quite a few Google hits, but none actually seem to apply, so it's a neologism too. -Splash 01:13, 2 September 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. After discounting widespread sockpuppetry in defense of the article, final vote count stands at 9 delete, 8 keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joomla!

Advertisement isn't a speedy criterion, unfortunately, but please delete this misuse of Wikipedia soonest. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad. DV8 2XL 18:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Al 18:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Advertisement (for~~ a newly released software product, so I'm doubtful about notability too). Sliggy 18:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced of this software's current notability; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for the future. Stand by my vote. Sliggy 14:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP this article - if you want to delete this new article about the Successor to Mambo_(CMS), you have to delete this article too: Mambo_(CMS) !!!
So there is no "misuse" of Wikipedia. Joomla! is an Open Source and community based project. Many former Mambo-Users announced to follow the Core Developer Team to Joomla!
- You're right, that one's advertising as well, thanks for pointing it out. I'll nominate it. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - what is going on here? Do you want to delete every article about Open Source software? Than continue with typo3, drupal, etc. - Sorry, but I don't understand it: Why don't you IMPROVE these articles instead of deleting everthing you don't like?????? --Opi27 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because we still have a little sense of dignity left. We still want to be taken seriously by more than just Internet anarchists. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I don't understand why people would post promotespeak into an encyclopedia and expect others to clean it up. Hmm, Typo3 and Drupal, you say? Checking it out. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yeah, go ahead, nominate all of them! There's also this little proggie called Mediawiki that is being promoted on Wikipedia and the authors are getting money off it - especially due to its exposure through Wikipedia. Go ahead, nominate that too! Completely freaking shiver-inducing, that! --Wwwwolf 23:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why are we even voting about this? / Peter ^Isotalo 21:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because nn-bio is a CSD criterion. nn-company isn't. I wish it were. Tonywalton | Talk 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is that speedy should be just a tad more flexible. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Foot! *stomp* Bullet! *tink* Gun! *clank* Aim! *gnnh* Fire! *BLAM* --Wwwwolf 22:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please, delete. Tonywalton | Talk 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still delete as non-notable, unless something is forthcoming to say why this is a particularly notable and "pretty damn important" Content Management System amongst all the others. Tonywalton | Talk 23:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, the folks behind Mambo and Joomla have recently been through several, not very damn nice wars and fights and whatnot regarding the ownership of the Mambo code. (You could make a really informative article on those fights alone. Lots of interesting stuff.) Mambo's descentants (Mambo, Mambo's GPL version, and now this travestry) are being used on zillions of sites. There's no way to deny that. What they want to call that codebase any particular day, well, that's an issue that just has to wait. So, I would rather vote for merge to either this article or the other, or keep both. If people take the "kill them both, let God sort them out" attitude, that's a bit too harsh in my opinion. --Wwwwolf 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge from Mambo (CMS). Mambo and its descentants are pretty damn important CMSes in this day and age. --Wwwwolf 22:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 02:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mambo is certainly a notable piece of open source software, and I expect its derivatives (particularly since this one has most/all of the dev team) will at some point be notable. I'm not convinced that it is currently. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:21:43, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Keep! Never be to hasty: Joomla is new - But has a bigger community power than Mambo. You will not be able to work on this article, if you delete it. The article will just reapear and all work will be done twice - so why? Just wait two weeks and be patiant, please! --Sputnik(.de) 07:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! --Holmi 09:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or delete the entries on all of the wiki software, etc., etc., as well. 212.101.64.4 10:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And merge into Mambo, along with Joomla. This isn't a company advert. It's about a piece of software that happens to be free, open source, and widely used. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's been edited to something non-ad-like, and I have a soft spot in my heart for open-source stuff. It would be good to have something written about the "zillions" of sites this software supposedly supports, though. Fang Aili 14:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The new content is a good improvement and looks encyclopedic, but the subject matter doesn't look notable. - CHAIRBOY 14:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think if Wikipedia can have articles for 8 forks of PHP-Nuke, then it should have an article about a fork of Mambo. The forum at [Open Source Matters] has had 3211 members join in three weeks, so don't tell me Joomla! doesn't have a large number of people following. I think it is Wikipedia worthy. Furthermore, I don't see why the article should be deleted because it list features, XOOPS, PHP-Nuke, and E107 all list their features and those aren't candidates for deletion. I think this Bishonen just doesn't like Mambo or Joomla! because he nominated both of these articles for deletion, yet other open source CMS articles haven't been nominated for deletion. Shoffman11 19:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, *I* nominated Joomla! for speedy delete because initially it looked thoroughly like a corporate advertisement, open-source program or not. (I didn't know 'advertisement' wasn't a speedy criterion at the time.) --Fang Aili 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Advertising alone does not make something deletable. This is certainly notable, so it could do with improvement, but do not delete it! [12] — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and no merge - seems like a fairly significant piece of software that is even featured on a Slashdot article. Maybe the old revision of the article sounded too advertisement-like and unencyclopedic?—Tokek 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge, Joomla! is the new name of Mambo - http://www.mamboportal.com/content/view/2029/2/ Applegoddess 18:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't merge. Joomla and Mambo may well become very different things. Also, even if Mambo itself disappears, an entry for it (Mambo) should remain. rlongstaff 00:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't merge. Joomla and Mambo are very different things. I think all the CMS's should be listed. Kf4bdy 08:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't merge - Joomla! is not the new name of Mambo they are separate products. While Joomla 1.0 will to a large degree be the same as the current Mambo release the two projects will diverge into separate products in the (near) future. This article is being updated and no longer looks like an advertisement. It just needs a little TLC. To delete this would be wrong as Joomla! will be a major player in the CMS world and no other CMS has been put up for deletion. Johnny Boy 08:55 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and salt the earth: Advertising. That's all we need: advertising. Wikipedia does not allow ads for free products (WP:NOT Freshmeat.org), commercial products, arts councils, bands, or anything else. Salt the earth because of the hosiery parade above. Geogre 13:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep in current format. The first attempt was nothing but an ad, but the changes have improved the article. Wikipedia is not a book. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean "current format?" At this moment in time, it's back to advertising. If you're asking that we revert to the cleanest version, then protect it, just so that we can preserve a mention of Yet Another Open Source Program (and a management one at that), I think that's too much, too far. Feature lists are not content. Claims about how it will solve all my problems are not encyclopedic. Concentrate on the few facts, on the significance. If there isn't any, then realize that an encyclopedia is not the right place for this. 02:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or delete the following: Mambo_(CMS) Typo3 Geeklog Drupal Civicspace Php_nuke Wordpress Tikiwiki Mediawiki Pmwiki SugarCRM Windows Linux Redhat Fedora_Core I could go on but I think I have made my point. At what point do you draw the line. Before you know it, you have deleted every article on Wikipedia because they MIGHT have some sort of advertisement function. Kf4bdy 23:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a big difference between a potential and actual ad. This is an actual ad. As for the false dichotomy you present, no thanks. Those others are NPOV. The votes are about the article, not the potential article, not the ideal article, not the value of the subject of the article, necessarily, the virtues of the subject, etc. Geogre 02:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point being that there are many that disagree that this article is still an ad, including the person that AFD'd the site, see the talk page. According to the deletion policy, articles that just need help are not candidates for deletion. Therefore, comments to the potentiality of the article are valid and the virtues of the subject matter are to be taken into consideration. --Wrobertson 05:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since IIRC all the lead-developers left Mambo and formed this. If Mambo was worthy of an article I'm sure this one is too, even if it needs rewriting to conform to NPOV. --TexasDex 03:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is a very good tool for a quick comparison of content management systems and other software. SGJ 09:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and don't merge. I agree with Stephanos Geogios John immediately above me. In fact, Wikipedia has the unique abiilty to be the best way to compare and contrast CMS software due to the rigorous community input. Including this type of software should not be discouraged on Wikipedia; it should in fact be encouraged. Also, forks in open source projects are extremely important. It is highly likely that the two packages will quickly begin to become sufficiently different to force users to have to look somewhere (I think it ought to be here) to find a careful articulation of the differences between the forks. Thus, don't combine. (Oh, and of all types of open source projects to include, it seems CMS systems are pretty important, given the number of people / companies who build sites using them.) Batsonjay 04:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article has good info on Joomla. It is no better or no worse than entries on other CMS entries.

Note:

I edited this article to have it more encyclopdian - I hope this is an improvement to prevent deletion. I still can not understand, why you guys didn't try to improve it :-( --Opi27 22:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content in hopes to keep it also. This event appears likely to be significant in the history of Open Source and should be kept active in order to capture events as they happen. If it later proves not to have been, you can alway change or remove it then.--207.212.165.197 22:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers:

"Writing glowing articles on one's own company (...) is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view."

Keeping this in mind, as well as the fact that I highly doubt it was one of Joomla!'s developers that wrote this article (all it took was one mention on Slashdot) I do not think the reason cited is a valid reason for deletion. Adding an NPOV tag and letting others fix it would have sufficed. --TexasDex 14:25, September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.