Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 6 August 8 >

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect. 

[refresh]

2005-08-07

[edit]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Crystal skull. -Splash 16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal skulls

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V4CE

[edit]

Not notable organization - google 5 hits, delete also the redirect Visions for Central Europe.- feydey 00:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was that no administrator need delete anything and that further deletion discussion was unnecessary. The discussion came to a unanimous agreement, including the nominator, to keep and to go for redirection instead. The nominator and a second editor, Pavel Vozenilek below, also agreed that the discussion need not continue, and no further comments appeared after three hours. I boldly take this to be consensus for a rapid closure, so that we can devote our time elsewhere. Uncle G 20:05:22, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

Symphonic poems

[edit]

actually consists only of a list of poems by Ray Buttigieg a guy who is on a bit of a self-boosting crusade (I just finished partly de-boostering his bio) and whose google results (minus wikipedia mirrors) are nearly all from his own webpage (he does have three out of print hits on amazon, so he is "notable" in the wiki sense.) Sdedeo 00:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SooToday.com

[edit]

Alexa ranking is around 81,000. WP:NOT a web directory. Joel7687 00:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Sootoday.com, which was nominated for a separate VfD vote a few days ago and had a speedy consensus (it was a one-liner), but has now been redirected to this. Whatever consensus is reached on this vote should stand for the redirect as well. Bearcat

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mucus Skin Infection

[edit]

Band vanity CanadianCaesar 00:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Vince Neil. -Splash 16:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Neil

[edit]

This is redundant, same information is provided on the Vince Neil page. StoatBringer 01:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dedek Steer

[edit]

This article seems to have been made by mistake. The article Napalm Death says they had a guitarist named Bill Steer not Dedek Steer. Nothing links to this page. Google has zero hits for "Dedek Steer". No need to redirect an error no one will make to Bill Steer. RJFJR 01:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Jam sandwich. Already done. -Splash 16:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jam sandwich (slang)

[edit]

Straight cut and paste of most of Jam sandwich. Completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp 01:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. I discarded around half a dozen votes prior to vote counting, because the editors looked somewhat sockish or merely new. There were seven valid votes for keep, twelve for delete, two other valid votes. There being no consensus, the article is kept. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and schizotypy

[edit]

This totally non-notable page is likley to be little more than an paean against religion. Hipocrite 01:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I'm not. Hipocrite 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, he's not, and no the style isn't even close (for example, this article is clearly not against religion, it was put there so you could rant against psychiatrists, per your conversations on Talk:Otherkin and Talk:Therianthropy, among others), and you are one to talk about sockpuppets, having written the article in question under one. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Which is now proven beyond a doubt, see User:Ketrovin's block. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Considering the prevalence of sockpuppets on articles Gabrielsimon has been fighting over lately, I will have to call upon the official Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy and point out that this person doesn't come close to the 100 edits one needs to verify oneself as an actual real person and would note that the edits he/she does have are extremely suspicious, jumping into articles closely related to ones Gabrielsimon worked on but that aren't otherwise related. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Khulhy is now proven as sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Could be a great article soon. CanadianCaesar 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As described by User:SlimVirgin on the discussion page, "I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were." Also, singling out schizotypy as a specific disorder to mention in the title is really quite odd as it's just one minor classification out of a whole range that would be important for a comparison between religion and psychology in general or mental disorders more specifically. If the article stayed around waiting for cleanup it would just get redirectede to a real article on the topic under a better name, and this title is so specific it's really unnecessary as a redirect as nobody would think to go looking for it instead of, say, Religion and psychology or Religion and mental disorders or whatnot. This article is a completely unsalvagable mess. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment--your outnumbered, dreamguy. guess that means consensus will be keep.Gabrielsimon 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But realistically, is anyone going to in the near future? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - grubber 11:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. - There is real potential here, but the article as written is totally unsourced and inflammatory. Attempts to insert a little NPOV disclaimer language amount to little more than lipstick on a pig. If no one will take responsibility for improving the article immediately, we are better off deleting and letting someone else re-create when they are ready to commit to making a worthwhile article.--Craigkbryant 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - The relationship between religion, spirituality, or the mystical experience and the schizotypic personality (not the same as a schizophrenic) is a topic of significant psychological research. I've dug up some primary and secondary sources, and would like to clean up the article. If there's a consensus to merge it with a larger topic, that's fine, but I'd like it to stick around for a while as I work on it. Much appreciated. Parker Whittle 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic. Potential to offend religious people is no reason for deletion. Martg76 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no useful content. Borisblue 14:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, baffling personal essay on an over-specific subject. There's probably no reasion this just can't be in religion, where it would fit nicely and do a solid job of offending religious people anyway...crud, did I just type that? Anyway. Lord Bob 17:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting and potentially encyclopedic idea, but it cites no references whatsoever. Burden of proof is on the article's author to establish that his/her contribution is not pure speculation or original research by citing references. I'm willing to change my vote if a reference shows up. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Comment" It seems unreasonable to expect a diagnosis of schizotypy in any but the most modern case histories. For instance, how would you say Joan of Arc or Joseph Smith or Mohammed etc etc, (in short anybody who has had some kind of faith based epiphany) were suffering from a schizoid disorder? It would be pure speculation in all of these cases because they can never be clinically examined and diagnosed. We can in hindsight say "oh that person diplayed some or all of the symptoms" but with mental illness there are a wide variety of causation, such as chemical imbalance and physical anomalies. For historical figures as outlined in this article it would be impossible to say definitively what the causation of the visions or voices that may or may not have compelled them to action. Hamster Sandwich 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is no doubt in my mind that there is a link between some people's religious experiences and mental illness (in general), the article in question is potentially offensive speculation about important religious figures with no evidence presented. A researched article on mental illness and religion is encyclopedic, this is not. Sabine's Sunbird 23:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important part of psychological history. If the tone of the article is inappropriate, please fix the article, but don't delet it. --malathion talk 01:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - If Parker wants to work on it, then it's got a reasonably responsible editor sheparding it. Hipocrite 15:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'DeleteThough Parker made a lot of edits last night, none were to this article, so I don't believe that it's going to get done. Prove me wrong.Hipocrite 12:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a personal essay, not an encyclopedia topic. I will reconsider if genuine sources are cited before the expiry of this VfD discussion. --Stormie 06:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Other discussion, please vote above

[edit]

{{merge|Talk:Religion and schizotypy}}

  • This is such a small amount of information that it should be merged into another article. Forcing everyone to wait around a week, and to VOTE on it is stupid and anti-wiki.
  • People should simply make suggestions on the talk page as usual and make edits and merges as usual
  • It is asinine to generate 5 times more discussion than the amount of text involved here.

So I'm going to cut and paste the contents of this page to talk:Religion and schizotypy. Uncle Ed 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There's a VfD going on, you don't just declare yourself right and call it off. This should not be merged or redirected, it should be deleted, and we're still voting on this. DreamGuy 12:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Plus, there doesn't appear to be any substantiated information in the article that could be merged anywhere. Vashti 12:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I had moved this to the discussion page, but another editor claimed that doing so was an attempt to bypass the consensus building process, so I am moving it back here. DreamGuy 03:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've dug up some good primary and secondary (reputable) sources on the link between schizotypy and religious belief, spiritual experience, and what not. I've offered to clean it up in the comments attached to my vote, above. Either way the vote goes, the info will find a home. Parker Whittle 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, if any editors have some sources they'd like to see used on this topic, please reference them on the talk page for the article (preferrably something that's easily obtained). It looks like the article and it's talk page have been deleted, but go ahead and add references there, anyway Parker Whittle 18:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, as soon as I wrote that the article/talk had been deleted, it returned, disappeared, returned, disappeared like a virtual particle on the event horizon of a black hole. Funky. Parker Whittle 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I get it. The "merge" template is screwy; it prepends Wikipedia: to whatever link you pass to it. Parker Whittle 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Dpbsmith. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Enigmatical Sorority of Van Diemen

[edit]

No sources given; no Google hits on "Enigmatical Sorority", let alone "Enigmatical Sorority of Van Dieman." Delete unless good verifiable sources are provided and verified. No indication presented of encyclopedic significance; Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. The lack of verifiable sources could lead a reader to infer that the article might be a prank or hoax. The editor who created the article added it to the article on Secret societies (see the history; I removed the entry), indicating that he considers it to be a secret society. Wikipedia only contains material that is verifiable which means that articles on truly secret societies, i.e. societies for which no public, verifiable information exists, must be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to Heaven Backwards

[edit]

Everyone affiliated with this song has denied that there is any intended backmasking in this song. Nevertheless, a link to this information and a sound clip is provided as an external link on the Stairway to Heaven article along with some information in the Trivia section of that article. This speculation doesn't need its own article. Cmouse 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Shoesmith

[edit]

Weak Delete I think this vanity unless a little more info on why he is unique in Australia. It sounds kind of like an advertisement for him at the end.Karmafist 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Sn0wflake. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Phil Sensational

[edit]

Delete, a random "backyard" wrestler who has no particular claim to fame. Only gets 87 Googles, and most of those are "Phil, sensational!" type things. I only spotted one relevant hit among them. -Splash 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Association For Consicousness Exploration (ACE)

[edit]

Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Delete nn advertising. Eclipsed 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TKH

[edit]

Delete. This reeks of a hoax. And I don't find anything for "TKH Productions" on Google. However, there is a Dutch company of similar name: [1]. I cannot verify their notability as I cannot speak the language. -Splash 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Nobody voted "bicycle" this time, but here you go: Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bicycle




Charlotte High School now moved to Charlotte High School, Charlotte, Michigan

[edit]

non notable. Can't put every high school into Wikipedia. Plus it's probably a copyvio Woohookitty 02:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaltuit

[edit]

The author of this page has cleared the copyvio, but this religion with only 316 google is really not notable, especially since they are using Wikipedia as their webhost, delete--nixie 03:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lewinson

[edit]

Not sufficiently notable? Ornil 02:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accoona

[edit]
  • Delete Accoona is a spyware-like site. It is not what it claims. It has no own search tech as it claims, instead gathers search results from sites like Overture. Wikipedia is neither an advertisement medium nor a home for 'false claims'. --218.41.113.27
    • If you search with Accoona, and see the results, everything is linked through Overture, a Yahoo! site, so it is not what it claims.
    • I searched on Google for Accoona Clinton and Google suggested correction of spelling to Acoona, which means, Accoona is not a popular term in the Internet.
  • Keep If it really has Bill Clinton as a spokesperson, it's worthwhile to have an article about it. - Chris Wood 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because (1) It seems relatively notable, and (2) Inaccuracies and being a "spyware-like site" are not grounds for deletion. It's not advertising, either CanadianCaesar 03:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use improve or NPOV tags if necessary. It's not whether the article is bad, it's whether the topic is valid for the encyclopedia. DavidH 04:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Businessweek confirms Clinton, and [ChinaDaily] acknowledges some form of affiliation. I am rather leery of their "artificial intelligence" claims, though, and bringing the page up to encyclopedic standard would be a good. Eldereft 07:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website, regardless of contemptible practices. - Thatdog 08:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very interesting article -- but do ensure it has NPOV.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The article was nominated for deletion by its author and sole editor, Jake3DTrains (talk · contribs), who also blanked it (and, apparently whilst not logged in, requested its deletion a second time), and thus qualifies under CSD criterion G7. At least one other editor, Mysidia below, concurs. Discussions of verifiability and notability of the subject matter are left to future discussions of any future article on this topic. Uncle G 19:29:57, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

Wings of Voyage

[edit]

Delete I accidentally submitted this article while it was in an extremely incomplete state. ~ Jake 03:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but because of non-notoriety. Assuming you're Jake from this sonicstadium.org message board, Wings of Voyage is an online story written by you. In my opinion, this isn't enough to warrant an article. If I'm wrong about my assumption, please disregard my vote. -D. Wu 04:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I was going to use this article as a means of compiling information, themes, and such about it; the idea that my intention was to advertise it is quite false, since I am quite aware (yet unfazed by the fact that) my story will remain unpopular. For an idea of how the finished article would have looked like, refer to an article regarding an actual novel such as "1984" by George Orwell, which is far from being an advertisement for the book. Still, by all means I'm wanting this void article to be removed at the moment. If, however, you are saying that this article should be deleted because of non-popularity, I suppose I can't do much other than to refrain from posting this article, regardless of whatever content I may put in it. Since I am fairly new at this and probably missed a few things in the guidelines of what and what not to post as an article, thank you for pointing this out. ~ Jake 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G7. --Mysidia 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vacuous content. Hamster Sandwich 05:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I am going to move it to the singular form of the title however. -Splash 16:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desert planets

[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was: "opinion peace on star trek universe or original research, at best". Original research essay. — Gwalla | Talk 04:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milliteq

[edit]

This is a non-notable and very possibly a joke article. Google search returns one unrelated hit. D. Wu 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe change I think you should write something in about Milliteq Word when it comes out, rather than this. BTW, i make EnSpireMe, but all I use Gigateq for is to make my programs look better. I see mine as just a fake name. (MPN)
  • Delete Hoax. One man coprporation, and a 14 yr old CEO? Go to bed! Hamster Sandwich 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Yes i'm 14 and it's a one man operation, i can't afford workers. I am the only worker so what, I still make programs and i will have one out soon. And if that program happens to be in google, and Milliteq too, can i come back then? brendan williams 1:48, 7 August 2005
Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have a company thats notable you have to actually move beyond the developmental stage of your operations, remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thats not to say you shouldn't have an article here in the future. Generally speaking, it is better to have the notability as a company, or as an individual that other people who aren't your friends, family members (or particularly yourself) would want to write about or read a story about you and/or Milliteq. I happen to know a guy who owns a company called Millitex and he does a great business. Drives a sweet Porche. They do special paint jobs for military vehicles. And I doubt he'd get an article here in the Wikipedia as you can see by the red link (like this one) on his company name. You have to establish real notability or notariety to get an article in. Try editing about a subject you have a real interest in, maybe you can contribute something positive to the knowledge base here. Good luck with your company BTW, I hope you do make it big enough to get in here someday! If you establish a user page I could have discussed all this with you in that space. Just one of the benifits of creating a wikipedia account. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep i am his friend Justin and i don't see ANYTHING wrong with it 1:52, 7 August 2005
Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep what's wrong with it, the company IS real, 14 year old CEO or not. Robert 1:53, 7 August 2005
Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep When Milliteq Word is released on a website i'm sure i will get noted in google. brendan williams 2:18 UTC 7 August 2005
Comment: Unsigned comment above added by 71.241.120.68 -- Longhair | Talk 06:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- vanity - Longhair | Talk 06:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much linguists study language as it 'is' used rather than simply recording and enforcing "correct" usage, Wikipedia is a record of what 'has' occurred and influenced the world at large. Good luck with your fame &/or fortune. Eldereft 07:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Ok then so someday I CAN be in here but just when it (My company) does come successful? and how is it vanity? And does the subject have to be VERY popular to get in here? Brendan Williams 3:33 AM ET 7 Aug 2005
Comment: Forget about adding your own entry. See Wikipedia:Vanity. If and when you become notable enough, hopefully somebody will notice and add it for you ;) -- Longhair | Talk 07:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is a User Page? Brendan Williams | Talk
Comment: See your talk page for my reply. -- Longhair | Talk 07:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure you do Xaa, it's just in the other namespace :) -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Chmod007. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

3734 4788-6 610106

[edit]

Useless trivia. Also an orphaned article which does not have any potential to become anything more than it already is. -- Longhair | Talk 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 content of the article was:

Discrete Recordings
A UK label started and owned by Nahtan Vinall.
http://www.rolldabeats.com http://www.rolldabeats.com/label/discrete 06-28-05

which is almost a speedy deletion candidate as "little or no content". I do see that there was one keep vote, and my decision to delete is not only based on vote count but also on the article's skeletal appearance. Remember that the "recreation" speedy deletion clause is for "substantially similar content, so if someone makes another article about this record label, with more content than the one which is being deleted now, this VFD debate should NOT be used as justification to speedy delete it as a recreation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete Recordings

[edit]

Very minor recording label. Either delete or at least clean up/wikify (has no markup). Ornil 04:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoedown

[edit]

TV-cruft. Maybe there is something to be written about the traditional dance, but this stupid game from Whose line is it anyway isn't a start. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I will move it to List of music videos using animation. -Splash 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos that are fully or majorly animated

[edit]

There must be a million of these (even though only a handful are listed here). Who even cares? What does "majorly animated" mean?—Wahoofive (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mobrown

[edit]

Band vanity, just released their first EP, only local shows. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • User's 4th edit. Wikibofh 14:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP: Mobrown are at the forefront of the London unsigned music scene which gave us The Libertines / Special Needs etc, and are hot tips for getting a deal by the end of the year. As such, there are many young music lovers who would find this information invaluable.

Keep. Yeah leave them be. I'm from Hull and i've heard of them

  • keepthey're a really good band. just because they've only released one ep doesn't mean they don;t deserve to be onb here!
  • KEEPat least i tried is a tune!
  • KEEP And watch them grow - will be BIG soon135.196.109.101 14:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I would have hoped as a regular reader of Wikipedia, that the purpose was to provide information to the masses as much as possible. The deletion of this article will stifle the growth of Wikipedia. Perhaps there is the need for more information, in which case I'll write more when the article's status is confirmed. Having said that, who wants to win a grammy to be considered anyway? I have twelve grammy's at home. (Unsigned vote by 81.151.151.73 (talk · contribs), first edit)

KEEP. They are gonna be HUGE (Unsigned vote by 80.1.244.9 (talk · contribs), first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original Pilipino Music

[edit]

Original Pilipino Music (frequently abbreviated to OPM) is original music created by anyone of Philippine descent. Oh yes, I'm sure it's frequently abbreviated. Can we abbreviate it as DEL instead? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider OPMs to be a subset of Music of the Philippines. Somehow it wouldn't be right to call traditional music OPM. But that's my feeling, I could be wrong. --Chris 20:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be redirected to Pinoy rock because some OPMs are not in the rock genre. --Jojit fb 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It actually appears to be a common abbreviation. Who knew? Also, Filipino, Philipino, and Pilipino appear to be interchangeable; it's only 2:30 and I've already learned something new today. Eldereft 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, and yes, they do spell it three different ways. The *why* of that is an interesting story, but I'll spare you. ;-) Xaa 10:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there are different ways to spell Filipino :)--Dysepsion 23:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DEL? No; keep... Google it, please. ;-) It's a common abbreviation of a valid musical genre, and there are different ways to spell Filipino. (OPM actually includes many genres; there is also Pinoy rap as well as Pinoy rock and other genres. In short, it's all music made by Filipinos anywhere, not necessarily in the Philippines or limited to classic Philippine music.) This article is relatively new, having only been edited by an anon, one other registered user, and myself, so of course it is a stub. If one of our experienced Filipino editors gets ahold of this (I am not Filipino and have never been to the Philippines; I just wrote what I could!), then it could presumably become a more complete article and thus more worthy of inclusion. I think this is just a case of VfDing an article that should have just been expanded by somebody who knew more about the topic. --Idont Havaname 04:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the Google test doesn't prove much by itself; Googling "Original American music" or a similar variation also generates lots of hits. Does this phrase mean more than the sum of the individual words? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems that it does, if you look at the Google results themselves for both OPM and original American music. The latter is often used to describe one artist for self-promotion or in some historical context, and while used by many artists there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on what it is. I've listed this VfD at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines; hopefully some of their editors will come here and vote. --Idont Havaname 15:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm in the Philippines, and though I personally find it a rather needless acronym, it's a common term in the Philippines. Google for opm music (without quotes). Coffee 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm Filipino and I can assure you that OPM and Original Pilipino Music are widely-used terms. I first heard the abbreviation when I was younger and didn't know what it stood for until I was a teenager. --Chris 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name or term OPM (Original Pilipino Music) is very popular. It was coined by the late noted journalist Teodoro "Doroy" Valencia (famous for his column "Over a Cup of Coffee"). --Saluyot 01:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In Philippine record stores, you can find an OPM category and it is as many as other categories in the store. Also, we can add the Organisasyon ng Pilipinong Mang-aawit in the OPM disambiguation page. It is an organization for Filipino professional singers in the Philippines. --Jojit fb 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is why I love Wikipedia. I learn something new everyday. Thanks to on-the-ball editors like yourselves. Please feel free to expand this article. I won't withhold a vote to keep. Hamster Sandwich 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However, the article really needs revision because its meaning in the present form of the article doesn't jive with how many, if not most, Filipinos define the term OPM. According to the article, as of this date, "OPM is original music created by anyone of Philippine descent. It can be in any genre, and its lyrics can be in any language." This is misleading. As far as I know, many Filipino artists (especially the more commercialized Pop music performers) limit the term OPM to Filipino Pop songs, especially those in the ballad form, popularize by artists like Martin Nievera, Rey Valera, Sharon Cuneta, and APO Hiking Society. I think, it's time to define OPM clearly. Should it refer only to Filipino Pop ballads, or should it finally mean: "OPM is simply Filipino music, or any type of music produced in the Philippines or by Filipinos regardless of their location when they composed it"? If this now becomes the more sensible and simple meaning, then OPM would become the mother umbrella of specific genres like Filipino (Pinoy) Rock, Filipino Jazz, Filipino Rap / Hip hop, Filipino Folk, etc. And I am for this more plain and sensible definition. --eLf_ideas 14:53, August 13, 2005 (CT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long song

[edit]

A "long song" is (can you guess?) a song that is (drumroll please) long!!! Next —Wahoofive (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere of Influence Inc

[edit]

"Premiere" software consulting company started four years ago. Looks like advertising to me. Its author submitted it and has touched nothing else on Wikipedia. Isomorphic 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Aero

[edit]

Vanity article. High school band. No conventional albumsZeimusu | (Talk page)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalGFX

[edit]

no assertion of notability, few google hits, just another Newgrounds artist. Delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:56, August 7, 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. – malathion talk 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grafstein-Telecom

[edit]

Seems like an advertisement and a little vanity. Also the company does not seem very notable. Kushboy 07:01, August 7, 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. – malathion talk 06:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation (disambiguation)

[edit]

Only disambiguates between a dictionary defintion and Wikipedia:Disambigtation, not needed. --Commander Keane 07:07, August 7, 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. Jinian 12:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desperado Literature

[edit]

POV about Lidia Vianu. More about her than the subject matter. Essay form. Kushboy 07:18, August 7, 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. – malathion talk 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Shit happens" jokes

[edit]

Listed for movement to Wikisource since April. Hasn't moved yet. Must be constipated, or else Wikisource doesn't want to touch this shit.

I've copied it to Wikisource, in the Jokebook section [3]. Now, unless there is any objection, we should delete the page. COGDEN 01:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a speedy candidate now to me. --FOo 01:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last nominated for deletion in November 2004. See /Archive for previous vote, which came to no consensus. Since then, the article was proposed to be moved to Wikisource, but nothing happened. So ... here we are. --FOo 08:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and God

[edit]

A hopelessly POV list of quotes where mathematicians proclaim their belief in God. Not encyclopedic. I've done the transwiki just now. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's due to Leopold Kronecker. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 12:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleanup issue. Pcb21| Pete 11:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps rename and/or merge, and adjust for POV. I am speaking as a completely unreligious (even anti-religious) mathematician. It's a very interesting start for a very interesting historical topic and should be expanded. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A collection of quotes belongs into an encyclopedia exactly why?
  • Strong delete. Not an article. NPOV. Quotation collection. Positive: mathematicians, history. Negative: no context, unverified (?) quotations, missing Taoists (and Muslims, etc.), no finite bounds, potentially highly offensive to followers of IPU. Consider this quotation about Newton's occultism: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." — John Maynard Keynes. But the page not only assumes existence of a "God", it lumps the "God" of Newton with the "God" of Erdös, which is absurd. KSmrq 11:01, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I seem to be seeing generally here is delete votes because the article is just a collection of quotes and is POV, and keep votes because the history of mathematics in relation to religion is a valid history subject. What I propose is move this article to something like Mathematics and Religion or Mathematics and Spirituality and turn it into an article on the historical relation between the two. Or just start a new article at one of these places and remove this one. How does that strike y'all? The Swami 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain exactly why they believe that the title "Mathematics and God" is POV? Would it be better if we put quotes around the word "God"? The title "Mathematics and deities" sounds wrong to me. It is not clear to me that the article is talking about several gods. I would guess that with the possible exception of Plato, all the quotes here are talking about a monotheistic notion of "God". "Mathematics and religion" also sounds wrong to me, it is not about religion (or spirituality) per se. It seems to me that this article is about an idea. An idea, as expressed by several famous mathematics, about the relationship between mathematics and the notion of a supreme being they called "God" — perhaps seriously, perhaps metaphorically, perhaps jokingly. And in so doing, I would guess, they were also trying to say something important, about mathematics and its relationship to the world we live in. I think, the fact that these mathematicians thought this idea was important, means it is important, if only for the reason that they thought so. Their idea is certainly POV, our writing about their idea is not. Paul August ☎ 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's not the title by itself that causes the problem. The POV is caused more by title plus current first paragraph:
A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and God, often likening God to a mathematician.
Taken together, these could be read to imply a POV that a God exists. Now, I don't actually read it this way, rather I see this use of the word "God" as a literary device to denote a concept that the average reader will be familiar with, regardless of the beliefs about God that the reader holds. Nevertheless, I think the first reading is quite plausible for many of our readers, and the paragraph is therefore unacceptable as it stands. I would support keeping the current title if the first paragraph was changed so that the overall POV effect was eliminated. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes along these lines. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 20:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would certainly be POV for Wikipedia to be asserting the existence of "God". And I can see given what Dmharvey has said above that the article and title could be read as doing that. David, has now changed the first paragraph to read:
A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and various notions of God.
I hope this has eliminated that particular POV concern. Paul August ☎ 20:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
If this is about Mathematics, not mathematicians, where is the formal definition of God? What is the status of the "proofs" mentioned? Are the proofs Constructive? A serious mathematician might view these questions differently from a pulpit preacher or a lay member of the congregation. When Intelligent Design advocates are trying to revise one's science curriculum, one can get twitchy about such sloppiness; it's no longer harmless fun. We (mathematicians) know the proofs are nonsense; they don't. Is there something about the word "God" that causes us to abandon encyclopedia standards? Try this: Substitute Satan or Invisible Pink Unicorn for God and decide if you would still keep the article. Wouldn't you want more confirmation, more context, more discussion, more balanced views? --KSmrq 05:12, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Linux adoption

[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Darrien 08:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, but nor is it a topic. Simple Google comparison: 366 hits (0 in news) for "Windows adoption" vs 47,500 (52 in news) for "Linux adoption". But feel free to start a Windows adoption or Windows migration article. Pengo 00:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub, to be expanded. Eclipsed 22:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the Linux article, there is nothing especially encyclopedic about people using a product, without the context of the main article this one is poor.--nixie 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Linux. The current state of the article is actually quite good, and I would usually vote Keep on this sort of thing, but as nixie said, it lacks context without the main article. --Joshk 04:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - hopelessly unmaintainable, and not terribly encyclopedic. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm between merge and keep. Pengo's comment and what I see on the techie sites both support the idea that this is of at least passing notability. Barno 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Any relevant information of course ought to be merged with Linux or another, more appropriate article. Note that at least two-thirds of this "article" is already in Linux. - Centrx 22:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by FCYTravis -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Goodacre

[edit]

Non notable vanity: only 6 google hits. Suspect the user is posting about themsleves as their user name is User:13lake. Francs2000 | Talk 09:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Starblind. —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Chan Chun Hei

[edit]

Delete: Vanity... About a student and his sexual lust? Please. x42bn6 09:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin proverbs

[edit]

This was transwikied to wikiquote a while back (q:Latin proverbs), and now exists as an exact copy there. As Angela, Arpingstone, and Quadell have said on the talk page, this is an unencyclopedic list of phrases, and there is precedent for having these on Wikiquote. This is what Wikipeda is not. Therefore, delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- This isn't the Latin Wikipedia. - Longhair | Talk 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Invites endless proverb lists in thousands of articles that serve little encyclopedic purpose. -- Xaa 09:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list links to articles and as I understand they are good to stay so this list organizes and gives context. There are dozens of embarassingly silly lists why remove this one that is valuable. Kpjas 11:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic, as demonstrated by the blue links. Kappa 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. Just look at the transwiki links: français, Italiano, Polskim Română, Nederlands, Slovenščina, Српски / Srpski, Svenska. I see we've got out own "Carthago delenda est" tendency alive and kicking on Vicipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to link to the somewhat larger list of Wikiquote latin phrases. Sure all the "endless proverb lists" that this might invite may need deleting, but this article does serve an organizational purpose. Sirmob 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. useful ergo encyclopedic. →uber nemo→ talk edits 20:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as duplication of wikiquote article. --Tim Pope 20:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and useful. —Seselwa 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful as a glossary, I think these proverbs are so common that it is encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does seem to be a precedent for not keeping pages of proverbs on wikipedia, but moving them to wikiquote instead. The links to English, French, German and Portugese proverbs provided at the bottom of the Latin proverbs page are all simple redirects to Wikiquote. Japanese, Polish and Spanish proverbs send one to a brief description of their use, and then once again redirect to wikiquote. Chinese proverbs trys to send one to wiktionary, but that may have been an accidental mistake. Therefor, we either need to send this page to wikiquote, or pull dozens of pages off of there, and back here. (Or at least duplicate the most important proverbs.) However, I don't know which way it should go. --Icelight 18:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see what Wikiquote has to do with it. These are proverbs (the non-proverbs, such as mottos and epigrams, should be removed) and have no place on Wikiquote, not least because they can seldom be attributed. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are misunderstanding the situation (and Wikiquote). Proverbs have always been part of Wikiquote's mandate, since it's founding. They are featured prominently on the main page (just take a look). In fact, Wikiquote's very first, pitful, main page consisted of three links: Albert Einstein, Zen proverbs, and Irish proverbs. This kind of thing is the reason we have Wikiquote. And we at Wikipedia are not the ones to make Wikiquote policy. Also, you're pointing to the other Wikipedias is a bit of a red herring, because all of the Wikipedias have developed their own criteria for inclusion, plenty of subjects have been deleted here but kept on another 'Pedia, or vice versa. We don't follow their precedent, and none of the reasons cited here, like "useful" or "has blue links," make this article encyclopedic. Wiktionary and Wikibooks are both, but we certainly don't want to duplicate them, they still aren't encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll take all that on board, while still being completely unable to see that there's a good argument for deletion. If we don't follow Wikiquote's precent, nor that of any of the non-English Wikipedias, then I suggest we completely ignore their existence and just judge the proverbs on their encyclopedic quality, which I think is well nigh unimpeachable. --14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, please. I have used it more than once. Jonathunder 14:15, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
  • Keep, I have used this many times and often wouldn't have thought to look in wikiquote. If wikipedia's search engine gets better, to the point where it automatically searches wiktionary, wikiquote, et cetera then perhaps we can revisit the issue. Until then, keep it in both places and we'll periodically merge them. (It is a nuisance that I often must search both the Latin proverbs and the Latin phrases pages for whichever one I'm thinking of; I was just looking for quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur again tonight). If I use it (as a regular contributor here) then I have to presume that there are thousands silent users who also find it useful.JimD 06:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a list, no information about Latin proverbs, compare with Japanese proverbs. Marc Mongenet 23:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, do you think that the article needs a paragraph or two about latin proverbs, or needs to consist only of a paragraph or two about latin proverbs. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 23:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a vanity article not asserting notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Allman

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a vanity page, or an article about a non-notable person, at best. —MementoVivere 09:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and DELETE. Relevant info already at Viktor Krum. Jinian 12:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. Krum

[edit]

Extremely minor Harry Potter characters who are mentioned in about one paragraph and have no speaking lines. Article is full of assumptions ("They are supportive of their son") that are quite obvious but don't come out directly from the book. Any useful information could be merged with Viktor Krum, otherwise delete. ---Laur 10:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whats next, individual listings for Mr Krum and Mrs Krum? Allegrorondo 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, clear consensus that the article should not remain in its present state (hence a few "merge or delete" votes). I will follow the suggestion of the merge voters and merge this article with M65 motorway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walton Summit motorway

[edit]

Minor roads are not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia even one which is not paper. Tim Pope 11:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, motorways are inherently notable and encyclopedic, regardless of length. Kappa 13:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... or of actual existence as motorways by that name? Uncle G 15:01:44, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • There is simply no such thing as "Walton Summit motorway". The concept of this stretch of road being a wholly separate motorway by that name is a simple invention of a "Pathetic Motorways" web site. (The other occurrences of this name on the Web, such as this one, and on Usenet, such as here, all turn out to have that web site as their source.) If you look at a map of the road you'll see that this is simply a common slip road, that was previously a stretch of "A" class road, but where now non-motorway traffic is barred for the very simple reason that there is no way of exiting that stretch other than by joining a motorway, and that is still labelled as the A6 on some maps. As I have argued before:
    1. The sign on the "Walton Summit motorway" in the photograph on the web site that says "Walton Summit" isn't naming the slip road. It's not a road name sign. It's a direction sign, pointing the way, off the interchange and along the slip road, to Walton Summit.
    2. There are plenty of motorway slip roads and other nameless motorway-class stretches of road in the U.K.. Here are some more. And here. And here.
    3. It's certainly going to be in the interests of a "pathetic motorways" web site (the only source for this information) to build up the importance of a road into a fully-fledged "motorway" simply so that it can have one more target to knock down as "pathetic".
  • Whilst a country's major highways may warrant articles, we should draw the line at articles on their individual slip roads going by invented names. Delete. Uncle G 15:01:44, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
    • OK, lets look at some of the things that you claim. As I have pointed out previously to you, this is an extremely unusual sliproad. Show me another one in the UK that meets two motorways at the same time. Oh, you can't. There isn't one. There is no claim that it is a "fully fledged motorway". In fact, the site states "Really, it's an overgrown sliproad.."
    • Secondly "Walton Summit Motorway" is only a 'working name', until the correct name can be found through more research. This name is in common use throughout the British Roads community. There is no claim anywhere that the signpost pointing down the hill does anything other than point to a destination. Presumably you also don't recognise "Mancunian Way" but only A57(M)...
    • Thirdly, it was never previously a stretch of "A" road. It was new build and opened under motorway restrictions. This claim of being a motorway simply because it accesses a roundabout that meets only motorways is false. See M1 junction 21, for example.
    • Fourthly, I suggest you look up the meaning of "pathetic" properly... Pathetic Motorways does not simply exist to "knock targets down" - there's a heck of a lot of solid research that needs to go on to actually examine small motorways accurately. That's real genuine research that involves trawling round archive material located all around the country. It's not designed to be staid and boring, but interesting for the reader to learn some things. And yes, I'm very annoyed at the suggestion that it is just pure fantasy. You try doing some of the work!
    • However, I vote for Merge with M65 motorway, with possibly a link provided from M61 motorway. It's not important enough to be in Wikipedia in its own right, although it is something that is extremely unusual, so perhaps deserves a mention elsewhere. If it came down to it, I'd go Delete rather than Keep. And I wrote the bloody website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.88.146 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 August 2005
  • Keep. It is simply false to claim that the Walton Summit Motorway does not exist. The slip road has become legendary under that name and its status as a stretch of motorway, subject to UK motorway law, is indisputed. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing that is actually false here is the claim that it has "become legendary under that name". That's uttter rubbish. It hasn't. As I said, the only source for that name, which isn't even in widespread use, let alone "legendary", is the "Pathetic Motorways" web site, which has simply made up that name for a common slip road. There is simply no such thing as "Walton Summit motorway". Uncle G 15:33:45, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
    • All you have established with the above reference is that there is no designated motorway by the name of the "Walton Summit Motorway". I also notice that the above map establishes that there is no such thing as the Newcastle Urban Motorway, nor even the Durham Motorway--two stretches of motorway that I'm intimately acquainted with. Well done: at this rate you'll have proven that there are no roads in Britain except those that are listed under official names on a map produced by the Department of Transport. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And assuming this hyperbole were actually true, this exercise of verifiability in action would be a problem how, exactly?
        • There is no verifiability problem; there is simply a case of a guy showing a single map that doesn't list a particular entity. I don't know what you find to be hyperbolae here--is it my statement that the motorways in question aren't named on the map or my statement that they nevertheless do exist? Both statements are verifiably true. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 500-meter stretch of road with a name given to it by a website? --Calton | Talk 16:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh please. -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one hand, the name has been picked up by other sources. On the other hand, the naming isn't the best, and it should probably be merged somewhere. But it leads to two roads of equal importance. However, it was built at the same time as the M65, almost as a frontage road. I'd say merge with M65 motorway. --SPUI (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who gives a shit what "Pathetic Motorways" says about a minor road? Nor does the article even indiacte what "Pathetic Motorways" is. -R. fiend 17:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Purported name gets all of 45 Google hits, many of them Wikimirrors. If this was actually a widely used term I'd expect to see a lot more. FCYTravis 17:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability; in fact the article does not say anything above and beyond the fact that the road exists. How is this notable? Fernando Rizo T/C 19:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - My head says "delete" (apart from notability or not, that article is basically no more than a link to a website, which, incidentally, is a broken link). My heart says "keep" because I really like the name of the road. Tonywalton 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not verifiable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however merge the explanation of "does this exist" from the discussion page Paul Weaver 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable. Nandesuka 02:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This road is of interest because of its nature. It is not just a link road to the national motorway network. This is a motorway standard road which is has an unclear status, revision and research into which may provide more information. 194.75.139.29 10:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Doktorb/Liam[reply]
  • Delete, ludicrous. Proto t c 10:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FOLKS, THIS IS NOT EVEN A B-ROAD. Pilatus 20:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for any number of reasons given above. Sabine's Sunbird 19:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article that is needed to complete a set about British motorways, jguk 20:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Per the article, this "road" doesn't even have a name and isn't recognized as a separate road. It's just a couple of lanes, only 500 meters long, which lead into an actual road. Jonathunder 21:39, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, subtrivial. CDThieme 13:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hardly notable. No Account 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to M65, as that's the motorway it was built with. Also merge in info from discussion page. Maybe have a brief mention in M61. I go past this every day on my way to work, it really is just a slip road, but the naming mess does make it marginally notable. And for those who claim its unverifiable, just look at the external link, it has a photograph of the sign for goodness sake. Far more amusing and pathetic IMO is the nearby roundabout at the end of the M65, which only has one exit and it is impossible to go all the way round, but don't worry I won't start an article on that :-) the wub "?/!" 10:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above --βjweþþ (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Appears to be a quirky and notable if short roadway.Gateman1997 17:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B876 road

[edit]

Minor roads are not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia even one which is not paper. Tim Pope 11:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. In Britain, B-roads are minor county roads. Major highways are designated A-roads. Pilatus
Depends on the state. States like Kentucky have a state route network of the same relative density as the B-roads. --SPUI (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is not Kentucky. My God, this is a minor road in a thinly populated corner of Scotland! (Ehrm, do you mean to say that any road in Kentucky is inherently notable because there are so few? Sort of like Wal-Mart in Britain, if there were any?) Pilatus 16:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B5405 road

[edit]

The B5405 road is a 5 km road linking two Staffordshire villages - see it here on Google Maps. It may be useful for the locals to travel from one village to the other, but in the grander scheme of traffic engineering it isn't. B roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into larger arterials. Neither does it have any historic or cultural significance to speak of.

It was nominated here once, back in August, when there was no consensus to delete. See the discussion here. Meanwhile one contributor has added some more local directions, but Wikipedia still isn't a map in words.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I realize that there has been a rewrite, but there still is a consensus to delete based on verfiability and notability concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Hacker

[edit]

please re read original article, it has been updated with a lot of new material as of august 11th

This is a renomination due to the unusual outcome of the first VFD vote. The basis for the original nomination was non-notability. There were 7 Delete votes, plus 3 Merge votes (all of which recommended different pages to which to merge). The presiding admin discarded some of these votes on the grounds of lack of seniority, which apparently upset someone enough to open an RFC. So, let's try this again and see if we can reach a consensus this time. My own vote is delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebug (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 August 2005

  • Keep. Changed vote; see below; I closed the last VfD, which was inconclusive because most of those voting were too new at the time (this may not be the case if the same people voted again now). The reason for discarding votes was not "lack of seniority" but (mostly) extreme newness--we tend to ignore votes from extremely new voters because of the possibility of sock puppetry.
    • Comment I wasn't doing this in order to attack your original decision; I just wanted to see if consensus could be reached this time. Obviously, what weight to give to the votes of relatively new users is a judgment call. Firebug 02:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote from the RfC: "DavidH (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 28 July) only had one month experience and 15 edits in article space. -asx- (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 29 July) only had 5 edits prior to 29 June. Xaa (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 29 July) made 5 edits prior to 27 July. It's is not a genitive (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 29 July via anon IP but signed) had only 14 edits prior to 23 July and to date has made only 13 edits in article space. JamesBurns (talk · contribs) (delete vote, 16 July) has voted in literally thousands of VfDs, but has fewer than 100 article space edits, about a score of which are insertion of VfD tags. Cuervo (merge vote, 15 July) just about scrapes home. Dcarrano (talk · contribs) (merge vote, 14 July) had no edits prior to 27 June. Harmil (talk · contribs) (merge vote, 14 July) had 7 votes prior to 21 June."
    • Now the original nominator for deletion, Harro5 (talk · contribs), has rewritten it.
    • It appears that this lot were mentioned in a FBI report and verifiable statements were cited. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I still don't have seniority, so this may as well be the last time I do this. I have read the article again, it has been re-written, and the re-write is interesting. However, none of the links show that the group the re-written article puports to exist actually exists. The first three links[5][6] [7] are links to defaced pages, on which we see that hackers who claim to be Arabic have had their way with someone's server. However, these three links do not prove the existence of the Arab Hacker group, but merely prove the existence of hackers who claim to be Arabic. There have already been several cases of hackers who claimed to be Chinese or Arabs or what-have-you turning out to be thirteen-year-old script-kiddies, so this literally means nothing. The fourth link[8] is to an article which mentions the FBI is on the lookout for Arab hackers. It does not proport that this group, the Arab Hackers group, exists. Instead, it mentions other groups in specific in the text of the article, and gives an un-cited list-box that has, as one of it's entries, "Arab Hax0rs." It can be argued that this is one and the same with Arab Hackers, but without a citation on the list-box, it is unclear as to where the list originated from. As such, the article seems to me to be poorly cited, offers no real proof that the group named "Arab Hackers" the article covers actually exists, and gets a Delete vote from me. Xaa 15:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Have you thought of just cleaning it up? We don't delete the Unicorn and Leprachaun articles just because their existence is disputed by just about everybody on the planet. By the way, the decision to exclude you was based on my personal criteria, so another closer may decide not to exclude your vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I *have* cleaned up VfD articles I think are worth the effort of saving from the axe. I've done it twice already. But, this isn't an article I think is worth saving. I can find no evidence that convinces me that there is a group of hackers called "Arab Hackers," and the evidence given in the articles does not convince me of their existence, either. However, if you think it's worth spending the time, feel free to clean it up yourself. =) Xaa 21:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Group's actual impact, if any, is unverifiable. FCYTravis 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  20:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable enough as an orginization part of a pattern →uber nemo→ talk edits 20:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If notability is based on the ComputerWorld article (from late 2000), then the presumed name of the group is Arab Hax0rs, and the page should be renamed as such. But a google search for the correct name shows 9 results, mostly the computerworld article and copies of the report the computerworld article is based on. Eclipsed 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xaa. RJFJR 00:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to be verifiable. --Carnildo 04:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am changing my vote because I have been convinced by the arguments to delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - revote - not notable - Tεxτurε 14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the last "keep" vote on this I will just point out that my reasoning for holding out on this group's notability is that it is a yahoo group with 7000+ people [9], this link was included in the latest revision of the article, which seems to point to further evidence in its links. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 04:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The links the article points to alledge that the FBI is trying to catch them. Somehow, I think the FBI would not be trying to catch them if their members had a Yahoo group, given that the FBI has the right to simply subpoena IP's and e-mail addy's to track the members down. This seems EXTREMELY unlikely - and is more likely just a group of wannabes. If they really were who the FBI was looking for, it seems to me they'd already be caught and jailed. The existence of the Yahoo group called "Arab Hackers" only proves the existence of a yahoo group called "Arab Hackers" - it does not prove that the Yahoo group and the alledged international criminal conspiracy/hackers group are in any way related. Xaa 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment http://www.zone-h.org/en/defacements/filter/filter_defacer=Arab+Hackers/ Samuraisam 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Unfortuantely, that doesn't mean anything. http://www.zone-h.org/en/defacements/filter/filter_defacer=George+Bush/ Looks like the President's been naughty, too. ;) The key is not "Can I find defacement by people who call themselves Arab Hackers and claim to be on a Jihad," the key is "can I find something OTHER than what could be done by a twelve-year-old who might think it was cool to call himself an Arab Hacker on a Jihad?" For example, a US Government site that lists the group as being one that's sought after for extradition/interrogation/arrest. Xaa 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I would like to know what kind of evidence would prove this? There is no way more definitive evidence could be produced unless you want some sort of a video. "a day in the life of Arab Hacker". Maybe some satellite footage. I say that adequate evidence has been provided. there are literally hundreds of pages with the "fuck U.S.A. and israel" message so obviously, unless its a mere coincedence, they are connected. Samuraisam 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment As I said above: For example, a US Government site that lists the group as being one that's sought after for extradition/interrogation/arrest. I can find evidence that George Bush is defaming websites on zone-H.org. They only keep track of the names, they have no way of verifying if that really IS an Arab Hacker group or just one kid, or if the president is really vandalizing web-pages. Yes, I acknowledge that it's not unreasonable to presume what you're suggesting. However, we're not allowed to presume things when we write articles. If we're going to assert that a secret hacker group exists, we have to offer solid proof it exists that can't be explained as just one kid with a computer. Xaa 04:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. No Account 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability and verifiability are rigorously established; this sort of thing can easily become a "Here's my l33t group" article or a bunch of weak speculation (which is what it is now). Note to closing admin: I'm watching this article, and I'll change this vote myself if necessary. Treat as delete unless I change it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Church of Satan

[edit]

Only 1 Google hit that is not a Wikipedia clone site. This is apparently not one of the significant Satanic organizations, which we do have articles for. Organization's own website has no verifiable information to indicate that it is a group of more than 1 person ike9898 12:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to delete as well (Unsigned vote by 67.184.14.210 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catherine's School, Twickenham

[edit]

This is a minor school of little or no note. I tried to merge all the schools in Twickenham to one list, but I have met some opposition from two other editors. There is no policy to enforce their views so I would like to delete this article and move any useful information back to the list.--Tim Pope 13:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a vanity article not asserting notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaas Proitsis

[edit]

Non-Notable. Probable Vanity --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Ji

[edit]
  • Delete- I couldn't find anything at the Nanjing University site in English (my Mandarin is shaky), and there was nothing definitive on him in Google(is he Li Zheng-Ji?) Please expand and explain why he's notable, or this isn't worth an article.Karmafist 14:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's 105 years old, must know something about nutrition. Did you look at his article in the Chinese wikipedia? Kappa 15:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, I'll check it out now. Questionable notability is always a grey area, but questionable notability and stub-ness are grounds for deletion in my book. I just hope my Chinese Lessons last year don't fail me now...Karmafist 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I consider anyone who is over 100 years old to be notable.Gateman1997 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless anyone can explain/verify notability (and "he's over 100!" is the most patheic excuse for notability ever). -R. fiend 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Sigh* "He is considered the founder of modern nutrition science in China" makes him notable, did you look at his article in the Chinese wikipedia? Kappa 19:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I Just read the Chinese article(at least most of it and translated the rest in Babel Fish), and in 'that' article, I think he's notable. Centenarians alone aren't, but Centenarians who are active college professors and founded the first biochemistry graduate program in China among some other things are. The English article stub should be deleted in my opinion and the Mandarin article should be translated directly to replace the stub(I forgot to put in signature, Karmafist 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete', per Karmafist's reasoning. There are so many people over 100 that they are not notable. Supercentenarians on the other hand may be rare enough to be notable :). Thue | talk 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is considered the founder of modern nutrition science in China by whom? Cite a reference, please. Kappa, if you're able to read and understand his entry in the Chinese Wikipedia, perhaps you can help with this. As mentioned above by Andrew Lenahan, being a centenarian alone is not enough. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete notability not established, --Tim Pope 20:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adequately notable jamesgibbon 22:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Pburka 00:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewritten article, Abstain. I translated the Chinese article and put the result in the English one. He had a long career as a professor and an administrator but I'd more likely vote Keep if he had made some scientific discoveries. Translating the article was a good exercise for me so I won't mind if it gets deleted. I also won't mind if someone wants to touch it up. --Beirne 03:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied by FCYTravis. —Cryptic (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua mead

[edit]

High school student who a) participates in Sheepish Productions, which is also up for VfD; b) played in a high school music festival two years ago; and c) ran a triathlon and came in 64th. DS 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Rumsfeld

[edit]

I can find trace of this person, nor her novels (there are novels with these titles, but the plots are completely different, and they're not by Jane Rumsfeld — whatever mysterious pseudonym she's supposed to write under). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moron's law

[edit]

Unencyclopedic if it even exists. Nrbelex (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivulet

[edit]

dicdef. DS 16:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fechner Blades

[edit]

Advertisement. DS 17:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, looks like an ad. Kushboy 21:27, August 7, 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 Keep, bad faith nomination. Essjay · Talk 01:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association

[edit]

DELETE this useless POS page.152.163.100.70 06:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Starblind. —Cryptic (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CarzyHKDog

[edit]

Vanity page for online gamer. (Delete) — Asbestos | Talk 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nnanity. FCYTravis 22:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mac franklin

[edit]

Anyone ever heard of this person? Deb 18:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Anders Hvoslef Lothe

[edit]

I thought Thomas "Rocco" Hansen was a joke, but he actually appears to be a real Norwegian gay pornstar. Lothe, on the other hand, may be real but non-notable, but I suspect an attack page or prank. I can't find anything relevant from a quick Google search. Uppland 19:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Racers

[edit]

Non-notable TV program. A few google hits, mostly linking back to pages like TV.com No specific information can be located; appears to be out of production. In any event, viewership isn't high enough to merit an article. -Soltak 19:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 17:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois

[edit]

Duplicate of item in List of schools in Wadsworth, Illinois --Tim Pope 20:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well as Tony has gone ahead and deleted the list, which by the way had had two other schools added to it, thus showing why the list was a better article as it actually got expanded, the reason now is, In my opinion, this article falls foul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Tim Pope 21:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's still the same article. I've simply reverted it to the version you listed for deletion and moved it over the license-busting clone that I deleted. Visviva's additions are still present, both in the history and in the two articles I created. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article. I will remove the problem by converting the entry in the list into a link to this article. Osomec 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do that until the outcome of this VFD. --Tim Pope 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You created the one item "list" as a precursor to trying to get this deleted. I believe it is the list that should be up for deletion. Osomec 21:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than hurl accusations, list that article for deletion then. --Tim Pope 21:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which will get a lot of votes to Keep and Expand. Vegaswikian 05:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 17:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power level (Dragon Ball)

[edit]

Not appropriate for Wikibooks, and a list of power levels is not encyclopediatic. Delete. A Link to the Past 21:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn.  Grue  21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to delete the list or the article which precedes it. Statistics are often listed in encyclopedias. This article also does not fall into the category of "What Wilkipedia is not". Keep. Socar15 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem: The article doesn't provide encyclopediatic information. The list of power levels is not information that is necessary. Statistics on, say, population in a city in an article ON the city is necessary. -- A Link to the Past 21:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you define "information that is necessary"? The article is more then just a list of numbers, it's an article on power levels, which is a very important aspect of the DBZ series. The article explains their uses, the history of them, and some other details. The article itself IS necessary for DBZ because power levels play such an important role almost a third of the entire series. And it can be argued that the numbers themselves that go along with that article are also necessary. Socar15 21:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you take away this information, which is valuable only to DBZ fans, it would work out just fine. Problem is, a merge of the rest of the information is unnecessary; we wouldn't need several paragraphs of information in the main article. It can be wittled down to a single paragraph, or even less. -- A Link to the Past 21:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • How did you determine that this article specifically is only valuable to DBZ fans? How would say, an article on a specific character, be any different? If an individual read something that referred to DBZ power levels (which is a pretty common thing) and went to look them up, I would think that the article would be very useful to someone who didn't know much about the topic itself. In this case, I don't believe deletion or a merge is necessary. Socar15 21:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smells suspiciously like fancruft to me.  Denelson83  21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why isn't this appropriate for Wikibooks? Is there a Dragon Ball Wikibook? - Thatdog 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was quoting the one guy that said Keep; he claimed that there was not enough content to move it to Wikibooks, that it's not big enough to be a guide. -- A Link to the Past 23:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruftGateman1997 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic description of a notable aspect of DBZ DB. Kappa 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable aspect of DBZ, you say? And by the way, power levels were not in DB, arose in DBZ, ended two sagas in, didn't appear in the GT series, and most of the article is a list of unencyclopediatic content. If it's taken away, then it's reduced to nothing, and if merged, it would be trimmed to a few sentences. -- A Link to the Past 00:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic, nonnotable, pointless. Nandesuka 02:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn exposition device. frequently parodied. Nifboy 17:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My only question is "how the hell did this last several months before being VfD?". The worst kind of cruft. - SoM 17:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Jinian 12:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Senzu

[edit]

Non-notable item in Dragon Ball Z. Delete. A Link to the Past 21:21, August 7, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Z Sword

[edit]

Non-notable Dragon Ball Z fancruft, used only for a very small portion of the series. Delete. A Link to the Past 21:20, August 7, 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 16:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeni

[edit]

Non-notable Dragon Ball Z currency. Delete. Change vote to Keep, but delete the DBZ content. A Link to the Past 21:21, August 7, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Thomas

[edit]

Being the relation of a notable preson does not make a person notable. Sonic Mew | talk to me 22:46, August 7, 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 (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 18:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellomoto

[edit]

Dicdef. —msh210 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corperia

[edit]

neologism, non-notable: 22 distinct googles, all of which point to wikipedia or its mirrors. Don't transwiki to wiktionary. RJFJR 23:34, August 7, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occult Scurvy

[edit]

It appears to be original research. The list of references at the end of the article states that "Of the 15,000,000 research papers on the National Library Medicine electronic database...None mentions or hypothesises occult scurvy, or connects occult with scurvy." Joyous (talk) 23:41, August 7, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firoz Shroff

[edit]

Bio page created by the person himself, possible copyright violations, vanity, not-notable. Eclipsed 00:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was in a way delete, but it appears that some of the content was merged, so redirect to AT&T is my call. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10-10-345 Lucky Dog

[edit]

Article appears to be no more than an advert for a phone service 62.173.111.114 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who created this article. I have no connection to this company whatsoever and I can assure you that I did not mean for this to be an advertisement. I had very little information about the company however, that this was all I could go on. I hope this clears up some of the question. --D-Day 20:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and change redirects to AT&T (reference). As a separate division, 10-10-345 has a modicum of notability as title sponsor on the Winston Cup circuit. The precedent with 1-800-COLLECT has been to merge and redirect with the parent company (in that case, MCI). I think redirects to AT&T are called for from 10-10-345, and Lucky Dog Phone Company, but 10-10-345 Lucky Dog itself should be deleted as an extremely unlikely search. I'm going to go ahead and do the stuff I can. I've tagged what appears to be more an ad banner than a fair-use logo as a "possibly unfree image", and don't think it should be preserved with the merged information. (Note for disambiguaters, "Lucky Dog" is also the name of a notable Hot Dog vender in New Orleans, Louisiana.) Dystopos 00:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • update. I've merged what little encyclopedic information there was into AT&T, tagged the car photo as a copyright violation, and changed links from other articles and redirects to point to AT&T. Everything should be in place to delete this article name. Dystopos 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_7&oldid=1081091759"