Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUSA President Al Wilson

Delete part of a string of SUSA-related articles. No notability established, and student organizations are not generally considered automatically notable. Friday 00:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Friday... oy vey with this SUSA thing, whatever the hell it is. Dcarrano 01:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
~~Impeach~~ Delete student-politics-cruft. --Calton | Talk 02:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Let's be clear: nothing is inherently a keep. It's article by article. There are, however, subjects that are almost always not notable, and student organizations are one of them. The answer would be, if it were on a campus organization, to redirect to a section of the university article. In the case of a person holding an office on campus, there's no point at all. Delete without hesitation. Geogre 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a leader of a student organization does not make a person "notable". -- DS1953 04:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this does not add value. Nandesuka 13:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yes no value addition.--Bhadani 15:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable student. JamesBurns 02:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move and replace with redirect.. – Rich Farmbrough 14:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000000000

~~I think this should be either deleted or redirected to trillion. Oleg Alexandrov 00:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

delete, plain and simple. Oleg Alexandrov 22:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~This should be moved to quintillion, I'd say. Redirect. -- A Link to the Past 01:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)~~
Redirect to ~~either~~ trillion (European usage) ~~or quintillion~~ (U.S. usage). ‡ Jarlaxle 01:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Rather, redirect to trillion, as quintillion already redirects to Names of large numbers. ‡ Jarlaxle 01:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Revolución 01:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete! According to Wikipedia naming conventions, this title would apply to the year AD 1000000000000000000, just like 2000, 1945, 476 and 3. A D Monroe III 02:58, 16 July 2005 (according to edit history Uncle G 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: Redirect would be misdirected, and there's nothing in the article. Geogre 03:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either the large numbers page or binary. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Names of large numbers --malathion ^talk 04:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been mentioned, this article title would be for a year, even if that year happens to be one which will occur long after our Sun has been extinguished. Kairos 05:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the sort of thing that motivated the creation of the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/500,000.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers states that only "some powers of ten" beyond 9000 warrant individual articles. The argument over whether an article about the number should redirect to trillion or to quintillion, as per Oleg Alexandrov, A Link to the Past, and JarlaxleArtemis above, is exactly why this page has come to VFD in the first place. See the edit history. It's not a settlable argument, as attested by Names of large numbers, list of numbers, Orders of magnitude (numbers), and English-language numerals, all of which already cover the several names that the number can have in various systems. 1 E18 redirects to Orders of magnitude (numbers). A 1000000000000000000 (number) article should do likewise. Just as 1000000000 (number) already does.
However, this isn't 1000000000000000000 (number). As per A D Monroe III, Kairos, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), 1000000000000000000 is the article title for a year, even though the article says nothing about the year at all. If it redirects anywhere, it should redirect to 11th millennium and beyond. Since there's nothing in either article about the year, and probably (given what Kairos says above) nothing to be said about the year, simply Delete. Uncle G 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G --malathion ^talk 10:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to names of large numbers since the content appears to be solely about the difference in names for this number, and the other article covers this. 23skidoo 14:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious from the article that the editor intended to discuss the number, not the year. Since the name of the number varies in different forms of English, redirect to Names of large numbers. Dcarrano 21:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- What the editor intended to discuss is irrelevant. The naming conventions are clear that 1000000000000000000 is the title for an article on the year and 1000000000000000000 (number) is the title for an article on the number, and this is the system followed elsewhere. (See Category:Integers.) A redirect from a year title to an article on a number would be contrary to the naming conventions. What the original authors wrote isn't even important from the perspective of retaining information. We already had four separate articles (listed above) telling us the various names of the number. Uncle G 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, you're right that the naming conventions need to be followed. So, let's rename this to 1000000000000000000 (number), an article that can explain the various names for this number and anything else that can be said about it, along the lines of the current 100000 (number), 1000000 (number), and 1000000000000 (which probably itself should be called 1000000000000 (number). Damn, this is confusing... Dcarrano 01:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    - Good point about 1000000000000. It's now fixed. I moved it to 1000000000000 (number), and redirected 1000000000000 to 11th millennium and beyond. --A D Monroe III 15:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note this is not my suggestion of what to do with this article. My vote is still Delete, as above (thanks for signing for me, Uncle G). I hope this article is deleted, and then I'll start Vfd on 1000000000000, as a nonsense year, just like this one. --A D Monroe III 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It being a redirect, WP:RFD would be the place to discuss 1000000000000. Uncle G 10:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Too late! Some admin has deleted and protected 1000000000000. So, guys, why are we debating this, huh? --A D Monroe III 13:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete. -- A Link to the Past 23:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. Strong Oppose any renaming as nearing the absurd. Xoloz 03:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy, now the redirects have been done. Does this affect the status of this VfD? Should the matter now be discussed at RfD? Xoloz 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The actual article under discussion has not been redirected. Uncle G 10:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note how easy it is to confuse 1000000000000 and 1000000000000000000. All the more reason to delete both. --A D Monroe III 14:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ludicrous. R adiant _>|< 13:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~~~ 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the creator and I only created it due to disputes overe where it should redirect. A redirect to 11th millennium and beyond looks good (if someone wants to add info on the year (astrological events etc) then they should put it there). The 1000000000000000000 (number) article should redirect to orders of magnitude (numbers). --Celestianpower ^talk 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. I forget what zero I'm on after the fourth one, trillion is a better name anyway ;) . ∞Who ?¿? 10:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or this will make a crazy article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is already an article for large numbers, so this is not particularly necessary. IINAG 18:48, 23rd July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not even worth a redirect... jg325 *talk* 23:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or someone creates 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Laur 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda bastards

band vanity. Article does not establish notability. EvilPhoenix talk 00:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

In a fit of utter optimism, I checked AMG. Nothing. Delete Friday 00:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 14 Google hits, most in German. Oh, if only there were only some proposal to expand the speedy delete criteria... --A D Monroe III 03:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Banity. No records, no distribution, no advertising on Wikipedia. (I'd vote "yes" on pretty much any expansion of CSD, being a former policy revision proposer.) Geogre 03:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Newbie aside here: how do you find out how many google hits a site has?)

Delete. Bastards' website is almost empty, little verifiable information available. Pburka 15:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good criterion for deciding whether a band/musician is notable enough is allmusic.com, and Barracuda Bastards is not listed. (Of course, even bands that are listed aren't automatically notable either.)--Benfergy 18:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 02:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 06:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless (Go to the City)

Apparently, lyrics are copyright infringement. Nonnotable song, besides that its orphaned.Redwolf24 00:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copyvio/non-notable song. Dcarrano 01:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as irremediable copyvio. I know that's an idiosyncratic criterion, and those who disagree can certainly go through VfU, but there is no way to remedy the copyvio here. Take out the copyright violation, and you must have an article on the song. This is a deep track, not a chart topper, and there just isn't much to say about it. Geogre 03:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paint The Town Clear Gloss

Radio show. Questionable notability. EvilPhoenix talk 00:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ordinary ex-radio show with no claims to notability and 4 Google hits. --A D Monroe III 03:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I guess you had to be there, and that is the problem. What significance does this show have? It was a show. Was it national? (No indication of its audience given.) Was it a thing referred to in popular culture (the newspaper account of one DJ accusing the other of plagiarism doesn't count)? There are lots of radio shows, and they're generally forgotten. We never predict whether one will be forgotten or not; instead, we have to wait for proof that it hasn't been forgotten, because we're a tertiary information source. Geogre 03:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marge into 3RRR. Not notable. (However, I listened to this show all the time.) brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paint The Town Clear Gloss was a very influencial show on 3RRR upt there with The Skull Cave, Talk is Cheap, Station TO Station circa late 90's.

Well, arguing that there were three other shows on the same station at the same time of the same notability hurts your case quite a bit. Delete, unless proof of special notability given. Dcarrano 21:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable radio show. JamesBurns 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed it was already considered for deletion since July of last year. Why has this article not been deleted? Although I'm sure EVA-R has its fanbase, a fanfic is more than likely not noteworthy enough to warrant its own entry on Wikipedia. --Maikeru 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination located here. Royboy crashfan 00:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion: R

Non-notable anime fanfic--only 190 displayed hits, and most are on sites where anyone can post links to their sites, and/or don't mention "Neon Genesis Evangelion: R" when you go to them. Niteowlneils 00:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most fanfic is not notable. Dcarrano 01:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I concur with the above. --StoneColdCrazy 04:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I remember seeing this fanfic years and years ago. It doesn't really warrant a Wikipedia article, though. Delete. Kairos 05:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT, I get 2000 hits 132.205.45.148 15:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE 132.205.45.148 15:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Half want to delete, half want to transwiki. This is a problem that can be remedied by the application of patience. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff Quest Guide

Game guide for MMORPG currently in beta test, according to Flyff. WP is not a "how to" site. Also, subpages such as Flyff Quest Guide General. Niteowlneils 00:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks, where the game guides live. Dcarrano 01:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, game isn't complete yet so no point in having a guide now. R adiant _>|< 13:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki The game is playable, and pretty far along in terms of completion, so being 'complete' isn't a reason not to have a guide. Plus by definition, MMOs are never 'complete'. So a guide is needed, trust me, if you played the game, you'd know. But the wikipedia isn't the place for it.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.U.S.A

Melodramatic beyond words. And someone has been deleting what other people have been adding to the article.

Delete Lots of information on the politics of this student organization, but nothing to assert notability. Friday 00:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAKE IT STOP ALREADY... Delete, most student clubs are not notable. Really. Honestly. They aren't. If you lost an election... you won't care about it in about six months. I know it's hard to believe now, but seriously, it's true. Please begin the healing process now. Dcarrano 01:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article basically says: "We are SO not notable" in a hundred different ways. --A D Monroe III 03:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why are those links in it blue? Someone is documenting his private Hell on Wikipedia. Sorry, but that's private, and, as Marcus Aurelius said, "Soon, you will have forgotten the world, and it will have forgotten you." Campus organization with a non-unique acronym name. Can't redirect for that reason. Geogre 03:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh God. Wikipedia is not Livejournal. --StoneColdCrazy 04:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm afraid jamesgibbon 13:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. This isn't a student club, but a students' union, of which most universities have but one. If you remove the middle paragraphs about the recent election, it's a fine stub. See Category:Students' unions for examples of some precedents. Pburka 15:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Smerge and redirect to the university. I can't see it being its own article, regardless of other examples. -R. fiend 16:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every university has a student union. That makes them even less notable than your average student group. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every country has a capital city: I think significance may be a better way to judge things than dismissing them for not having a special element. Seeaxid 11:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But I don't think it's significant on its own, either. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Geogre. Xoloz 03:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most relevant information: they have some importance within the university, but otherwise not; the university article is bare anyway. Seeaxid 11:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable student group. JamesBurns 02:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gogiga Gagagigo

Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Delete Friday 00:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not encyclopedic, as far as YGO goes. Delete Circeus 01:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all Yu-Gi-Oh! card articles. Revolución 01:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cards that contribute majorly to the storyline should be included, such as Blue-Eyes White Dragon and Dark Magician. Both are signature cards of the major protagonist's enemy and the major protagonist. DrachenFyre 01:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to something more useful perhaps? Like a list of YGO cards, if we have such a thing. Agentsoo 02:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a single card. Unless we want to start hosting an article per baseball card, complete with trading value (and one for every year of every player's career), we shouldn't be in the business of documenting every card in a game. We don't do it with Magic, and we shouldn't do it with anything else, either. Geogre 03:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree totally with DrachenFyre. Almafeta 16:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre. Major, notable cards can be kept (the archetypal example being Black Lotus), but most CCG cards are nowhere near notability. Meelar (talk) 19:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yu-Gi-Oh cards are not notable. Grue 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable cardcruft. JamesBurns 02:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasKEEP: 5k, 2d. -Splash 23:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Garbage's Outrageous Bathroom Book

I would say that this doesn't belong in Wiki, becauase:

a/ If we added every book we fancied then we'd just duplicate Amazon, etc.
b/ The links are for ISBNs which, surely, would only link through to a page that couldn't be about anything other than the same book that they've just linked from!

-- user:Matt.whitby

Why I believe this belongs: The book itself is noteworthy imho, because it has been cited by many in the media including Howard Stern on occasion. If the ISBN number references are a problem, I could remove these. (preceding unsigned comment by Mikemoto 23:36, July 8, 2005 UTC)
Apropos Matt.whitby's second point: Note that Wikipedia has an automatic markup for ISBNs, that causes them to link to Special:Booksources. See Help:ISBN links. I've fixed the markup in the article. Uncle G 08:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and notable book. What's wrong with duplicating Amazon? Pburka 15:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified stub. Almafeta 16:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- on the grounds that I worked in a bookstore and was never asked for it, never saw it, never heard of it. I would say that Uncle John's Bathroom Readers are notable, but not this. Parodies usually tend to be rather more ephemeral than their antecedents, and though there are cases where the parody itself is notable, this ain't The Wind Done Gone. Haikupoet 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All published books (except vanity press creations. Wikipedia has a guideline saying that IMDb, which is more thorough than WP will ever be, is no reason to reject movies, actors, etc. So too with books and Amazon, I think. Xoloz 03:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book has some notability. JamesBurns 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding Death Metal

DELETE. This is what grindcore basically is. --GVOLTT 16:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. This is a duplicative genre entry for death metal --Aboverepine
Delete although I suspect sock puppet voting here. --malathion ^talk 04:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
not sure why the sockpuppet is needed to delete this, but malathion has a point; User:Aboverepine made this delete vote as his very first edit. Still, this article rates a Delete. Friday 05:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Death Metal or Grindcore, whichever is more appropriate. I know nothing about either genre, so I can't say. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-existent genre.... Spearhead 16:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every band has its own genre. R adiant _>|< 13:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-existant genre. JamesBurns 02:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grindcore Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Pigs

Non-notable band, "groove pigs" gets 96 google hits, "groove pigs" band gets 45. Also, very POV laden and poorly written. If they are real and notable, then a severe rewrite is in order. Otherwise... this article gets the boot! --Adun 02:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic, boring and not notable. Delete. Agentsoo 02:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to anything notable. --A D Monroe III 03:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bandcruft. Friday 04:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Allmusic.com listing but no written entry. Gamaliel 04:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Copyvio. Gamaliel 16:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The band does have a name and is famous among the underground, but that's not really sufficient. Also, this "article" has every whiff of being copyvio. It's POV as a teenage crush. Whether the band rates or not, we don't need this article. Geogre 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if someone replaces the copyvio of http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Groove_Pigs/index-0.html. Pburka 16:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity, no indication of notability (earthlink homepage?). And apparent copyvio. --Etacar11 02:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidleines. JamesBurns 02:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasKEEP unanimously (including the nominator, apparently). Splash 23:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Growth hormone-releasing factor

Keep- Rewrite - It was worth delting before, but I've removed the rubbish from it, however it's not much more than a stub. Spaully 10:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure: It should be Human Growth hormone releasing factor. Further, the bit about its pulsatile expression during hypoglycemia is misleading at best. It's a detail that isn't germane, because hypoglycemia is not going to make someone taller; rather, during local hypoglycemia, an increased expression is found (very small amounts). The various connections between this and glucagon factors is interesting, but, well, we're not really a biochem site. (I used to work with IGF's.) Geogre 03:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I've been working at a lab where they're doing work with rat GHRF; it's not solely linked to humans. Keep. DS 14:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it from the pituitary? Is it released in a pulsatile manner? Is it increased in hypoglycemia? I.e. is this article about GHRF or about hGHRF? In either case, what else is there to say about it? What are the clinical presentations of surplus and deficit in humans (i.e. is this the cause of acromegaly, or is it something else? is this the cause of dwarfism, or is it something else?). Is it ever administered therapeutically? If not, why not. (I know why not, but the article doesn't tell anyone else.) If so, in what cases? What are the other factors produced by its metabolism or production? I.e. if there's going to be an article on this factor, I'd hope that it would contextualize and make the information informative to readers who aren't working in endocrine and protein labs. Geogre 15:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable. — RJH 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. JamesBurns 02:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary: 5t, 1d. Added to transwiki log. -Splash 23:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guttersnipe

A neoligism (I forgot the correct term) and a definition. Therefore, I say delete. ‡ Jarlaxle June 29, 2005 22:36 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a neoligism, it has been attested since at least the victorian era, and probably earlier, in the UK. It is derived from the words Gutter and Snipe (as in Sniper). E.g. Charles Dickens uses the term. There are also 30,900 google hits for the term. But, as a dictionary definition - move to Wiktionary. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dcarrano 01:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki if it's not already there. It's a lovely word, well attested, though this definition is not the best. A snipe who lives in the gutter -- a gutter dweller -- is a gutter snipe (a ground bird that likes ditches). Geogre 03:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Per Dcarrano --malathion ^talk 04:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. It's not a neologism, but not something one would expect to see in an encyclopedia.Nandesuka 13:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cayce Guest

This article was on CSD and does not appear to be meet the requirements for speedy deletion, so I am moving it to VfD. DS1953 01:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

46 Google hits, virtually none of them relevant. Delete, non-notable dancer. Dcarrano 22:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fase 100

This artist is not (yet) notable. The article contains practically no information of any value. Links to it could be placed with simple parentheticals that Big Fase is The Game's brother. I recommend that be done so that this article can be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to The Game (rapper). Almafeta 16:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability until he releases his own music. Dcarrano 22:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 02:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until Big Fase 100 gets a biography and detailed information then I would include this as a part of Wikipedia. So therefore let it be gone. No need for it. LILVOKA----- 12:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: unanimously apart from nominator. -Splash 23:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barðaströnd

Not sure what the historical significance is, perhaps this place is mentioned in the Icelandic Sagas but that's not explained here. Google search produced little info in English or in Icelandic. I suggest deletion unless someone can write a real article about this place. Gsd97jks 02:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "The I Ching is a book." What more need be explained? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real place. Kappa 03:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently all real places are notable now. --malathion ^talk 04:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I always lent to that school of thought, but is it policy/guideline/etc? brenneman^(t)^(c) 05:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. And when push comes to shove even those who vote "Keep all X", for various values of X, turn out in fact to have notability criteria. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Danmark (island) for an example of "keep all real places" voters voting to delete an article on a real place. The decision on whether to keep an article on a place in practice has always depended from more than whether the place is merely real. Uncle G 09:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article as created told us no more, and in fact somewhat less, than the redlink that stood in History of Iceland. I've supplied some context for the claim of historical significance and some links to pictures and maps. My translation is unsatisfactory, however. Weak keep. Uncle G 09:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Uncle G for supplying more information. However, I've corrected the tourist attraction link - actually those attractions are within an hour or two of this place, not in it. I'll try to find more info about this place and flesh out the article a bit... I may even have a photo having just been near there... but still, I'm not sure this valley is worth an entry when most of the towns around here, and the whole Vestfirðir region, aren't in Wikipedia yet. Gsd97jks 13:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How would removing this entry benefit wikipedia? Kappa 13:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I do agree with comments of Uncle G and others. Further, absence of articles on related places of more significance, in my opinion, should not be a ground for a delete. I do believe those places would also get at least a stub soon.--Bhadani 16:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it's been expanded to a stub. - Mustafaa 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly legitimate article. PatGallacher 18:08, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
Keep. Place of historic interest in Iceland. Thanks for the rewrite Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it's an actual place, although it's not an valley like stated in the article but a coast, strönd means coast. --Bjarki 00:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that my translation was unsatisfactory. ☺ Uncle G 01:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work on this, and it's certainly a valid topic for an article. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now that it's been expanded, I think that it deserves a chance. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional republic

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Denni ☯ 02:07, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly not an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly. — mendel ☎ 04:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I concur. --StoneColdCrazy 04:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hm, is this from the 2003 California recall election? Ballot statements of fringe candidates are non-encyclopedic. Oh ... original research, rant. -EDM 04:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Soapbox K1Bond007 06:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete jamesgibbon 13:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge anything worth keeping into Republic. Pburka 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay. Kaibabsquirrel 20:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 02:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). I count 9 delete votes and 6 keep votes, and nothing particular in the comments to make me deviate from the two-thirds guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 Oz Mouse

Advertising for a TV series that's yet to be aired. -- Hoary 02:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is about a TV show? Really? It's the worst writing I've seen on new page watch today. When it gets written, it should be of a standard like First Monday, a recent creation. Harro5 03:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. The pilot episode has already been screened. Seems pretty well written to me, just not boring enough for an encyclopedia. Kappa 03:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written fancruft, and there is no way to tell if this show will even get a time slot, let alone become popular enough to warrant its own article. --malathion ^talk 04:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but requires improvement; if you think that this constitutes good writing then please don't try any of your own. Ben-w 10:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fumigate afterwards. If and when the program actually shows up, then someone can write an actual article. --Calton | Talk 13:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons discussed by Calton. Nandesuka 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Kappa says the show's an actual show, that's confirmation enough for me. Almafeta 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I was going by what the article said, but the imdb has an entry [1] Kappa 17:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But not at the Adult Swim site, oddly enough. --Calton | Talk 00:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup (heavily). However, if the show goes nowhere (which is possible), would it be acceptable to delete it later? --Benfergy 18:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite. This is a real show. The pilot aired in the U.S. on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block on June 19 and was seen by over half a million people. The article needs a LOT of work but that's not grounds for deletion. - Thatdog 18:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actual episodes beyond the pilot, sure, but having pilot episode by itself is meaningless, since Hollywood grinds out dozens of pilots that go precisely nowhere and are remembered by no one. --Calton | Talk 00:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some kind of fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless the show goes beyond a pilot. R adiant _>|< 13:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks like Adult Swim has ordered 6 more episodes [2] Rx StrangeLove 00:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pilot episode - notability not established, as per User:Calton. JamesBurns 02:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No importance at the moment. Indrian 14:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam halani

Vanity page about an innocuous-sounding young man. -- Hoary 02:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, vanity, not at all useful. --StoneColdCrazy 04:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Friday 05:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May God Bless him.--Bhadani 16:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 23:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 02:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 02:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP unanimously, including nominator. -Splash 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the Masters

Page created by known problem user. Show has no IMDB entry, and Google turns up few hits for a television show by this name. See also this discussion for the user's own comments about the article. Even if show is real, article is suspect due to user's previous vandalism and trolling of articles such as Scooby-Doo. BrianSmithson 02:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending verification. I see no reason why this would be a made up entry and the IMDb is becoming very anal when it comes to adding TV series. Their rule now is if there isn't a website devoted to it somewhere they won't list it (learned from personal experience). Article is only a couple weeks old, so I think there should be a bit more time given in order to confirm/deny this show existed. Existence of series confirmed here. Expanding article accordingly. PS. I quickly found references to guest stars and a premiere date. It's a stub, but a legitimate article now. 23skidoo 05:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to Keep, then. Thanks, 23skidoo. BrianSmithson 05:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But, when was the classical music series canceled on WGN-TV in Chicago? (this vote replaced by the final comment, the history shows)-Splash 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (closing VfD)[reply]
- I couldn't find exact dates, however it most likely only ran during the spring of 1952. 23skidoo 00:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate article --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I change my vote to Keep, now, but contact NBC and WGN, first.

65.54.xxx.xxx?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey.org

Just another ISP. A key sentence may be: It is not generally known how to obtain the services of monkey.org, but most of the user base is known to be friends or acquaintances of the three guys who run it. Right. The notability hardly jumps off the screen, and WP is not a web directory. -- Hoary 02:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the conjecture. I was not aiming for a vanity page, "Please don't bite the newcomers." Advice appreciated. Dirt 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dirt, don't feel bad. Nobody's going to get mad at an innocent newbie. However, it's likely that this article will be deleted. Many editors are against the creation of what they feel are vanity articles, even though that wasn't your intent. Also, there are many, many ISPs in the world, just like there are many bands, many teachers, and many websites. Many people here believe that a subject should be noteworthy in some way to have an article. Normally, I'd be voting to delete, but I won't vote in this case, in hopes that you realize the community here really is generally friendly. Hope you stick around, and don't take it personally if this article gets deleted. Friday 03:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply In hindsight, ISP was a bad choice of word (acronym) - i chose it because there was an article i could link to. I've changed the wording - and found a new article to link to. monkey.org spawned a handful of well known computer security researchers and has since become home to others, articles about whom i plan to write (or at least stub.) Having been involved in the monkey.org project for so long i thought it would be a decent article to write from scratch. I'll continue to flesh it out until it is deleted or not - at the very least this is a good learning experience. As a side note, i've been browsing and tweaking wikipedia for a while, but only today did i create an acount. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Dirt 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but only because I like to be consistent. It is a pleasant change for the author of a ~~vanity~~ page about themselves to sound so reasonable. With an Alexa ranking 41,239 this will probably end up deleted (under 10,000 is the suggestion at WP:WEB). Could Dirt not Userfy this page? You know, so that day when it hits 9,973 it's all set to go? brenneman^(t)^(c) 05:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't intending this to be an article about a web site (alexa 41k is suprising, haven't looked in years) but about the folks who have come out of, or to monkey.org. The web site itself has almost zero content. Any suggestions on how i can move this out of the realm of 'userfy?' Dirt 06:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you could write a more general article about Internet collectives/co-ops? AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam! -- FunkyChicken! 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I thank you for your word, although i'm not sure how you meant to use it - there's not even a google spaming link in the article. Thanks for your comment. Dirt 06:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, vanity. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable web host, but well-written and do hope you stick around. Dcarrano 22:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable. I am not against a Userfy if the author so wishes, however. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one userfy, aside from cut/paste? No wikipedia entry for Userfy. Thanks... Dirt 23:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, cut/paste is pretty much the only option; however, we were all newbies once, so I did you a favor. Oh, and delete the article from the main namespace. DS 13:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, website advertising. JamesBurns 02:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Page nominated for deletion by its creator and sole editor. And we do indeed have both Category:Saturday Night Live Hosts and List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests, as its author explained. Speedy deletion criterion G7 applies. Uncle G 10:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live Hosts

I apologize, this is a duplicate page but I created it anyway. The other one is much better and I should have looked harder for it. Sorry. 69.164.217.8 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As the author of the article, you could have requested speedy deletion and avoided VfD. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, criteria #7. -- DS1953 02:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 MERGE and REDIRECT unanimously. All content already in target, so just redirected. -Splash 23:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeo Crystal

This article was on CSD as "nonsense" but it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I am moving it here instead. However, my vote is keep or merge with Power Rangers: Zeo. -- DS1953 02:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Power Rangers: Zeo and redirect. Denni ☯ 03:38, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
Keep. If the decision is to delete, please merge into MMPR:Zeo before deletion. Almafeta 16:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Power Rangers: Zeo. Certainly no indication here that this requires its own article. Dcarrano 22:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, WP:FICT. R adiant _>|< 13:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Power Rangers: Zeo. JamesBurns 02:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Daoist Catholic Sabbatarian Church

Does this count as a vanity page? In any event, highly obscure. JGorton 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Religions are bound to be notable to someone. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC) Umm, BJAODN. Only 8 people, with a humorous intent behind the article? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. It seems kinda factual when you look at the material citing emperor constantine. It doesn't have the typical bearings of a vanity article. -Descartes13
Delete A "religion" of 8 people eh? Friday 04:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity joke hoax spam. -EDM 05:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not even funny. --Marcus22 11:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It exists. I'm in it. Just because we're not famous doesn't mean we should be completely ignored. Jesus, six months and we're already being discriminated against. (Unsigned comment by 68.168.80.186 -- Almafeta 16:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable, no sign of notability. Almafeta 16:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dcarrano 22:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~~~ 13:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 02:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gagged on this drivel! Peter Ellis 04:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Brabyn

Exquisitely non-notable. Denni ☯ 03:00, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Delete ... Unless you're at Halifax College, but I agree. JGorton 03:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable college administrator. Dcarrano 22:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax College. This page is redundant with content already on the Halifax College page. — RJH 23:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax College, nothing to merge. JamesBurns 02:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--GrandCru 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Garrett

Non-notable, vanity. Denni ☯ 03:29, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Vanity-Excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments. I did not write this article about myself. But I do agree that you may delete it because it is not very notable. I must state this again it was not vanity.--User:Lizardking85
- "Vanity" has a special meaning in the context of these discussions -- WP:VAIN. Xoloz 03:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the author says it's not notable. --malathion ^talk 04:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Vanity doesn't quite have the dictionary meaning in this context; WP:VAIN. But of course, delete, no claim to notability. Dcarrano 22:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity (in the Wiki context). --Etacar11 02:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Xoloz 03:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone like to explain in what context Vanity is supposed to have? By the way how long does it take for an article to be deleted and as an author would I be able to delete it myself? (Unsigned comment by Lizardking85)
- Follow the link to WP:VAIN to understand what we mean. Only admins can delete articles. Once an article goes to vfd, it is debated for at least 5 days, sometimes longer. --Etacar11 19:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got what you mean now. --Lizardking85
Speedy, blanked by originator. Dcarrano 00:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 02:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page.--GrandCru 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral compass

"Moral compass" is simply a figure of speech that concretizes our moral principles. This article is just an excuse for personal-essay observations ("In some cases, failure to comply with one's own moral compass may leave emotional scars which could take years to heal, if they ever do."), a soapbox-full of quotes, and linkspamming for Holonomic brain theory(!) Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC) and redirect to Morality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the genesis of the article was a statement, in a May 31 e-mail, from a UK physician expressing concern about another MD promoting software that filters out the comments of vaccine policy critics from BMJ 'rapid responses': "I have no way of knowing how his mind works or what motivates him - though he does seem to take the medical establishment line on vaccines. It seems to me that the only sensible line to take is an open one, because no one can say for certain whether MMR and/or thiomersal is implicated or not in the cause of autism. It seems quite plausible to me that mercury may play a role in ASDs. The few doctors who bother to contribute to the debates on vaccines at the BMJ tend to be patronisingly certain about their safety." Thoughts along the lines of how rose colored glasses may often be used by doctors, to shield themselves from common sense, came to mind. Initially he article's content was largely limited to relevant quotes, rather than "essay observation," due to the relative dearth of available material defining 'moral compass'. An article on the topic is quite necessary to fill the void. Wikipedia, as an institutional memory resource, is well suited to helping rectify this glaring blind spot. Ombudsman 04:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that digression on thimersol and vaccines and autism. Responding to the portion of your statement relating to the VfD, "the dearth of available material defining 'moral compass'" would seem to be an argument not to have an article on "moral compass", not to fill up the article with personal essay, quotations and links. Perhaps the reason there is a dearth of material defining "moral compass" is because the simple dictionary definition says all that needs to be said. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without the POV and irrelevant bits it's a dicdef. — mendel ☎ 04:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
keep: An interesting observation, Antaeus, but not one that justifies deletion. The concept is inherently thought provoking, quite useful as an anchor for Socratic discourse, and one that has been around a long time. The divergence between relativistic and absolutist morality strikes to the heart of POV issues, a matter that the complementary article could not fully address, and would have to treat as an aside. Please feel free to discuss your concerns on talk pages, improve upon content, or contribute salient material, rather than using reverts, edit summaries and deletion proposals to fork discussion by inappropriate means. Ombudsman 04:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain exactly what it means to "fork discussion", since you are tossing that accusation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The passage that disconcerted you has been revised. A request for discussion, preferably sans stemwinding, is not an accusation. There are no entries yet on the article's discussion page, where your concerns might have been worked out collegially in lieu of a premature VfD. Ombudsman 22:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And then again they might just have gotten patronized with responses heavy in words like "collegially" and "stemwinding", and accusations of "fork[ing] discussion by inappropriate means". I ask you once again, what is "forking discussion"? Please don't pretend that you wrote everything after "rather than" in that sentence in a purely hypothetical spirit and had no idea it could possibly be interpreted as an accusation; that's insultingly false and uncivil. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper Antaeus Feldspar. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 04:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as material well covered in Morality. And a bit of WP:CIV would not go astray. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Colloquial and un-encyclopedic. This has no philosophical relevance. --malathion ^talk 10:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay. Kaibabsquirrel 20:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Dcarrano 22:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Morality. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Notable term, gets 209,000 Google hits, and I've heard of it often on the radio (mainly conservatively oriented stations). --Idont Havaname 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay, no citations. Stephenhumphry 07:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per BluAardvark. R adiant _>|< 13:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep usefull information. Ravedave 21:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's useful about it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the information will be useful for anthropological analysis as to whether or not editors of the Wikipedia, collectively, have any semblance of a moral compass. Ombudsman 04:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guilt and merge anything useful there that isn't already covered. — RJH 23:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 02:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is real in the sense that it is often used rhetorical devise. It is often used in accusations that the opposing faction or person lacks the moral compass (presumably similar to that of the speaker) for whatever reason. In this form this is POV musings, referring to moral compass as something more absolute. It would require an extensive rewrite to include the rhetorical use. - Skysmith"
Delete, per the dicta of my moral compass--original research, for one thing. Iralith 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into Morality. Add a definition to Wiktionary as well. Thryduulf 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JamesBurns, it's a POV essay. Willmcw 01:08, 23 July 2005
- So, are you saying the Wikipedia doesn't have room for articles about the moral bearings of POV? With so much discussion on the Wiki about POV, and tens of thousands of goofle hits providing secondary evidence of the significance of the concept, such a conclusion seems odd. Ombudsman 05:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for adding my signature. A NPOV, sourced article about a POV is perfectly acceptable. Article like Conservatism, Liberalism, Antidisestablishmentarianism, you name it. But we don't have room for POV, unsourced essays.
Delete / salvage to Morality: I went through an NPOV battle myself; not worth the time to defend. Take whats encyclopedic and merge it before it gets deleted. Cwolfsheep 15:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but slap a complete rewrite notice on it and copy this debate to the talk page. A moral compass is a thing, maybe distinguishable from morality proper. Decide whether to merge after it's been rewritten. I couldn't resist a bit of ~~copyediting~~ cleanup on it, although I'm aware typos pale to nothing in the list of objections to the article as it stands. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shmorky

Being able to use Flash doesn't make you notable. Goplat 04:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any critical information into Something Awful, as Shmorky already has a subsection in that article. - Thatdog 18:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Thatdog. Dcarrano 22:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable nick. JamesBurns 02:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mowsen

Vanity or nonsense. Delete. DS1953 04:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, hoax/unverifiable. No Google hits for Mr. Mowsen [3] or his alleged "Strangled Catz" band [4]. Dcarrano 22:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Dcarrano. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable copyvio, non-notable, non-encyclopedic, obvious data dump. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified/possible vanity. "Watch this space"? No. --Etacar11 02:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 02:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psi Phi Sector 001

Delete nn student organization ChelleRae 3 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

Delete unencyclopedic - no evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)
Delete, most student clubs are not notable. Dcarrano 22:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Roeth

This page offers no new information about this individual, merely duplicating what is originally stated in the Kinsey biography, and so is not even worth a merger. Unless we can find any more information about Mrs Roeth I would suggest this is one to be nuked. StoneColdCrazy 04:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (even as a microstub). The information about Roeth in the Kinsey article is buried somewhere, but there's no good reason to make people search for it. Think of it this way: someone redirected through Natalie Roeth to Alfred Kinsey is going to say "Huh?" instead of "Oh". Wile E. Heresiarch 04:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC) Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure anyone is, though, a Google search for Roeth brings up about half a dozen hits, some of which are actually generated from Wikipedia itself, in one form or another. Also, we already have a number of redirects, the reasons behind which are not always immediately obvious and require the searcher to investigate the article. I'd surmise that anyone using Wikipedia is going to be a little investigative, too. --StoneColdCrazy 05:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. I've changed my mind after reading some of the other comments here. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; being an inspirational high school teacher, as crucial as that is for society, is not encyclopedic. Wile E.'s argument above proves too much IMO; I see it as an argument to delete (i.e., it demonstrates that Roeth is not even a big part of Kinsey 's story, never mind getting one of her own), rather than as a reason to keep an article about an obscurity. Dcarrano 22:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Dcarrano and suspicios lack of sources. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established (nor establishable given the comments above). -Splash 00:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alfred Kinsey, nothing to merge. JamesBurns 02:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 02:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Non-notable.--GrandCru 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Taverner

She's pretty hot, but sadly she's just another interchangeable product of the sex industry. Just as there is an average professor test, there needs to be an average pr0n queen test. On the evidence of the article, she's on the wrong side of the line. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the picture on the page is appropriate for Wikipedia. (I hope I make this vote correctly!) Jakes18 03:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable enough. The photo on the site now is possibly a no-no and probably a copyvio. 23skidoo 05:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright considerations aside, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Uncle G 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page 3 girls from the Sun are not notable unless known for other things. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page 3 girls from the Sun are seen by millions of people. Kappa 09:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So are people who are mentioned in newspapers in actual news articles. Yet the consensus was to delete Maureen Faibish. Uncle G 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not an entertainment figure. Kappa 14:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Page Three girls are "pr0n queens" is a subject of longstanding debate. It's irrelevant here, though. These are women who are simply models that have their pictures shown in a newspaper, and no more meet the WP:BIO criteria on that ground than do the models that drape themselves over cars and furniture in newspaper advertisements to sell cars and furniture. Page Three girls can be encyclopaedia-worthy, but they have to do more than just appear on page 3 in order to be so. Some have. Samantha Fox had a career as a pop singer and as a presenter, Jo Guest has a career as a television presenter, as does Melinda Messenger, and ... you can read about Jordan (model) yourself. This model has, per this biography, done exactly none of these things. Delete. Uncle G 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I turned up that biography via a Google Web search, it being the first result in the search for "Anna Taverner" biography. I've since discovered that following any of the hyperlinks on the biography leads, either directly or via just 1 intermediate step, to pornography. Some research reveals that this site hosts a wide range of biographies on people from Anna Taverner to Lindsay Lohan, doubtless for the express purpose of capturing Google searches, all of which are just fronts. This calls the legitimacy of the information contained in that biography into question, of course. If the hyperlinks are lies, why not the rest of it, too? My vote remains unchanged. I cannot find any other biographies that contain even as much information as that one. Seemingly all that is known about this person, as reported by sources that are not untrustworthy pornography industry sources, is her name, place and year of birth, and occupation as a model for a newspaper. Uncle G 19:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Page 3 girl? Oh for gods sake, delete. --Calton | Talk 13:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite to explain why she is notable beyond having her photo in the paper. If that can't be done, Delete. Nandesuka 13:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although I don't like blondes myself jamesgibbon 13:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not confirmable, if all she was was in one issue of one newspaper. Almafeta 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- She's a regular page 3 girl, not a one-off. Kappa 14:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then somebody needs to confirm it. As of right now, to me it looks like an exceptionally weak excuse of a nude picture of dubious legality (how do photos from british papers come under US law?) on Wikipedia.
Keep if she's a regular Sun girl, as that is notable in itself. I'd argue that Page 3 girls (who appear in mainstream newspapers with 7-digit circulation figures) are far more notable than "pr0n queens" known only to purchasers of adult DVDs. I admit this may be a UK-centric perspective. AdorableRuffian 15:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or establish notability beyond being a model in a single publication (even a 7-digit one). We have deleted local newscasters who are seen every day by hundreds of thousands of viewers and I believe they are more notable than a Page 3 girl. DS1953 16:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another model. No info. -R. fiend 17:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and DS1953. Dcarrano 22:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only if notability or importance is not established. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. R adiant _>|< 13:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded. fap fap fap Grue 19:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but nice double-X chromosomes. :) — RJH 23:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Some notability as per AdorableRuffian. JamesBurns 02:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being a Page 3 model is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT. Have done so, after removal of data relating to precise numbers detected, since that goes out of date fast. -Splash 23:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help2Go Detective

Advertising. Same user created [email protected]. Rhobite 05:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think this is advertising although it still may not be encyclopedic. It appears that a user has found two tools that help analyze the HijackThis log file (which I plan to try next time I run that program) and he/she is just trying to share that information. It looks to me like Help2Go itself may be notable enough for a listing but the Help2Go Detective should just be a part of that article. However, no one has written a Help2Go article, so there is nothing right now to merge and redirect this to. DS1953 15:47, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to HijackThis, ONLY because the data given by HijackThis is very difficult to interpret without a program of this type; I normally would not find "add-on" programs to be inherently notable, but in this specific case, it is pretty important. Dcarrano 22:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, per Dcarrano. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Jeffrey D'Onofrio and Sarang Shah

Delete. Zero google hits and the external link in this article is dead. Hoax, vanity, nn, etc. If deleted, Image:Pointing at chart.jpg should be deleted as well as it was in the article at one point. Gamaliel 05:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Sarang Shah by the same new user. Gamaliel 06:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Friday 05:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Unspecified]. There is a lot more worthy stuff to be deleted than this peice of vanity. i may go to wiki-hell, but it was worth it. -- [unsigned but by] JDizzle, author of these two articles.
Jeffrey D'Onofrio and Sarang Shah speed deleted: vanity, prank articles containing future history ("Presidential race of 2032") and fabricated past history (what these guys, born in the 80's, were doing in the 70's). Wile E. Heresiarch 08:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promethian society

Vanity page. Google turns up 27 hits for "Promethian society" - many of which are from sites that get their info from Wikipedia. GoCardinal 05:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a redirect at Promethean society that should be deleted too. GoCardinal 01:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity, non-notable group of students. --bainer (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bold, daring vanity!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 08:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holonomic brain theory

Not notable. Please see this. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep: The insights into neuropsychology as defined by the holonomic brain theory, deriving from the collaboration between the well known and respected Karl Pribram and David Bohm, are quite noteworthy. Ombudsman 06:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good form to identify yourself as the author when voting on an articles VfD. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Holonomic brain theory" reads like crankery to me, but it seems like slightly notable crankery. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patent nonsense. Ben-w 10:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:patent nonsense, as it stands, has to be unintelligible. Odd as this article is, it is definitely intelligible. -Splash 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' -- I'd recommend anyone who thinks this should be deleted read Pribram's work for themselves. This stuff is not mainstream, but Pilbram is no fool. See http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html for outlines of research by Paul Pietsch, Indiana. I have a Bachelor Degree in Psych, and have just completed a PhD in Psych. This is a more coherent theory of mind than most I've encountered. It's just crazy enough to be correct :-) Stephenhumphry 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC). - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep, it gets about 150 non-mirror Google hits and they do seem to have something to say about it. THat's very few hits though (most bands would go at that level), hence my weakness. -Splash 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crackpottery, and 150 google hits indicates non-notability. Quale 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now on the question of keep or delete; however, since most of the votes, whether keep or delete, are mentioning that this is not mainstream science, I'd like to ask that a look be taken at all the pages that have been linked to it. Is it really appropriate to link everything involving the brain to a non-prominent, non-mainstream theory of how the brain might work? There's a theory that Sir Francis Bacon was the author of every play attributed to Shakespeare -- that's probably a more prominent theory than the holonomic brain theory, but do we link Francis Bacon from every article about a Shakespeare play? I don't see any, actually. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point -- it should not be linked to by such a range of pages. Also, I agree with JamesBurns tht it should be cleaned up -- and hopefully improved significantly by someone. The Pribram quote is not cited. It is a reasonable quote but needs to be given a better context to explain anything to anyone in such a short article. The overview is ordinary at best. Stephenhumphry 04:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: Dogma is spam. Moreover, systems theory insights are necessary for counter-balancing anti-intellectual expert worship groupthink. Ombudsman 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are all too educated stupid to understand holonomic brain theory, is that your rationale for keeping and promoting the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman, believe me I am with you for the most part -- I'm a big fan of the Santa Fe Institute and of Stuart Kauffman and various others who have adopted interdisciplinary approaches. I detest dogma. See my upddate of Implicate and Explicate Order re: presuppositions prevelant in science. However, being for an interdisciplinary philosophy doesn't justify linking in and of itself - there needs to be a good reason. That good reason should be clear in the sources (i.e. clarify why a theory is relevant to other things if you think it is). Taken to the extreme, you can't have random links between things without any apparent justificaiton at all. Assume that's what you're referring to (?). Whatta you thing? Cheers Stephenhumphry 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with scientific theories on wikipedia. -- Judson 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Crackpot theory with some notability. JamesBurns 02:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable crackpottery. Bambaiah 10:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: not notable crackpot Salsb 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment:) On notoriety, note the hits for [:Karl Pribram]. Holonomic brain is what Karl Pribram is most known for as far as I'm aware. Also, note the term holographic brain is actually used more often. If Karl Pribram's article is not being contested, I'm a bit lost as to why this article is (other than subjective reactions evident in "crackpottery" comments) Stephenhumphry 04:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been listed reflexively, after being mentioned as an excuse for recent tagging of Moral compass, which was blindsided with the tag by Antaeus without a glimmer of discussion. Antaeus has also tagged Elliott Valenstein and Thought police in the same manner, apparently targeting only that which does not conform with his POV while tolerating vandalism that he approves, in keeping with his deletionsist, mergist, anti-forking philosophy. Ombudsman 06:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC) .. Thanks Stephenhumphry 06:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight, Om. You're going to use this VfD as an excuse to launch personal attacks on me even though I wasn't even the one who proposed the VfD and I haven't even voted one way or the other? Very classy, sir, very classy. I suppose you would like to tell me what "vandalism" I have "approved" -- using, of course, Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, not any other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your VfD proposals, Antaeus, could be construed attacks on good faith contributions. You have rebuffed several de-escalation attempts aimed at encouraging you to discuss your concerns in a more collegial manner. Instead, you have cried foul repeatedly after creating and using opportunities that test the patience of your fellow editors. Ombudsman 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, your answers are "yes, I am going to use a VfD you didn't start and haven't even voted in for personal attacks on you" and "Hey! Look at that over there! By golly!" respectively. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully believe that this article was created in good faith, but I do not believe it belongs. An encyclopedia should not attempt to catalog every single scientific theory out there. If this theory is not generally accepted, then it should not be in an encyclopedia. If the theory later becoems accepted, it can be added then. 68.75.117.73 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if you lookup holographic brain, this is the article you get. Asking this to be deleted, is like asking people to delete Creation science because its only backed up by people who aren't convinced of a true scientific hypothesis by its own merits (saying "God/Alien/Jesus/It" did it was going on before it was called a theory). This is another viewpoint in its field, that is still being fleshed out: whether you agree with it or not should not impact your choice in keeping articles. Cwolfsheep 15:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.Woohookitty 08:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loaf A Toast, My Name Is Emily and GHS

(plus probably anything else that Jacob Bean creates)

Non-notable, yet to be released band. One Google hit of their own submission. Not notable even in their own view: "one of the best concept albums in the history of Glendale, PA". -- RHaworth 07:15, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Delete. See also Jordan Segrist. Bovlb 07:34:50, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity ~~~~ 13:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 02:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep All good fun. Very notable band. Hardly band vanity. - Poops McGee

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Segrist

Does not establish notability. Three Google hits, two from message boards. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Loaf A Toast Bovlb 07:31:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)

Delete. See also his bandmate's page Matt Zeak. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we hates vanity we do. -Splash 00:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 03:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity.~~~~ 13:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 02:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Zeak

Vanity, nobody in particular. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity. Creator has also vandalized articles and user pages (but then deleted his own vandalism). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bovlb 18:02:16, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
Delete and we hates vanity even more when it comes in pairs. Twists its neck we would. -Splash 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn teen vanity, as with his friend. --Etacar11 03:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity.~~~~ 13:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 02:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belly button fetish

Could not get a clear idea of what the article is trying to describe, the tone and organization of the article is far from encyclopedic. --Mysidia 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's undoubtedly scope for a good article on navel fetishism but, er, this isn't it. AdorableRuffian 16:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too small to use useful. Pavel Vozenilek 22:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, but let the redlinks stand. Article does not contain enough information to warrant an article. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Belly button. R adiant _>|< 13:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete — article content is obvious to the most casual observer. Clean out the lint and then expunge. :) — RJH 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a possible subject for an article if properly written, but the existing text is illiterate at best and adds no information beyond what can be gleaned from the name. PeteVerdon 10:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phatweb

Smells like teen vanity. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity, thy name is Phatweb --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 08:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rants website is highly nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 02:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Website vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ntwf

Nonnotable web forum. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown. --TheParanoidOne 13:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable forum. JamesBurns 02:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catthoor

It's a joke, I'm pretty sure. 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Students don't create SI units. Almafeta 16:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 22:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be nonsense. --Etacar11 03:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nominator. -Splash 00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H3 receptor

This article was nominated for deletion by 82.44.195.97 (talk · contribs) on 2005-06-19, who performed all three steps of the nomination, but mis-spelled the article's name in the header and in the discussion page transclusion. The mis-spelled transclusion was then removed by Gwalla on that same day. Dmcdevit added the discussion to a per-day page on 2005-07-16. This is the article as at nomination.

This shouldn't even be an article. The H3 receptor is probably so minor that this one sentence that wikipedia has about it should go on the histamine page. Especially since, in general, the only information you need to know about receptors is how they're related to the thing they, um, recept, in this case, histamine. (quoted from ashleyisachild) 82.44.195.97 00:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article is an incomplete stub, but looks very well done and encyclopedic. I see no benefit in redirecting it to a related article at this time. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. --Arcadian 00:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in any case I believe there are mentions in other histamine-related articles, which might lead to this being a curiosity visit. Haikupoet 03:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 02:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to delete this under the reasons to delete page. Even if it counted under "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" (which it doesn't, millions of dollars are being spent throughout the world right now on developing H3 receptor specific drugs into clinically marketable compounds), it would still only be a merge. Bilz0r 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing to merge with. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Baguley

What's all this about then? Vanity page? Delete. (preceding unsigned comment by Thedatastream 08:10, July 7, 2005 UTC)

delete --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 09:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsense --malathion ^talk 10:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not speediable (no, it's not patent nonsense), but certainly deleteable. Denni ☯ 01:29, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
Delete pointless --Etacar11 03:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an article, possible copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly unencyclopedic. jni 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Attempt to correspond with the person named by its title. Nabla 20:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 ^talk 22:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Haxors

Finishing someone else's nomination, so no vote from me. (Although I will say from a cursory look without research it looks like non-notable/vanity/hoax, and even if not, certainly unencyclopedic in it's current state.) --Dmcdevit·t 09:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to Leet. Non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete and Redirect. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Leet. Pburka 16:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to leet, yes. This is a pretty common term (haxor already redirs to leet), but doesn't warrant an article on its own IMO. Brighterorange 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete/redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 22:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to leet, as haxor does. Dcarrano 22:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Revolución 02:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to leet, as haxor does. Ravedave 21:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leet. JamesBurns 03:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hex crank

Delete: Shameless Self Promotion--Jack Cox 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the video game item is better suited to Wikibooks or Wikicities, and the tribute band is non-notable. Dcarrano 22:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Irish-American Mayors

Wikipedia does not include lists of loosely associated topics. The property of being Irish-American and the property of being mayor have no connection; this list is useless and nonencyclopedic. Delete it. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator reasoning. Also, I do not see many of those redlinks becoming noteworthy articles. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be a subcategory. --malathion ^talk 10:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in many cities with political machines, the properties of Irishness and mayoralty are tightly linked. Keep--interesting and useful. A category would not consolidate the list in one place by city. Meelar (talk) 19:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, we already have List of Irish-Americans with a "mayors" section. Also note the history of these two articles; it represents a revert war between two editors, who really need to resolve their problems rather than creating new articles. Dcarrano 23:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons outlined by the nominator as well as Dcarrano and malathion. I've been trying to get these two to play nice for two weeks now without success, and the only reason this page was created was so 64 could (for a time) avoid LP's supposed vandalism. Will someone please start an RfC on the anon user? LP already has one.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not because of a revert war. I would like Lapsed Pacifist not to vandalize it though.

Anyone that thinks there is no connection between Irish-Americans and mayors is ignorant of Irish-American history, American cities history, and American history.

Also some of these redlinks are no longer red because I added information on the people. 64.109.253.204 01:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speak of the devil. The above comment is by one of the revert warriors himself (64.109.253.204), complaining about the other (Lapsed Pacifist. Neither is covering himself with glory in the Irish Americans and List of Irish-Americans articles at the moment.

I did more than just complain about Lapsed Pacifist. That was only one sentence and it was the only one you commented about. Why won't you comment about what else I have said?

64.109.253.204 21:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The revert warriors ought to try talking to each other and settling their issues instead of constantly reverting and misusing the word "vandalism". --Calton | Talk 09:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a revert war. The revert war was at List of Irish-Americans. The Irish-American Mayors page is a legit page and it should be kept. It should not be deleted just because you do not like the person who created it.

64.109.253.204 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recomend that the VfD for this page be cancelled because it has become that no one cares about the actual page but would like to see it deleted because they have a problem with me or because of something that happened on Wikipedia unrelated to this topic.

64.109.253.204 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Angr, Blu Aardvark, malathion, and Dcarrano have given reasons for deleting that don't involve "problems with you", your statement is false on its face. And if it were true, what would that say about you, then? --Calton | Talk 00:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
comment - Just to facilitate discussion, there's a fairly good article at African Americans in the United States Congress which appears to be a similar topic. The difference, of course, is that the enfranchisement of African Americans has been a more specific and notable topic than the enfranchisement of urban Irish. Is that enough distinction to rule this article out on its face? I don't know. Dystopos 03:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-American mayors are very popular and a list of them makes sense. Saying that African-Americans are more notable is point of view. 64.109.253.204 04:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you misunderstand my comment. I mean that the political participation of African Americans is more notable because it was specifically restricted by notable policies and events of American history. And I didn't voice an opinion on whether the distinction mattered here, I just brought it up for discussion. Dystopos 04:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-Delete Not entirely encyclopedic...--GrandCru 04:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't make into a category. If it's worthless as a list, it's even more worthless as a category. Postdlf 04:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The author shared this link with me, which if you start reading about a third of the way down, suggests that there is a documented history and focused academic study of the specific role Irish-Americans played in American politics. I now say keep, but move to List of Irish American politicians (and still don't make a category). Postdlf 05:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Already being dealt with through the appropriate channel, so no further action needed. -Splash 00:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Rosary

Copyright violation Sysin 10:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation from http://www.johannite.org/_liturgy/pdf/The%20Holy%20Gnostic%20Rosary.pdf

Wikipedia:Copyright problems is along the hall, three doors down. Uncle G 14:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still getting the hang of this. Changed tag and moved to appropriate page (i think) Sysin 14:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 03:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

H numbers

The article is either patent nonsense or original research. Markus Schmaus 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, link added back from the listed site to give the ideas legitimacy, so could be construed as advertising, &/c. Dysprosia 12:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I imagine the term "H number" is quite difficult to search for on Google, so I don't trust a negative result from a search like that. I would prefer to give the author a chance to justify that this is not original research. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 13:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The author now appears to have indicated that this is original research. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 02:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Markus. Not that hard to search for "h number" with respect and I couldn't find any supporting hits. The nearest was a reference to Harshad number which appears to be quite different jamesgibbon 14:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean difficult in the sense that, for example, a search for "B space" is unlikely to help you work out that a B space is really just an old name for a Banach space. (Although you do get a very amusing hit at Functional Analysis). Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 15:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On that website, at http://www.hnumbers.com/hnumbers.html they refer to the Wikipedia article, and in the Wikipedia article they refer to that website. All looks very strange, and the article is badly written. No google hits for this topic. Looks like somebody pushing his/her pet math research. Oleg Alexandrov 17:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if it can be expanded to provide context. Otherwise delete. — JIP | Talk 17:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, rather unoriginal name. Charles Matthews 20:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oleg Alexandrov. Dcarrano 23:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Oh dear, looked vaguely plausible, until one reads about H_5 on the web page. linas 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, not understandable. From the website (www.hnumbers.com): "My aim is to find the Theory Of Everything through the least effort," which does not give me much confidence. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Defining an new non-real number as $i={\sqrt {-1}}$ makes sense and creates a new "dimension". This article introduces $j={\sqrt {i}}$ as if it was yet another "dimension" expansion. An ambitious reasoning but still a mistake any high school level student should not make. ${\sqrt {i}}=\pm \left(1+i\right)/{\sqrt {2}}$ is just another complex number and adds no new dimension. And this is not the only incorrection. Nabla 20:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nn. --Trovatore 05:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops--I think I got the acronyms wrong; should be "per nominator". Doesn't change anything, I guess. --Trovatore 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Luigi Forino

Starts out with puffery, swings into his resumé, and then gives a straight dump of his academic papers. DS 12:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that'll be a delete then :D jamesgibbon 14:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where'd he find the time to write that? He's what, 28ish? I don't believe that paper list for a minute. He's only just got his Master's degree! -Splash 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity nonsense. How many schools does he have degrees from? (WTF?) And accorded to their website he is NOT co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cognitive Systems Research. Seems to be a made-up CV. --Etacar11 03:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for heavens' sake, surely this qualifies as a speedy, despite its length? Deb 17:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Tinfoil-hattery! This individual not only claims to have a Masters degree, but to have recieved it from at least a half dozen of the most prestigious schools on earth (besides misspelling Berkeley), and also to have recieved this degree from the various schools, simultaneously on the same day! (19th May 2005). Hamster Sandwich 01:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Odigo warning

This looks like an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. TigerShark 13:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. AdorableRuffian 15:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with above or maybe 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel. —Tokek 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 03:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Kaka

Non-notable person. --Canderson7 13:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not shown. --TheParanoidOne 13:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user page/delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy nn vanity. --Etacar11 03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Andolina

Non-notable. Possible vanity.

Unclear as to what the article is supposed to be. --TheParanoidOne 13:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a genealogy of some people with the family name "Andolina", none of whom satisfy the WP:BIO criteria according to the article. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Get thee to Wikitree!. Delete. Uncle G 14:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. AdorableRuffian 17:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising disguised as genealogy. Bill 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Garry

Hoax, glorious hoax. Examining the claims made about Mister Garry, once we get past his birthdate, they are: bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. DS 14:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right they are. My friend wrote this article about me, and sent me a link. It's all lies, including my birthdate. Delete. Deskana 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page, and feel that it should be preserved for posterity. The guy who posted above is just exceptionally modest and feels uncomfortable having such a lovely article about him. 23:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Attack page. David | Talk 22:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 23:04, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. He must have worn lots of skirts on SG-1... ;P --Etacar11 03:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. JamesBurns 03:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete hoax/attack. --Ragib 17:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And the article gets yet more "interesting". Delete -- Deskana 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. 3t, 2d. Below my usual threshold, but the later votes were based on Uncle G's observation which is important, and the first delete allows for interpretation once known to be useful as literature. Added to Transwiki log. -Splash 00:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn to Hermes

Forgive me, o mighty Hermes, but if this isn't copyvio, it should be transwiki'd to Wikisource. Non-encyclopedic, I don't see any way to salvage it. DS 14:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio. May be notable as a work of literature though. --Stevefarrell 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a translation into English of one of the Homeric Hymns. Depending from the date of the translation, it may be Wikisourceable. Uncle G 02:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-wiki ~~~~ 13:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. JamesBurns 03:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 13k, 4d (1 cow). -Splash 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Raleigh Magnet High School

Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 15:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spoon-billed Sandpiper. Pburka 16:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:37, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are notable. AdorableRuffian 17:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominating schools is now pointless, as I believe you know perfectly well. Please move on from this issue. CalJW 17:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I second CalJW's comment. JYolkowski // talk 17:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though this vote is probably useless. There are a gazillion of these too-new-to-tell schools starting up. Unless someone bothers to add something useful to the article, this one isn't worth keeping. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have not followed the school debate, and sincerely believe on my own terms that there is nothing inherently notable about Average Joe High School. That said, I was originally going to vote delete, but I do think magnet schools are inherently notable by their very nature. Therefore, I vote Keep, grudgingly. Haikupoet 03:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the sake of ending school debates. Xoloz 04:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — If you want to "clean up" the various insignificant school articles, you could always just merge them into a school district article. — RJH 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by virtue of being a magnet school. It would really help if people put some effort into the first edit of school articles, however. Dcarrano 00:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Spam. Gamaliel 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please why is this spam Yuckfoo 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cow. For the usual reasons. --Carnildo 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just like every other school in the U.S. --Idont Havaname 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, with a popular suggestion to merge it into the main article. Dmcdevit·t 08:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball)

Speculation and original research, if anything should be merged into the main article. Sorry, I know I'm going to be pissing off a lot of Harry Potter fans, but I don't think this is encyclopedic. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further, and don't know why I didn't mention this before, but please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article violates this. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate the "crystal ball" rule? Kappa 17:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article deals with speculation, most of it non-notable and that which is notable should be merged into the main Harry Potter book. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever been convinced by a reference to this "rule". CalJW 17:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not speculation. The key point for this article is that it is information confirmed prior to the books release, under 26 hours ago. As it has been released, we can now see for ourselves that it was not just crystalballery. I am also confused as to how this can be called original research. Please explain. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because the information is all mostly speculation, most of it is non-notable. That which is notable should be merged into the main Harry Potter article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculation. Its stuff that was speculation prior to the true information being revealed, as such forms a notable piece about fan culture, on what is the biggest book sale in the world on one day ever. ~~~~ 13:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to VfD admin it appears that this should be a speedy keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or rename. Aecis 15:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge This article has no need to be around with the book now out. I would personally delete it. However, some may want the information so to keep these people happy, maybe it would be best if it could be merged into the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince atricle --RingbearerNZ 02:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Encyclopedias should contain facts, not "what could have been facts" Davidbod
- It contains facts about the history of the Harry Potter series. CalJW 17:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move facts about the history of the series into the main article and delete the rumors. --Ldrhcp 20:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed.
Keep but probably rename, encyclopedia should preserve facts, not gratuituously remove them. Kappa 15:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup is required to remove duplicate material and cite sources, but that's no reason for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 15:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of value into the main article.
Delete. It served its purpose; however, facts that were leaked before the book came out won't be referenced by anybody now that they can, you know, see all the facts without having to sift through leaks. Almafeta 17:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an article about the facts, it's an article about the leaks. Kappa 17:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valuable record. There will not be room for everything in the main article. CalJW 17:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the book is out, this can be deleted. Not that I care for Harry Potter, though. Wake me when Star Trek XI or Star Wars VII is out. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because we're not fans of a paticular series, is NOT a reason to delete information on a paticular topic. This is factual information about a topic that happens to have a great appeal to many people. That is the sort of thing this wikipedia was meant to do, provide a place for the community to talk about and post relavent facts for topics that interest them. So while i myself am not a fan, I say keep it.
- I voted "delete" because this article is useless now that the book is out, not because I'm not a Harry Potter fan. I would have voted "delete" for Star Trek XI (Crystal Ball) or Star Wars VII (Crystal Ball) too. Had I noticed this VfD before the book was out, I would have voted "keep" or abstained. — JIP | Talk 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. I wonder if we picked who the halfblood prince is. Capitalistroadster 18:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is important to recognise that Harry Potter is a unique phenomenon - not even the His Dark Materials trilogy caused such a stir even though many would argue that it probably should have given its formidable subject matter. The leaks, speculation - its all part and parcel of the Potter experience. Given that - I think deleting for its own sake would be a huge mistake. Information can be re-organised, re-named - but it is valid exactly because of the uniqueness of the situation. I am glad to see that Wikipedia provides such in-depth detail and I honestly dont see how anything that has been done either here or in the main article (especially the summaries - which are just brilliant!) contradicts what this enterprise is supposed to be about. The main article can't possibly house everything and I think this is a very worthwhile repository. I agree with whoever said that "Cleanup is required to remove duplicate material and cite sources, but that's no reason for deletion." Keep it. Severina 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a small section into the main article. ed g2s • talk 19:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main book article anything that is useful and not already duplicated elsewhere. 23skidoo 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup, rename to something a little more decent (like "Rumours prior to the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" or something) and follow a clear format of "This was the rumor... This was how fans reacted... This is what happened in the book." --AceMyth 21:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Information that is encyclopedic and relevant to a particular audience is NEVER useless. It is not your job to delete things just because you don't think it's relevant. Cynicalkane 21:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be very helpful for researchers working in the area of publishing policy, trade secrets, information flow, memes etc. Knowing almost exactly who, what and when revealed something from the unpublished, but highly demanded book is invaluable. Agree that cleaning and renaming will help. 82.210.153.132 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge a small section into the main article. Has served it's purpose. Thue | talk 23:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or send it to some fan's user page. Wikipedia is not a Harry Potter rumor site. If it were an article about Harry Potter rumors (i.e. the phenomenon), that would be something different. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is about the phenomenon! Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It looks like a combination of a) outdated rumors compiled before the release of the book, and b) spoilers from the book placed by one persistant editor he keeps trying to delete them from the main book article. The first is pure fancruft and the second doesn't belong here. --Calton | Talk 00:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This was split from the main article to allow the new info to go in, but to keep the information at the same time. It contains the confirmed information befre the books release, which was a mere 15 hours before this vfd was started. Any Harry Potter fan will find that of interest, (making it not fancruft.) If you want a rename, how about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince/Archive. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Any Harry Potter fan will find that of interest, (making it not fancruft.) That statement makes NO sense whatsoever, since fancruft means "of interest ONLY to fans", not "not of interest to fans". --Calton | Talk 09:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but badly needs cleanup. I suppose this could also serve as a collection of all the major rumors floating around, and with a note on each of them whether that rumor was true or false (and if it's false, what the truth is). Shouldn't be merged with the main HBP article because that would make it way too long. --FatherGuidoSarducci 01:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with main article (first choice); or Delete (second choice). Book is issued, only need for one article. Significant unmet rumors or expectations can also be merged to main article. There is no reason any "archive" couldn't exist there as well. Xoloz 04:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has historical value. — — Ŭalabio‽ 04:39:44, 2005-07-17 (UTC)
Delete per Davidbod. I suppose this stuff is a hair more notable than the various Pokecruft, but fancruft and speculation belong on fansites, not in encyclopedias. Maybe it could be mentioned briefly in the book's article. --Idont Havaname 05:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable archive of hype leading up to the book. --WikiFan04^{TALK TO ME! ;-) 00:59, 17 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
Keep or Merge This is a good archive of the titbids of intformation and leaks leading upto the release of the book. The main article is currently rather large so I'd go for keep so as not to overload the main article. However, if the consensus is to remove this article then I'd rather see the relevant information placed in the main article. --Colin Angus Mackay 08:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's actually quite an informative and interesting article, but it should probably be given a different title. Cyclone49 11:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as per Ldrhcp and Davidbod. --Denihilonihil 11:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the information has historical value and did exist without problems before the book was released. It should be merged back into the main article, now that the plot synopsis has been moved over to a different page - Master Of Ninja 11:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather interesting and chronicles the scale of the event. --84.66.6.29 13:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Very funny name though. R adiant _>|< 13:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename. ~~~~ 13:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article on the speculation leading up to publication. Vashti 13:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 24 at 14:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cynical 14:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "speculation" section, failing that keep. Nice historical record. Nickptar 17:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. --Cruci 18:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hype and rumours about the book are worthy of their own article. However, the title should be changed and the article cleaned up. R.suleman 19:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename and clean up, perhaps including adding what the "right answers" turned out to be if it's worth the spoiler warnings. This isn't speculation by Wikipedia, it's encyclopedic reporting of speculation elsewhere. Robin Johnson 19:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It documents an unprecedented phenomenon within Western popular culture. Never has any book been the subject of this kind of pre-release hype, never has this kind of local pageantry been inspired by the release of a book, either for adults or for children. Knowing the details of what was speculated about a forthcoming installment provides understanding as to what was important to this subsection of the general public at this time. (I think they ought to retain the title, too, including the "Crystal Ball" part. It's too funny!) --Bluejay Young 19:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. This article actually shows up under "rumours" of the main HBP article. Making a section of rumours in the main HBP article is good; making a whole article, especially when some of this information is JKR-verified (especially in the other information section). So merge the important stuff (which, to be honest, isn't much) with the main article and delete the main article because there is no real premise. SujinYH 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, make this the main article of the "Rumors" section in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Alterego 21:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (rumours); current name is cute, but for something that has already come out, really makes no sense. Then cleanup to comment on the rumors vs. what actually happened, as per Robin Johnson. Dcarrano 22:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, let interested editors manage it as they see fit. Everyking 22:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This info really isn't very important now that the book has come out. It seems to me that false rumors aren't all that important, and correct rumors, and in the book and don't need to be covered in a separate page.ScooterSES 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply rename. -- Judson 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why people should object to this. I enjoy looking back at these rumors and seeing how close to the truth they seemed to be, and I know I'm not the only one. . -- User:Mikibacsi1124 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Fan speculation over a book hardly warrants its own article, it's not encylopedic. --Hn 02:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Move and Keep as per Dcarrano. JamesBurns 03:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful stuff back into the article and delete. →Raul654 03:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge the useful stuff back into the article and delete. (Yes, I just cut and pasted what Raul said, but I agree). Manning 03:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There has hardly been a book more speculated about, and therefore the speculation in itself is notable, even after the book was released. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information will not be useful a year from now. Kaldari 15:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be interesting! And you never know who may find it useful! Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete I agree... as the book is out there is no need for this page anymore.

This page was specifically created because the main book's page was needed! Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comment on renaming: On the talk page for this, I suggested renaming the article to Pre-release speculation about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as a cleaner alternative to an anon's suggestion of Pre-release speculation as to the content of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Having a rum(o|ou)rs page about it doesn't make sense, since it has already been released (and thus there won't be any more rumors). Pre-release speculation sounds like a better phrase to put in the title to me, and it gets around having some word in parentheses at the end of the title, and the US/UK spelling issue. Any in favor? --Idont Havaname 22:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article under its current title. Move appropriate content to the main article. Remove original research, unencyclopedic material, and non-verifiable speculation. Whatever notable speculations remain shall be happily at home on the main article. IF that main article, edited down to its most elegant presentation, is still too large to contain this material, then create a new article as required with an appropriate name. Dystopos 04:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
mergepamri 06:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (prior speculation). —Phil | Talk 11:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is an encyclopedia to record facts and rational analysis, not a private diary to record speculations and rumors. An inclusion of this "article" would be absurd and intolerable. -- Emsworth 17:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Emsworth. This level of Pottercruft is just not encyclopaedic. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That so much speculation exists to have warranted an article in the first place speaks to the value of the information for posterity. tylerwillis 03:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

AGREED (Unsigned comment by 68.222.104.73 (talk · contribs)

KEEP, this article is still quite relevant to anyone who has not read the book.Gateman1997 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything non-crufty, or, failing that, just Delete. Or maybe put into a "Harry Potter fandom" article (I know there's one around) but not one on its own. Crystal Ball content is not supposed to be kept, and most rumours/speculation about something turn out to be false anyway. We aim to be factual and objective, and listing hundreds of "fans hoped for//it was rumoured that ... but instead..." statements is just plain pointless. Garrett^Talk 01:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exploding Boy 02:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge any information about the book not all ready in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince into it. Information about the widespread speculation should be included in the merge. However, this is not the same as noting every theory that was speculated. I.E. it is okay to say that millions of fans debated the identity of the Half Blood Prince. That's because that entails a notable amount of speculation. It is not okay, however, to say that the best theory is Bill Weasley and then give a page-long explanation of the reasons why. It is not necessary to include every last theory proposed because they are not the interesting part. If there was something especially notable about any of them, such as a radical or controversial prediction, that would be different. Right now, however, the article's focus is on what was believed, rather than the fact that people believed it. In fact, its stated goal is to say "what was known" prior to the release. This is just a deliberate limit of the information we have on HBP. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia, where we strive to be comprehensive. We would never have an article on "what was known about chemistry in 1942," although that is a part of history. I am going through the article now. I will remove most of the guesses and previews themselves while leaving notable information about them. I will leave what is necessary to support the previous. I hope you get what I mean.Superm401 | Talk 02:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC) (comment modified by me Superm401 | Talk 03:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC))
I've worked a fair bit on the Harry Potter articles recently, and you're definitely not pissing me off. In fact, I'd really like to cut as much speculation as possible. The contents of this article was useful for verified information about the upcoming book (ie, that Rowling herself verified), but now that the real thing is out, this article no longer has any purpose. Merge anything that is verified as true with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and leave out the rest. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or rename. Phoenix2 03:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Interesting article about speculation before the book was released. Maybe even lock as an archival as all new information should go to the book's article. Hansamurai 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an archival lock. It's called article history. However, the active version of the article should represent the current state of knowledge regarding a topic. That is already in the main article on HBP. That current state of knowledge can include information regarding past predictions(it's part of history); however, those predictions should be notable in some way. Superm401 | Talk 05:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - If deleted, wouldn't the history of this article be deleted as well? Dystopos 13:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The archive of the crystal ball article will. However, this info was originally in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. That history contains everything that was ever in the HPB article. That means none of the article past is really lost. There is no need for an archive article. Superm401 | Talk 21:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

This seems merely to be a question of organisation and naming. Of course we are going to keep the verfiable information (whether it turned out right or wrong is irrelevant). Keep Pcb21| Pete 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (216.62.201.253 did not sign off)
Keep May need some reworking, but speculations about the content of Harry Potter 6 is a valid topic, at least until everybody can read the entire series. Theodore W.
Delete. This is not even a proper encyclopedia article, just a compilation of fan speculation about a particular book. A compilation of fan speculation on a book belongs, at best, on a fan site. It does not matter whether the book sells nine or nine million copies, this information will never be encyclopedic. Some of our users need to learn the difference between a general knowledge base and an encyclopedia. Indrian 15:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Rumors and speculation about a book that has already been released is no where near encyclopedic. In fact, to put it frankly, it's stupid. Merge what may be notable (such as pictures and etc), but this article should not exist. K1Bond007 19:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly pointless. Leithp 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge merge merge merge. There's no reason not to mention what was guessed correctly. The current HBP article is pretty short, so it wouldn't hurt to merge the stuff back in. If kept, it must be renamed. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:17, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Keep, but clean up, and including what the "right answers" turned out to be when the book was released.
Keep for historical reasons - given the importance of Harry Potter. JuntungWu 20:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont really care about Harry Potter but I think its an important article. And by the looks of this VfD itll end as No Consensus. Redwolf24 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know it might be interesting but it is unencyclopedic and totally pointless. It is like having a speculation page in a printed encyclopedia.--Zxcvbnm 03:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! The mere fact that this is not a printed encyclopedia allows us to keep articles like this. It should be renamed to something along the lines of "Speculation about the release of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" but not deleted. It is interesting to see what kind of things people were thinking before the book was released (based on the information available in previous books). I second the above suggestion of archiving this entry.
Keep, but move some details to the book's main page. HBP was probably one of the most awaited books of the year, and there was a frankly unprecedented amount of pre-release "buzz". --Zetawoof 06:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article --Tim Pope 11:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! but rename "Prior Speculation" --Richieyo 18:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- note: IP 140.247.129.183 may or may not be Richieyo. Garrett^Talk 01:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no longer has a purpose Osu8907 15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! but rename "Prior Speculation" and psoosibly merge into a section in the main article.--michael180 18:07, July 27, 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), could probably be merged with the article on the terrorist attacks. I will leave that discussion to the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shahara Islam

Sad as this is, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I cannot find any verifying of the claims of "poster girl"; sad as her death is, it's not encyclopedic. smoddy 15:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I ~~will provide~~ provided citations from UK and International newspapers about the "poster girl" status --Zappaz 15:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search for "shahara islam" provides 15,800 results [5]. She's notable. ulayiti 15:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is because she was mentioned on the news... it is now down to 13,700 in the 7 hours since you posted this, and I'd guess it will go down far lower during the next week...Phantomsteve 22:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like it or not, Phantomsteve, she is not just a victim of terrorism. Being a devout Muslim in Britain, murdered by fanatics in the name of Islam, when her last name is Islam, makes her a powerful symbol that will not degrade with time. That is why the article needs to be kept. (btw, the google count is still 15,800) --Zappaz 00:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly notable jamesgibbon 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated. AdorableRuffian 17:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 18:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 7 July 2005 London bombings article, showing a listing of all the victims? The 9/11 article doesn't list the victims, but does link to CNN's list of victims - perhaps something similar for the London Bombings?Phantomsteve 21:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. Not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 03:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Somebody start the wikimorial already - Skysmith 09:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deaths related to terrorism are tragic, but they are unfortunately far from unique enough to document each one individually. People rarely become notable because of the manner of their death, and as tragic as this event is, the individual casualties of mankind's conflicts barely even register as a footnote in history. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Indrian 15:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Rightly dividing

Delete as original research. This article is exegesis on a phrase used once in the New Testament. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; dunno where it should go until the Bible stuff is straightened out, but, certainly not worthy of its own article. Dcarrano 23:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: essay. Nothing to merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly divide original research from this encyclopedia. --Idont Havaname 05:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is biblical commentary, not encyclopedic material. It's also not particularly accurate biblical scholarship and has a bit of a POV slant to it (assuming Pauline authorship, for example). -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 03:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was can't see a clear consensus, defaulting to keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tom G. Palmer

Note: will Sockpuppets from both sides please desist, you will be ignored and if anything damage your case Dunc|☺ 18:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was clearly written by Tom G. Palmer himself, as is evident by visiting his website, TomGPalmer.com. While I applaud Mr. Palmer on his various achievements, including that he, "smuggled books, photocopiers, and fax machines from an office in Vienna, Austria and traveled throughout the region to hold seminars", I find him lacking notability for the encyclopedia. Further, his page violates the Wikipedia:Vanity page guideline. Alterego 15:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity cv, self promotion. Wyss 16:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, though needs cleaning up certainly. Dunc|☺ 17:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & cleanup. There is sufficient verifiable material available.. Palmer is notable, among other things, as being an openly gay fellow at the Cato Institute. He is also a noted critic of Lew Rockwell, another libertarian (and employer of Kinsella - see below). A blog devoted to attacking him is another sign of notability. (I see that an entry has been posted in that blog pointing to this page). - Willmcw 18:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- - A "Stephan Kinsella" is listed as "Adjunct Faculty" of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is the founder and president. Perhaps it's an unpaid position, there's no indication. -Willmcw 20:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Refactor or delete Sufficiently notable for some sort of page, but better nothing than something so shamelessly self-promotional --Dfranke 17:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a sockpuppet, my identity can be easily verified by looking at my blog (http://the-free-radicals.org). I don't know what Duncharris's agenda is, but I would seriously question any of his other sockpuppet accusations as well.
  - dfranke (talk · contribs) inelligble to vote, too few edits. Dunc|☺ 20:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no policy stipulating any threshold of edit counts. --Dfranke
Delete. The quality of the article is so low that it looks unsalvageable. If this person is important someone will create sane article later. Pavel Vozenilek 22:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable on the basis of his publication record. Definitely more worthy of inclusion than individual Pokemons or the GNAA. Martg76 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable writer/activist. Anyone who devotes their lives to writing will inevitably rack up a large number of verifiable writing credits; that doesn't make them notable in an encyclopedic sense, unless their writing succeeds in making a major impact on the world at large. Dcarrano 23:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
'Keep' Palmer is notable and info was easily verified. Awyllie 20:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Awyllie (talk · contribs) — this isn't a sockpuppet at all e.g. he's got an article that he wrote, and improved, currently on VfD in an unrelated field. Be more careful Dunc, and there is no edit count criterion for voting, so one should not be enforced here. -Splash 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability appears to have been established. -Splash 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Owing to related matters, I feel I must withdraw my vote from here altogether. -Splash 19:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- splash: do you not see that the entry is blatantly self-promotional and vanity type? Just take a look at it.
  - I agree that it smells of autobiography, and I don't like those, but they are not a grounds for deletion. I'm presuming the facts given in the article are verifiable and true (but tell me if they're not) and things like addressing the Iraqi parliament, being senior in the Cato institute and having things published in books and proper magazines would seem to lend credence to a notability claim: he's probably more notable than your average college professor, so probably passes the (informal) professor test. -Splash 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion not helped by sockpuppets. JamesBurns 03:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Google returns 13500 hits for the query "Tom G. Palmer" cato [6]. If it does not make him notable, I dunno what should be the test to decide on this. --Edcolins 07:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Reasonably notable. Could use some editing. - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all of the autobiographical, self-important, blogging libertarians, liberals, socialists, and nationalists. These resumes are getting out of hand. -Willmcw 09:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Smells like a sad internet-argument that overflowed onto wikipedia. I would be willing to change my vote if this article was formatted and cleaned up to an acceptable level, only stressing the notable facts.
Delete, WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, WP:SOCK. R adiant _>|< 14:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Dunc re notability and need for cleanup. If there are other libertarians who are more notable, someone should write the appropriate articles. We have no requirement that we start at the top in notability and work our way down. JamesMLane 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears in Marquis Who's Who. Entry should probably be trimmed, however. Gamaliel 01:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - senior fellow for the Kato Institute? C'mon people! Why is this on vfd? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Same reason mine is, probably... You can guess... Stephan Kinsella 04:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, what reason is that? -Willmcw 04:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Two words: Wiki. Nerds. Hah. Just kidding, Willmcw. Just funnin' ya. :) --Stephan Kinsella 12:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - As long as you include yourself in that category then you might be right. -Willmcw 17:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity, Sockpuppets per Radiant. Xoloz 01:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable libertarian author and major figure at Cato Institute. Rangerdude 06:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in addendum to my vote above, I will note that a closer review of this article leads me to conclude that it should be trimmed and undergo general NPOV edits to reduce some of the vanity characteristics. Rangerdude 20:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity - He obviously wrote it himself. Time to draw a line in the sand. Rothbard 19:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a marginal character but one at least likely to have been read by people who do not limit their reading to texts they expect to agree with. Judge Magney 03:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted votes

Suspected sockpuppets (including new users) and/or are disqualified from voting. Dunc|☺ 19:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, clearly a vanity page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evomutant (talk • contribs) 10:05, July 16, 2005
- sockppupet Evomutant (talk · contribs) Dunc|☺ 18:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, presents useful information and links to significant articles by a significant figure in libertarian movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidbacklibertarian (talk • contribs) 10:34, July 16, 2005
- Sockpuppet Laidbacklibertarian (talk · contribs) Dunc|☺ 18:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Palmer's been involved with libertarianism since the movements real beginnings in the 70s. Edit maybe, but keep the bulk of the article. --Merkanleveller 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet Merkanleveller (talk · contribs) - discount vote, Dunc|☺ 18:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Palmer is of minor importance in the libertarian movement, but his ego is enormous, as witness this obviously self-written panegyric. User: jriggenbach
- Not by User:Jriggenbach (there is no user registered by that name), but by 64.81.69.94 (talk · contribs) Dunc|☺ 18:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not know about any of this, but Jeff Riggenbach is a well known libertarian who knows what he is talking about; it is very likely he did write the comment duncharris deleted. It should be restored. It could be Riggenbach made a technical mistake or does not konw what a sock puppet is (as I do not quite my own self).
    - I am Jeff Riggenbach, and I did in fact write the comment duncharris deleted. I'm a bit unfamiliar with protocol around here, and wasn't aware I was supposed to "register" anywhere -- where? If anyone wishes to confirm my opinion on this issue, I can be reached at [email protected]
      - I'll add that I've known Tom Palmer since he was a college kid in the '70s, and an intern at the Cato Institute, then located in San Francisco. I was executive editor of The Libertarian Review at the time, and executive producer of Byline, Cato's daily public affairs radio program. I think Tom has done well over the years, but he's hardly so important that he merits an encyclopedia article devoted to his greatness. - Jeff Riggenbach
Delete, vanity cv, Palmer is not a major libertarian figure. Gil Guillory 14:27, 17 July 2005 (CST)
- Gilguillory (talk · contribs)
  - This user account is not a sock puppet. My screen name is my real name, Gil Guillory. I have not been especially active on Wikipedia, except for usage and a single edit I made in the market failure page last April, after having written an article on the topic. However, I did not create the account specifically to enter this foray, nor is it a puppet account of another. I think it is self-evident to most libertarians that Palmer is not even a minor intellectual in the libertarian movement. An important activist, yes; but, I don't think that qualifies for a Wikipedia entry. Gil Guillory 07:36, 18 July 2005 (CST)
    - 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) - you need to Log in and sign your name with four tildes ~~~~
    - Got it, thanks.Gilguillory 13:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entry is clearly self-promotion. Furthermore, Palmer isn't a particularly significant libertarian thinker. Prior to noticing his slanders of Hans Hermann Hoppe, I'd never heard of him at all. There are libertarians of more importance who have no Wikipedia entries at all, or much shorter ones.
- Dh003i (talk · contribs)
Keep, could be trimmed, but Tom Palmer is a notable figure in the libertarian movement. To people voting 'delete', have you seen who is profiled on wikipedia? User:Jstrummer 21 July 2005
- Second edit.
Keep, notable leader in the libertarian movement. article, like many, needs editing. Poshua 17:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Poshua (talk · contribs) active since the 11th[reply]

Comments

NOTE: See vendetta campaign launched by "Stephan Kinsella" page deleted some time ago at this location [7], located on a site maintained by Kinsella for sole purpose of stalking Palmer (including obscene sexual comments, etc.)' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidbacklibertarian (talk • contribs) 10:34, July 16, 2005

Stephan Kinsella does not maintain the Palmer Periscope webpage. He posts there, but did not create and does not maintain the website. He has used that web-page as a place to counter some of the outrageous libel against Hans-Hermann Hoppe that comes from Palmer's webpage.

Furthermore, aforementioned "obscene sexual comments" were just comment spam which Palmer falsely portrayed as being written by Kinsella. --Dfranke

Come on this is a campaign by Kinsella to get rid of a Wiki entry! Has the man got nothing better to do?

I find Palmer to be a figure of not enough significance to be mentioned in an encylopedia. He is not a key figure in libertarian thought. There are libertarians of much more significance than Mr. Palmer who do not have a Wikipedia entry, or who have a shorter entry than Palmer's.

Stephan Kinsella here: Please note: I did NOT start this campaign to delete Palmer's site. Nskinsella 18:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Anyone who attacks him should be careful. Admins take a very dim view of personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kinsella drew attention to this article on his anti-Palmer blog, and then promoted this VfD on it when another editor nominated it. Whether Kinsella made the nomination itself is a minor point - he has lobbied heavily for this VfD. -Willmcw 04:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually, Willmcw, that was before I realized what the rules on notability were. I initially assumed that, since my first entry had been previously deleted, then Palmer's entry was deletable too, since he is arguably not significanly more notable than I. But when I read up on the actual Wiki rules for notability, I realized that my entry qualifies, so I put up my entry. And I have removed my comments on Palmer's site about deleting it; that is for others to decide. Nom. --Stephan Kinsella 17:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my attention was also drawn here by Stephan Kinsella, as were many others. I find the practice of such lobbying distasteful, but have concluded that deletion is merited, not in the least because the conflict ongoing among these parties cast a cloud over these articles. Xoloz 01:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying? Are you kidding? I don't maintain Palmer's site should be deleted, Xoloz! Now that I'm aware of the bio criteria. Were I you, I'd vote to keep it (perhaps, w/ some improvement, toning down of the self-promotion etc.). Why are you blaming me for your delete vote? Change it to keep if you want, I'm not stopping you. Stephan Kinsella 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "blame" you. I stated, for the record, the facts which led me here. The "lobbying" to which I refer most strongly related to your own article, but (because your message was such an obvious attempt at advocacy), I think it not unreasonable to draw the inference that you were, more sublty, lobbying against Palmer as well. My vote is, of course, my own judgment, by which I stand. I think it fair to say, though, that you have exerted some influence over this VfD. While such efforts are not prohibited or uncommon at Wikipedia, many users consider such conduct less than ethically pure, and, in any case, the question had arisen above. If you, in fact, do favor the "keeping" of this article, then your attempt to draw my attention here has yielded a (very minor) result unwelcome for you, a consequence which you may (or may not) wish to note for future decision-making. Xoloz 04:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's rich for you to bemoan my "influence" over this VfD when you are yourself voting here. And just because I would have had you vote "keep" here (if only because I favor adherence to the Wiki bio policies, which you and other deleters evidently feel free to disregard), it does not mean I do not also favor a democratic system where you have the right to vote as you will. There is no inconsistency. Any more than it is inconsistent for a democrat politician to ask people to vote--even if they vote against him. If anyone influenced this VfD, it is those who tried to delete this very site, which made me review the bio policy, which led me to put up my own entry again. Stephan Kinsella 04:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue acquainting yourself with Wikipedia policy, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your point there is rather inexact. Further, I fail to understand your first point, since my voting here is a (minor) result of your influence, and that was among the reasons I chose to comment to keep the record clear. And lastly, I do not believe any "deleter" here "disregards" Bio policy -- I feel that the disfavoring of autobiographical articles creates a presumptive disqualification which has not been overcome by evidence, nor helped by this air of advocacy which, I hope you see, you helped foster. I suggest further discussion between us, if you care to respond, move to my talk page. Xoloz 05:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Radiant. The JPS 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 00:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geopoetry

This isn't patent nonsense, but I don't think there's anything salvageable here, is there? DS 16:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - looks like patent nonsense to me. AdorableRuffian 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "I can drunk just as good Wiki." Almafeta 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Agree with AdorableRuffian. Pburka 18:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one actually is just nonsensical enuf to go speedy. Entire content was "geopoetry,artistic proceeding consisting in the industry of valorisation rough and drifted wood's trhue sculpture,pigmentary impregnation,adjonction of a specificaly created alloy :Aenors(tm)of a.j Van Wyk(adagp member 141666)[1] and soon www.aenors.nl try it! it might be online these day's --82.234.130.142 11:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)adagp141666" If someone objects, leave a note on my talk page and I'll restore it for the duration of its Vfd. Niteowlneils 22:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nori (Look Around You)

Not notable. Suggest that this is moved into a section in the Look Around You article. The illustration is nice however. Richard W.M. Jones 17:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a little snippet of nonsense in a commentary track on a DVD, it doesn't even warrant a mention in the main Look Around You article. AdorableRuffian 18:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 18:53, July 16 2005 (UTC)
Do not Delete. This is an instance of a bonafide meme circulating in at least three major schools of technology: the Massachusettes Institute of Technology, Rodchester Institute of Technology and Cornell. georgelazenby 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I agree that it's the job of Wikipedia to document substantial memes, it's not obvious to me that we should be including every catchphrase in the world. :-) WMMartin 15:21, July 19 2005 (UTC)
  - I point to the substantial cluster of articles documenting the tradition of hacks at only one school, MIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_%28technology_slang%29 and the fact that this single-school memword, 'hack' has since worked its way into the popular culture, thanks, no doubt, to the promenance MIT grads had in tech after graduation. Who's to say that 'nori' will not achieve the same status? georgelazenby 09:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - George, I think you're making a very fair point. If 'nori' does acquire the same patina of commonplace usage that 'hack' has, I'd fully support its inclusion. But, as yet, it hasn't. WMMartin 22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to Ku Klux Klan regalia and insignia. – ABC D✉ 00:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KKK costume

listing an incomplete nomination from today. no vote. Nabla 17:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains lots of unsubstantiated claims, goofy urban folklore, and wild speculation, as well as a lot of material that is about the Ku Klux Klan in general, rather than its costumes. The Klan has always tried to sound mysterious, ancient, and exciting, and this article is a symptom of that, with lots of nonsensical speculation that the costume was meant to emulate ancient druids', etc. A large portion of the article is simply a list of depictions of the Klan in popular culture. Of the part of the article that actually deals with the costume, I don't think any of it is true based on the print sources I have access to. The images are duplicated in the main Ku Klux Klan article.--Bcrowell 04:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the main Klan article gets too long, we can break out material on various aspects, but as is, this material doesn't belong anywhere on WP. Meelar (talk) 19:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Ku Klux Klan. --malathion ^talk 20:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - where claims are mere speculation, this is clearly stated. I think it is important to discuss, for example, the evolution of the costume, which is documented, and which was originally quite different. Why should cross burning have its own article, but not this? As for the Klan trying to sound exciting and mysterious, I don't think that's what the article about, since it is not a pro-Klan piece. If there is a "druid" influence, this may well have come in via Sir Walter Scott, whose influence on the KKK is quite well documented. --MacRusgail 14:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement that "where claims are mere speculation, this is clearly stated;" virtually all of the article (at least the part that does actually deal with the costume) is speculation, and most of the time it is not clearly stated. The Fiery cross article is just a redirect to Ku Klux Klan.--Bcrowell 15:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Grue 19:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This could become a good article.Jeltz talk 20:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it already is a good article. With time it will become better. -- Judson 23:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that there's not going to be a consensus for deletion, so I withdraw my vfd nomination. I'll delete everything that I think is wrong, off-topic, not verifiable, or duplicative, which will leave an extremely short stub of an article.--Bcrowell 02:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Potential for a good article. JamesBurns 03:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ku Klux Klan regalia and insignia following precedent of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pope hat. Gazpacho 01:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABC D✉ 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of 99 ZIP codes

Note there's also dumps at List of 89 ZIP codes and List of 97 ZIP codes, and better formatted versions at List of 01 ZIP codes and List of 00 ZIP codes, all probably triggered by the grid and links at List_of_ZIP_Codes_in_the_United_States#Grouped_numerically_by_first_two_digits. Niteowlneils 22:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

listing incomplete nomination from July 10. no vote here. Nabla 17:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the most useless page I have ever seen on wikipedia. Ever. AshTM 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- You obviously haven't been around very long. Try list of breath mints, list of Chilean freeways, or list of folk metal bands. Just to start. Oh, and delete. Denni ☯ 01:45, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
Delete. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Nabla 17:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic AdorableRuffian 18:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if this for some reason can't be speedied. Brighterorange 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not have this, List of Seattle Construction sites was far less useful. Speedy Delete.--Porturology 01:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of zip codes are certainly encyclopedic, as I can attest by my recent going through List of places with less than ten people and adding zip codes to some of those (I've done a few and will hopefully finish those off in the next several days). And I think that zip code listings have their place here. But the current grouping, by state, is much more useful. I'd suggest a speedy delete for these since we already have them in a more useful format. --Idont Havaname 05:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of zip codes are certainly encyclopedic. Yeah, if one of the definitions of "encyclopedic" is "meaningless dump of information". Delete. --Calton | Talk 09:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclo. (see WP:NOT) R adiant _>|< 13:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if Wikisource or even Commons would take this, as it's good info? If so transwiki, otherwise just delete. --Dmcdevit·t 07:37, July 22, 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, unanimously. All delete votes discounted as brand new users or likely socks. Including the nominator. -Splash 00:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu people

This article is almost completely plagarised from an Encyclopedia Britannica article. This is disgraceful! Musachachado 18:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Musachachado is documented on WP:VIP as a vandal. Casito⇝Talk 05:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Simply posting someone's name on the VIP page does not "document" him a vandal. I could easily put your name on there and later claim you are a "documented" vandal, after all. I'm sure the evaluation of my entire corpus of contributions will show that they are, on the whole, more helpful than harmful, a few minor indiscretions aside, for which I have apologised. And my German grammar is Ausgezeichnit, thank you!SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal' It is obvious Casito is too biased to be the arbiter of who's contributions are worthwhile and what is vandalism. Just look at what he said about his over-zealous and stifling over-reactions on HIS OWN TALK PAGE: "I realize that it would be in the best interest of both Wikipedia and my sanity if I stay away from Recent Changes and similar pages which put me in the office of Wiki-cop. Without fail, I eventually get upset and bite the newcomers. The previous talk messages should reinforce that point. Furthermore, RC tends to stress me out and I would rather play it cool. I have decided that, at least for now, I'm not the best person to police recent changes and I could be much, much more constructive working in other areas." Now, in the legal world, we call that a "party admission," and hardly the type of person you'd want policing what is supposed to be an open arena of ideas.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 06:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal First, I don't pretend to be an arbiter, I am simply documenting all of your misdeeds; think of me as more of a procurator. Second, the comment on my talk page is not relevent, since it refers to my actions on WP:RC, not WP:VIP or WP:VFD. I never found any of your crap by using RC, I ran across it in the wild. Furthermore, you are not a nai-ive newcommer, but rather an established troll. Also, my admision shows that I recognize my "over-zealous-ness" and that I conceded to more experieced users who I knew were correct. The opposite could be said of you. Finally, considering your "interpretation" of copyright law at Ainu people, I doubt anyone here believes your insights into the legal world. -Casito⇝Talk 18:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Moreover, Musachachado is a banned vandal and a lying troll with no positive contribution whatsoever.--Pharos 05:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Actually, I was temporarily blocked for "sock puppetry," not vandalism, and I can have my account reinstated whenever I want. I just have to notify an administrator which account I want to keep. So I'm not "banned," and about what, my boy, did I ever lie? You seriously need to chill out, brah.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You are a vandal; your whole history is only vandalism. You are banned; you cannot have your account reinstated. I am an administrator, please notify me which account you want to keep, I don't care; you have committed repeated vandalism with both of them.--Pharos 06:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. You are obviously of narrow mind, perhaps angry at some unspecified longings in your subconsience. Just because someone else propounds views contrary to yours does not make him a "vandal." And say what you will about my methods, it is obvious that I started a quite positive development on this article, namely, calling attention to the outdated and racist banality of the piece so that all our friends on Wikipedia can begin to improve it.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have an unusual editing history for someone concerned about racist attitudes toward the Ainu, having repeatedly inserted a line about the "inherently superior culture" of ethnic Japanese into the article. If you wish to reform your vandalism, this is not the way to do it; but we are, and I am, open to reformed vandals. If you change your "methods" you can still become a fully respected member of the Wikipedia community. BTW, I notice it has been a while since you last made the ridiculous claim about "international thievery", that we are violating copyright on a 1911 publication. Have we at least moved beyond that now?--Pharos 16:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response. You seem to be quite a bit more civilised and reasonable than that bloody Casito fellow, who most recently implied the threat of an Interpol sting operation in response to my enlightened editing. As far as the copyright issue goes, copyright law is statutory in nature, and not common law (another thing Casito bolloxed up), and I would have to do some research on the issue and get back to you. It would simply be malpractice to render an opinion straightaway without doing the proper reflection, after all. God forbid a nice young man such as yourself might rely upon my snap judgment and wind up getting yourself sued or something horrible like that. Keep up the good work! And remember: mein Kartoffelsalat ist immer besser als dein Kartoffelsalat!SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pharos, my friend, your fellow user Casito has persisted in making legal threats against me in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please see his talk page. I have taken your offer to heart and have only made constructive edits as of late, and I would appreciate it if you would tell this cloying Casito fellow to lay off. I think an apology might be needed as well.Rainbowwarrior1977 03:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Casito has made legal threats against you? Perhaps he told you this meeting you on the street, because all he said on Wikipedia was "Website defacement is a crime in many countries", so I cannot intervene on your behalf here. Perhaps instead you should complain to the Rt. Hon Sir Henry Swindon-Cocksburn [8]. If I see much more of this nonsense, your new accounts will be banned as well.--Pharos 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've since blocked Musachachado and CelineDionFan82 as sock puppets, with a note to please email me to say which is the 'main' account. Note that multiple voting on VFD is definitely sock puppet abuse - David Gerard 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is definitly PD in the U.S., where Wikipedia is hosted. This is part of Musachachado's ill-informed war. -Casito⇝Talk 19:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Musachachado has resorted to a revert war and what amounts to page vandalism to make his or her case. He or she has been warned. -Casito⇝Talk
Delete While the Ainu people are certainly to be considered a major cultural group, this article is making a mockery of their significance. A good portion of this information is outdated. As a result, this article should be deleted and completely re-written, not just copied. Santeria 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (This vote is the first edit by Santeria)[reply]
Delete (This unsigned vote is the first edit by Sugar101)
Keep per Casito. Nonsense nomination. - Thatdog 19:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - ill-informed nomination Sam Vimes 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep'. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Casito.
Keep. Notable ethnic group in Japan. Clear case for speedy keep as article is of fairly high standard and the topic is clearly notable. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect article until someone has had a chance to talk to Musachachado. Haikupoet 03:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly unoriginalCelineDionFan82 03:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely sockpuppet of Musachachado. Kim Bruning 16:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; obvious. Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, sanction nominator. Xoloz 04:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, abakharev 04:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. ~~Bad faith nomination by POV-warrior.~~ Tomer ^TALK 09:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: it appears possible that the nominator is simply unfamiliar with the criteria for WP:VFD, so I've stricken my above remark (for more, see Talk:Ainu people). Tomer ^TALK 17:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment:This seems highly unlikely to me given the contributions to the article by the obvious sockpuppet CelineDionFan82 (talk · contribs), which directly contradict Musachachado's supposed stance. See Talk:Ainu people.--Pharos 21:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per others above, not a serious nomination- groundless. --cjllw | TALK 11:36, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
Delete, if not extensively re-edit. This article is a slanted, racist, outdated (almost a century old) and a word-for-word copy. Are we that lazy these days that we can't bother to at least 'touch up' the works of the past to reflect the knowledge of the present? Are you fellows that much in awe of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? In my best John F. Kennedy voice, I shall proclaim to you today...that I shall Nevah..NEVAH... withdraaaw this nawniation...foo'ah Deletion!Musachachado 15:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We often use 1911 britannica articles as seeds, as they are in the public domain. Kim Bruning 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, good quality article. Maybe update it if it's old. :-) Kim Bruning 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article, delete nominator if his breaching experiment continues - David Gerard 16:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. On the one hand, the nominator is wrong about this article being one that should be deleted. I fully agree that, since it's in the public domain, there's no copyright violation here. On the other hand, the article itself is terrible, and Musachachado is correct that it contains much that is racist and outdated. So: don't delete it, but it needs to be extensively cleaned up. Nandesuka 17:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great article, should never have been nominated. -- Judson 23:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update. Better an outdated article on the Ainu than none at all. - Mustafaa 23:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!* As having descended from Burakumin and Ainu peoples, I find this dated rubbish personally offensive!SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (This vote is the user's first edit, and is in the same writing "style" used by the now-blocked VfD nominator)[reply]

* Keep and update! There is no reason this should be deleted and it would be unfortunate if there were no article on the Ainu people. Somebody should simply clean it up.

A staggering nomination. May I simply remove the VfD tag? To have it there on a perfectly good article on a people is bordering on an insult. Everyking 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePatently racist just waiting to play into the fascist agenda. And no, you cannot remove the tag, sonRainbowwarrior1977 02:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (This is the user's second edit, the first being on the talk page of one of the other articles Musachachado has been actively vandalizing.)[reply]
- You don't get a vote. And apparently you don't understand how deletion works here. If we delete this article, we are saying that the Ainu people should not have an article, period, which is a decision we could not override without a successful vote for undeletion. Therefore no matter what you think of the current article, if you think the Ainu need an article, you vote keep. Everyking 03:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually that is not correct. If an article is validly deleted, a different article on the same topic and under the same title can indeed be created, unless the article is protected in a deleted state, which typically only happens if there is a persistant attempt to recreate the article as it was prior to deletion.DES 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any recreation of an article deleted through VfD is subject to speedy deletion. Everyking 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh not quiite. WP:CSD says (Criterion G4) Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy. Note it says reposted content not reposted articles. A new article with different content, but the same title as a previously deleted article, is not "reposted content". See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive3#reposted_content where this is discussed a bit. DES 10:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There are cases in which that could be the case, for instance if I wrote an article called "Ainu people" that had little to nothing to do with the Ainu, but if the only issue is a POV complaint, then the content is going to be roughly the same, since both versions would about the Ainu. If this was deleted and someone wanted to start over they'd have to go through VfU, plain and simple. That's a long established practice. Everyking 22:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:CSD where criterion G4 says A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. (This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.). copies that are not "substantially identical" are not covered by this criterion. DES 23:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That being said, we should STRIKE Everyking's comments as misleading and prejudicial, for he gave a procedurally incorrect and perhaps dishonest reason to vote to "keep." It is clear that you CAN vote to delete and STILL have a future, better, less racist article on the Ainu People. Therefore, vote early and often for **Delete!**15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (Posted by SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem who has already voted, and who's edit history is limited to articles that Musachachado has vandalized )
- No you can't. We delete articles based on a judgment that they are unencyclopedic. You vote based on whether an article on the Ainu is encyclopedic. You mostly definitely do not vote based on a POV complaint you have, unless you feel the entire notion of having an article on a certain topic is POV. Everyking 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Could do with some minor cleanup but this is an encyclopedia topic. JamesBurns 03:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've begun a cleanup on the article to try to fix at least the most egregiously wrong parts of it. Nandesuka 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly needs some updating, but so do many articles. Unwarranted nomination. Chamdarae 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this VfD still open? It was clearly not a valid VfD candidate. Move this page's contents to Talk:Ainu people and let's move on. Tomer ^TALK 23:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I agree. This article was clearly nominated in bad faith. Furthermore, this page has strayed too far from its purpose of deciding whether to keep the article. Unless someone can offer a good reason why it should stay here, I will move it to a sub-page in the Talk:Ainu_people namspace tomorrow. -Casito⇝Talk 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

French peas-and-bacon stew

Non-notable recipe from the Household Cyclopedia that has already been transwikied to Wikibooks (see French stew of peas and bacon). --Diderot 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP not a cookbook. -Splash 01:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But it is an encyclopedia, and cuisine is an encyclopedic subject. -- Judson 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and so the article should be about the history and cultural impact of French peas-and-bacon stew, not just a recipe for it. -Splash 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already in wikibooks. JamesBurns 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Allanboyd - the antipoet

Delete nn, probable case of vanity. TheMidnighters 19:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete, gets 1570 Google hits. Not all are this person (and he needs a space in his name), though. ~~But the Google summaries do seem to suggest some notable coverage in Australia. I could be wrong though, so I'm persuadeable.~~ -Splash 04:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel strongly on the matter but a Google search of "Allan Boyd" antipoet returns 135 results. The majority of which are ads for poetry workshops and listings in magazines for his shows. I've found no mention of published works, but that might have been me. So what we have is a guy in the suburbs who wrote an internet opinion piece a year ago and now coordinates small workshops and performs as other nn poets do. And I didn't see the notable coverage you mentioned. It's basically comparable to a local band who independently produced their own ep and play at the local bars. --TheMidnighters 14:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I've changed my vote. -Splash 04:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheMidnighters. Dcarrano 22:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete self promotion, as per TheMidnighters. JamesBurns 03:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ill Community

Non-notable forum. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn semi-trolling forum. They go hack other sites. They get 61 unique Google hitsonly 2 of which are theirs (e.g. ill = inter library loan) and an Alexa rank of 4500 (surprisingly high). -Splash 01:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. -- Joolz 01:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete This article is somewhat informative. -- Chea 11:18, 17 July 2005
- No such user (as of my time stamp). Edit actually by 69.157.98.200. -Splash 03:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete The reason you can't find the site is because its ILL community, not three straight I's. Heres the link: http://community.allhiphop.com Zelda 11:39, 17 July 2005
- History shows this user did not make this edit. Actually made by 69.157.98.200, -Splash 03:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both edits should be slashed. -- A Link to the Past 04:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. forum. jni 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another stupid web forum. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Polk (game)

Delete Article about, as far as I can see, a pointless and non-existent game. The article doesn't assert that the game is played anywhere, there is no external links that could help verify its existence, and it just looks to be a figment of someone's imagination. Google, admittedly, has 851,000 hits for Polk game, but that's mainly due to the number of people named Polk. Sam Vimes 20:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Funny, but not encyclopedic. Pburka 22:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but could we move it to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense?
BJAODN. Dcarrano 22:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. JamesBurns 03:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Back In Business Cartridges

This article appears to have been advertising for a less then half year old laser printer cartridge recycling business. I cleared the page up, but I don’t feel a less then half year old company is notable enough to have it’s own article. Seano1 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company. Dcarrano 02:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

John Robinson (Wikipedia user)

Delete, vanity. Oleg Alexandrov 20:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy info, then delete article. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. User:Hephaestos appears to have past problems with anonymous vandals/stalkers/etc., and this disclosure of personal information could very well be the work of one of them rather than the subject himself. Remove for his safety. - Thatdog 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's my cousin and I know some things about him. He told me a lot about him being here. (Unsigned vote by 152.163.100.204 (talk · contribs))
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 03:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a possible attack. --TheMidnighters 04:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy -- delete. - Longhair | Talk 07:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't delete it! (Another unsigned vote by 152.163.100.204 (talk · contribs))
Delete though Hephaestos has done some great work in Wiki in the past. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep Yeah, but john couldn't believe someone would unban michael, i'm guessing that's the why he left this place behind. The truth about hephaestos 19:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (This is falsely signed and was actually posted by 205.188.117.12 (talk · contribs), an AOL proxy like the unsigned posts above)[reply]

Thank you for verifying my assumptions. Now, please take the drama elsewhere. - Thatdog 20:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 22:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. 03:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree this page should be deleted, it has nothing to do with it. Well, I might think Hephaestos is a good guy, but he's not famous for anything (business, movie-maker, musician, sport) yet. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toodleday

This is a non-topic. It is a minor part of a minor episode of a minor television show. I vote that it be deleted NoPetrol 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Tom Goes to the Mayor article already summarizes episode, not independently notable. Dcarrano 02:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete it already! I made the page in the midst of a smoke-fuel'd rage, and have since seen the error of my ways. Thusly, I put a "redirect" in place of the text, which doesn't work, because there needs to be a vote. As its creator, I want it gone, so could we nicely wrap up this non-discussion and re-instate the re-direct? Or do we need more stuffy comments about how "Toodleday" is a "non-topic" or isn't "notable"? Of course it's a "non-topic", chaps, it's TOODLEDAY for Pete's sake! Thesmokingmonkey
Train a special dog who shall decide what to do with the article. Failing that, delete. -- Norvy (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Marco Sabba

Marco Sabba was not the winner of Big Brother, and so this entry should be merged with the main content of Big Brother UK series 5. Phantomsteve 21:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother UK series 5. Dcarrano 04:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable contestant. JamesBurns 03:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he didn't win or come second...nothing notable. 80.42.28.76 11:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Boldly redirected, even though I was involved in the debate. It's an obvious misspeeling. -Splash 00:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Home hemodialisys

This was never listed. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 21:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

This needs cleanup and notability. I hesitate to speedy it if it could have some merit. Antares33712 28 June 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Keep, gets 13500 Googles when spelt properly: dialysis. So move it if kept. -Splash 01:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to home hemodialysis as misspelling. Dcarrano 02:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Home hemodialysis. JamesBurns 03:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuophobia

Neologism. Denni ☯ 17:17, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. Babajobu 17:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. WAvegetarian 17:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep or barring that redirect --MarSch 15:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete. with only 3 google hits, I don't think we can justify even a redirect. Brighterorange 21:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although google suggests redirecting to Hamaxophobia. Pburka 22:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Neologism, as well as being POV (and a poorly constructed word to boot). Haikupoet 03:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but would not mind a redir. R adiant _>|< 13:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I do not object to a redir to homophobia, but see no real purpose in doing so. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism ~~~~ 14:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article makes a good point about the proper use of suffixes and affixes in the English language. -- Crevaner 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homophobia. JamesBurns 03:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Lost

A popular phrase on a non-notable forum? Totally unencyclopediatic. Delete. A Link to the Past 22:29, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, but only if the importance is not clarified or explained. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in all probability a non-notable in-joke regardless of the notability of the forum. Dcarrano 02:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable phrase. JamesBurns 03:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forum cruft. jni 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stupid in-joke. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Block

Non-notable forum. Delete. A Link to the Past 23:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, apparent vanity page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I doubt its existence and the contents is nonsensical. Kelvinc
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another stupid web forum. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T. H. Slade-Galen

I was considering speedying this but hung back because it just feels too long to classify as patent nonsense. No google hits at all. It purports to be the biography of someone who is "not a real person in the strictest, literal sense". David | Talk 23:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a (very strange) way to hype a blog. Delete, thoroughly not notable. Dcarrano 01:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBurns. Quale 21:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Green (man of many talents)

Vanity page 82.44.213.192 23:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 31.44.263.112 23:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect attack page by some pathetic student hack who dislikes him. Delete anyway. David | Talk 23:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he may be a man of many talents, none of them appear to be of encyclopedic interest at this stage. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he may have tried to sell a college on eBay, but that doesn't make him notable. --Etacar11 03:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the very same David Green of this article: please delete it. I'm not all that interesting. Oxymoron 19:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. 194.60.38.10 09:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sinead Mandlik took his virginity Bajocbi 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this editor attempted to alter the votes in any earlier edit of this page. --Calton | Talk 03:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, Delete, secondly, the Votes for Deletion banner seems to have been deleted from the top of the actual page, by Bajocbi. Anyone know how to put it back?217.43.134.122 11:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We love Dave. Also well done Charlie.~~Uncantabrigian~~ 17.52, 22 July 2005 (BST) (Vote actually by 129.67.55.153 (talk · contribs))
Uncantabrigian is none other than Craig Aston, DRO, LC, Coll. Keblense, and 129.67.55.153 (talk · contribs) is a computer in the Keble computer room. Trust me here. Uncantabrigian. Oh and keep Dave here too. He will be the next Tory Prime Minister.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Chicken Man CDC (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken man

Someone has clearly spent quite a bit of time on this, but it must be a hoax Bobbis 23:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete. And here's me thinking this was an article about Alan Hawkshaw's Chicken Man, the legendary theme tune from the BBC's Grange Hill. AdorableRuffian 00:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out that there's nothing to keep at chicken man — which seems highly likely given that there are no sources cited by the article, no sources to be found, and a strong indication that this is an attack page — it should redirect to Chicken Man. Uncle G 01:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicken Man, hoax. Dcarrano 01:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Chicken Man as per Uncle G. The current article is unverifiable to say the least. I can also recall a 1970s radio serial called Chicken Man. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very interesting. -- Judson 23:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. JamesBurns 03:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Valdivia

Blatant vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not so! He has become a Legend within the University and has had several articles written on him in such eminent journals as "AT501" He is becoming well known throughout Scotland and should have an entry inase people want to find out more about the legend. (comment by 129.215.45.63 (talk · contribs))

This guy is reaaly famous in Edinburgh Scotland. He should be on here. This page was not written by Carlos. (comment by 129.215.45.7 (talk · contribs))

Delete someone popular within a university is not encyclopedia material, if it is, why don't we all just write articles about our favourite lecturers? Even if he is notable, which he isn't, the article is very, very badly written, full of biased and vaguely racist crap. --Stevefarrell 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By "full of" rascist crap you obviously mean "one line". That line being written in the presence of a Scot (who was laughing along with the author). Neither being Carlos Valdivia. (comment by 129.215.45.76 (talk · contribs))

How is he notable? What has he done? How exactly has he contributed to society? What is he? According to the article he's jst a student, big wow. Google picks up nothing that verifies a claim to notability, this is not an encyclopedia article, end of story. Delete, the sooner the better --Stevefarrell 21:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no verifiable claim to notability plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 01:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity without redemption. -Splash 01:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. Wiki is not the place for jobsearching or personals ads. --Etacar11 03:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if they are just silly jokes... --Etacar11 14:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Then how come loads of you guys have your own pages? Whats that if not vanity my little friends? My god you guys really all need a sense of humour transplant.(Comment by 129.215.25.117 (talk · contribs))

You are confusing User pages with articles. We all have stuff about ourselves on our user pages. These are not encyclopedia articles. --Etacar11 21:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough . . . you win ;-)

Galactic Overlord? I think not. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think so. keep it. (Unsigned vote by 129.215.45.114 (talk · contribs), first edit from this IP)

How would you know? (Comment by 129.215.25.117 (talk · contribs))

Delete It's just a job seeker. --rob 05:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Just a job seaker"? What kind of person is going to give someone who calls himself "galactic overlord" a job, you Pleb! (Comment by 129.215.25.117 (talk · contribs))

See Aspergers (another comment by 129.215.45.76 (talk · contribs))

Delete Not notable, pure vanity (even if not written by himself), he should just post his CV off to various agencies if he wants a job, as Wikipedia is not a recruitment agency. Phantomsteve 17:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself, its not a CV its an encyclopedia entry about a notable guy! (Comment by 129.215.25.117 (talk · contribs))

We need this entry! I am ready to get as many votes as it takes to keep him. In fact I am am going to run my multi agent simulation toolbox to just keep voting for him.
- Threat of sockpuppetry by 129.215.45.43 (talk · contribs). Has anyone blocked him? As for me - delete - vanity at best, intentional vandalism at worst - Skysmith
- Redundancy. All vandalism is intentional. Though, in the absence of any damage (certainly none was intended), this isn't a case of vandalism anyway. So no harm no foul. Hope you don't mind. I changed a typo in your bullet point. ('by 129.215.45.2 (talk · contribs) Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - Sockpuppetry (ie. voting multiple times by whatever method, one of them as per 129.215.45.43's statement above) is not favored here. That constitutes potential disruption, therefore vandalism - Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that wasn't what you were refering to. Nor has anyone done it. Nor will anyone. (Unsigned comment by 129.215.13.83 (talk · contribs))
I like the guy, employing him right now... seems to be really smart ppl up there in edinburgh. wouldn't quite go that far to call him galactic overlord---but rockstar programmer he definitely is. Go Carlos!!! (Unsigned comment by 129.215.37.21 (talk · contribs))
Does anybody here even know what the term 'vanity' means? One of the nice things about the wikipedia is that you don't have to fake it as you go. You're mere key strokes away from actually knowing what you're talking about. (by 129.215.45.2 (talk · contribs) again - Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Depends on whether you are Valdivia himself, one or more of his friends or someone who intends to mock him. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, meaning of the word is less imporant than policy in Wikipedia:Vanity page. I suggest you get a LiveJournal account instead - Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm glad that he's a cool guy and a good programmer. Fortunately there are a tons of cool programmers and more is needed to be notable. --Vizcarra 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But he clearly is notable. There is even a wikipedia entry devoted to him! (Circular "logic" by 129.215.45.125 (talk · contribs). Only edits to this VFD. I wonder how many WP mirrors have already absorbed this - Skysmith 07:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - It isn't so much circular reasoning. More of a closed curve really. ;-) (Unsigned comment by 129.215.16.39 (talk · contribs))
Let Valdivia keep his place in Wikipedia history. If not here then how about BJAODN? (Unsigned vote by 129.215.135.52 (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.