Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31

[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Simon Drage

[edit]

Just an active university student with intrests (and probably aspirations) in politics Evil Eye 00:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Simon might be active at a national level too, but so are many many hundreds of other people, most of which would not warrant an entry in Wikipedia either. And seeing the pages which link to Simon Drage and a search for 'Drage' on wikipedia, I can only find one other page which lsits him: that of York Union. I stick with my inital nomination for deletion. Evil Eye 13:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KCUF

[edit]

Today's "band" that hasn't released any albums (just three on-line Flash songs). Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. According to their label's website, the notable musicians mentioned are "honorary" members, which sounds to me like simple name-dropping.[1] Band's website has no content[2]. Niteowlneils 01:06, 31 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Hawk Elementary School

[edit]

Non-notable public primary school. Delete or Merge into article about West Windsor, New Jersey. DES 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments only no vote: I think schools and other educational institutions with established notability should surely find a place in wikipedia. --Bhadani 04:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Everyone agerees with this, i think. But what constitutes "notability". Is there such a thing as a real school that is not notable? DES 04:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current status of Humanity

[edit]

Edited only thrice by one user, last edit over half a year ago - user said they're too busy to finish. Contains nothing apparently of use. Delete Nickptar 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khapi and also KHAPI

[edit]

1 relevant Google hit, which is the link in the article. The author is only user of this API. Bobbis 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tajeshwar

[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, as no references can be found to the person or syndrome described. Google gives no hits for the alleged "psychotropic dysmorphia" aka "Tajeshwar's Syndrome". Tearlach 02:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless good references can be provided. The article is about a person who's only reason to be included is that he has a syndrome that seems to be made up - no references can be found on the web or in the scientific literature Andreww 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, this looks to me like it is intended to insult/degrade. Nandesuka 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. I'm guessing the "pitch alterations" are a way to make fun of this poor fourth grader? No references, so it seems to be a hoax, and should be deleted as such. -mysekurity 05:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the creator / other editors are able to conclusively prove the point, and even if proved the issue of article's name shall remain a contentious matter - as it is the name of 100s of individuals in India. --Bhadani 06:56, 31 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 10:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Teh Scene

[edit]

Non-notable parody. DS 02:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:31, July 31, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dum-arm.com

[edit]

Delete Fancruft nn website, probably vanity. --Pyroclastic 03:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unhelpful, the curious would be better served by visiting dum-arm.com anyway. --Borksamoht 03:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing (promise!), I think a significant ammount of information can and needs to be added to the Harry Potter wiki, where Zach's talents could be better appreciated. -mysekurity 07:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zach's talents are crap. His site isn't welcome here and no one even likes his site (Unsigned vote by 80.3.128.5 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete (redirect votes ignored due to listed target failing to survive its own VfD). --Allen3 talk 11:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of arda

[edit]
See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia of Arda.

Wikipedia is not a web directory. DS 03:22, 31 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. Editors can sort out whether to merge or whatever. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Maul Wars

[edit]

Non notable warcraft 3 map, advertisement. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:36, July 31, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 17:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Britney Spears

[edit]

Delete - This has been recreated after being deleted less than a month ago, and is still complete nonsense/vandalism. Related nonsense was added to NASCAR driver pages(like Jeremy Mayfield and Kyle Petty) by 207.161.35.138, this page's author. DomRem | Yeah? 04:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

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

Team Britney Spears

[edit]

Guess what? It's err... deletable Frenchman113 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • How so? Kappa 17:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - While I won't pretend to understand what it is, I do not see how it qualifies as deletable. I'm gonna attempt to research it, and see if I can't improve it. -- Cabhan 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - After doing some Google work, it is unnotable, and I can find no mention of this team on the drivers' websites or through a generic Google search. -- Cabhan 17:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Nonsense. --Tysto 19:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. NatusRoma 20:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not speedy delete: All articles must be verifiable. If you simply read this, it's an obvious prank. List of the NASCAAR team songs? Huh? It's the "most defending" team? Geogre 05:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete Chaos Chambers. I carefully checked all contributors' edit histories prior to reading any part of this VfD. Both keep voters failed to satisfy my suffrage standards, so this was unanimous. I am also speedying Category:Chaos Chambers as a bad-faith attempt to duplicate an article listed for deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Chambers and Category:Chaos Chambers

[edit]

Internet cult with 50 members, huh? The "thousands of followers" claim is clearly false. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From these votes downward Category:Chaos Chambers was added to the VfD because the content are the same.
  • Delete. --R.Koot 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I planned to nominate this for deletion myself several days ago. Oleg Alexandrov 23:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are you allowed to pile something onto a vote for deletion of a different page? If you can have category:consequentialist wikipedians, I see no reason not to have category:chaos wikipedians or something comparable. I apologize for making it an article originally but it does merit a category in philosophies, logical or not. Espantajo
Here's an even better example: Category:Cynical Wikipedians? come on... Espantajo
Officially not, but once Chaos Chambers gets deleted, Category:Chaos Chambers instantly becomes a candidate for speedy deletion, because it has exactly the same contents. --R.Koot 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that if I changed the category page someone would complain about me doing that after the deletion notice was put up... so i made category:Chaos Wikipedians cuz thats fair enough. delete that page too if you wans but i'm owning up to it at least. Espantajo

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Splash 17:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Co-locate (verb)

[edit]

This is clearly wiktionary material. Transwiki if needed and delete drini ☎ 04:44, 31 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

ARTS Interface Descriptions

[edit]

This puzzle strikes me as particularly nonsensical, completely outof context, and since at least someone already raised the point of it being unencyclopedic, I thought I'd move it to VfD to get more exposure. Delete drini ☎ 04:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sheer number of tags make this an obvious choice for deletion. Unencyclopedic, it at least needs to be re-written and clarified, but most likely should be deleted as unencyclopedic. -mysekurity 05:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where do people come up with this junk? I wonder if this can be speedied? AlbertR 05:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what little I can understand from this makes it sound like it is a description of how one company's finance software works. It includes things like particular directory names. It also links to FI, but I can't work out why. -Splash 17:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, the article is all over the place. To the extent that there is some summery of a commonly used software app, then that should have its own page under its own name, and the descriptions of its inner workings, unless common to similar apps and discussed on simplistic level are best kept in the /usr/share/docs and not wikipedia --Jacob 08:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Digitally Wise

[edit]

as in WP:NOT, it's a neologism. Doesn't provide much information beyond its title (a digitally wise is somebody wise about digital stuff) and it's a veiled advertismenet for the digitallywise website (which claims to have invented the term). Delete drini ☎ 04:53, 31 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gran Turismo 4 Moblie

[edit]

Not only is the title misspelled, but it's what appears to be a magazine or newspaper article about a non-notable mobile version of a video game. ral315 05:33, July 31, 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 so it should probably be merged. --malathion talk 21:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chili's Babyback Ribs song

[edit]

Come on...a page about an advertising jingle that isn't horribly notable? I mean, an article for Where's the Beef? is one thing, since it affected culture and was very popular, but this "song" doesn't deserve its own article by a long shot. ral315 05:41, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. True, but you gotta love how the author wrote the vocalizations of the tune, "Chilllliissss, babybacckkk ribbbs". Once this commercial reaches (or comes close to) the level of "Got Milk?" and "Where's the Beef?" then it'll deserve a page. Until then, it gave me a good chuckle. -mysekurity 05:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, should this article be deleted, I'd get rid of the redirect too. -mysekurity 05:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I agree 100%. I love the jingle, but it's horribly non-notable. And to be honest, I doubt it will ever be notable- the commercials have been airing for years and aren't notable enough. ral315 06:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, many people know it and would want to be able to look it up. Kappa 06:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then they should look it up at Chili's, which I might add is a stub. K1Bond007 06:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this song is notable enough that it has been parodied in Austin Powers II, where Fat bastard sings this song while hunting for a baby to eat. If deleted, this should be merged into Chili's so no information is lost. Klonimus 22:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't really see how a specific jingle on it's own is deserving of it's own article. Add simple bullet to Jingle or merge info to Chili's simliar in style to Oscar Mayer and delete. K1Bond007 06:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Chili's and cleanup. if there was some hard data, like the cpst of the ad campaign over a certain amount of time, or a name for that large black man who chimes in BARBEQUE SAUCE, there might be an argument for keeping it, but an anecdotal transcript of a commercial someone saw on tv doesnt really need a page of its own. Nateji77 06:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete flat-out, no redirect, no merge. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Many people" would want to look this up? Name one. Even the author of the article would never, in a hundred million years, want to look this up. If a million monkeys using a million Atari 400s were typing in wikipedia queries, the heat-death of the universe would arrive long before they tried to look this up. Nandesuka 12:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no reason to believe this is any more notable than any other jingle. No merge, no redirect. Joyous (talk) 15:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete individual jingle are both uninteresting and non-notable until they do something that somehow makes them one or the other. Just like teenage bands. -Splash 18:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated. Might be worth a mention if there's an article on the restaurant chain itself, but it isn't worth an article. Besides, the title is useless with or without an Atari 400.  :) - Lucky 6.9 20:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable ad campaign and significant pop culture reference. 151.203.215.197 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thearmpit.net

[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. History of a non-notable Limp Bizkit fansite. — Gwalla | Talk 05:44, 31 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 SidawayTalk 14:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of 89 ZIP codes

[edit]

List of all ZIP codes that start with "89". Fine list for an encyclopedia, but it's exactly the same list at List of ZIP Codes in Nevada, but with a lot better formatting, as well as wikilinks. I don't think redirect is even correct here, since most people wouldn't use this title looking for Nevada ZIP codes. ral315 05:53, July 31, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gravity Ships

[edit]

Star Trek fanfic. See other VFD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Double Gravity K1Bond007 05:57, July 31, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo: Create Your Own Level!

[edit]

Quick Google searches seem to show that this is complete and utter nonsense (which seems apparent after reading the article anyway). ral315 05:58, July 31, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambroise Levesque

[edit]

If this were not a hoax, an unknown painter with a single painting in a museum in Rejkavik would be non-notable anyway. However, 20th century and contemporary artists who have dealers and exhibitions (i.e. are professionals) are well-documented in various directories and dictionaries: "Ambroise Levesque Nice" gets 0 Google hits. This Anon. editor's other contributions have been in the field of commercial music. Wetman 06:03, 31 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 (1k, 1d, anon vote discounted) . Scimitar parley 23:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OghamWiki

[edit]

Googling "OghamWiki" receives 15 hits, all of which are WP mirrors. It may be a real Wiki system, but it's not even close to notable. ral315 06:07, July 31, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita vihar

[edit]

This was recently nominated and just closed (by me). The previous nomination received little attention (two and a half votes) and I therefore closed it as "inconclusive" (and so default to keep). However, it remains a 3-sentence article that's probably advertising and in any case is a non-notable appartment complex. So, it should be deleted (this time). Dmcdevit·t 06:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied, as no content beyond section headings. Dmcdevit·t 06:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of George W. Bush

[edit]

This has no real content and if it were ever to be remade, a much better title would be needed anyway. Better to just delete for now; if the article is needed that badly, it can be recreated. ral315 06:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Turkey

[edit]
Also a duplicate posting at The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (now a redirect)

Appears to be the text, in English, of the constitution. Transwiki to Wikisource - if it is not a copyvio. -- RHaworth 06:48:51, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Backend Hosting

[edit]

Seems to be a blatant advertisement for a hosting system. Google for "Backend Hosting" EZ Publishing (the latter terms being the company's name) yields only 127 hits. ral315 07:21, July 31, 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 MERGE and REDIRECT. Done, but have tagged result for wfy and cleaning. -Splash 18:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basement culture

[edit]

Mostly unfinished page on the culture of basements. Google search for "Basement culture" -"95 North" (removing the artist of an unrelated album with the same name) yields 119 hits. ral315 07:24, July 31, 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 12:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Reardon UK

[edit]

Google search for "Chris Reardon UK" yields 20 hits. Only notability is that he's some random British homosexual DJ that no one's ever heard about. ral315 07:26, July 31, 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 12:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Klips ve Onlar

[edit]

Turkish band that doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Google search shows about 900 hits, only 156 of which are English. ral315 07:38, July 31, 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 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ks-iwmi

[edit]

I honestly have no idea what this article is about, but another user started to VFD it two weeks ago and didn't follow through on it. It definitely looks unencyclopedic, though. ral315 07:44, July 31, 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 13:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kronk

[edit]

Character from The Emperor's New Groove; however, it's a one-sentence stub that isn't encyclopedic. I could be bold and redirect, but I thought I'd put it up here to see others' views. ral315 07:49, July 31, 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 22:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kuzco

[edit]

Character from The Emperor's New Groove; however, it's a one-sentence stub that isn't encyclopedic. I could be bold and redirect, but I thought I'd put it up here to see others' views. ral315 07:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 18:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-native pronunciations of English

[edit]

Two weeks ago I added the {{Unsourced}} tag to this and left a message on the talk page saying "as far as I can tell, there are no cited sources here, but just vague impressions people have of various foreign accents, which amounts to very unscientific original research." Nothing has changed since then. Every single contribution to this page is original research. I doubt sources even could be added, because AFAIK linguistic research is not published on this sort of thing. Therefore, delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there is research. We only need to add the references. E.g. Wiik, K. (1965). Finnish and English Vowels: A comparison with special reference to the learning problems met by native speakers of Finnish learning English. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B, Tom. 94. --Vuo 16:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep, agreeing with comments by Dunc, Vuo, and Binadot above. Very interesting subject and something I have thought about for a long time. It would be terrific if this could be annotated with sound files of actual speakers demonstrating some of these speech patterns. Probably not feasible though. DanMS 04:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there anything wrong in the article? If so, please feel free to correct it. It would be very surprising if the field of teaching English to native speakers of other languages has no research on pronunciation. Fg2 11:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.

Jewish supremacy

[edit]

This was a recreation of an article that was already removed per VfD. If someone wants it restored, the correct route is Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

Anti-semitic garbage. Uppland 08:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, it's Semitic garbage. Jewish supremacism believes that Jews are superior, not inferior. (Unless you believe the page is to discredit the Jewish race) ral315 08:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Just because it's a vile, disgusting belief doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its own article. On the opposite side, Anti-Semitism also gets its own page, even though it's just as disgusting. Besides, the article seems to be (somewhat) NPOV. ral315 08:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Do my edits achieve NPOV, in your view? CanadianCaesar 08:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think just one user can change an article to be completely NPOV; multiple views influence the article and help keep its NPOV perspective. But you did a great job on getting rid of a lot of the POV stuff I was worried about. ral315 09:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ral315, but I must say it's bloody unfortunate both ideologies even exist. CanadianCaesar 08:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even though I agree that it's garbage. Nandesuka 12:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Kahanists/Kach can be described as Jewish Supremacists (the first ones) and do deserve a wiki page imho, but the idea that Jewish Supremacy exists as an ideology forming an unbroken link since biblical times is a deeply troubling POV. This article seems to have been written by people trying to make the points that
1.) A belief in Jewish supremacy is widely held by Jews
2.) Persecution of Jews is essentially linked to, if not caused by, aforesaid belief.

Both of these are POV (not to mention offensive to Jews and completely untrue in my experience). Evidence for chip on shoulder are:

a)Treating the bible as just a story when talking about God choosing Abraham, but as a historical document when talking about massacres by ancient Israelite soldiers.
b)In the sentence "Most modern anti-semitism.." POV inexplicably ignoring anti-semitism arising both from widespread misinterpretations of the gospels (e. g. belief that modern Jews continue to bear responsibility for Jesus'death) and simple xenophobia from differences in culture and lifestyle.
c)Suggesting Hitler's Jewish conspiracy theory has something to do with even an alleged belief by Jews that they are superior.. but trying to control the world through banking, or enslavement of other races, is not evidence that one believes oneself to be superior.
d)"..was the consequence" deliberately ambiguous about whether the holocaust was the consequence of Hitler's/Ford's beliefs (which are not implied to be mistaken) or of actual widespread supremacist thinking among Jews (which is absurd POV).
e)"Not until after.." the Kahanists were not around at Israel's creation and there is no evidence of Jewish supremacist movements at this time.. looks to me like an mischievous attempt to link Jewish supremacism with Zionism.
f)"As Israel grew militarily strong .. " POV controversial and partial statement.
g)" .. many Jews believed that .." absurd POV, more like a few nutcases.
h) Jonathan Sacks (chief rabbi of UK I think) quote: deliberate misinterpretation. "jewish future" means future of Jews not a future world in which everyone is Jewish and this is completely obvious. (Warning-- newbie here! Would like to put paragraph breaks in that but not sure how..)Zargulon 12:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of
Like this
(see source) --Dv 14:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!Zargulon 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be all this as it may, this was a recreation of an article that was already removed per VfD, and I have speedied it on that basis. If someone wants it restored, the correct route is Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, July 31, 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 21:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 125

[edit]

Non-notable flight where a cabin door opened in-flight. Probably scary as hell, but not encyclopedic, especially considering the 21 Google hits for "Pan Am Flight 125". ral315 08:02, July 31, 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 22:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nipper (Person)

[edit]

nn Counter-Strike map maker. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even maybe speedy as vanity... (not completely sure how notable game map makers are). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' We'll spend more energy deleting this than was expended creating it. --Wetman 09:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Smells like vanity, though 167 maps is quite an effort. - Longhair | Talk 12:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --I'll clarify that I created this entry and am in no way affiliated with Nipper, and I consider his contributions to CS notable enough to merit an article on him. If someone wants to touch up this article to make it "Less Vanity-y", then they can go ahead, but I don't see what is wrong with it. As for the article's significance, there are (literally) hundreds of players playing Nipper's maps as I type this (I checked), and I consider that significant enough to merit an article. (I wrote this in two halfs at two different times, so the wording may be shady)-Atog
  • Weak Delete. I'm tempted to try and merge this with something else (maybe Counter-Strike or Mod_(computer_gaming)) but I can't figure out where it would be appropriate. --Alan Au 23:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even "(literally) hundreds of players playing" doesn't really make someone notable. Then again Wikipedia is not paper. But that seems like a stretch. There probalby could be a CS Maps article which you could mention this person. Mmmbeer 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was RELIST. This is strictly a no-consensus, but with only two divergent votes, I'm going to relist in hopes of a better debate. Splash 18:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Gaelic proverbs

[edit]

Delete this because there's virtually no content to it. It's a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, a link to a list of Scottish Gaelic proverbs at Wikisource, a link to proverb, and some external links, held together by a dicdef. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:46, 31 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 and Redirect --malathion talk 02:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian pronunciation

[edit]

This is not an article on the pronunciation of the Sumerian language (which is obviously a complicated problem, as the spoken Sumerian language has been dead for the last roughly 4,000 years and the writing is partly syllabic, partly ideographical, and more than one language variety appears to be attested in the written sources). This is instead a short list of (mostly) Sumerian proper nouns with their conventional pronunciation in English. The topic is obviously valid and encyclopedic, but this is not even an attempt to treat the topic indicated by the title. --Uppland 09:21, 31 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 22:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reason To Believe (fanzine)

[edit]

Non-notable fanzine whose own counter on the front page of their website is only at 4600+ hits. Google search for "Reason to believe" fanzine -wikipedia yields 577 results, many unrelated to the actual fanzine. Not to mention that the page has not been edited in over 7 months (only edits are the page's creation, and the addition of a category tag a month later. ral315 09:25, July 31, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygeno2

[edit]

I'm having trouble telling what this is, but it surely isn't notable. Might be a student project of some kind. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 31 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 not enough votes. --malathion talk 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hkix

[edit]

There are many, many emulated UO shards (which are fan-run servers for Ultima Online, a massively-multiplayer online RPG). This article fails to establish notability, and seems to just be adspam. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This HKIX article is a typo by it's name (which should refer to Hong Kong Internet eXchange, which is my fault on the typo), however, about the emulated UO shard problem. I am trying to write an article regarding the histroy of the non-profit MMORPG developement in Hong Kong, while linking it with the server names. (In which the shards are already not in service anymore regarding on adspam issues) I guess this kind of historical info about a virtual community growth worth its existence. --Zektonic 07:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused. First you write an article about a UO server, then you say that it was a typo and change the article to something having nothing to do with UO servers, then you say you want to write about MMORPG servers? Weak Delete. If you refactor the article into something presentable, I'll change my vote. If you make up your mind on what you want to write about, you can always start over later. In the meantime, I have made a few edits to the article to wikify it.
  • I am really sorry about the fault, I'll try to explain it a little bit, I was trying to write another article at Emulated_Ultima_Online_Server_in_Hong_Kong, however I had made an error on typing one of the server name (which is ixuo rather than HKIX). thereafter I found out my error, and also found out that HKIX is another thing which I got mix up (since both two words I heard a lot), to mend my error I introduce the correct information on HKIX. (I am not trying to fool anyone on voting, sorry for confusion) Also, I wonder that should I use redirect to that article instead. Thanks anyway. --Zektonic 07:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --malathion talk 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation

[edit]

There's no such rank in the Russian military, as explained on the talk page.--DmitryKo 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If theres no such rank, why there is there an established insignia for the position? The pic on the page is from U.S. Army files on comparative ranks. I beleive Russia does have a five star naval rank which can be bestowed upon someone in times of war much like the United States maintains the rank of Fleet Admiral although noone currently holds it. This should have been discussed, in my opinion, before one was so quick to add a VFD tag. -Husnock 16:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Established by whom, the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry? All the non-fictional ranks are listed in the Russian Federal Law "On military service and military ranks". This particular one never existed. -DmitryKo 22:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup Comment: I just did a major rewrite of the article that will hopefully clear up the confusion. I am not disputing any of the Russian sources. From what I gather, this is a hypothetical rank that could be bestowed if Russia ever had to appoint a 5 star naval position to be the equivalent to officers in other countries. Its not disputed there is currently no rank as this in the Russian military. Only that there could be. As there appears to be an established insignia, obtained from who knows where (it was on the Army's PDF file thats all I know), I dont think it can be called original research. Also, for the record, the knowledge of DmitryKo on this subject is very impressive. -Husnock 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Its never even been proposed or appointed by anyone" is the statement I challenge. How can you say that for 100 percent certianty? Why would this rank be in a U.S. Army publication? What are the procedures in Russia's military for appointment to a five star naval rank, when and if this became neccesary. I would agree that factual accuracy can be disputed here, but there is too much for this to simple be deleted. -Husnock 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Its never even been proposed or appointed by anyone"... how can you say that ? — I tried to search the Internet, along with governmental sites and major Russian newspapers, for "Адмирал Флота Российской Федерации" to see if there was a promotion to this rank or maybe a public discussion for it, and found nothing. Not even a single bit.
2. Why would this rank be in a U.S. Army publication? — I believe they imoly made a wild guess that since current Russian military ranks are largely based on Soviet system, a rank similar to Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union should exist. They were wrong.
  • You seem very very quick to dismiss the U.S. Army source. Simply stating that they were wrong and calling that the end of it isnt good enough for me. The PDF file I continously refer to is from a major diplomatic publication. Saying that a major office of the U.S. Army, such as the Institute of Heraldry, made a "wild guess" is rather far fetched. That is why I am so much against this VFD. The sources that contradict the personal view of the nominator and simply being dismissed as "wrong". Compromise is what Wikipedia is all about. -Husnock 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can give me a Russian source for this rank, there's nothing to talk about - I'm just not in a mood to discuss factual errors made by various US institutions. Call it my personal point of view. --DmitryKo 09:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. What are the procedures ... for appointment to a five star naval rank — Since "N-star" grade designations are not used in Russian Armed forces at all (there is Supreme Officer class that contains 4 naval ranks - Counter Admiral, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Admiral of the Fleet), the procedures for "5-star" naval rank are just the same as for "6-star" and "7-star" ranks... that is, no rank, no procedure. --DmitryKo 21:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source to confirm your statement, something official from the Ministry of Defense/the State Duma/the President of the Russian Federation. --DmitryKo 22:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find it either. Plus, in the USSR, there were more Marshals than Fleet Admirals anyways. Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. There were two distinct ranks in the Soviet Navy, Admiral of the Fleet and Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union (refer to Uniform Insignia - USRR, Navy). Likewise, there was Marshal of the Soviet Union in the Soviet Army but also Marshal of a branch and Chief Marshal of a branch, both ranked equivalent to General of the Army (Uniform Insignia is being a litle incorrect here - see Comparative military ranks of World War II) . --DmitryKo 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page. --DmitryKo 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems remarkable that the U.S. military would claim such a Russian rank to exist when it doesn't, complete with insignia and everything. It almost makes it interesting enough to keep the article, but I would suggest merge and redirect to Russian military ranks, keeping the talkpage of the current article/future redirect for future reference in case the topic comes up again. Uppland 03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the discussion should be merged to the Talk page of Russian military ranks, just to avoid future confusion. --DmitryKo 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am going on a two week exercise on Friday so will simply say that I think this article warrants existence. There has been one champion for its deletion, citing Russian sources and Russian documents. If we want to put a "factual accuracy" tag on the article, thats fine, but there are sources both in hardcopy and on the internet for this ranks existence. I actually feel this was VFDed way too quickly, without any discussion, and I sense a strong feeling here of article ownership, from the VFD nominator, when it comes to Russian miltiary rank articles. Let's compromise, calm this down, and do some more research instead of calling for a VFD. See everyone in 2 weeks -Husnock 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The US Army source makes this notable enough to warrant an entry, even if they're wrong. The controversy can be explained in the article. Nandesuka 12:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is that the nominator of the VFD refuses to accept any information from a U.S. source, which may or may not be wrong. I still feel this rank originated through some regulation in the Russian military which calls for the appointment of a five star naval rank, to match appointments in similar militaries, when and if a war or emergency calles for it. As a compromise, I've been changing all entries to clearly reflect that the existence of this rank is mentioned only in United States sources and tends to contradict Russian regulations. However, the VFD nominator was not happy with that either, blatantly putting in an edit summary to "F- U.S. sources" 1. I probably wouldnt be happy if someone made an article on Supreme Grand General of the United States, since I would feel such a rank doesn't exist, but if they provided sources from other countries I would at least entertain that other nations believe there is such a rank. In any event, I leave tomorrow for my military duty. Who knows what I will find when I return! -Husnock 14:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

James Murdoch (born 1980)

[edit]

Is this for real? Deb 10:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google search on James Murdoch. First result is the site linked in article

(unsigned comment from User:220.238.186.8, who - what a surprise - also created the article)

The question is, since this is a copy/paste from [6], can I blank the whole thing including the VFD notice, and shunt it to copyvio? DS 13:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. (I didn't find it on google.) Deb 15:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY Delete - It seems that the article page has a copyright violation notice on it. Copyright is illegal in most parts of the world and it's takened most seriously amongst the general public. UniReb 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is not actually illegal, although perhaps it should be. It is copyright violations that are illegal.
  • Delete as vanity. Binadot 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Per WP:MUSIC to be notable a performer should have an award (the artist in question has been nominated but has not won per 1 which gives his name as "Alex Murdock"), or two albums on a major label (the artist has one on Indica/Aquarius which I've never heard of, and one that 2 says is a major label release). The article does not make a clear claim to notability. Although the article makes some claims to notability, it also says that he "is now poised to take on the world." If and when he does, it will be time to put him in the encyclopedia. DavidConrad 05:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn performer. JamesBurns 05:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Arda

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is the same rationale under which Encyclopedia of arda was nominated. A mention of this page on one or more of Lord of the Rings or Middle earth should more than suffice. I really enjoy the Encyclopedia of Arda. I think it's a great resource. But we are not Google, and we shouldn't try to be. Nandesuka 12:16, 31 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 22:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Gaetano Liperoti

[edit]

Nonsensical vanity article. Not notable enough, I think. KFP 12:39, 31 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 and cleanup --malathion talk 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaw

[edit]

Delete this page about a rare surname. AFAICT there is no one named Gaw with a Wikipedia article, so there's not even any point in making it a disambiguation page. Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:51, 31 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 --malathion talk 21:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Walker

[edit]
The fact someone was mentioned once in a TV does establish notability. Pavel Vozenilek 16:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pavel, I think you meant it does not establish notability? Anyway, it's too earliy to vote on this article, as we don't know what will develop. It's truly sad that this young man was brutally murdered before he had a chance to become notable in his own right, though, and I hope the perpetrators are caught and sentenced to a life in prison.DS 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Sad as it may be, Wikipedia is not a memorial. And even if it was a lead story, not all lead stories merits their own articles. I would suggest merging this article into one that deals with racism. Inter\Echo 13:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above says if you look at the Stephen Lawrence Wiki entry it begins "Stephen Lawrence (September 14, 1974 - April 22, 1993) was a black British teenager living in London, UK, who was murdered in April 1993 at the age of 18. While waiting at a bus stop with his friend Duwayne Brooks, he was attacked and stabbed by a group of five white teenagers." which is very similar to this one - racist attack starting at bus stop. How can you have one in but not the other? Unlike the trigger-happy states this stuff rarely happens in UK so it is very notable to us, like Damilola Taylor and SL he will be a household name. Cashandhoes 14:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (Cashandhoes's 9th edit.)[reply]
Funny, here in the "trigger-happy states", we have very few murders where four white kids embed an axe into a black kid's skull after taunting him for dating a white girl. Or, when British Asians set a Scottish kid on fire by dousing him with petrol. Or, when five white kids stabs a black kid to death. Or, shoot innocent Brazilians. What the hell is wrong with the UK? --Muchosucko 06:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because you lot have guns dished out like cakes whereas they're banned here and hard to get so we need to use other methods to murder! 62.254.64.14 11:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, judging by the insanity of British yobs (and police officers), banning guns sounds like a great idea.--Muchosucko 22:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate it on VfD too. Pavel Vozenilek 16:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not memorial. There are good reasons for it, due to nature of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't a "memorial" as such, it's not mourning the death of someone, more info needs adding about the shockwaves this sent around the UK, media/pressure groups reaction in the aftermath of Stephen Lawrence, etc Placidity 16:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (Placidity's 7th edit.)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't keep a page for every victim of a hate crime. Perhaps this is more appropriate a subsection of a larger article. Mmmbeer 16:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whilst this has got coverage in the UK (e.g. on the BBC), it is not nearly the groundshaking event that the anon's are claiming it is. I don't think it even really need merging anywhere. Being murdered is too common to make you notable, more's the pity. -Splash 18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into some article about racism and/or the UK.Karmafist 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Son of Paddy's Ego 18:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article should be kept within Wikipedia. It states a horrific incident that occurred in history that's directly related to racism. -UniReb 20:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (UniReb's 25th edit.)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sure the family and friends of Mr Walker (RIP) will be delighted to see you gimps discussing reasons why he is not notable enough and qualifies deletion. 62.254.64.14 19:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is an invalid argument. Can you explain to my cousin why her still-born baby isn't mentioned in the encyclopedia? Can you explain why my parent's neighbor two doors down why her daughter who was shot in a drive by shooting wasn't mentioned in the encyclopedia? Both made the newspaper, but neither are encyclopedic.
      • Was your cousin's baby or parent's neighbour's daughter on the front page of The Daily Mirror or The Independent? Did they replace suicide bombers as the nation's main headline? No. Mr Walker (RIP) is highly notable and the way this page is going with reasons why he should be deleted / excluded days after he died is in extremely poor taste. 62.254.64.14 12:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Splendid appeal to pity, Mr. Anonymous. Terrible things happen all the time. You may be surprised to learn that we don't owe every murder victim a place on Wikipedia. I'm voting to keep, not because I think we callous "gimps" owe it to Walker's family, but because this seems to have become a notable incident in its own right. Let's not let emotion hijack the discussion. Binadot 02:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for now. It's in the news so it's not necessarily going to be completely accurate, but it's notable because it's an apparently racially-motivated murder with an axe in a normally quiet area of Merseyside; not a run-of-the-mill gangland shooting. Maybe by the time this vfd comes to a close the story will have disappeared, but I think the nomination's a bit hasty. Flowerparty talk 19:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every murder is a tragedy but every tragedy does not belong on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead81 19:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, especially in the U.K. Needs some expansion. Courtkittie 20:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep - probably slightly prematurely created, but we can revisit this later in the year if necessary. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - to Wikinews or Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a news service. Write an article if and when this particular murder victim becomes notable enough for one. android79 21:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well-meaning Wikipedians from outside the UK may not have realised the magnitude of this story over here. Agentsoo 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm from the UK, and so far as I can tell it's played second or third fiddle to the terror arrests all day today. -Splash 22:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note what the author said, "the magnitude of this story." Not the notability of the victim. A description of the victim certainly belong in an article about the story, not in and of itself. Mmmbeer 23:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - to Wikinews or Delete. Unfortunately, wikipedia cannot report on every unfortunate death in this world. Perhaps you can start your own memorial wiki or something to that effect. Sleepnomore 22:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - into either a list of victims of Hate Crimes or a larger article to that like. Jaedza 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable crime victim and the best place to have an article about the story is under the name of the victim. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This will be a major story soon. Look at the front pages of the UK papers, lead story for BBC. BTW: It was immediately declared a race-based hate crime by the police -- No question about it. If Wiki is not a memorial, we should delete Stephen Lawrence, Kriss Donald, Matthew Shepard immediately. If this page gets voted down, and no one puts a VFD for that in the next 5 days, I will. P.S. I'm staying the fuck away from Huyton for a long, long time.--Muchosucko 05:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have started a story at Wikinews, and added a reference to that story, as well as updating with some additional facts from the Beeb. In my opinion, this is notable, although both the article and the story need more work. DavidConrad 06:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had to look up Stephen Lawrence as it was referenced by many news articles about Anthony Walker. It is likely that this murder will achieve same notability. --Dejan Čabrilo 06:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not a memorial. Guaka 11:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable story and person. Punkmorten 15:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - to Wikinews or Delete. Just because the BBC and the rest of the media give it such noticeable coverage, doesn't mean it is notable. The Stephen Lawrence case is notable for what followed, not the murder in itself. Does Wikipedia keep note of every racially motivated murder in the world? Whichever race is on the receiving end? Jmc29
  • Keep. Not run of the mill. Grace Note 07:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major news story likely to remain notable as a heavily reported murder (compare Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor). Plus, the article has been considerably expanded from the one-line entry it was at the time the VfD was called. Vashti 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the main reasons put forward for deletion is that Wikipedia cannot be a roll call of all victims of so-called 'hate' crime. Why not? If someone is murdered because he is black, Asian, white or gay, there is every reason why this crime of ignorance should be noted in Wikipedia. It was only through Wikipedia that I found out about the savage and cruel murder of the young, white Scottish lad Kriss Donald, who was killed by a cowardly pack of animals (although at least it looks like they may all have been caught). RIP Kriss. We need articles devoted to victims of bigoted, ignorant hate crime, so we can have some idea of the cancers lurking in the depths of our supposedly all-accepting society. Sab Singh.
  • Keep. This seems to be noteworthy, although the article needs a lot of expansion. Steevil 18:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Best to keep it for now, but we need to keep a careful eye on its tone. By the way, do not remove the VFD tag on the article until it has been officially closed by an admin. I've had to revert an anon IP's edit. The JPS 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi, this is Jaime Sullivan. I'm Anthony's best friend and I'd like to say, on behalf of his family and friends, we'd very much like to see this article remain. As people have said, it's just as important as any other major news story, and also a reminder that not only racism, but also community spirit and pride still exist today. It IS a notable story and believe me, he was and always will be a very, very notable person. Thanks very much.
  • Delete this is a sad story but Wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has nothing to do with being a memorial and everything to do with the fact that Walker's murder is a notable and newsworthy event. Ben-w 06:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews and Merge into an article about hate-crime victims. As much as this is a tragedy and something that should never be forgotten, the sad truth is that if you make an article for each hate crime murder there is out there we'll probably never see the end of it --T-Boy 08:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion talk 21:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palm_m130

[edit]

Opinion, not Fact

This article either needs to be "factualized" or deleted, as its the authors own personal opinion, not a factual info page.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 21:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Aside from the bad article title, the question of what does and doesn't go on this list is entirely subjective. DS 13:31, 31 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 --malathion talk 21:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd J. Austin

[edit]

Doesn't seem notable beyond being a mayor general, possible vanity. Laur 13:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost certainly a cut and paste job from an official site - but that doesn't make it a copyvio as it's a work of the U.S. government. He's a 2 star general, and I would say that only 4 and (maybe) 3 star generals deserve to be kept unless they have done something out of the normal routine of their career.CalJW 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is taken from [7] - isn't that a copyvio?--Doc (?) 15:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No...US Government sites are PD, unless explicitly copyrighted--Rogerd 15:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I learn each day, thanks --Doc (?) 15:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are a lot of less notable people in wikipedia. He is the CG of the Tenth Mountain Division. --Rogerd 04:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless there's a policy or guideline to the contrary, I'd be willing to include the Generals, Admirals and any higher ranks from any country's military. Pburka 16:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Major General seems to have an "outstanding" profile, perhaps even more than average of a typical military officer. I'm sure he has made a significant contribution in the U.S.'s military history and perhaps future; due to the fact of the many impressive military activities, events, and commands he has participated in. Also, he seems to have a wonderful assortment of high achievement awards from the military. -UniReb 20:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I've put some serious thought into this one. I don't think every Army divisional CG is worthy of an article; most of the pages would just be CVs with boring assignment histories, kind of like the one in question here. Take it from me folks, every military commanding officer from Lt. Colonel to 4-star General has a rap sheet like Lloyd J. Austin's. It doesn't make them notable. Here is the rap sheet for my old unit's current commanding officer, who I can whole-heartedly assure you is not notable in any way. Compare with Lloyd J. Austin and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fernando Rizo... doesn't seem to have earned an article. Flowerparty talk 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generals are notable. This guy has several medals including a Silver Star. Klonimus 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many 2, 3 and 4-star generals are there (in the USAF)? --Pyroclastic 00:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Generals are notable enough for mine and there is the potential for further promotion. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Major Generals are far more notable than many of the minor actors and actresses (particularly in adult entertainment) who are featured in Wikipedia. If command over thousands of men and tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment in the most powerful military in the world doesn't make an individual notable, then I don't know what does. In my opinion, all General officers (Brig. Generals, Rear Admirals, on up) are notable. True, there are hundreds of officers who fall into this category, but there are thousands of other individuals on Wikipedia who would never be found in Britannica (professional athletes, porn actors, etc, aside from major stars). --Honorius
  • Delete, voting on the guy, not the rank. I don't think people are notable based on rank, but based on achievement. Generals are more likely to be notable because they have the power to do very notable things, like Patton, Longstreet, Ike, and many others. They all did something, This guy rose in the ranks, put together a nice resume, but did nothing, as far as I can tell, to impact the world. -R. fiend 03:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say that any general, or equivalent, has far more notability, and place in an encyclopedia, than many MLB or NFL players, all of whom seem eligable for their own article. --Icelight 00:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. No one pays $35 for good seats to watch generals do court martials. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 00:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to watch those generals on CNN. Sammy Sosa I can understand, but I doubt anyone other than their imediate family paid to specifically see some third string defensive tackle warm a bench. Just trying to keep things in perspective. --Icelight 16:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's almost exactly my point. Have you seen this general on CNN? No. This gentleman is not Norman Schwartzkopf, who is the equivalent of Sammy Sosa in your reckoning. This guy is the 3rd-stringer. Even with your logic, Icelight, he's non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is not that he's wildly notable. It's there are vigoursly defended policies on creating and keeping articles for those very 3rd string athletes I mentioned. I won't make a WP:POINT by nominating the lot (and there are hundreds of one-two sentence stubs on the most minor NASCAR drivers and semi-pro golfers, etc...) but that to be consistent, we should include this man as well, as he has clearly had a much larger influence in the world, simply by being in command of so many men, irregardless of any exceptional notability. --Icelight 18:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
          • But what has he done with his command? As far as I can tell from the article he's never sent his men into battle, and anything short of that is going to be pretty minor. Peacetime soldiers have a hard time attaining notability, which is probably why many seem a bit over eager for war. -R. fiend 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Division (military) has between 10,000 and 20,000 troops, I think a CEO of a corporation employing that many people would be considered notable enough to rate an article. There are a lot of articles in wikipedia about people who aren't on TV often. That isn't a good indicator of notablility, unless you do nothing but watch TV.--Rogerd 19:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Haven't seen any good reasons to delete in this discussion. Can we not just stick to nominating someone's aunt and leave verifiable figures of wider interest alone? Grace Note 07:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After watching this discussion for some time, Icelight has persuaded me to join in with my vote. Hall Monitor 17:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive enzyme

[edit]

orphaned dictionary definition (Wiktionary entry created) Courtland 13:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

nominator comment: Just a reminder ... though you don't need to be reminded, I'm sure ... that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is (for reference, refer to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary). Courtland 16:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
information: an edit has two edits have been made to the article expanding slightly, but (in my opinion) the entry remains a dictionary defintion. Courtland 17:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time to expand this article but a possible solution is to redirect to the lac operon article and incorperate a paragraph on the significance of adaptive enzymes on that page. Ideally it might touch on the developmental aspects of this too i.e. if cells all have the same gene how can they differentiate into different cell types. The lac operon was fundamental in helping scientists under stand gene regulation from a developmental perspective as well as from a more adaptive response. David D. 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it must be redirected it has to go to gene expression because lac operon is far too specific. Dunc|☺ 21:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that sounds much better. David D. 00:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a stub, but has potential for expansion beyond a dictionary definition, with examples and explanation of (or redirection to) the biochemical mechanisms involved. William Avery 17:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided it gets expanded. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete copyvio & redirect Dunc|☺ 11:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wil wheaton

[edit]

There is already a page for Wil Wheaton and what's here appears to be nothing more than a copyvio cut-and-paste from a fan website. There might be some facts that can be incorporated into the other article but we don't need two articles on the same guy. Additional: changing my vote to redirect as per below; I wasn't sure whether an article with any sizable content could be straight redirected otherwise I would have done so instead of VFD'ing. 23skidoo 14:09, 31 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 --malathion talk 21:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wadchadoing

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Delete. DES 14:37, 31 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 --malathion talk 21:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Foo and Foo resorts and casinos and Foo Foundation and Foo Technologies and Engineering Corp

[edit]

Seems like a hoax, I searched for any concrete mention if Bill Foo or Foo Say Mui, his companies or products and couldn't find anything. There does seem to be a Foo Say Mui, but his only mention is of a shareholder of INTEGRA2000 LTD, which a Bill Foo is the Chairman of the Audit Committee and is Independent Director. The article claims that Bill Foo started PT ANZ Pennin bank in Indonesia but the web site states that that bank was operating well before that and was working in Indonesia starting in 1973. There is also no results from a search for Foo technologies Engenieering Corp (FTEC) or Foo resorts and casinos. I can't find any mention of him in terms of being the second richest man in Indonesia at Forbes or anywhere else. FTEC building a submarine that "cultivates crops [to] provide air for the crew seems a little fishy. I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong, but I can't find anything that confirms this entry. There's a group of articles about his companies that I'll have to add also.

I can find no mention for Foo resorts and casinos and not a single return for the Majah Pahid Hotel mentioned in the Foo resorts and casinos article. Rx StrangeLove 15:04, 31 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. FCYTravis 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates

[edit]

Company vanity: not notable, not encyclopedic. Delete. Cleduc 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly should keep this awesome page and whoever deletes it is a very bad person! (Unsigned vote by 216.229.198.235 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Towel-waiving

[edit]

I'm not going to move it to "Towel waving" just to vfd that page in turn, so let's just do this here. Non-notable habit done by some sports audiences. DS 16:22, 31 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. I am not persuaded of the case for a merge/redirect and there are no votes explicitly requesting that. -Splash 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hostal

[edit]

(1) title misspelled (2) page "Hostel" already exists and has a great deal more content (3) article's creator included a link to a commercial site, which I presume was the actual intent behind the creation of the page Kymacpherson 16:36, 31 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 --malathion talk 01:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shapps Technologies

[edit]

Blatant ad. Not notable. Mmmbeer 16:43, 31 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 --malathion talk 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"branch of science"

[edit]

redundant listing Vsmith 17:01, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Law of information

[edit]

It basically states (in poorly written plain words) that H(X)-H(X|Y)=H(Y)-H(Y|X) in information channel (see information theory), so it's redundant. The rest is either corollary of this or unintelligible. Samohyl Jan 17:09, 31 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 deleted --malathion talk 02:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild

[edit]

I am moving this here from CfD, since it is not a category. Debate so far follows. -Splash 17:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of this page. There have been no conspiracy theories concerning the London bombings and Wiki should not be creating them (although Wiki has certainly promoted other conspiracy theories). Also, doing this one week after the murders is highly disrespectful. --Noitall 04:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


Strong keep

  • First, there is a great conspiracy theory about it, cheek prisonplanet.com or [8] [9]
  • Second, IF there is a conspiracy, is it not more disrespectful to the persones murdered to ignore it?
  • Third, Its a wiki project aimed at improving the quality of the subject, not a article in it self. Its newly started, but it will grow, as people start to make research on the subject.

I'm truly sorry if it offended anybody, i truly did not intend that.--Striver 04:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly accept that the matter was not intended to be disrespectful, but I think it gives the overall impression to strangers of at least being insensitive. --Noitall 04:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Dear brother in humanity. What should the project be named, what is your sugestion? --Striver 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit bias against conspiracies theories in general, but why do you need a separate page for each one, why not just the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild? --Noitall 05:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, i gave the london bombing its own project after having been extreamly frustrated att the pure sencorship on the subject. Basic mainstream facts was deleted from the page, on the basis of it being "irrelevant", even though it hade been covered by several non-wiki articles and the removal of the mainstream facts was fiercly opposed by several editors, but the majority deleted it as "irrelevant". I strongly feelt that it needed a project where people dedicated to the conspiracy could find strenght and arguments in number, to evade being dissmised as "irrelevant". The The World Conspiracy Guild tries to paint with a broader brush trying to show the historical conspiracies to give credebility to the ongoing conspiracys. The project would be flooded if every conspiracy would have been dealt with there. --Striver 05:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coment I dont get it. What is the project doing in a Vfd of articles? This is by no means a article, this is a project aimed to gather material and people intrested in the subject, in order to make a article, OR add material to any existing article related to the topic. Could you explain to me why there is a Vfd for a project? --Striver 17:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 18:38, 31 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 --malathion talk 22:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(interconnected) boundaries of Antarctica

[edit]

I don't why this is titled this way. Most of the information is covered by Antarctica. Mmmbeer 17:55, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(interconnected) boundaries of North America

[edit]

There may be some virtue in creating what-borders-what articles for each country but this article is not the way to do it. Note that it contains red links to another fifty proposed "(interconnected) boundaries of …" articles and tries to create a new Catergory [sic]. Is not this data better handled by maps? Nip this project speedily in the bud. -- RHaworth 18:03:22, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of boundaries

[edit]

This was going to be the index to the "(interconnected) boundaries of …" articles (see above). If they fail VfD, then this fails too. -- RHaworth 18:28:06, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Livingston

[edit]

He's worked in several large companies, but I'm not sure that's sufficient for his own article. Joyous (talk) 18:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Betteridge

[edit]

This article is about a community theater actor in the UK. No notability within the profession and therefore should be deleted. Google turns up 71 hits on the name and it's hard to tell if any of them pertain to this individual. Tobycat 18:41, 31 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. Essjay · Talk 06:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Taliban aid

[edit]

Delete: this is just original research (WP:NOR), and is also just a rant. Most of the article is a dump of a press stament by Powell. -Splash 19:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki the speech to Wikisource. Delete the rest or merge with Taliban. Pburka 21:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speech and possible copyvio. 15:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Previous edit was by Axon (talk · contribs).
    • I don't think that it's a copyvio. Anything written by a US government employee in the course of their duties is public domain. Pburka 03:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the speech to Wikisource. The title should be along the lines of "Colin Powell's statement on US links with (or perhaps "aid for") the Taliban", not "Taliban Aid". Mr. Jones 08:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete anon/unsigned votes aren't counted --malathion talk 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greling Jackson

[edit]

Cannot establish notoriety. Only Google results are thousands of Oasis Magazine posts. ArmadniGeneral 18:59, 31 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.  Grue  16:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real New York City

[edit]
I'd like to welcome the above users to Wikipedia, as they have about a dozen edits between them. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Essjay · Talk 06:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Serrated

[edit]

Delete dicdef without room for useful expansion. I imagine this is about to be Transwiki'd so please check Wiktionary before suggesting that. -Splash 19:09, 31 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. Scimitar parley 23:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Brown

[edit]

Not notable. --malathion talk 19:11, 31 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 and Redirect --malathion talk 02:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Iceman Returneth

[edit]

Delete as it stands this is basically unintelligble but appears to be about a role-playing computer game or somesuch stuff we don't want anyway. Google hits are a few hundred, but they are just random usages of the phrase with little meaning. -Splash 19:13, 31 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 to Welcome to Eltingville. Essjay · Talk 06:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Eltingville Trivia Off

[edit]

Delete. Not encyclopedic, by any stretch of the human imagination. -- BD2412 talk 19:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As much as I enjoyed the show personally, I have to agree that this material from it has no place in its own article. I would opt for a merge and redirect into the Welcome to Eltingville article but I am not certain that it exists. TheMonkofDestiny 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect. Into the Welcome to Eltingville article, which subsequently could use a slight overhaul itself. TheMonkofDestiny 20:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author of the article (Mark Cooper, Nonmember). Official members have the last say, of course, but I would like to point out this article does not fit any of the posted categories for deletion. There are other articles regarding trivia and quotes in Wikipedia.
    • Merge a small selection and Redirect. This is not an encyclopedia article and may actually go beyond fair use as it is currently. ike9898 16:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • transwiki to wikiquotes. pamri 09:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ginro

[edit]

I suspect this to be a hoax. If not it's desperately obscure; googling ginro is inconclusive but ginro+rice and ginro+alcohol both return less than 30 hits, mostly from Wikipedia's mirrors. Flowerparty talk 19:22, 31 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. Scimitar parley 23:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foolycooly

[edit]

Delete: We don't want to start include phonetic redirects for every one of our 600,000-odd articles now, do we? -Splash 19:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to FLCL. Fooly Cooly and Foolycooly both garner a signficant number of google hits, so it's reasonable that someone might search for them. Pburka 21:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to FLCL. When the true and exact title of a work is difficult or somehow awkward to pronounce which means that many people refer to it by an abbreviation or a phonetic rendering, then it makes sense to include a redirect for that. You'll note that Dr. Strangelove is a redirect for Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb because it is widely known under that shortened version. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, was used in the ova itself if I remember rightly. --zippedmartin 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warrex

[edit]

Delete. I'd call it a hoax, but that'd insult many perfectly good hoaxes. I'd call it an article, but... Anyway, it does get some Googles but they appear to be screennames or surnames and things. Nothing notable. -Splash 19:48, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Penguin Girl

[edit]

Delete. A character in a podcast isn't notable. The name gets 27 unique Google hits. -Splash 19:56, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iced Out Eskimoz

[edit]

Total band vanity. One relevant Google hit; three total hits for "Iced Out Eskimoz." - Lucky 6.9 20:07, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anakrusis

[edit]

Delete. They are "genre defying", so they are almost certainly non-notable. Gets some Google hits as it appears to be a foreign word. -Splash 20:13, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructed

[edit]

Delete. This is the first time I have heard of this outfit ever and I live in Indiana. While some notable faces in rock have appeared on their previous works The majority of this article seems to be filled with lies (complete with a Photoshopped picture of Megadeth depicting the kids as former members of the band), it seems more like this page was created in an attempt to stir popularity than it was an attempt to be an encyclopedic entry for a notable and worthwhile band. TheMonkofDestiny 20:16, 31 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC) Please note, I am not an administrator. I close only keep debates.

Banoffee Pie

[edit]

Delete. Whilst a very tasty dessert, this well-meant article is a semi-recipe that is unlikely to expand beyond that. -Splash 20:21, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Touch This Inc.

[edit]

Delete. Again, part of the reason why I listed Deconstructed up for deletion as well, as it seems this exists with the interest of promotional intent more than any worthwhile encyclopedic content. TheMonkofDestiny 20:26, 31 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 speedy delete. Scimitar parley 23:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fisher

[edit]

This page has little (if any) encyclopedic content and seems to have been created as a prank. Celzrro 20:31, July 31, 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 (no votes) --malathion talk 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illustrated Diary of Struan R. Sutherland

[edit]

Delete, nn webcomic set up a few months ago. Domain name has no Alexa traffic info, and Google gives 11 unique hits. -Splash 20:35, 31 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 rewritten and moved, just closing the old vfd. Scimitar parley 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eighty Years' War (1914-1995)

[edit]

This article breaks the Wikipedia:No original research official policy deeply by its title and subject. I can't find references to this theory on google. Andries 20:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could be persuaded by a move to Short Twentieth Century - and a clean-up and NPOV so the article recorded Hobsbawm's thesis - critiques and alternative views (offered by other notable persons with citations). But you need to note that WP is not a place for seeking to an 'end the intolerance' (as laudable as that may be) (see WP:NOT) --Doc (?) 16:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't remember the existing page Short twentieth century. What can be done? Karel Anthonissen 16:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just merge your article with that one. You are the sole author of Eighty Years' War (1914-1995), so you can just use the text from that one, even if it is deleted, and work it into the other article. Short twentieth century is a better title anyway, as it can discuss the issue without limiting itself to specific years, which may vary between different historians. Uppland 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Love And Peace

[edit]

Meaningless nonsense ... looks like some sort of scripture, without any clear meaning. --Ragib 21:37, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about disability

[edit]

Nothing more than a list; not appropriate for Wikipedia Steve Casburn 21:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And kinda weird at that. "Sunken eyes" in "Blackbird"? Jeez, seems to me "broken wings" would be more obvious there. "Your eyes have died" in Daniel isn't about physical blindness, I wouldn't think. At any rate, these stupid lists are one of the dumbest things about Wikipedia. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent. It seems no different than some of the other lists that waft around Wikipedia but it also doesn't seem to accurately list songs dealing with the particular subject matter. TheMonkofDestiny 21:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list. Too subjective, and Lists of songs about TOPIC are pretty useless.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non encyclopedic. Lists will clog the universe, as they have TV. DavidH 00:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyc. If the current contents is the best that is available, then the list stand on severely shaky ground anyway. Lists, <sigh>.-Splash 01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Songlistcruft. android79 04:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, such list are unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 20:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject to interpretation, obviously, so it doesn't deserve to be kept. ral315 21:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An extremely subjective list. The lyrics quoted could have different interpretations. Animebill11:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jobpac

[edit]

A non-notable piece of commercial software. CDC (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above --PhilipO 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Cdc. Dcarrano 02:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The vfd notice was never placed on the article, so I'm re-opening the vote. Eugene van der Pijll 21:52, 31 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. Scimitar parley 23:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yw

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of online slang. This might belong as part of an article on online chat or selctronic communication and how it has influenced language. it does not belong in an article standing alone. Delete. DES 22:06, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Uncut 2

[edit]

Reads like story (probably is one...), unencyclopedic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:09, 31 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 and redirect to Chocolate City. That is my interpretation of the comments below. Essjay · Talk 06:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chocolate city

[edit]

Delete. non-notable and the reference is rarely used now Zpb52 22:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT back toJoke. Splash 19:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead baby jokes

[edit]

A list of jokes. Delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:A: The link is red after we Delete it as non-encyclopedic. But I could imagine a future article under this name working (however bad the jokes are). CanadianCaesar 01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Yes, they're very attractive. No, this isn't encyclopedic. Many of these appear to be copyvios, regardless of the poster's assertion that "the website I found them on says they are in the public domain". Delete, and delete the copyvio images too. -- The Anome 22:24, July 31, 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, tagged for expansion. Splash 19:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Potatoes for Christmas

[edit]

This article isn't notable nor educational to be placed in Wikipedia. UniReb 22:47, 31 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 19:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000000000 (number)

[edit]
  • Delete: I hate to be Sargeant Rock all the time, but I view this as an article that was deleted (by vote), whether anyone executed the VfD decision or not. Therefore, this would be a speedy delete as moving of previously VfD'd material. At any rate, we're not here to argue about the people who close votes -- that is a wp:an matter and not a VfD matter. Since any ambiguity at all will be misread, let me say Delete. (I think I had voted to redirect to Orders of magnitude. Note that 1,000 redirect votes is not a single "move" vote. Also note that a move does not merge (which is really the least anyone could conclude -- that the voters felt that the article was a multiplication of a single article into multiple locations).) Geogre 04:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedily deleted this. Radiant_>|< 08:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion, but doing a speedy was a bit too much I think. One could have just waited a couple more of days and close the VfD properly. No? Oleg Alexandrov 15:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Legion_04

[edit]

Not notable. A fan group with about 200 people? It's not obvious from google that they have much notability, and there's a lot of false hits.Mmmbeer 23:13, 31 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 --malathion talk 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erkling

[edit]

Incomplete VfD, completed by Salleman 23:35, 31 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. Scimitar parley 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Scavenger Hunt

[edit]

This seems to be related to a DEF CON 2005 event. I tagged it as a current event and left it around while the contest was running, but I'm not sure what to do with it now (event is over). Merge with DEF_CON? Move? Delete? --Alan Au 23:42, 31 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 because it looks like this has been transwikified --malathion talk 02:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do_no_take_a_bath_in_Jordan,_Gordon!

[edit]

Primary source material belongs in Wikisource. This article is in the process of being transwiki'd. DavidConrad 23:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt to transwiki something, and I'm not at all sure I've gotten it right. The original article has been moved to a Transwiki: article on Wikisource but the many links in that article are now broken. I have not (yet) attempted to make them point back over to Wikipedia. I have placed entries in the local transwiki log and the Wikisource transwiki log. Any assistance or comments will be greatly appreciated, either here, or on my talk page. After the move is complete, the local article should either be deleted or redirected to Wikisource. Unless it is felt that the original article should remain on Wikipedia. DavidConrad 00:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_31&oldid=1081092236"