Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2

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 speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of planets council

edit

Doesn't make sense and isn't linked to anywhere. Thunderbrand 00:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

However, I will change my vote to Delete if it can be demonstrated that the information on the page (it's currently just a list of members of this council) is easily available elsewhere online. Kurt Weber 14:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 08:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aco Town

edit

Google reveals no results for "Aco Town Gang", which this misnamed article is actually about. Cnwb 00:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Zzyzx11. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dylan Hall

edit

Vanity Cnwb 00:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was speedy d. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Protests concerning the last temptation of christ and the satanic verses

edit

A rant, filled with SHOUTING and unverifiable information, about how Salman Rushdie's book has caused all major terrorist attacks since it was published. (It also talks about 'The Last Temptation of Christ', but makes no connection between the two.) - ulayiti (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Fury

edit

A band who claim to be 'very popular on the internet', but get no Google hits at all. - ulayiti (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Vanity. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Opps. Must've missed my previous vote! EdwinHJ | Talk 22:48, 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 spee-d d. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Muslim extremists

edit

Was originally marked for speedy deletion, but I can't think under which criteria it can be successfully speedied. Anyway it's highly POV and source material to boot, just not quite a speedy. Delete Francs2000 | Talk   01:19, 2 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 spee-d d. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Right_To_Sing_The_Blues

edit

It's an advertisement, not an article 203.26.16.66 01:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. David | Talk 14:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad ali

edit

Obvious hoax. - ulayiti (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Scimitar parley 14:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakman

edit

Another not-so-interesting article from the user who brought us Sajjad ali. 'Has recorded two songs'. :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus with vote totals of 7 delete, 4 keep. FCYTravis 23:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics1.com

edit

Non-notable website, one match on google (and it's the actual website). Wikipedia is not a web directory. Chairboy 02:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Punkmorten left an unsigned message on my user talk suggesting I change my vote because there are more matches for a bare 'Politics1' search, but the website still appears to be a non-notable blog. - Chairboy 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, although the site may still be non-notable, a google search for its name gives 27,300 hits, to be specific, and the site has an Alexa ranking of 73,602. --Mysidia 02:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMHO, Wikipedia is not a place where we keep descriptions about websites which exist. If this page explains what this website does, just go to the website and figure it out. Encyclopedic must not be confused with "just about anything at all". Just my two cents. Manik Raina 04:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a web directory, but many notable websites have articles in Wikipedia. This one seems notable enough, with more hits than the nominator thought at first. It has been mentioned several times in different media.
  • Keep. There are more matches on google if you run a search on "Politics1" instead of "Politics1.com." The website has been noted by several main stream publications, as well as elected officials in several states. Also, some Wikipedia articles, such as the one for Gene Amondson, include links to the Politics1.com website. --WayneNight (Preceding comment by 68.85.24.141, not by WayneNight as signed)
  • Delete--another blog with low alexa rank and relatively few google hits. NN. Meelar (talk) 14:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Carnildo 22:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not perfect for a wikipedia article, but it's a great tool for political information, I volunteered during the New Hampshire Primary in 2004 and used it often.Karmafist 00:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the more notable political websites. Kaibabsquirrel 09:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ok, seeing how this vote appears to be going I have to say something. Not long ago there was a VfD on the Internet Movie Database, which everyone rightly noted was a frivolous VfD nomination and the article was speedily kept. Wikipedia is not a web directory, true, but websites that are somehow notable in one way or another rate Wikipedia articles. IMDB has an article because is a standard online reference for film. Politics1 is a standard online reference for state and federal political candidates and has been since the late 1990s, as long as I have been actively on the net. At least *I* have been aware of it and using it that long. The weblog part of the site isn't that high ranked among blogs and in fact is a rather new addition, and I would suspect that Politics1 is no longer as popular as it once was due to the proliferation of other political websites, that and the popularity of the website peaks during election cycles. This is a prime case of where Google hits and Alexa rankings DO NOT establish notability. If this article winds up being deleted it's another sign that the VfD process as it currently exists is broken. I would encourage everyone to rethink your delete votes. Kaibabsquirrel 14:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a web directory. JamesBurns 03:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media coverage [1] Kappa 18:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of nine trillion not notable political blogs. Lord Bob 00:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noelrock

edit

Only garners 587 Google results [2], and most of them simply refer to the "Noelrock "websites/mirrors [3],[4]. This so-called genre reminds me of an article called Radioheadesque that was deleted a while ago. EIther delete or redirect to Britpop. Madchester 02:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 23:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request tracker

edit

Advert, delete. Gazpacho 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Village

edit
  • Finally, someone who actually supports the idea that google doesn't know everything.Besides, it isn't in google, because it was bought by Archstone Fairfax, as per the link in the page .Numba1xclusive 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're all being sad bastards again: If it isn't in google, it doesn't belong here, so vote for deletion. When are you sad gits going to learn that there is a large (even mildly interesting) world outside google. 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides, even if this article is rejected, are we going to let Wikipedia become what the ivory tower elitists want it to become? This was meant to be an open forum where anybody could add a little bit to the massive encyclopedia that was Wikipedia. If we're going to delineate what is right, and what isnt,without any clear indication, we're reverting back to exactly what we didn't want to become. Numba1xclusive 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question is, no one here has a warrant to explicitly reject this post. All anybody has said is that its an apartment complex therefore its not significant. However, are you stating that an area of residence and culture is insignificant? Because if you are, thats elitist. Numba1xclusive 03:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Numba1xclusive is a brand new account, and the only edits as of now are in this VfD. Serious WP:SOCK suspicions. - Chairboy 03:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) -- Numba1 is my neighbor and supports the article, I think more than I do lol. Variance 04:54, 2005 August 3 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. It's an apartment complex. Chairboy 03:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What the guy below said is so true. Chairboy has given no reason why this should be deleted. The only argument here is that "Google" doesn't have it. Chairboy has made this entire process entirely undemocratic, because of the way he is treating the other votes.Numba1xclusive 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Your definition of notable is ambiguous and arbitrary. There is no bright line for notable, written anywhere. What I see happening here is people using Google as a method to justify. Besides that, no one else has any negative reason why this should be rejected. Unfortunately, it was in the belief that Wikipedia was an open encyclopedia that this entry was added. By rejecting this entry, you are enforcing a normative mindset, which will lead to impacts such as the destruction or political mindsets, resulting in no way for others to dissent. 12.65.42.195 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is giving any concrete reason why this entry is bad. After 3 posts requesting someone for a purely warranted claim, no one gives it. Vegaswikian, you are embracing a ivory tower mindset, and its empirically proven in ur claim. And Skysmith, you are blabbing for the sake of it. Someone give 1 good concrete reason why this should be rejected. And by the way Chairboy, just because i signed up recently doesn't mean i'm incompetent to vote. You're de-democratizing this entire procedure, by effectively taking out any vote that has warrants. Numba1xclusive 15:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, de-democratizing would be more along the lines of deleting votes. Please review WP:SOCK to see why your new account is being given special attention in this VfD. It's nothing personal, just added information to make the process of coming to consensus easier. Also, nobody is suggesting that the article is 'bad' in a perjorative sense, just that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Please note that while there are hundreds of thousands of apartment complexes in the USA, few of them merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I look forward to seeing you contribute to other articles, you have an obvious passion about this subject that could be used to better other things as well. Welcome to Wikipedia! - Chairboy 16:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that what you're doing basically, by disregarding votes, you're de-democratizing. And note, there is absolutely no brightline for notable, written anywhere. Wikipedia is an open source Encyclopedia, and by arbritrarily setting a limit for notable, leaves out an infinite number of articles that could have possible noteworthy aspects. Numba1xclusive 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, It won't be Chairboy or any of us who have voted here who decides the result of the debate. It will be a neutral third-party administrator. However, there is precedence that such clear sockpuppetry and anon votes are discounted heavily in the decision. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say "de-democratizing" like it's a bad thing. Chuck 19:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
(to Numba1Exclusive) Hello, nothing I'm doing is 'disregarding votes', as I am not an admin that will be reviewing this article for consensus (as DB notes above). As of this date, there is a single Keep vote from an active wikipedia with edits in other articles (Variance), and the rest are from anonymous IPs and you, a new account that appears to have been created exclusively for this VfD (based on edit history). Please acknowledge that you have read an understand WP:SOCK, I think it will answer many of your concerns about the notation process being used. That aside, I look forward to seeing your contributions in other articles. - Chairboy 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, this is not the correct place to educate you on WP policy. Please review the help first for answers to your questions whenever possible. In regards to this last question, please see this. I hope it will clear things up. You still have not edited anything other then this VfD, I continue to look forward to your future contributions in other subjects. - Chairboy 22:50, 3 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. Borderline. Only the keep voter gave a good argument; the Pew fellowship swung it. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Di Fronzo

edit

Delete, looks like nn artist vanity to me. Only 8 unique google hits. --Etacar11 03:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kared

edit

The subject of the article is not notable. DavidConrad 04:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an individual who is not notable, and not only does it not make a claim to notability, it makes a claim to non-notability ("a ... station that operates only a few times a year"). However, the creator of the article has made a case for it on its talk page and offered to clean it up; so I have opened this VfD on it. DavidConrad 04:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 22:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of names for the human penis

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has all of these. The result of the last VfD was 7 deletes, 4 merges (to various targets), 1 redirect, 1 keep, 1 transwiki. --Carnildo 04:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and goodness is that an unmaintainable list. Delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no compelling argument for deletion. Seems like prudery to me. What a waste of VfD time.....Momenchance 16:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: With Penis. Wikipedia has an entry on the word Fuck which lists the slang for sexual intercourse in so many languages. By that argument, this one should stay but be merged with which ever page on wikipedia represents the phallic symbol the best. Manik Raina 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale from last time remains unchanged. Delete. Uncle G 05:22:51, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • Delete. having it on wiktionary's enough. can always link to the list on wiktionary from the penis article. Nateji77 05:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same solution as was used by cannabis (drug), in fact. See Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Slang. The main concern is whether the Wiktionary entry and the WikiSaurus entry have all of the words. I haven't double-checked Carnildo. Uncle G 12:17:44, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
      • I've checked the WikiSaurus entry. It (now) has all of the slang words. Uncle G 17:28:08, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, I believe is how WP:NOT Sec. 1.2.3 reads. The Literate Engineer 06:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The few non-slang names are in the penis article, so as above this will be merely a slang guide. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:09, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
  • Trouser python not listed, so delete jamesgibbon 12:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of information isn't a proper entry for an encyclopedia. Since the information already exists at Wiktionary, a link from the main article would suffice.
  • Delete, though perhaps it's worth a sentence or two at penis to talk about the huge volume of slang words for genitalia? (Perhaps, too, it's time somebody started UrbanWiktionary.com ....) JDoorjam 16:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, prone to vandalism. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Manik Raina. -- BRIAN0918  18:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with penis sure sounds painful Yuckfoo 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the fact that on the talk page for penis it is clear that editors have not wanted a list of slang words in that article, and have removed them once already; and despite the fact that penis directs people to WikiSaurus:penis, the fully-fledged thesaurus entry for the word? Uncle G 00:03:37, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  • Improve Put it in another article if you want or else keep it. I'm voting against all the flood of deletes because I hate the anti-sex vandalism that goes on (this list said it was already nomitated--and maybe even kept). Well they don't have the Japanese word at least in any romanized version, which is "chino." Also I vote they keep only the terms that apply to English and move the foreign language ones to foreign language wikis. DyslexicEditor 19:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you're the first editor to even mention sex, it would appear that there's no "anti-sex" of any sort here. The nomination is on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, our official policy. The fact that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary is even highlighted by your complaint that its article doesn't have a Japanese word. If you go to the project that is a dictionary, and look at its penis article, you'll discover that it lists five Japanese translations of the word. This reinforces my point that I made in the first VFD discussion about useless duplication. Translations and synonyms are (amongst other things) what Wiktionary does. Uncle G 00:03:37, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to body parts slang. We've already got a repository of this stuff, except this one attempts to cover multiple languages. (Note: I realise body parts slang has several entries in non-English languages, but that's an issue that should be discussed on its talk page.) I'm not going to suggest a merge because I simply don't see the use in having a list covering presumably every one of the world's 6000 languages; who's verifying the entires in Bahasa Melayu? If you want to find out how to say a naughty word in French, for instance, then why not look it up in an English-French dictionary? Flowerparty talk 23:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is dictionary (dicktionary?) material and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The link to WikiSaurus is good enough. --BaronLarf 01:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Just to make sure that the consensus is clearly to delete, and for all the reasons laid out above, Delete. JesseW 02:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find the Wiktionary argument compelling. --brainpan
  • Delete dickdefs. JamesBurns 03:50, 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 no consensus with a vote of 6 delete, 4 keep. FCYTravis 23:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FactBites

edit

"Search engine/encyclopedia hybrid" founded in 2005. Alexa rank of 21,000. For comparison, answers.com is ranked 337, Google ranks 3, Yahoo ranks 1, and Altavista ranks 136, and Lycos ranks 103. Result of the previous VfD was 3 delete, 1 keep: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FactBites --Carnildo 04:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 22:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killing independent George

edit

Dictionary definition, one-time TV joke, non notable. CanadianCaesar 04:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 22:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronson Pharr

edit

No Google results for BP & BP Associates, and only one genealogical link for Bronson Pharr Cnwb 04:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo search it.(Unsigned comment by 172.148.78.242 (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. FCYTravis 00:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of Baltic: Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian compared to Slavic: Polish Language

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not a comparative dictionary, either. I don't think Wiktionary takes this sort of thing, so delete.

The results of the previous VfD were 1 keep, 4 delete, 4 merge. --Carnildo 04:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki then Delete. Content belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. The Literate Engineer 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POINT. You could have merged with Lords Prayer and keep the redirect (this article is linked from Baltic languages). No need to VfD just because you didn't like the way the last one was closed. And that is what I vote for. --Tony SidawayTalk
    • If I thought merging was appropriate, I would have merged. I have listed the article on VfD because I feel that deletion is the appropriate action. If you feel that this is not the place for it, then please tell me which WP:CSD criterion applies to this article. --Carnildo 05:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote: I'd like to keep this just to encourage an article on Baltic/Slavic language comparison, which seems to be an actual topic of debate and research in linguistics. However, the current article does not contribute anything useful. (In fact there's nothing in English besides what's already in the title.) Peter Grey 05:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison of Baltic and Slavic languages would be useful but this article isn't it; the title will never be searched on; the material in the article is original research, and research without any analysis or conclusion at that. Wikisource and delete. -EDM 05:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • Delete or Merge. While the page in itself is interesting, I frankly don't see the point of comparing three Baltic languages with Polish (why not Russian, Belarusian, etc. as well?). A page dedicated to a comparison of the Baltic languages, or a comparison of the Baltic and the Slavic languages, is something I'd support. But this page is not even a beginning. I wouldn't mind transferring the individual Paternoster translations to the corresponding language pages as text samples, though. --IJzeren Jan 12:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to transwiki it somewhere, fine, but just so there's no confusion delete from wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikisource & delete, or move & expand into an encyclopedic article. Just dumping translations on a page without any analysis or explanation of comparative linguistic methods is pointless. --Theodore Kloba 15:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete comparative foreign dicdefs. JamesBurns 03:52, 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. FCYTravis 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coplanar Triangulation

edit

Unable to verify, probable hoax Peter Grey 05:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Alphax τεχ 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderdome (communal)

edit

Probably the same person is back with the Thunderdome (communal).Vanity.

To quote User:HorsePunchKid: I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted.

Also, move Thunderdome (arena) back to Thunderdome and I suggest verbally warning User:Rc251, this is the second time that someone has tried this. In addition, the arena is way mroe famous then a communal. --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I believe that I can vote, and vote I am. Vanity, and not notable --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not terribly well-versed with the policies here, but I think that resurrecting a deleted article with the same content it had after the decision was made to delete it is grounds for speedy deletion. As such, I'm going to add the {{db}} tag. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:56, 18 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. FCYTravis 23:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderdome (communal)

edit

I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 23:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of acronyms involving the word "fuck"

edit

WP:NOT, section 1.2.3, states that Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide (it's a sub-section of WP:NOT A Dictionary). This list constitutes a usage guide for slang and idioms. As such, its presence here is in violation of policy and it should be deleted. That's in addition to it suffering from the numerous problems inherent to stand-alone lists. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MindSin

edit

This looks like advertising to me. Mitchell k dwyer 06:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Uy

edit

Notable among his fellow students, but otherwise/thereafter not notable, it seems. Let's see him make good on his (fairly) youthful promise. -- Hoary 06:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was referred as possible copyright violation. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epixtar

edit

This page should be deleted because I think that this page contanines too much unencyclopedic content, but thats only my opinion Exir KamalabadiContribs 07:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treason In Wartime

edit

Personal essay. --malathion talk 08:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be out of context, a personal essay shouldn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia -Soltak 19:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John-michael kuczynski

edit

Possible vanity, Google returns 65, not sure how many related. Nonetheless, I abstain. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meritorious. Keep. --Philo4logos 11:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Note: user's first edit. Agentsoo 11:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A philosopher of surpassing genius, a gentleman to be apotheosized. --Amoramasamat 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another user's first edit. --Etacar11 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! its inspiring to other graduate students in any area. (Unsigned vote by 66.229.193.189 (talk · contribs), first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wankerchops

edit

WP:ISNOT a slang and idiom guide. --malathion talk 09:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normanton Park

edit

I'm afraid I don't see any evidence that this is a notable or encyclopedic condominium complex. CDC (talk) 11:19, 2 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. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nalona

edit

Wikipedia is not a link repository. Especially when neither of the links work. (Unsigned by Agentsoo)

  • Delete. Article is nothing but one sentence and two dead links. Whatever the standards for conlang notability will turn out to be, this language definitely won't qualify. The only trace of it can be found on Langmaker.com (in the form of a profile and, yes, a dead link). --IJzeren Jan 11:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 00:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Kamer

edit

This is a self-promoting article. This person has no true significance, he has been deleted from the Hebrew wikipedia as well. Delete DMTsurel 13:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) keep: I am in love with this man... even more now that I read his article. bryony "the american"[reply]

"set the tone" LOL. I'm gonna be prime minister of Israel when I grow up, so what? Yonidebest 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: this guy has had plenty of genuine, mainstream media coverage...the fact that he appears to be editing his own article presents special issues for Wikipedia to grapple with, but it is not reason for deleting the article altogether. I think this VfD is very ill-advised. Babajobu 11:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. International vanity, and note above that a claimed "user of the Hebrew Wiki" doesn't seem to think he's notable. Ken 13:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly many users of the Hebrew wiki don't think he's notable, considering his article was deleted from it. Ironically, though, this produced an article in Ma'ariv, a mainstream Israeli newspaper, discussing Kamer's wikipedia crusade and defeat. And that just adds to his notability, along with the articles in Ha'aretz and elsewhere on his Sudoku program. Babajobu 13:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that most of the voters for keeping this article are clearly sockpuppets. DMTsurel 13:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You put that remark after my comment. Am I a sockpuppet? I have over 1500 edits and think this article should be kept. Deal with it. Babajobu 14:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Deal with it"? Excuse me, mr. Babajobu, but it seems to me that you are unaware of this guys' true nature. you come to contradict me and others who have live in Israel all their lives and who know who is important in the Israeli calture and who is a no-good. So this guy had a side article in a main paper in Israel, the almost-most small country in the world. So he's directed a few unknown Israeli movies.. So what? This is an encyclopedia, and only the people who are of some kind of real influence should be in it. Something that seems to be getting out of this English Wiki's control. Soon you'll be editing the history of unknown starving people on Africa. Like I said below, If he's in, I'm in, and probably you can get in too. Yonidebest 20:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you thought I was talking to you. I meant almost all the other votes except you, such as 212.179.235.247, 85.64.165.253, the unsigned ones, etc. DMTsurel 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : This is an encyclopedia. not the whitebooks.. Dan, Israel.
  • Keep: U should know what he is thinking. Veronika czech rep.
  • Delete: A man of no importance SHASHAZ 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This guy, Nimrod Kamer, is, in fact, a no-body in Israel. This guy is only trying to make "his mark" in history. If he get's voted in, we all should be voted in. By the way, this guy opened an artical in the Hebrew Wikipedia, which was deleted at once. Yonidebest 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nimrod is just great, he'll get in here anyway sooner or later, so dont waste your time trying to keep him out. RubenKruger 23:57, 3. August 2005
  • Delete the vote just above this one is a good enough reason for me to vote delete. (Although the other reasons help.) JesseW 02:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really feel that this VfD is a mistake. All these folks from the Hebrew Vikipedia have descended on this Vfd to oust the Nimrod Kamer article. I don't know why they dislike him so strongly, but clearly they think he is a nogoodnik. The Hebrew wikipedia must have different standards for notability than the English wikipedia. Somebody who has been profiled in multiple mainstream media newspapers and who is the world's very first professional Sudoku teacher should really be a shoo-in for a Wikipedia entry. It looks like Kamer is going to lose this VfD, and I think that's a shame and a mistake. Babajobu 08:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he did an amazingly great work in an international art exhibition in Tel Aviv last november (georg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.17.186 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 August 2005

People voting here may also be interested in this DMTsurel 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As stated he's not significant and its a vanity article. In fact its a somewhat borderline case, but I think especially the fact that he's unrelated to any larger context in a meaningful way is important. If his film style fits into a given school, put his name and a link on that page. Likewise one the sudoku page, if the editors there think its warranted. 149.217.50.205 10:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:55, 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. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

This already exists in Wikipedia: space (Wikipedia:N degrees of separation), and it is not notable enough to exist in article space. Cross-namespace redirects are confusing, and unneeded in this instance, as no-one would ever link there. [[smoddy]] 12:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's notable among Wikipedians; we have articles on every single Pokemon ever created, every minor planet in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes, etc.--and those are only notable among their respective fan communities. What's the difference? Kurt Weber 14:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - oh, the irony. Rob Church 15:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wiki vanity. Dunc|☺ 16:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, this is not any encyclodaedic article, it is simply instructions on how to play a game. Second, as noted, it already has an article. And finally, it should be noted that the best of the fan pages group large numbers of what would otherwise be very minor stubs into single pages, such as List of Star Wars planets. Unless someone wants to create a "List of games that can be played with Wikipedia" and make this page a redirect, it should go. --Icelight 18:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the content of the article is inappropriate, then it should be altered--but as long as the topic itself is appropriate, the article itself should remain. The topic itself IS appropriate--Wikipedia is a substantial online community, and Wikilinks is well-known to members of that community. Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we should avoid self-references unless it's clearly demonstrated that it is notable outside of Wikimedia community. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a self-reference. A self-reference would be like saying "Certain encyclopedias (such as the one you are reading now) do X, Y, and Z". That is inappropriate. Saying "Certain encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) do X, Y, and Z" is not a self-reference and is perfectly appropriate. An article simply about Wikipedia or a part of it is not a self-reference--which is why there can be an article on Wikipedia itself. See the difference?
A good rule of thumb is, if it mentions Wikipedia in the first person, it's a self-reference; if it mentions it in the third person, it's not. And just because an article may contain a self-reference in the content (which the one in question does not) does not mean that the TOPIC of the article is a self-reference--again, fix the content, don't delete the article.Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose we fix the content by deleting. The Wikipedia article in question is about playing a game on Wikipedia. It's therefore impossible (or at least useless) to remove the references to Wikipedia. Unless it's notable outside the Wikimedia community, I don't believe Wikimedia articles belong in article namespace. I understand and appreciate other views on this. This is just my opinion which I offer to other voters and the closer of the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the point is, it's perfectly OK for an article to mention Wikipedia, as long as it does so in a manner that does not assume that the reader is viewing the article through en.wikipedia.org. I suggest you take some time and actually read the page you linked to--specifically the paragraph that reads:

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content.

Kurt Weber 23:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would ask you to assume good faith that I am well intentioned and of course read the guide without you republishing it. I understand that the point of WP:ASR and only linked to it as a courtesy to others to read what the policy actually says. My point is of another topic entirely than what it looks like on mirrors and my point was in the words I chose above twice not in the link. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:45, 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. FCYTravis 00:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charity aAlliance Online

edit

Advertising. Delete --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rita's Water Ice

edit

This pages appears to be an advertisment for a product. Delete. --216.15.124.196 14:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Phor Hoay Guan

edit

More Singaporeschoolcruft from Tdxiang (talk · contribs) (WP must be one of the, er, finest resources anywhere if you want to know about primary school education in a random third world country). Dunc|☺ 14:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maxbats

edit

Delete. Spamvertising. Wikibofh 14:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under WP:CSD criteria A7. Joyous (talk) 20:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall's Law

edit

Neologism; uncited and I could not find a single related article or Google result. - choster 15:50, 2 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 VfD doesn't seem ever to have been properly completed, I'm afraid — that is, I can't find any sign of its having been posted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I've now added it to today's page, and the VfD will have to run its course from now. (VfDs are being cleared rapidly; if you know of another that's not been closed and should been, check to see if it was properly formed.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 2 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 KEEP. Splash 01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized I voted in this and should not have closed it. The decision is clear however, and I've already done the legwork on the article and its talk page, so I'm not going to revert myself. If someone else wants to re-do or challenge the closure, feel free. -Splash 01:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjas in Pyjamas

edit

Delete This page refers to a group of videogamers who have an online association. While its content may be of interest to some members of the gaming community, it really has no place in an encyclopaedia and simply serves as advertisements for the video game manufacturers. This is equivalent to adding an entry for my Tuesday evening bowling league team. I say delete due to its non-notability. Nrets 21:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, but clean. Tagged and listed appropriately. Splash 00:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Max

edit

Unnotable SqueakBox 17:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Old VFD is here - Alphax τεχ 04:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--writer with several published books, a notable blog (Alexa ~15,000) and 50,200 google hits for his name in quotes. Meelar (talk) 17:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep. While the article currently sucks, he's been in a few lawsuits, has a notable blog, and has written published books. Dave (talk) 17:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up, as above. The books have Amazon.com rankings of ~19,000 and ~27,000, which seems like it might be enough to assist in his notability. Definately needs a cleanup though. --Icelight 18:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep. Article needs some polishing, as well as picture, this is one of the most notorious internet celebrities of our time, has a book deal, appeared on an MTV special about Internet dating, and is currently pitching a show for the major TV networks. Fonz Cockrane 20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Keep. He is noteworthy, but currently the article doesn't do a good enough job explaining who he is. I vote to keep as long as the article is edited to explain his notorious bad behaviour (such as the information we have been debating about the 17 year old hookups). There ought to be a section titled "Character." Potatoeman57
  • Keep, cleanup and remove most all material. This is a horribly-written "article"; the only material that merits mention here conserns the lawsuit, a couple of sentences on his blog and blurb about his books. --Zantastik talk 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Tucker is an important internet celebrity. period.. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.255.215.139 13:53, 4 August 2005)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by DJ Clayworth. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Axis of Zionism

edit

neologism. Only two google links, both anti-semitic Bayyoc 17:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. -Splash 00:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanpan

edit

Refers to a game character from the Wild Arms video game. Could be merged, but the character is already mentioned in the main article --Bayyoc 17:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been redirected, not put on VfD. Hopefully we can speedy unlist it and do the redirect. JesseW 04:49, 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 deleted "VfD consensus" by User:FCYTravis, 8 August (lag time had been completed). --Tony SidawayTalk 22:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Harrington

edit

This appears to be a vanity page, and this person is not only not remarkably notable, but there are more notable people by the same name in the world, most notably the folk musician, the professor, and City Councilman Harrington of Prince George's County, MD. JDoorjam 17:58, 2 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mj morning show

edit

Delete- No context, possibly advertising, uncapitalized title.--Zxcvbnm 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien gobbe

edit

Delete--Possible self promotion and mispelled title. Reccomend deletion unless famous.--Zxcvbnm 18:08, 2 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. Borderline, but a good rewrite followed the VfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExamDiff

edit

Commercial advertisement. See also ExamDiff Pro. Quuxplusone 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that this is not a commercial advertisement any more than half the pages in Category:Windows software are commercial advertisements. As the creator of this page, I'm not sure if I can vote, but if I can: Keep -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But ExamDiff is a freeware program! -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an advert. In any event, since you're so defensive of something that you created and wrote an article about, I'd call it vanity; also a criterion for deletion. -Soltak 21:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I completely redid the article. Is it better now? (before)(after)-- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to be look very nice now, but I'm unsure of the advertising issue - we really ought to only have programs so well known that our contribution to their promotion is negligible, and I'm not convinced that's true here. If that criteria can be met, I'd change my vote to keep, but until, then, I'm leaning on the side of delete. However, no offical vote as yet. JesseW 05:00, 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 keep by default. A merge with ExamDiff was supported by some voters and may be a good idea, but that doesn't require a VfD discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExamDiff Pro

edit

Commercial advertisement. See also ExamDiff. Quuxplusone 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that this is not a commercial advertisement any more than half the pages in Category:Windows software are commercial advertisements. As the creator of this page, I'm not sure if I can vote, but if I can: Keep -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You mean delete ExamDiff Pro? ... or am I missing something? feydey 00:16, 3 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KDiff3

edit

Advertisement for non-encyclopedic software product. Wait until (1) people start using it (GCC); (2) it enters pop culture (grep, diff), or (3) there's something interesting to write about it. Quuxplusone 18:19, 2 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 --Tony SidawayTalk 11:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Korners Grocery

edit

Delete from Wikipedia (as per arguments above), but by all means move to WikiTravel(although I can't do it myself as the license is different - but the original author could do so...). It's nice writing. JesseW 05:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been expanded since being placed on VfD. Also see its talk page. --Eoghanacht 17:55, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
  • As with Alan Au and Etacar11, I would be more favourably inclinded to keep this if it were written in an NPOV encyclopedic style that gave evidence of its importance. I'm in favor of "local landmarks" of significance and have written on three myself (check my user page), but its crucial to stay as NPOV as possible to demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written about it (certainly not true for most stores -- where I live now is a wonderful, excellent cafe with a great community, but it's not proper for an article.) Local media coverage above and beyond restaurant reviews are important, e.g.. Good luck re-writing it in time to pass the VfD. For now, abstain. Sdedeo 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverhill Bakery

edit

Bakeries do not deserve articles on Wikipedia unless truely extraordinary. Not notable. Scimitar parley 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote To Keep A bakery in Chicago, Illinois. What about Hostess? Bakery or whatever should stay. --Maoririder 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't quite get your point Maoririder. Is Bob's Five and Dime equal to Wal-Mart? It isn't the fact that it's a bakery that is the problem, but that it's a non-notable bakery. Perhaps I misunderstand you, though. --Bayyoc 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is exactly the sort of thing Maoririder has been warned about in the past: creating one sentence stubs that are completely useless. As far as Hostess is concerned, it's an international corporation with revenues in the millions of dollars. You can write the Cloverhill article when they can say the same. -Soltak 18:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "It is a bakery in Chicago, Illinois. It makes pasteries [sic]." is a redundent statement. That's generally what bakeries do. -Soltak 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, nn, no content. Heaven knows I've tried to help this user. He has a temporary block which will hopefully cool his jets for a bit. - Lucky 6.9 20:29, 2 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 redirected. FCYTravis 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbening

edit

Delete I suspect this is a made up word, despite the claims of its author. Redirect From the tone of the writing, it sounds like this might have been deleted once before, and if so it would qualify for speedy. However, I don't know that for sure, and so won't nominate it there. I will also resist the urge to use this word in a sarcastic post, which is taking more willpower than I though I had. Icelight 18:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete OR-Neologism Dicdef. The Literate Engineer 19:30, 2 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knapsack (band)

edit

Vanity article for non-notable band EdwinHJ | Talk 18:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapmaster Chicano

edit

Appears to be bandcruft. --FuriousFreddy 19:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of game show champions

edit

Seems to be an incomplete, hopelessly unmaintainable list. The original author has added a postscript indicating they believe it should be cleaned up or moved - see [11] Rob Church 19:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Impossible to maintain, and such a compilation would be largely meaningless in the long run. Perhaps the top few winners in real and nominal money should be listed at game shows, and individual shows should list their top winners, but this simply isn't a good way to record this information. JDoorjam 19:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is probably deleteable, but I have been toying with the idea of a Game show records page, which might incorporate some of this information. Heck, I'll just copy it and put it on a user subpage, if I think it worthwhile. I've got 5 days to do something, I reckon. -R. fiend 22:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are hundreds of game shows out there. Not maintainable, not really notable for an encyclopedia either as most champions included, beyond winning a million bucks are not notable. Incorporating some of the information in a game show records type article as suggested by R. fiend wouldn't be a bad idea though. K1Bond007 06:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see how a list like this would either be useful or capable of being maintained. It has a *huge* scope, so large that I think that it would be impossible to actually complete such a page. Therefore, I suggest deletion. --NicholasTurnbull 22:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Princess Peach. Essjay · Talk 08:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Baby Peach

edit

The only information that can currently be placed in the article is what can be guessed by the name of the article (except for the game). A Link to the Past 19:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Industry heads

edit

Delete Non-encylopedic vanity. PhilipO 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS TRASH (Unsigned vote by 66.214.21.108 (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 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Machine-online

edit

This page is an advertisement for a privately designed game that is still in the conceptual stages. If it gets completed and hundreds of people start playing it, we can create a new article at that time. Habap 19:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to speedy it, but it doesn't fit the criteria. --Habap 20:01, 2 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 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Swimme

edit

Borderline speedy but could be interpreted as a claim to notability. Nevertheless seems non-notable. Agentsoo 20:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did the rewriting. feydey 21:21, 2 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 02:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcacy

edit

Non-notable. One independently released album and fewer than a dozen hits on Google. Aeverett 20:28, 2 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 02:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GeniusNetworks

edit

Vanity page, advertising 13.13.16.1 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omnigenius

edit

Vanity page, advertising 13.13.16.1 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Hill Bible Church

edit

Not notable. One of countless local churches. Tverbeek 20:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline speedy, but perhaps some indirect claim to notability. Delete anyway, as nom. Agentsoo 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain not a speedy - 'notability not asserted' (A7) only applies to individuals. As to VfD, question: is being a local (otherwise unremarkable) religious organisation inherently any less notable than being a local (otherwise unremarkable) primary school? --Doc (?) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that such a generalised comparison can be made meaningfully. Regardless, an article for either one is just a vanity page for an unremarkable entity. If taking out the POV-advocacy (the apparent point of this article) and trivia (the bulk of the content) would leave you with just a stub... that's not notable. Tverbeek 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if I call myself a supermodel, do I get my own article? Tverbeek 23:34, 2 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 02:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grob Viking

edit

Delete--Absolutely no context and non-wikified.--Zxcvbnm 20:51, 2 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. Essjay · Talk 08:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rori

edit

What is this page about? It's been deleted before, and is now back but just as inane as before. And apologies for the archive bit below; I have asked before about what to do with this when the same article is deleted twice, and have received no response. Agentsoo 20:57, 2 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 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 delete. Joyous 00:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rori

edit

Makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 08:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Carnildo 08:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RoySmith 14:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't even use her real name? Jeez. Article doesn't even try to proclaim notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blog ad. Wyss 10:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable blog ad, vanity. As "rori" is an alternate spelling of "loli", which is short for lolicon, a redirect there may be appropriate. — Gwalla | Talk 20:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 02:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamutt

edit

I know this has been done before, but hear me out - this article is not notable. Not even on a Nintendo Wiki, and if it were on a Mario Wiki, it would be in a list of SMRPG enemies. It doesn't help that this particular SMRPG enemy is both one of the rarest and tied for least important, in the fact that it has no importance. Many go through the game without ever even noticing this creature, because he only appears as a random summon in two battles, one of which is optional. Save this for Mario Wiki and Delete. A Link to the Past 21:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 02:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia O'Mahony

edit

Delete Not sufficiently notable for own page. PhilipO 21:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kthxbai

edit

Non-notable Internet slang. Agentsoo 21:19, 2 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 COPYVIO. Splash 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs

edit

Non-encyclopedic VH1 countdown. (c.f. VfD 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs). RJH 21:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: After further investigation the {{vfd}} has been removed in favor of {{copyvio}} Soltak 22:00, 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 KEEP. Splash 00:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherland (novel)

edit

This article is one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. It is churlishly written, full of factual and detail errors obvious to any reader of the book and is wildly inconsistent from paragraph to paragraph. There is not a single paragraph in this article that doesn't contain major errors. In fact, the first sentence in the article contained no fewer than two glaring errors. This article was probably not written in good faith and by someone who hasn't even read the book. Rainbowwarrior1977 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think you miss the point to this entire enterprise (Wikipedia). If you feel the article is so vastly inferior than you do not just delete it, you edit it yourself and improve it. - PsyckoSama 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Withheld I'll freely admit that I'm much more ignorant of the book (even though I read it) than the nominator appears to be. Perhaps you could provide some examples of the errors to which you allude? -Soltak 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you seem to be more familiar with the book, a more useful route might be for you to either rewrite the article, correcting the inaccuracies, or start over with a new article. (In which case you might want to make your case on the talk page.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is one that is worthy of being in Wikipedia, and the criticisms you cite are not sufficient to delete the article. If you know stuff about the article, but think that is is SO poorly written, delete all the text and start again! Remember: Be Bold! Batmanand 22:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fully agree with Batamanand. I don't think the article is thát bad. But I'm sure we have a special template for articles that don't meet certain quality standards. --IJzeren Jan 22:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I started to make corrections, like changing 1963 to 1964 in the first paragraph, but there are simply too many factual errors to efficiently correct. Just about every statement in this article contains a factual error. Listing them all right now would take all day, but lets take the first sentence. It had 1963 as the year the novel took place, not 1964, introduced the "Kripo" without explanation, or even calling it by its name (Kripo is a slang term), the Kripo is only a division of the SS for administrative purposes, as were all police officers, while the article makes it sound like it was a "division" of the main SS. The ideological split between the "police SS" and the old "military/ideological SS" is a major point of this novel. Lastly, the detective is investigating ONE death in Berlin, not a "series of deaths." He only realizes there are more deaths much later in the novel, not when the story beings. So there you have it, in the first sentence alone, there are FOUR major errors. Trust me when I say that almost EVERY single sentence in this rather long article holds at least one major factual or interpretational error. I WILL re-write this article AFTER this fallacious one is deleted, however.Rainbowwarrior1977 22:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think you understand what we are saying. I have not read the novel, and it sounds like you know far more about it than us. You would be the ideal person to write an excellent article about the novel. But we are not going to delete it, because what is the point? If you want to start now, just go to the article, go to "edit the article", highlight all the text and press "delete" on your keyboard. Bingo! Then you can start writing the new article. Deleting an article, however, is a more permanent measure. This involves deleting the ENTIRE article, including its name, history and all edits. Read The Deletion Policy. We only delete things that should not have been in Wikipedia in the first place. Fatherland should. And you are the person to make it so. So, best of luck. If you need help, there is plenty available. But start on that rewriting, and soon it will be the perfect article! If you need anything, contact any of us on our talk pages, or go to the community portal and ask. Good luck! Batmanand 22:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia just so happens to be a wiki. Edit it if it's wrong. CanadianCaesar 23:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{sofixit}} --malathion talk 23:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator hasn't demonstrated any horrible factual errors, nor shown that this article wasn't written in "good faith" I have to vote to keep. If you don't like something, change it. By the way, one year's difference is hardly a "glaring error," especially in the world of fiction. -Soltak 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are you an administrator? Are you saying I have permission to wipe out this article and start over again? The thing is, I've had bad experiences making changes before; whenever I've changed anything substantive, and believe me, this page needs it, the previous authors get really nasty and threatening for days on end. So that's why I would feel more comfortable deleting this article first, then re-writing it, to stave off any attacks from the previous editors (who seem to be either trolls or didn't read the book)Rainbowwarrior1977 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I know a couple of the posters are. In any event, it would be much more prudent to rewrite those portions of the article that are incorrect. I shouldn't think it would need to be gutted entirely. At least portions are correct, for example, most of the character descriptions. If you do run into trouble with the original author, you've got a number of people here that would be willing to back you up. -Soltak 16:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin, but I still think that a major rewrite is better than a deletion. If they harrass you, there are plenty of ways to stop them - mediation, advocacy, arbitration committee if it comes to it. IF they ever say anything to you, please contact me (if you want) and I will be right behind you. I understand your concern, but feel it is unwarranted. So go for it! Batmanand 16:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a section that you honestly feel is not salvageable, then the best course of action is usually to copy it to the talk page when you remove it. On the talk page, you can explain why you removed it. (That way if anyone disagrees with you, there's an obvious place to start the discussion, and your good faith is evident.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to RainbowWarrior1977 for his insightful and diplomatically worded insults. I wrote the article on Fatherland which seems to be causing him so much distress. When I began editing, the article simply ststed that the book "is a 1992 novel written by Robert Harris". It contained nothing more. I wrote the paragraphs on the plot, the list of characters, and the connections with Nineten Eighty-Four. And let me assure you, RainbowWarrior, that I have read the book (several times) and am well aware of the plotline. Yes, there were one or two little errors here and there, and I thank you for correcting them. However, I am not convinced that your other amendments have improved the quality of the article in any way. Finally, I would advise you to avoid using phrases such as "churlishly written" in the future, particularly when referring to an article written by a Cambridge historian! Thanks to everyone else for their support, it's very much appreciated!  :) Rusty2005 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just read your lovely little comment, Mr RainbowWarrior, calling me a "troll". I don't wish to be threatening, but you really need to acquire some diplomacy. If you want to be an administrator, you're going to have to demonstrate the ability to debate constructively and present logical, coherent arguments. And it will seriously damage your reputation if you start calling editors - whether they are Cambridge students like me, or Mr Everybody chipping in with their knowledge - trolls. A piece of friendly advice, nothing more.  :) Rusty2005 15:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just been reading some of the previous edits made by RainbowWarrior1977. This User seems to have an absurd sense of self-importance in relation to Wikipedia (see his comments on the Cali talkpage - he thinks he's an Administrator) and appears to make threatening and highly abusive comments to other Users on a regular basis. Does this User really have the right to criticise this, or any other, article, based on his previous editing history?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 12:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Binary Opinion

edit

Dicdef piggyback for a non-notable blog (Alexa rank: not in top 100,000.) Agentsoo 21:40, 2 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 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Ashley

edit

Not-notable. 24 at 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: But either turn it into a biography like Jean Charles' page, or redo the entry so it's specifically about the incidence, not about James Ashley. It's a "nice" follow-up from the JC page.--83.151.211.203 13:35, 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 Delete --malathion talk 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of unanswerable questions

edit

Unencyclopædic; the notion is inherently PoV, and involves speculation (who's to say whether a question is unanswerable rather than unanswered?). The one question in the list has many answers, in fact; it may not have an answer that everyone agrees on, but few interesting questions have. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, I love lists of one thing. Delete. -R. fiend 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An answer and a proof are different things, whatever the logical positivists say. The only possible way a question can be unanswerable is if it is not asked (if one takes the strictest definition of answer). Therefore the presence of this list automatically precludes anything from appearing on it, which is plainly nonsense. As none of that even touches near deletion policy, I'll suggest inherent POV and unencyclopaediocity (or whatever). If it were possible to write (and I don't think it is), it is a philosophical point, not an encyclopedic one. Delete, by the way. [[smoddy]] 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I wasn't talking about logical positivists in general, but rather one or two whom I know. I understand your issue having reread my original vote. Sorry! [[smoddy]] 12:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of this list? (As I thought) delete --Doc (?) 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps the only unanswerable question is who thought this was encyclopaedic, NPOV, factual, not original research, verifiable, possible for sources to be cited etc etc etc. Whoever made this, please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and then contribute. Sorry if this sounds overly harsh, but a list of one item, about a stupid topic, that does not conform to Wikipedia's most basic policies must be deleted. Batmanand 22:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was so sad to find that nothing interesting was listed. Not that anything would make sense. - Tεxτurε 22:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has anybody even read the disscussion page? The whole point of this page is for it to be expanded! If there's nothing interesting, then add to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 August 2005
    • Just incase it is not read, here is a paraphrase of the disscussion page:
      • This page should be expanded first and then decided whether to be deleted. There are plently of lists on Wikipedia that have no ending. So "unmaintainable list" is not a good excuse at all. Also, many have said that the only possible way a question can be unanswerable is if it is not asked. This is not true. If it was not asked, it would not be unanswerable in the first place. But since it is asked, and there is no answer that has solid proof, it is unanswerable. And just because the list is very short doesn't mean it should be deleted. It should exist for at least 20 days before even being considered for deletion. There isn't much of a difference between "Unanswerable" and "Unanswered". The only difference is that "Unanswerable" means it will never be answered. But regardless of this technicality, the main idea is still the same. And also, how is this topic POV when anybody can add to it, and the questions added to the list are the same that many different cultures have been asking for centuries? (For example, there are many questions that are never meant to be answered in the first place, and trying to answer them creates a POV. But since this list is only meant to have questions and not answers, it isn't POV.) Also, because this list falls under the catagory of Wikipedia:Incomplete lists, it does go along with Wikipedia standards.

00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 August 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amber report

edit

This was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. However, all of the words do make sense, and so it does not qualify. That said, the article is on an idea that the author admits does not exist in the real world, and only thinks would be a good idea. As wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I'm sending this here. With a Delete vote. Icelight 22:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 per request of the author --malathion talk 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to solve an elastic collision

edit

WP is not an exercise book. Nabla 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this, and I now agree with its deletion. Nightvid

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 02:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sullivan Jr.

edit

Not-notable biography. No IMDB hits for the "famous" project Jersey. --malathion talk 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, vanity. DS1953 23:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gotta keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamazaa (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2005

Comment this is the user who created the article. --malathion talk 23:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah man, this isn't about me. It's about my friend, the successful screenwriter, Robert Sullivan Jr. If you want to know more about him, read the article.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion talk 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkwood

edit

An online phenomenon eith 9 googles?? nn --Doc (?) 23:24, 2 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. Essjay · Talk 08:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in philosophy

edit

I'm not very sure whether philosophy can ever have 'solved' or 'unsolved' questions. Solved to whose satisfaction? This is POV and a little confused --Doc (?) 23:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've attempted to rectify somewhat the most egregious thing that existed before and completely rewrote it. Hope it suffices as a rewrite and stays. Danny Pi 20:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a whole collection of "Unsolved problems in X" topics, this is just one of them. Most of the other articles are little more than lists of links to other pages. The items on this page could also refer to other articles, but currently does not. I belive it should be kept, and relevant articles linked. I would say that a problem in philosophy is "unsolved" if people are still talking about it. I like the idea of collections of unsolved problems because it gives people somewhere to go when they are looking for something interesting to think about. I had never heard of the "Gettier problem" and probably never would have but for this page. --David Battle 00:05, 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 delete. FCYTravis 01:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Top Theory

edit

Band vanity. --malathion talk 23:41, 2 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 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andover Elementary School

edit

I'm probably walking into a hornet's nest by doing this, but this is just a small non-famous elementary school with 62 students. High schools, maybe I can live with, but not this. AlbertR 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Real place. --malathion talk 23:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Andover, Maine, unless some independent indicia of notability is present (i.e. historical significance, unusual age, location of a famous event, featured in a movie, etc.). -- BD2412 talk 23:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. And I really must make a comment about the "real place" or "real thing" comments we see so often. Just because something exists in reality doesn't make it noteworthy. My mother-in-law's house is real but that doesn't mean it deserves an article. -Soltak 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soltak.
    • Change to Keep. Apparently there is a category full of non-notable schools: [36]. If this should be deleted then we'll be spending a lot of time deleting those as well. The precedent has already been set, it seems. --Bayyoc 00:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a colossal pain to tag and delete all elementary schools, but that's something I think should be done (I won't be the doing it, mind you.) My vote stands. -Soltak 00:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable school; good stub. Pburka 00:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important to coverage of education in Andover, Maine, and establishes distinct indentity of the school. Kappa 00:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep since I was one of the first to try and rescue this. I, too, was leaning toward a delete and it probably qualified as a speedy when it was first created. Admittedly, the school doesn't seem particularly notable and there was virtually no online info to back this up. If notability hasn't been fully established, it's because I can't find anything notable to say.  :^) However, this has been really polished by users other than me and more than one user here is active in formatting and expanding school stubs. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This is the first school I've voted to delete, but as a small elementary school without other distinctions, its hard to call it notable Salsb 05:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this should not be erased Yuckfoo 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unnotable primary school. Dunc|☺ 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because a bunch of non-notable schools are being kept doesn't mean this one should be.Gateman1997 17:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More significant than many pop culture articles. Osomec 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Should I list every school in my neighbourhood? That would get very silly very quickly. --BradBeattie 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please feel free to write articles about all the schools in your neighborhood. Why do you think that would be silly? --Tony SidawayTalk 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happened to the guideline that articles should be noteworthy and encyclopedic? Did I miss the memo where we decided you could shove any meaningless garbage in Wikipedia and get praised for it? -Soltak 21:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schools are generally regarded as eminently noteworthy. I don't know about your country, but my country has lists of the institutions and sends inspectors round. We spend billions of pounds maintaining them, our kids spend most of their waking lives in them, and to put it briefly schools are a huge part of the society in my country--far more so than, say, the armed forces, and second only to the public health service. As to encyclopedic, that usually comes down to neutrality and verifiability. Because of the aforementioned inspections and the public appetite for information on schools, there is plenty of verifiable information about them. I shouldn't worry that anyone would mistake a school article for "meaningless garbage" and delete it. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were a person rather than a school it would have been speedy-deleted on the criterion that it is "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance." Despite the repeated assertions of school inclusionists, schools are not generally regarded as eminently noteworthy. This is an area within which there is no consensus within Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Time to enact an WP:ASS-kicking pseudo-policy for these. —RaD Man (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable schools are one things, every school in the world is another. Why don't we include every church too, they "effect the lives" of as many people as schools do. And while we're at it, every hospital. And police stations, and fire brigades, and sewage treatment plants. After all, where would be without these real and verifiable institutions? And it's not a consensus, it's a cabal. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are hundreds of articles about hospitals on Wikipedia. See Category:Hospitals. Police stations, fire brigades and sewage treatment plants don't fall into the same criteria. They generally have little impact on the larger community, unlike schools and hospitals. Pburka 03:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    1. That was meant as rhetoric... I did say every hospital, thinking that the absurdity of that was obvious.
    2. That list is difficult to get an accurate number on (it has sub-lists) but it does not appear to contain "hundreds" of hospitals.
    3. As to notable hospitals, it is not out of order that would be ten in California, two in Texas, or three in France. However, As to notable schools, I doubt that there are 400 in The United States.
    4. Off topic: Disrespect for police, fire, and sewage is rare in those who've ever had to go without them.
      brenneman(t)(c) 05:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 05:32, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia schools arguments and the inherent notability of schools. Unfocused 19:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as unfocused. Schools should never be here. --Celestianpower talk 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep railway stations. We keep suburbs. We keep schools.--Gene_poole 06:53, 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. And, by being BOLD, I shall redirect to clothing. Splash 00:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accoutrement

edit

dicdef Bayyoc 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Can be expanded beyond a dic-def. It is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and was only in existence for a few minutes before the vfd tag was added. Give it time. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not a redirect to clothing--it's present-day meaning isn't that separate. All the 1911 brittanica managed was a dicdef--I doubt we'll be able to do better. Meelar (talk) 14:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this could concievably be expanded. It's a stub, yes, but being a stub is no reason to be deleted. Fieari 23:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • It could be expanded if someone knew the history of military accoutrements. What did ancient Roman soldiers carry with them for first aid, mess kit, emergency food, etc. vs. soldiers of the 1800, 1900 and today. RustySpear
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Magners

edit

Blatant advertizing. --malathion talk 00:02, 3 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 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Annex (SigEp)

edit

Delete This is completey ridiculous. It serves no purpose and is nothing more than an elaborate vandalism. Also, what's to prevent ANY chapter of ANY club from creating a page? Collective-DZYN

  • Delete - Though, calling it vandalism is a little harsh. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I wouldn't call it vandalism per se, just silly. Dysepsion

Keep

  • FIRST, this article qualifies under the Wikipedia definition of Importance.
      • The policy on Importance states the following:
        • "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if...: it is an expansion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject."
        • "If an article is "important" according to the above then it should not be deleted on the basis of it being: (1) insufficiently important, famous or relevant, or (2) currently small or a stub, or (3) obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident.)"
      • Clearly Sigma Phi Epsilon and the Fraternity and Sorority system qualify as established subjects. An offshoot of a fraternity is therefore "an expansion upon an established subject."
  • SECOND, this is NOT vandalism. Wikipedia defines "vandalism" as follows:
      • "Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism...."
      • There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this content is inaccurate in any way. There are no obscenities and no attempt was made to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
  • THIRD, since when is "silly" grounds for deletion. On that basis, perhaps we should delete Skull and Bones since many people would consider it "silly." Just because an organization starts at a university does not mean it should not be included here. See Federalist Society. To think otherwise would mean that any organization, no matter how silly, should be included here simply for having a prominent member or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.118.221 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 August 2005
  • FOURTH, a comparison of other fraternity-related articles demonstrates that there is a precedent for this page:


  • Response: Obviously you changed the article since when I first put up the deletion tag when you referred to members by nicknames. I apologize for labeling it vandalism. Nevertheless, this article is extremely point of view. To call Skull and Bones silly is a ridiculous charge. People know about Skull and Bones but there is absolutely nothing on the web to even verify that this article is about a real organization, so where is the precedent in that? Collective-DZYN
  • Response to your Response: So basically a single web page and submission to a few major search engines would be sufficient, right??? (article creator)
  • Actually, I never accused you of vandalism. Check the history please. I simply reverted your edits. Regardless, this article still qualifies for deletion. It is a simply an elaborate vanity page with no encyclopedic information. Though it is nicely formatted, the article is clearly just bragging about your fraternity. Note phrasing such as:
The new brothers looked promising, but their hidden agendas and absence of partying skills soon rose to the surface.
Vanity alone is not qualification for deletion, however the Annex is also unverifiable. The only Annex related link I can find on google is a bar in Ohio.[38] Granted you could make yourself a web page, but with no other reputable sources, this is insufficient and qualifies for deletion. I vote for Delete.
  • Anyone who wants to know the origin of this please look at the very beginning drafts of this article. One will see that this was originally created as a joke article. For your accusation "So basically a single web page and submission to a few major search engines would be sufficient, right???". You misinterepret the entire point. NO ONE can verify this and this is contrary to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Also, I retract what I said that this is not vandalism. This IS vandalism. Refer to vandalism section under silly vandalism where it explains "joke articles". Who are you trying to fool and what are you trying to prove? --Collective-DZYN 23:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY: Once again I take offense to your characterization of the article as vandalism. Do you find something untrue about the earlier versions??? You can complain all you want about a lack of verifiability or notability. I concede that those points are debatable. However, quit your bitching about vandalism since this does not qualify in any way as vandalism. [article author]
      • It should also be noted that EDITS were made AFTER the vote for deletion tag was placed which is in violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Therefore votes should be cast based on the content of the article on when the tag was placed not after. --Collective-DZYN 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the VfD tag says "You are welcome to edit this article", and improving an article to "save" it from VfD is considered an acceptable practice. Just sayin'. - Thatdog 23:33, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Audaphobia

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Lozada

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be one of a series of bogus VfD's by this user. Guettarda 06:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Del O'Conner

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

DemaSked

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's currently vaporware. Vaporware with a couple thousand Google hits, but vaporware. There are few solid facts on which to base an article, so far. (Why the heck did the author capitalize it that way? No one else does.) Tualha (Talk) 00:43, 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 MERGE to Funeral. It's part of a funeral ceremony, so I redirected there rather than to burial. Anyone can of course unmerge and move it to burial if they prefer. -Splash 00:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth laid upon a corpse

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:23, 3 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 00:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Florencia 13

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hermann Bauer

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:25, 3 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. FCYTravis 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters of the Dusk

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Larry Hoover

edit

NN, D. ComCat 04:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge & Redirect to David Cassidy. Essjay · Talk 08:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Katie Cassidy

edit

Daughter of a pop star (David Cassidy). Her only recording was a 2002 cover of her dad's hit and it didn't get into the charts. No other claims to notability. Either delete or merge with David Cassidy. Willmcw 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually I was about to speedy it when another editor added a little more info, so this seemed more appropriate. Sorry for the bother... ;) Willmcw 23:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_2&oldid=1081091631"