Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 19

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

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. Where can I find mr. Rat ?

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MrRat

edit

Was listed for speedy but dosen't meet criteria. A developer of various Amazon.com related scripts. NSR (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check out the talk page and you'll notice it has all 'Don't delete' votes. Before any stupid wikipedia freak puts a page on the 'Votes for deletion' page, maybe they should do some homework about the article. Amazon.com has even mentioned MrRat in press releases about there web services. Anonymous
    • this comment actually by anonymous user User:67.42.194.208, who created the MrRat article and later vandalized the VfD notice on it --Stormie 03:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • WHAT!!! All I did was add one word to correct it!!! You can take that stupid notice off now. Thank you! Anonymous (Yes, THAT Anonymous user.) — (Improperly signed comment actually by 67.42.194.208; user's 6th edit.)
        • You guys link to him at Internet phenomenon. Don't you want a page about the Internet phenomenon? I didn't think So, yah, I know, Wikipedia sucks. Real signiture my ***. Anonymous (Yes, THAT Anonymous user.) Make that the 7th edit.
  • Delete. Article is mostly unsubstantiated claims and speculation, but if this guy's software is truly as notable and important as his anonymous fans say it is, then surely one of them can provide us with a source or three. Changing vote to regular ol' delete given sock/meatpuppet activity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Android79. drini ☎ 03:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As requested: Amazon's listing of Scripts for 'associates' Amazon don't make these links easy - I think I have correctly stripped out the SessionID - Amazon Products Feed second on the list under Associate Tools - Many of the authors of competing scripts write books, give interviews, etc - MrRat is generally absent from such activities - thus adding to the 'Who is MrRat' phenomena. Perhaps the article (and the Wikipedia) would have been better served had the article initially been created as a stub - it is certainly light on content and on substance, but then stubs are.
  • Delete as vanity, self-promotion, original research. Whatever. If someone wants to write an article about the real person behind it, may be encyclopedic. DavidH 05:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I'm a "stranger", I'd first of all better say that I have no connection with Mr. Rat, know almost nothing about him, and have no reason for bias, although I do use one of his free scripts.
  • Strong Keep I firmly feel that the 2 current entries for Mr. Rat should be kept. A search of either the General Amazon Associates Discussion Board or the Amazon Associates AWS Discussion Board shows that his scripts are an overwelmingly important contributor to the success of the Amazon AWS project, and thus are an extremely important example of the practical use of XML and remote feeds. As long as there are entries relating to XML, remote feeds, or the Amazon E-Commerce Service, the articles on Mr. Rat are also a major contribution to Wikipedia.
    • sole edit by anonymous User:62.0.112.191 --Stormie 08:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm the anonymous user who was apparently 62.0.112.191 a few hours ago. (I don't quite understand that, but it's not relevant here. Maybe my router mysteriously rebooted and reconnected without my noticing, though I don't see how.) Will I seem more respectable if I sign up for an identity? I doubt that I'll be writing on Wikipedia much. And if I do sign up, is there a way to aim my new-found respectability retroactively to this thread? Thanks. David.
      • Signing up for a username solely to vote in this discussion won't get you much of anywhere. Votes from usernames registered after the beginning of the discussion are routinely discounted, as are votes from anonymous or registered users with very few edits (which applies to most of the keep votes here, I'm afraid). This is to prevent the occurrence of sockpuppetry. As for your IP, it's certainly possible you got reassigned a new IP between your first and second comments; see Dynamic IP if you aren't familiar with this aspect of the Internet. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete beacuse, as written, it has way too much marketing. If it was rewritten as a real article, and not a promotional advertisement, then it may have a chance. And yes, I *use* mrrat's scripts. Eclipsed
  • Delete, vanity, nn, low quality, uninformative, ... Pavel Vozenilek 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see how it is possible to have an article about someone who is famous for his work without talking about his work! I have posted a request on the articles discussion page explaining the dilemna and asking Wikipedians for suggestions in how to move this forward. One or two of you have commented that there may be the basis of an encyclopedic article in there. Any constructive suggestions for how to move this forward - or comments on my earlier suggestion of marking the article as a stub, which is after all a marker for articles that need bulking out with more content - Dean Marshall.
    • edit by anonymous User:81.86.230.44, whose contributions have all been to the MrRat article and this VFD discussion --Stormie 08:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if the software were notable, he would not be. Dcarrano 13:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverified, developer doesn't inherit the notability of the software he works on (not that amazon.com's software is notable anyway). Wile E. Heresiarch 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. PERIOD. JEALOUSY = DELETE. MR.RAT MUST STAY. FEAR NOT OPEN SOURCE! AGREE WITH PREVIOUS COMMENT: Seems like sour grapes from the competition to me and if allowed to be deleted for such a reason it brings the viablity of Wikipedia itself into question. — (Unsigned comment by 61.149.10.136; user's 1st edit.)
  • Keep, MrRat is a well known figure among many Amazon Developers and the users of there Affiliate system. Without him, I personally could not have started my career in XML web apps as easy as I have. His forums are a great help to many and his software, even though he is "mysterious", is well known. I suggest we keep this and add more to it as we can to help others see a pillar of how to make money with open source. Open source is the future and MrRat is helping many of us realize that future with no selfishness on his part. His support is free, his script is free, and his forums are free. I personally have donated money to his project as a thank you but its not a requirement to use his script. This is my first post to Wikipedia and hopefully not my last, but please do not let my newness discount my comments towards this very generous and helpful person. Thank you. -SilentJoe User:SilentJoe
    • Re: Newness. Our votes are worthless. From a post above....'Votes from usernames registered after the beginning of the discussion are routinely discounted.' 67.42.194.208 - AKA Anonymous.


  • Delete this fanboy/resume/vanity cruft. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just like to point people to the article's discussion page for substantiation of the widespread adoption of MrRat's software from O'Reilly Media - ranked top 25 by downloads AND user rating - (every other software title in their top25 and their respective authors have articles in Wikipedia)- Dean Marshall (my last word on the subject).

Votes copied from talk page; please add new votes above this section

edit
  • Hello, only a small comment from my site, sorry for my bad english, my native language is german. MrRat wrote the first open source application for Amazon Webservices AWS. His amazon products feed (APF) is one of the most suggested software from Amazon.com and in my opinion the most used Amazon software worldwide. (Most used affiliate software worldwide...) It is open source so everyone can use it without profit for MrRat and thats the best on it, because he coded this script for tousands of affiliates and websites in the world who earn money whith it every day. For me this script was the start in the world of webservices and XML and I'm sure without it webservices, Amazon usage of XML wo't be what it is today. Regards from Germany Frank — (Unsigned comment by 194.138.39.52; user's 37th edit. Contribution history suggests this is an IP shared by many editors.)
  • KEEP the Mr. Rat Entry in Wikipedia. Mr. Rat's script is the most widely used of the Amazon API scripts. It has literally HUNDREDS of hacks and mods written for it and posted on the web, and probably THOUSANDS including those which are proprietary. The product is an open source script used by THOUSANDS of users on TENS-of-THOUSANDS of websites, and with a built-in ability to load and run special mods. Mr. Rat is nothing short of a PHENOMENON in the world of API scripting for automated web page creation, and his scripts work on the world's largest and most widely-distributed API - the Amazon.com API. Deleting Mr. Rat from the Wikipedia would show an extraordinary IGNORANCE of what is happening in the world of API scripting - a massive and growing phenomenon with THOUSANDS of users and TENS of THOUSANDS of websites. Come on Wikipedia, what's going on? Does the category manager really not know of Mr. Rat? Let's get with the program here. KEEP Mr. Rat entry. Do NOT delete it. Kent Nelson http://www.hostingdude.com — (Unsigned comment by 68.202.167.253; user's 1st edit.)
  • Ditto everything in the above posting from HostingDude.com KEEP Mr. Rat. Mr. Rat's script is the finest and most widely used on the Amazon API. I run hundreds of websites using it. DO NOT delete the Mr. Rat Entry. Ana Malave, Owner http://www.anabooks.com — (Duplicate vote by 68.202.167.253; user's 2nd edit.)
  • STRONG DISAGREE - As an avid and long time user of MrRat's scripts, I don't see what the hub bub is about here. He is an established author of widely used programs. I can't believe it was even considered for deletion. Seems like sour grapes from the competition to me and if allowed to be deleted for such a reason it brings the viablity of Wikipedia itself into question. — (Unsigned comment by Piwacket; user's 1st and only edit so far.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 08:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukdnet

edit

Non notable site/network. Every Google hit I've checked refered to UK Digital Networks' site at www.ukdnet.co.uk. But this is not it. Nabla 00:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn, unverifiable, as Nabla says the Google hits don't match. Also, UKDNET "Direct connect" returns 0 Googles. I reckon it's just those two guys (Phatty and Daredevil) named in the article who have big aspirations but aren't quite there yet. -Splash 01:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide or ICANN. Geogre 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 13:38, July 20, 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 (14 delete, 6 keep, 1 new user, and 2 votes by anons) --Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hopkin green frog

edit

Little evidence that this "internet phenomenon" was anything of the sort; it was just a blogger in-joke. ~6000 google hits, yes, but that's very little for a "phenomenon" that has absolutely no existence outside of a bunch of blogs. CDC (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote is Jmason's ninth edit --Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where else can I learn where this stuff comes from if the internet's primary authoritive source for such things doesn't keep track of it? Ren Hoek 16:50, 2 August 2005 (CET)
Vote actually cast by 213.84.79.181 --Allen3 talk 02:31, 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.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 02:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dave Green

edit

Moved here from Speedy, but does not meet criteria for a Speedy delete. I'm not voting Manning 01:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Sufficient notability. Pburka 01:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another "a writer for" magazines that employ freelancers liberally. Now a newsletter pusher. Ok. What is distinctive, unique, important, influential here? Just another writer. Geogre 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Geogre. --Vizcarra 07:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was in Amiga Power and other magazines too! Plus, he's an alien! (Or at least, that's what they claim. I've never met him.) — JIP | Talk 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as it pains me to say it, Delete. AP had hundreds of writers, barely any of which will ever be notable enough for inclusion here. He wasn't even a particularly memorable or notable writer for the magazine compared to people like Stuart Campbell, Jonathan Davies or Jonathan Nash. --Stevefarrell 20:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Dcarrano 13:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity/promo, nobody in particular. Agreed 100% w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable and well-known in British tech circles. The article could do with some fleshing out but by its by no means vanity. Dave Green writes NTK, which is a notable UK technology publication and co-author Danny O'Brien was deemed notable enough for inclusion. Qwghlm 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 19:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: Dave Green is one of the most notable commentators on tech events in the UK. He has his finger on the pulse of things, always has something funny witty and acerbic to say. A compelling journalist. Voting to delete him would be like saying 'delete Hunter S Thompson: he only wrote about Hells Angels once back in the '60's'. So yanks dont know who the f**k Dave Green is: everyone else does. he is as much a feature of contemporary Internet journalism as Cory Doctorow etc. (unsigned by 81.2.112.241, just 1 contribution, this vote)
  • keep. Very notable. A fixture in UK Internet journalism (unsigned by Geeklawyer, only 3 contributions, 2 on article Dave Green, 1 here)
  • Keep. Undoutably notable in UK Internet field. Been around for years. NTK, NotCon, xcom, Open Tech, etc, etc. 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (User:AlanFord)
Unfortunately server space cannot be recycled. (unsigned by Vizcarra)
Of course it can! But see this. Paul Beardsell 23:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is no limit on the size of an article or number of topics because we're not limited to physical constraints of paper encyclopedias. However, servers cost money. And everytime you get an error message because the servers are overloaded it should remind you that non-encyclopedic topics shouldn't be on here. There is no "recyclable list" so the best thing is to delete articles that shouldn't take up space. I don't know if Dave Green is notable, it may be notable in his community, but the article doesn't explain how. Writing freelance to magazines that have disappeared and being on committees to organize conferences and being friends with Danny O'Brien does not implay notability. He does seem to have fans or friends who have voted with no previous record of contributing with wikipedia. Is that why he should have an article? --Vizcarra 00:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree but if I did then I would point out this VfD is longer than the article you want deleted. Your comments alone are longer than the article you want to delete. So next time you get a server overloaded message... Paul Beardsell 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, keeping this article would justify the inclusion of every freelance writer (how many are they? tens of thousands?) Every owner of a website (millions like his "snackfood" site) and other hundreds of thousands of people that helpt put together (the thousands of) conferences around the world, thus requiring much more server space than many times the size of this VfD article. So, hopefully my remarks will not go in vain and save server space in the long run. --Vizcarra 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, UK internet celeb. Edward 19:04:58, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable enough. Additionally, the claims citing NTK are void in my opinion, since it was in fact Danny O'Brien that did the lion's share of it, as witnessed by the recent lack of content. Daniel Smith 20:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, (can I vote for myself?) To be honest, the page doesn't really make me out to be particularly notable - if it makes any difference, I've edited it so it sounds less like I was "just a freelancer" but in fact a valuable and influential member of staff (!). But ultimately, I suspect it comes down to whether you consider NTK sufficiently notable or not, even if - apparently - Danny does "the lion's share" :) Dave Green 11:17, 27 July 2005 (BST) (User:81.136.233.18)
You can vote, but the vote won't count because you don't have enough contributions to the wikipedia (there's a determined number of edits necessary before being able to vote). It's easier to argue NTK to be notable, but harder to argue you to be notable. You are not exactly a celebrity outside of the UK (as far as I am aware). And those in the UK haven't provided much information in the article to justify you to be notable (other than saying that "yanks don't know who the f**k Dave Green is).
Even if David Green is unknown outside the UK that has never been a criterion for inclusion/exclusion. Many Wikipedians are in the UK and they need an encyclopaedia too! And there are countless articles on those unknown outside the USA but we are not using that argument to delete those articles. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, however it has to be clear why he's famous in the UK and the article is not doing that great of a job. Organizing OpenTech: "an informal, low cost, one-day conference about technologies", writing a newsletter, having written (freelance) for two extinct magazines is not newsworthy. --Vizcarra 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, you seem like a great guy and you seem to have had many accomplishments, but so have I and I certainly wouldn't write an article about myself. --Vizcarra 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vizcarra, if that is so please do write an article about yourself. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be vain on me. I prefer to write about other people :) --Vizcarra 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both NTK and OpenTech are core parts of the UK tech community, and including one of the key people in both addresses, in part, the US-centric nature of Wikipedia tech bios. ianbetteridge 14:49, 01 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure I should get a vote, but Dave has actually written the majority of NTK for all of its history. I've mostly concentrated on the New and Tracking sections. --Dannyobrien 05:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: How ironic that this page justifies having an article about David, much better than the article itself. Somebody cares to expand the article? --Vizcarra 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's this article that explains inclusion of biographies Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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; attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chamanlal Kamani

edit

Removed from Speedy as fails to fit criteria. Possibly meritorious article. Might be too obscure to develop properly though. Manning 01:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED for having little or no context. Postdlf 05:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RBK(Gang)

edit

No indication of notability. Also appears to be a badly formed article name (no space before paren). Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lonely Sidewalk

edit

Delete I'm gonna go out on a limb and call nn vanity on this livejournal author. TheMidnighters 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haha if you think it's vanity you should check out the journal. Anyone who takes that thing seriously needs to get their head checked. Anonymous 2:09, 19 July 2005

Previous vote was by creator of The Lonely Sidewalk User:24.53.122.133. --TheMidnighters 02:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. This is why saying "vanity" gets us in trouble sometimes. Sirmob 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 11:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wickerpedia

edit

A parody known to the Wikipedia community but otherwise unheard of. Move from main space to a Wikipedia internal page, perhaps, a new section for parodies of the project lots of issues | leave me a message 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN or Delete. I'm stressing the B in BJAODN here – more groan-inducing than anything. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Parodies. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Shouldn't go to BJAODN because it's a real site. In fact, it gets LOTS of Google hits. Let's have a sense of humour here. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! (or whatever the hell the saying is) CanadianCaesar 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • 125 unique Google hits. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Then what does the 12,000 mean? CanadianCaesar 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, he did not. At the bottom, it clearly says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 128 already displayed.
        • If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." Android is showing 125 unique hits, the rest is probably mirrors (like what they do to us). So the 12,000 websites is showing 12,000 websites that even mention the word Wickerpedia in them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'll notice that you can't go any further in the search results... there are only 128 unique hits for that search term. The rest are just duplicates. In addition, the site has an Alexa ranking of 468,100 and has been around for less than a month. If this were a parody of anything other than Wikipedia, there wouldn't be any question. (Can we stop edit-conflicting now? Please? :-)) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noted in numerous publications, including many influential blogs. Recent example:
Lennon, Sheila. "Personal Technology." Providence (R.I.) Journal, 30 June 2005 [1]:

Wickerpedia: The parody. Wikipedia is the collaboratively created Web encyclopedia, using software that permits many editors, i.e., a wiki. Wickerpedia is not. It's a parody of wikipedia.org, only with more of an emphasis on wicker (which is terribly represented by wikipedia). The site features a more wickercentric view of history, the news, and common wisdom, as well as a much improved searching engine.

In fact, I need to go put this article in Wikipedia:Press coverage when I have time. Jokestress 04:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review, the result of the debate was clearly Delete with many requesting transwiki. Transwiki has been performed and article is deleted. - Tεxτurε 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Savoir-faire

edit

This is a great idea, but I think it belongs on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. Can it be moved over? I proposed this by tagging the article as such, but this was reverted without comment by the page's creator, and I thought I should ask the broader community. -- Beland 03:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Madrid

edit

Vanity. Not sure why this article's history indicates that I created this page. I certainly didn't.... PhilipO 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. The article has been tagged for merging. Joyous (talk) 13:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Sparkle

edit

Minor character that appeared in one episode and made a cameo appearance in another. Most of the article is the transcription of the part where he is actually seen, and I don't think anything more than one or two sentences can be said about this. --Conti|✉ 04:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney High School, Cerritos, California

edit

nn High School - vanity PhilipO 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius Adrian BUTA

edit

Seems like vanity to me PhilipO 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alianism

edit

Google searches for "Alianism" etc. yield no related results. Additionally, user on this IP has a record of vandalism. Almost certainly, the subject is fake. M412k 04:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax, nonsense. I speedied it at least twice tonight already, but since it's on VfD now, we can go through the full process. Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. As above. Themindset 06:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when the first google hit is this page...definitely nn/hoax. --Etacar11 23:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cookiecaper 00:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'd just like to say that I personally know a sect of Alianists and that the religion is not a hoax. I don't who added the article to Wikipedia because Alianism doesnt promote use of technology and therefore I doubt that it was a practicing member who posted it. However, most of the information in the article is correct according to my source and she finds the idea of you dismissing her religion as a hoax hurtful and deeply discriminatory. Alianist members are also in the process of setting up a website she tells me so the point about there being no search results on google is totally moot. I have to say it sends a very bad message, image wise, about Wikipedia that it is willing to delete the first publication about a new religion for absolutely no reason. And to the person who was talking about the IP address you'll probably realise that this has the same address. This is because I am on a computer at Sydney Girls High School in Sydney. This does not, however, make me a student, nor does it make up opinions invalid. (Unsigned comment by Hesfb (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • I think this open patronising of such a worthwhile religion is horrible. i am a converted full believer of Alianism. My husband converted me in order for us to be married in a traditional Alian ceremony. I am slightly unorthodox in the fact that I use computers and do believe in technology, but i find it terribley offensive that my deep spiritual belief would be questioned in this way. (Unsigned comment by Hannah g (talk · contribs), user's 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Program

edit

Simple nn link PhilipO 04:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure2k

edit

Practically empty page PhilipO 04:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 05:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Pictures

edit

Almost empty article PhilipO 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy since all it says is Porn Pic. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it's worth, this is the name of one of the porn studios, so it would be better recreated properly and protected than any of the countless articles on the countless women who have performed in these largely interchangeable "films." That said, I have no interest in recreation of the article, as its title does act as an invitation to feebs to add their own examples of pictures they consider wicked. Geogre 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonboyandthepotentials

edit

Vanity band page Hansonc 04:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're shitting ourselves

edit

Delete Non notable web forum advertising. drini ☎ 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stargems

edit

I think I'd rather wait until I'm done writing the book before I add an article for it. Link 04:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's request to Delete. Fulfill it. ~ WCFrancis 18:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J."A.J." Branigan

edit

Andrew J. "A.J." Branigan (born January 19, 1990) is first young American movie filmaker in the whole world. Well, probably not. Calton | Talk 04:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elegeion

edit

Not notable band-- BMIComp (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), consider renaming this but that is a debate for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpyFi

edit

Delete neologism. Article is dicdef with list of supposed entries in this genre, though I'm struggling to think of many spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction. Google results are in the mere hundreds, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Postdlf 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Zero usage. "Recently discovered" genre? How does one discover a genre? Recently minted neologism and a distinction without difference. Geogre 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is the kind of thing I used wikipedia for when I first came on this site. I would fine a (relatively) obscure reference, and would look it up here... and lo-and-behold, the term usually had an article. Removing entries like this reduces wikipedia's strength as a comprehensive resource. Themindset 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears it should be "Spy-Fi", based on googling. This reveals a lot more usages in established sources (i.e., not Wikipedia mirrors or do-it-yourself websites). I'm reconsidering... Postdlf 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support moving to this alternate spelling if the article is kept. I rarely see it as "SpyFi", usually it's hyphenated. 23skidoo 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still on the fence on this. Looking at a lot of sites on "Spy-Fi", most are refering to Spy fiction, which we already have. The only place I've ever heard of Spy-Fi or SpyFi in which the article defines it is at Wikipedia and its mirrors. At this point I could agree with a redirect, but it still seems like neologism to me. K1Bond007 03:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • NN, D. ComCat 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NNeologism. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, original research. Quale 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say keep, although it should be written as "Spy-Fi". Binadot 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book is real, and usage of the word will probably expand in the future. The article should be more substantial, though.Bjones
  • Keep. I find the tendency of spy TV show script writers (and also authors, of course) to invent gadgets, with total freedom (as in without any knowledge of or reference to actual contemporary technology), to be disturbing. Thus having a term for this sort of thing is useful, because then we can talk about that which is not spy-fi. I think the term spy-fi (or spyfi or SpyFi) is badly chosen, but I can't come up with a better one. --Peter Knutsen, 23th of July 2005.
    (Above vote is user's first edit) --14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Phroziac (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say KEEP the idea behind the article. But I am open to suggestions for an alternative term for 'SpyFi.'
  • Redirect to spy fiction. -Sean Curtin 02:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now, but I'd like to point out that some of the selections on the list seem like maybe someone's getting too enthusiastic. 24? Maybe it does have science-fiction elements and I just never heard about them, but I'm pretty sure Danger Man doesn't qualify -- they used some advanced technology, yes, but nothing that actually pushed into the realm of science fiction that I can think of. They say that when you have a hammer in your hand, every problem looks like a nail, and I suspect that to someone who just discovered a new sub-classification of spy fiction, every spy fiction looks like... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expand and maybe make it become a Category Farlstendoiro 10:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abhik Majumdar

edit

Apparent vanity. reverted blanking and sent to VFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Foreman

edit

Notability not established. A probable vanity. I reverted blanking of the page added {{vfd}}. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiserv

edit

Appears to be commercial advertisement. I unblanked it and sent it to VFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like anadvertising blurb as noted above. Leithp 08:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep is a Nasdaq traded company. [5]. NSR (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's advertising; therefore, it doesn't matter whether the company is major or minor, good or evil, your employer or mine. This article is an ad. Ads are not allowed. Delete, unless you want to change the article. Geogre 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate NSR's rewrite. He did a great job of removing the advertising. Unfortunately, it's now a substub, so the rationale has changed, but I can't change my vote. Still, I am sincere in being appreciative of his believing in his vote enough to actually do something about it. Geogre 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

TGO-Team

edit

Delete. Non-notable. Possible vanity. -- DooMDrat 06:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa O'Neil

edit

Delete - damn I wish every American Idol reject didn't try and create their own wikipedia article... Sherurcij 06:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • The article actually says she was on Canadian Idol. Now the top ten American Idol finalists each become notable enough to have their own articles. Anyone know how much attention Canadian Idol finalists get? Postdlf 07:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It just says she "qualified" through various nominations, I didn't read it as her advancing far enough into the competition of thousands to be one of the recognizable names; but I could easily be wrong. (For what it's worth, I'm Canadian and haven't heard of her...but I'm not exactly Canadian Idol material ;) ) Sherurcij 07:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlackNite Records and EdgeSide

edit

A label with only one band and the band signed to that label that doesn't even have a demo tape yet... Violates everything in WP:MUSIC. Delete both. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodham High School

edit

Don't you think it's a ltitle bit unnotable? (preceding unsigned comment by 68.91.113.252 20:22, July 9, 2005 UTC)

Also, there is some false information in the article. How can you win the gold in the 2008 Olympics if we are in year 2005? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I corrected it. It does have one notable alumni, and it can be expanded. Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woo (film)

edit
Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 07:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it was a huge mistake for me to create this article! (preceding unsigned comment by 67.86.88.191 00:43, June 15, 2005 UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mehedi Kamal

edit

Delete - vanity/prank Sherurcij 07:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Electronic Commerce

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Age

edit

I propose this page be deleted, since it has been inactive since creation in September 2004 and there is nothing major to archive. Hiding talk 07:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wind-up Willy on Wheels

edit
This appears never to have been listed. --Dmcdevit·t 07:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The "sex toy" described is obscure, despite the article's claim that it is "popular", and the self-reference to Wikipedia vandal Willy on wheels is unacceptable. Besides, this page was created by User:Windupremisonwheels, whose contributions and user page strongly indicate that he has created this solely for disruption purposes. Phils 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vandal-like page. --Habap 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that is rather unfair. I am merely a fan of the gentleman, rather than a sockpuppet, and believe that the article should exist, though it definitely needs cleaning and expanding etc. I myself am certainly not a vandal, so if you do choose to delete this article, I shan't complain.--Windupremisonwheels 23:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A fan of a vandal? Heresy, best keep that to yourself. I almost blocked you for your username without even checking who you are. Perhaps I should have. This link is Broken 04:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Never heard of the damned thing except in the context of the vandal, who should not be encouraged in any way. -- Arwel 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is real and be yours for $4.99 ( shipping) from [6] but of course …
  • Speedily to BJAODN as a record of where the vandal got his name from. -- RHaworth 03:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. We are definitely not going to have an article on Willy, who is not notable outside Wikipedia. The sex toy is too obscure to have its own article, if we can't say anything more than "it's a sex toy". JRM · Talk 23:45, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    On revisiting, if it matters: this is actually a gag present, not a sex toy. At least I wouldn't imagine it being used as such... comfortably. JRM · Talk 02:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • 'Delete no more trophies for the vandal. This link is Broken 04:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy; no context. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kilil

edit

content-free; Google returned zero hits Robinh 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 no consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox Group and Wilcox group

edit

Clean Up If we delete the spam, it could become usefull. MicroFeet 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronauts

edit

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, consiting of one line, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 07:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Libres y Locos

edit

Does not assert notability. brenneman(t)(c) 07:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, kids today, free *and* crazy. Dunc|☺ 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable... guys who go to sports games? I think? Dcarrano 14:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Define Notability: Obviously they will not be notorious outside Mexico. They are however most notable within Mexico. The stub is very poorly written and I would vote to delete on that de-merit but notability seems to be the point, the "Libres y Locos" is not a cheerleader squad or a bunch of guys who go to sports games (Actually, two people who voted for delete admit not knowing what "Libres y locos" really are).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chen

edit

Non-notable student. Delete. jni 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Cheung

edit

Non-notable (probably created by the same person who did Mark Chen, which is also on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. jni 07:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of past VfDs

edit

Apparently there have only been four articles on VFD... Someone was confused; we have Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and this is redundant/irrelevant/unused/useless. No point, so delete. --Dmcdevit·t 07:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blank page vandalism

edit

I'd vote delete as this seems to be a neologism. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be articles on different types of vandalism, so it could be a merge candidate. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I thought you weren't to create redirects across namespaces so perhaps merge with vandalism instead of WP:VAND? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It could be moved to the Wikipedia namespace, merged with WP:VAND, and the article space redirect deleted. That would preserve the article history, get the self-referential stuff out of the article space, and avoid a cross-namespace redirect. Of course, this doesn't actually seem to be worth all the effort—so I'm going to say just DELETE this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria Hungary

edit

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, with information moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states/Austria Hungary, admittedly an also inactive project but a better place to archive what material is here Hiding talk 07:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

West End Marketplace

edit

Delete: Not notable Muhgcee 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Werkkrew

edit

Alexa ranked 2,246,522! And they're going down, not up (apparently it's possible to go down from there). "[...]creators have hopes of turning it into a full fledged record label at some point in the future."?! I don't doubt it's advertisement of a non-notable website. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 08:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reyes, Jun Cruz

edit

Non-notable person from the Philippines Jojit fb 08:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Cruz Reyes, is , surely a notable Filipino. He is a gifted writer and his works has inspired a new twist in Philippine literature, specifically contemporary Tagalog or Filipino literature, because of the lightness and casualness in tone and humor-inspired, satirical style. This is notably evident in his famous "Utos ng Hari" short story and the novel "Tutubi, tutubi, huwag magpahuli sa mamang salbahe" and the latest Centennial Award winning great novel "Etsa-Puwera" all of which I have read. Saluyot 03:31, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan M. Hantman

edit

Tagged for speedy, but not a candidate. To me "Architect of the Capitol" seems like a notable title and that any architect holding it would be a notable one. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Speedied. Attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hambrock

edit

To start off with, Josh Hambrock receives only 8 google hits, the chief claim to notability seems to be winning some sort of informal contest which I think was about predicting Oscar winners. Further down the article we find information which I don't think even the subject had any clue about. Looks to me like a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy hoax/attack page. Well, this is interesting (ok, not really)... what looks at first glance like a silly hoax vanity article is actually a silly hoax attack page. Basically a longwinded (and therefore dumber) version of the "___ IS GAY!!!11" articles we get fairly frequently. If anyone needs proof, check out the part about STDs in the next-to-last paragraph. Even the basic facts are wrong: The current Broadway run of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? started in 2005, not 2004, and Bill Irwin (not "Irvin") is still in the lead as George. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. jni 07:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doymekokosh

edit

Looks like band advertising to me. Much is written in first person, and the google search gave me 11 hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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; biographical article with no claim of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dahimtuta

edit

Seemingly completely made up/uncited and a vandalism/troll playground. zen master T 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Any particular criteria? -Harmil 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! This guy is full of himself!


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gush

edit

Personal article of no interest 212.68.150.1 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waldegrave School for Girls

edit

This page seems like overt use of Wikipedia for advertising... IMHO, i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. What do other wise Wikipedians say ? Manik Raina 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex White

edit

Non-notable (22 year old) student political groupie. Is one of several co-authors of a soon-to-be published handbook on the most recent installment of the "Ars Magica" game, apparently intentionally misspelled "Arse Magica" in the article. Some of the claims of notability seem exaggerated. Unreferenced claim that his blog that "is a frequent reference point for campaigners" in Melbourne or student government. A careful Google search excluding other "Alex Whites" brings up only about 200 unique hits, mostly from an active blogging community at his college. Nonetheless, no printed sources. So he appears to be a young political-type who may someday be notable. Delete or userfy. (if one of the several users named "Alex White" who've been editing recently wants to claim it.) Willmcw 10:17, July 19, 2005 / revised 11:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 12:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cattywhompus

edit

Non-notable slang word. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not worthy of move to Wiktionary either. KeithD 12:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Just because some non-notable guy at some school used it once in the entire history of the world doesn't mean it's suddenly an encyclopedic concept. — JIP | Talk 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This word has a number of spelling variants (catawampus seems the most prevalent). The online dictionaries I consulted seemed pretty uncertain as to etymology. [8][9] VisibleInk 17:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. But it is worthy of a Wiktionary entry; my family and others that I know have been using this word since I was a child. Tygertyger 17:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Change the spelling to the more conventional "catawampus" if you like, but it is a good word to include in Wikiworld. Oh, and p.s. to the grump with the comment about the "non-notable guy" -- it was a truly notable woman, pal. LDEWMCB 22:45, August 1, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valuelabs

edit

Advertising, spam, no content (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original was a copyvio; the creator removed copyvio notice and reworded, then blanked this VfD. FreplySpang (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Beers of the World

edit

I propose deletion, project inactive with one meaningful edit in February since creation in September 2004. Hiding talk 12:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges

edit

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004. Hiding talk 12:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels

edit

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 12:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I can see the point of the merge, but leaving a redirect behind seems pointless. How is someone going to type this one in? Hiding talk 17:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ... for the time being. I created it it, in the hope that other people might join me in bringing all the british TV channels up to scratch. However immediately after I lost my job etc etc, so never really got anywhere with it. Now I realise it has been over a year since I did anything, I'd like the chance to try and get some other members to the project and make it an active project. If I haven't been able to activate it in a month or so then merge into it's parent. MrWeeble 22:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life Insurance Corporation of India

edit

I'm simply questioning the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. What do you think, as I'm not so sure. Silles Sellis 12:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments only, no Vote in response to the query by Silles Sellis: this is a corporate entity, which is as of date, fully owned by the Government of India. It is the largest life insurance company of India. Headquartered in Mumbai, which is considered the financial capital of India, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as of date, has 7 Zonal Offices and 100 divisional offices located in different parts of India, at least 2048 branches located in different cities and towns of India, and has a net work of around one million agents for soliciting life insurance business from the public. I think it is enough for now. I may continue to write a full article, running into at least 12/13 paragraphs, but I would not do that right now, as I want to encourage the creator of this page to incorporate at least these points in the article. --Bhadani 15:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bhadani obviously knows something about this. I will copy this text into the article and vote to keep the resulting article. Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I also deleted the weblink, which linked to a dodgy 95meg.com site; if there's an official site for the corporation it ought to be added. Quaere, the images from {{corp-stub}} and {{india-stub}} look awful when juxtaposed; is there a magic word that allows the stub links to be added without pictures? Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you gentlemen. To-day, I am feeling a bit tired. I shall expand the article suitably very soon. --Bhadani 16:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Child safety

edit

I'm proposing it for deletion since there are no meaningful edits since August 04. Also, it seems somewhat controversial, in that I'm not sure where it fits in with NPOV. Hiding talk 12:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a failed attempt at organized "POV-pushing" (bleh, there has to be a better expression for that). Deletissimo grande. --FOo 01:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese characters

edit

I'm proposing deletion since it hasn't been meaningfully updated since May 2003, has no real definition, and the talk page mainly features a long conversation about whether Chinese characters are encyclopedix which might be more usefully archived elsewhere, maybe Chinese character Hiding talk 13:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was (speedily?) deleted. Eugene van der Pijll 18:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neotextualdesublimation

edit

I suspect this article was generated by the Postmodernism Generator. Googling for phrases from the article (like "Neotextual desublimation" and "Contexts of collapse") turns up either the Postmodernism Generator or other pages generated from it. Sneaky... TheCoffee 13:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Squires

edit

Vanity. Most of 195.224.186.179 (talk · contribs)'s entries have been vandalism. Dunc|☺ 13:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Street Stupid

edit

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. smoddy 14:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Thivierge-Gaulin

edit

Vanity/hoax. smoddy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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, but there is a difficulty with the target. THe suggested target in the debate is List of characters in the Harry Potter books, but that article does not accomodate descriptions of characters, and merging the article there would more or less amount to creating only a redirect (this character is already mentioned there). Therefore I will be merging this to Sybill Trelawney instead, and hope that nobody will notice... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Trelawney

edit

Seems to be highly obscure, I don't remember this character in the books at all. Corection: Book 5, Ch. 15 JGorton 14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andersson Burger

edit

Dubious type of burger, claims to be the vegetarian version of the Johnson burger, which is also on VFD. NSR (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Mahon

edit

This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Mahon

edit

personal attack. Not encyclopedic. Not acted on in July 2005 One Salient Oversight 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied again (by me)--Doc (?) 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 --Allen3 talk 12:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

CQB_K-9

edit

Advertising... but please don't sic one of your dogs on me. Gunmetal 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No separate VFD needed for identical page. Manning 05:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already Merged and redirected. android79 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Larry Sanders show

edit

Already a correct article The Larry Sanders Show Occono 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Riley

edit

Vanity, I couldn't find anything remotely encyclopedic (or any mention at all that I could see) while searching for him. Delete Rx StrangeLove 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus, but I'm going to move it per Doc and take this to CP per Durin. Dmcdevit·t 08:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Our lady of ransom

edit

Strikes me as highly unremarkable. JGorton 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smoksha

edit

Neologism dicdef, 77 google hits. Thue | talk 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why it has to be deleted!! Surely, there is more loose stuff on wikipedia??

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fitchett

edit

Not notable. Thue | talk 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Clouds

edit

No meaningful edits since creation in August 2003 and nothing there to archive. Hiding talk 15:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-book

edit

Neologism, original research, wishfull thinking. Not an encyclopedic article. Better suited to a user subpage. Thue | talk 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians that have made guest appearances on Nickelodeon shows

edit

Not terribly encyclopedic; it's not as though musicians who appear on Nickelodeon appear nowhere else or are somehow unique. Also, currently contains one (1) entry. tregoweth 15:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub and disambiguation message example

edit

For a long time, this page listed all the stub categories. Now, it's a description of how to modify your CSS settings to make a couple of templates look different. Is there a general how-to page for tweaking Wikipedia CSS? I couldn't find one, except on MediaWiki -- maybe this belongs there. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to have a page just to describe these two templates. If nothing else, put the CSS instructions on the talk pages of the templates themselves.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abreaction photography

edit

Neologism describing a technique used by, apparently, but one photographer, and one whose notability is questionable at best. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji Island Mermaid Press

edit

Not notable. I had not realized we have an article on this publisher until now. I spoke with Marc Snyder, the proprieter of this establishment, some time back while verifying some facts regarding the now-deleted Daniel C. Boyer article. Marc told me at that time that they typically produce 10-25 copies of the materials that they publish, and that distribution is primarily to a list of subscriber/sponsors. Insofar as none of the chapbooks they have published are particularly notable, I believe that this falls well short of the notability we would expect for a publisher. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton's Corrasable Bond

edit

Non-notable brand of typing paper. Of the many brands of typing paper that have existed over the years, and indeed of the several types of erasable paper, this is not particularly notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Article needs improvement. Would be better as a redirect to an article on erasable typewriter paper in general. Erasable typewriter paper was an important technology in the 1950s and 1960s and my recollection is that in the United States Eaton's Corrasable truly was the dominant brand, and a "genericized" tradename like Kleenex or Scotch tape. Big stationary stores might carry other brands but always carried Corrasable, and any store that carried typing paper at all would be likely to have it. It was pretty much superseded by opaquing technogies like Ko-Rec-Type and Wite-Out and Liquid Paper and "correcting Selectrics." As a grad student I still remember the excitement when a colleague brought us the news that the university would now accept photocopied theses as long as they were photocopied onto 100%-rag paper. That meant we could type our theses on Corrasable Bond and photocopy them onto thesis paper for submission! As of 2005 is the stuff even manufactured? A search on www.staples.com for "corrasable" yields no hits, while one on "Eaton" yields 35, most apparently relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classic, international and cult cinema

edit

No major edits since creation in July 2004, and nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 16:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Archspace

edit

Non-encycolpedic. It is a definition and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If anyplace, it should go to the Wiktionary. Epolk 16:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy --Allen3 talk 12:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Made it Whack

edit

Lyrics of some song. This is linked from User:Admiral Roo's page, along with a bunch of other similar lyrics pages. Userfy if the song is Admiral Roo's own work, otherwise delete as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, but contact Admiral Roo. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

See my entry on Talk:Made it Whack. --Admiral Roo 17:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/General

edit

No major edits to project page since creation in June 2004, and subpage consists of one comment. Hiding talk 16:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment You are quite correct, I'm afraid. Is it traditional to VfD inactive projects? Whoever put the project together seems to have done much work. Would it be appropriate to userfy and copy this to subpage in the creator's namespace? -Willmcw 20:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There isn't really a policy on WikiProjects, at least that I can find. They just tend to get mothballed. I'd argue there isn't a huge amount of work or discussion here, but I'm not going to press the point, it's a borderline delete with me. If it sparks interest to the point people reactivate it, so much the better. Hiding talk 21:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Creature objects

edit

I can't make any sense of it, it hasn't been edited since creation in June 2004, and even then the creation barely advanced beyond slapping the WikiProject template onto the page. Hiding talk 16:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chevronism

edit

delete: google report only 3 hits (twice in a forum and once in freedictionary). Article in a very bad form, and it doesn't seems serious. Cate 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crayola

edit

No meaningful edits since brief flurry from creation in June 2004 until October 2004 Hiding talk 17:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Computer file formats

edit

No edits since creation in August 2004, nothing here that can't be recreated if needed again. Hiding talk 17:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kinsella 2

edit

Completing a re-nomination by User:RyanKoppelman of a previously deleted and (differently) recreated article. Previous VfD here, you may also wish to see the author's talk page. Whilst this is effectively a self-vanity page retaliation for the Tom G. Palmer article, a person with whom the author of this page disagrees, I will cast no vote. -Splash 17:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

  • Note. The original page history and talk page have now been restored. (talk page is at talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1). -Willmcw 00:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Willmcw--could you restore my original entry as well, in the interest of fairness? Maybe it is better than the current one. I have no idea how to restore something. Nskinsella 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Splash for cleaning up the page creation. My concern is that Mr. Kinsella himself recreated this new page about himself. It was already voted deleted once. He wants a second bite at the apple for his own self-interest.He has commented about it on his blog. [11] Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created. This looks like self-promotion. I do not think Wikipedia should be used like this. I do not think that it is appropriate. Mr. Kinsella looks notable enough to me to have an article about him. As far as I know, the information is accurate, however, it seems hard for the article to be neutral when he wrote it about himself. He certainly speaks very highly of himself, "He has drawn on his expertise as a practicing patent lawyer to become a leading libertarian opponent of intellectual property laws; his seminal argument 'Against Intellectual Property' has become widely referred to and cited." This does not sound neutral. I suppose it could be rewritten, but who is going to correct Mr. Kinsella about himself, so I think this creates an on-going problem for the article. I cast yes delete vote.--RyanKoppelman 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • RyanK: I had no idea until you just wrote this that I am under patent attorneys. I had nothing to do with this. I am really not interested in self-promotion. I just want people interested in my writing to be able to access it. As for the promotional aspects to my entry, I'll modify and make it shorter and more factual. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. None of the delete voteres have tried to follow the policy. Let me summarize: I have published books and articles, with audiences that satisfy the criteria. I have 19,000 Google hits. I am more well known than the average college professor. My info is factual and easily verifiable. Moreover, I am as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition; and this articles has gotten a large amount of attention and is seen as one of the leading pieces in the libertarian anti-IP movement. By Wikie's own standards, I believe my entry is acceptable, as was the initial one not put up by me and therefore never should have been deleted. I would at least like to see Wiki editors citing and applying Wiki policy if they are doing to cast a delete vote. For example, why do I not qualify, in view of the factors I have noted, that I got from Wiki's own policy pages? Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, if you take out the domains mises.org, stephankinsella.com, lewrockwell.com and other domains that have blogs that you post to, your mentions drop to 13,000. Most of the 13,000 other hits are posts by you to other blogs, and responses to posts to the other blogs, since you seemingly spend every waking hour logged onto the internet to rebut your critics. So please don't go around claiming 19,000 hits as if these were people independently citing your work. Most of these instances are blog comments, and answers to your blog comments. Jstrummer 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created." "Someone", that's me (there is a history link for each page). I did put "Stephan Kinsella" link in the patent attorney page as "notable patent attorney", because it seemed to me that he was notable enough to be there. I have no connection with Stephan Kinsella whatsoever, please stop the suspicion, I find it offensive when a statement is made with no support. Thanks. If the article about him is kept, keep the link in the patent attorney, otherwise drop it. (see my vote below). --Edcolins 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • At User:Splash's suggestion, I have moved my verbose comments to the Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 page. Please see those comments for my explanation of my entry and for my defense that it either not be deleted, or that consistent standards be applied as to my and others' bios. Because of my obvious bias, I had previous cast no vote, but Splash informs me it's my right to vote to keep, so, I vote keep, while acknowledging my vested interest. -Nskinsella 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the original contributor of the first article on Stephan Kinsella, although I contributed it before I started my present account. My contribution was based on a growing number of refereed journal articles, books, and lectures in which Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" was being cited. I was the original founder of the Birmingham, AL and Auburn, AL 2600 meetings, and ran an "h/p/c/a/v" BBS in the 90's. Since the late 90's, I have been very interested in IP, and have lectured on it at Auburn University and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. When I came across Kinsella's IP article in 2001 (in the Journal of Libertarian Studies), I had not met him, nor anyone else who knew him personally, but I did meet numerous academics who were taking his dismantling of IP very seriously. I personally thought that it was an essential step towards an exhaustive conciliation of the Hacker Ethic with property rights. Kinsella is now a frequent lecturer at Mises Institute events, and is constantly cited by eminent scholars like Walter Block as /the/ go-to guy on IP theory. As the point most germane to this discussion though, please let me reiterate that I was the original article contributor, and only mentioned the entry to Stephan when I asked his permission to release an image (stephankinsella.jpg) from his website into the public domain. I will cast a vote to keep. DickClarkMises 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think keep. Not really a vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Certainly it is a vanity article, written and edited by the subject. It was deleted here Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella just three months ago in a VfD which had a number of sockpuppets participating on his behalf. This article appears to have been recreated in part to compete with that of a rival, Tom G. Palmer, that Kinsella has used a blog campaign to try to get deleted. -Willmcw 21:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Willmcw: Have you taken into account that I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry? I had nothing to do with either; I assume both predate my recent entry; and I was just made aware of it after doing a google search on Wikipedia. Is this no some indicia of notability? Those entries will pointlessly go to a blank page, if you delete my entry. Why? Nskinsella 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that version was deleted by a properly-run VFD. This version was written and posted by you. This is the version that we are discussing. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. It was not a vanity piece. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. Why do you disagree with it? I fail to see the relevance of my motives for posting the entry, but if you must know, after looking at the criteria for notability more closely due to the delete debate about the Palmer entry, I realized my entry qualifies and should not have been deleted. The preveious delete debate did not cite of follow Wiki policy. People just used their airy-fairy discretion to say "notable" or not. BUt there are criteria, and I expect Wiki editors to make a good faith effort to apply them. WHich of the policy criteria that I have listed do you deny? Notice, you yourself are inconsisten, Willmcw: you voted to keep the Tom G. Palmer entry, on the grounds that he is openly gay at a think tank. This is ridiculous. What if I am a closeted gay?-wouldn't your policy punish gays in the closet? Moreover, as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition. You seem to be nonobjective in my case. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous version, since you keep mentioning it, was most likely written by you originally. It was then posted to a copyrighted webpage. Another editor, DickClarkMises, posted it here verbatim. That was a clear "copyvio" and I marked it as such. You refused to release the text under our GFDL and made disparaging comments about me on your blogs (thanks). We undertook to write a fresh version that was not a copyvio, and that version was subsequently VfDed (in a process which saw several brand-new editors voting to "keep") three months ago.
      • Regarding the Palmer article, Wikipedia is not consistent. Please do not try to prove a WP:POINT that if your rival gets something then you must too. Nonetheless I see you said there that you are not notable for your writing. If not that then what? On the other hand, in the spirit of equity, I'd be happy to change my vote to "delete" on that page if you'll do the same here. The chance that the Palmer article (which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion) may have started as autobiography and be currently edited by its subject are bothersome. Subjects who edit their articles are almost always a problem.
        • Willmcw, don't you think it's a bit ... off... of you to offer to change your vote on Palmer? Shouldn't you simply vote (a) in accordance with your good faith application of Wiki biograph policy; and (b) try to vote consistently? I assure you that my first Wiki entry was not vanity, nor did I do it or have anything to do with it. And as I have modifed the current version, it is short, unobtrusive, purely factual, and completely non-vanity.
          • I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humor. Anyway, the offer still stands. You said you're not notable, you say Palmer isn't notable either. If you vote to delete both of them then, as a gesture of "wikilove", I'll do the same. Oh, and if you had nothing to do with the previous version, then I guess "nothing" includes the fact that you wrote it, edited it, and then you (and your friends) fought to keep it. It didn't just "happen." -Willmcw 06:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • Willmcw: I said i was not notable in a colloquial sense; but when I read the criteria, I believe I qualify. As for the previous version: I meant I had nothing to do with an entry being put up in the first place. Dick Clark is not my friend; I do not even know him. I cannot access the origianl article since you had it deleted, but yes, he probably got most of the info from my online bio. that is true. Once it was up, and i was made aware of it, I did edit it, which is not impermissible. I actually did not fight to keep it, when you deleted it, I just objected to your calling it a vanity page since it was NOT. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I've already told you, the entire history of the article has been restored and is here: [12]. Here is the very first edit [13]. Please note that I did not call the original version "vanity" in its VfD. I have called this version "vanity" since it plainly fits the label.-Willmcw 20:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, this is not just a vanity page - it is an advertisement for some very expensive books. Follow this link in the bibliography, Digest of Commercial Laws of the World (1998-present), to go to a page to buy a $600 book, one of several such links. Even in the previous version that was deleted we'd had those cleaned up and de-commercialized. The version that we deleted was better than this. -Willmcw 00:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Willmcw: I have removed the books. I can't find the original version of my entry, unfortunately. You say I wrote the original article; yet I have denied this and you have no proof. In fact Dick Clark admitted to doing it. Are you calling us both liars? That is uncalled for. I could have put my entry up anonymously or asked someone to do it. I have been honest. Your insinuation is uncalled for. As for copyright, there was not one, since I consented to it. The VfD of that first page was improper, since I clearly meet the criteria specified on Wiki policy. You have just asserted your own opinion as to consistency, but not tried to apply actual Wiki standards. As for Wiki not being consistent--no, it might not be, but you, as an individual, should be, otherwise you reveal unfairness, bias, or arbitrariness. Your alleged reason for Palmer's "keep" vote is that he is openly gay; this is absurd. Others say he has a large number of google hits, thus they vote "keep"; my google votes are higher. Others point to Palmer's publications; mine are greater in number, and I have books in addition to articles. I am only trying to have this entry treated fairly and judged by actual Wiki policy, which none of you deletes seems to want to try to make an effort to apply. I would appreciate a little fairness here.
        • Your google hits are almost entirely links to comments made by you on blogs, or responses to comments made by you on blogs. For instance, the number of hits drops by 6,000 if you take out the domains stephankinsella.com, mises.org and lewrockwell.com. Since you are prodigious in posting to the internet, that accounts for your google citations. You are not cited more than a college professor. Most college professors have better things to do with their time.Jstrummer 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I truly doubt that DickClarkMises wrote the biography on your (copyrighted noticed) website. http://stephankinsella.com/bio/bio2.php That is the material that he used to create the original article (OK, not actualy original—plagiarized). Now if he actually wrote it then I am mistaken. But I doubt that because he described it as "dump of auto-bio from stephankinsella.com)".[14] Do you still insist that he wrote it? -Willmcw 06:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • This is a good point. I suppose he didn't "write" it, b/c he probably borrowed heavily from my own bio. But it was done without my knowledge or participation, solely on his own. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. If he is notable enough, someone will write an appropriate article. Writting some obscure published work and losing in a bid to be elected as a judge are insufficient in my view. And I'm generally an inclusionist. Themindset 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) I will now change my vote to a weak keep. Marginal at best, I requested that he rewrite his article from a more neutral and simple perspective, and he has done so. The fact that it is an auto-biography does not sit very well with me, but he's a lawyer and he read our rules... and he does technically qualify for an article. Themindset 16:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity, nonnotable. Don't bother to userify, I'm sure Kinsella is quite clever enough to do it for himself. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a redlink of Kinsella to an article one time (and I have no particular ulterior agenda or ties to Kinsella). He is fairly notable as a libertarian legal theorist and commentator. - Nat Krause 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity problems. If a neutral party does a complete rewrite, will reconsider. Xoloz 05:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. Google returns 19,000 hits for "Stephan Kinsella" [15]. --Edcolins 07:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed my mind and prefer to abstain. I can't find google hits on renowned sources of information. I am not sure about whether this article should be kept. And I don't like someone creating an article about himself. --Edcolins 08:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • His google hits are almost entirely links to blog comments he's made. These are not google hits on par with a legitimate scholar who might be cited for published academic work. These are the google hits of a guy who spends 10 hours a day on the internet posting on blogs. Look how many times he's posted to wikipedia, and the energy he's spent on reposting his bio.Jstrummer 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Speedy delete - valid vfd previously. Go to WP:VFU for undeletion. Dunc|☺ 12:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC). Oh yes, WP:POINT Dunc|☺ 12:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC). Commnet I've undeleted it since people for some reason think that it ought not to have been, despite it not being passed through WP:VFU and being a vanity page. I still stand by my decision to delete it. Dunc|☺ 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the undeletion. Let's see the outcome of the vote. --Edcolins 13:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 14:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this vanity as previously deleted material. --Allen3 talk 14:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a new version of a page that was deleted before (and it was deleted, I might add, with only four votes to delete). It is not previously deleted material. Get your story straight. - Nat Krause 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a substantially identical reinstatement of an article deleted by valid VFD consensus, and therefore speedily deletable. Read policy before citing it. Radiant_>|< 17:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or Delete - it's still vanity, imo -- Francs2000 | Talk   14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Vanity, non-notable. Only [22 hits in Google Groups] which I like to use as a touchstone because USENET tends to be less affected by deliberate promotion than the Web. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst I'm merely observing this debate, I should point out that you spelt the subject's name incorrectly in your search. Also, Google isn't fooled that easily either. Click forward through a few pages of hits (by jumping e.g. 10 pages at a time) and Google will truncate the search to the 'unique' results like this. Note the message from Google at the bottom. As an aside, I'm not sure that specifically searching with an engine that avoids any kind of media/literature search is particularly useful for establishing notability or not. Without commenting on this article, I would suggest that your 22 hits just shows that there are 22 references to him in usenet groups and the like; that doesn't cover any of the more useful outlets at all. There may or may not be anything more notable turned up in a proper Google, but the groups search doesn't even admit the possibility. I find the truncation that Google does to be quite useful. -Splash 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies, 55 hits for Stephan Kinsella. No change in my vote. Generally speaking for most topics a Google Groups search consistently returns around 1/10 to 1/4 as many hits as a Web search. However, many sites engage in deliberate "search engine optimization" or other self-promotional activities. Few people don't bother to Astroturf or otherwise do anything to inflate their Groups count. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A search of ABI/Inform Global and Proquest Research Library, restricting search to "scholarly journals," turns up only one publication, and Kinsella is not the senior author: "The second paradox of blackmail Walter Block, N Stephan Kinsella, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Business Ethics Quarterly. Chicago: Jul 2000. Vol. 10, Iss. 3; p. 593" With an unrestricted search, there is only one additional hit, "Symposium: Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property? Ilana Mercer, N Stephan Kinsella, James DeLong. Insight on the News. Washington: May 21, 2001. Vol. 17, Iss. 19; p. 40 (4 pages)" Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are uninformed. See the lists of my legal publications, and libertarian publications. A quick glance reveals I have articles in several scholarly publications, including several law reviews, all of which are "scholarly"--e.g., New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law; Louisiana Law Review; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; St. Mary's Law Journal, one forthcoming in Southern University Law Journal, and others. And also some in other various scholarly or trade legal journals, such as: Philadelphia Lawyer, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, Texas Oil & Gas Law Journal, The Licensing Journal, Intellectual Property Today, The Legal Intelligencer [Philadelphia], and Pennsylvania Lawyer.
  • Take it up with Proquest. I didn't decide which journals they consider important enough to index. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, take it up with proquest. These are not scholarly publications. "New York Law School Journal of..." that's hardly the NYU Law Review. Maybe you could count the Louisiana Law Review. I'll give you that citation, although that is hardly the sign of a "leading" theorist of any sort. Jstrummer 04:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has enough publications that someone might want to know more about this author and turn to Wikipedia for the information. Although it's an autobio, most of it seems verifiable, and we can remove the puffery, as we would with any non-autobio article. (I've seen worse in articles that clearly weren't vanity.) That it was already VfD'd once is certainly a concern. We don't want to be debating the same articles over and over. In this case, however, the new listing has attracted many more responses than the original did, so I think it's a valid occasion for revisiting the former decision. JamesMLane 17:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slightly reluctantly, although the notability of being Andrew Gilligan's secret twin brother is quite high, it is not clear to me whether this subject is notable enough. However the damage caused by such an article being present is minimal, unless it's leading to creeping (ultra) inclusionism. Rich Farmbrough 19:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a verifible article about an at least marginally notable person. If it is NPOV, then it can be edited. DES 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to marginal notability. Issues of vanity can be corrected through the editing process. Hall Monitor 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Putting the bruhaha aside for a moment, this article should be kept, especially if you consider the subject's notability in comparison to the many marginal and trivial Wikibios. Ombudsman 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, not-notable enough for inclusion, just a lawyer with some minor legal articles. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 00:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "minor" articles? I don't agree with this; I have made significant impact in libertarian legal theory, and have published in many respected scholarly journals. As someone ELSE wrote on my entry,

... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's [16] and Williamson Evers's [17] "title transfer" theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ("A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability" [18]). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ("Causation and Aggression" [19]). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ("Against Intellectual Property" [20]). Kinsella advances a "discourse ethics" argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel (A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights).

I have also authored two legal treatises on international law--hardly "minor" articles; and am editor of 4 other legal treatises. Also, please note SEVERAL wiki entries (e.g., Intellectual Property, Patent Attorney, Kinsella, Libertarian_theories_of_law, discourse ethics, refer to my entry. Why have them go to a blank page?? Does that serve any purpose?
In any event, if you still vote maintain your delete vote, applying those standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote have to against Tom G. Palmer, for the same reasons, which apply even moreso to his case? --Stephan Kinsella 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny. I have thrown away any number of offers to include me in SELF-PROMOTIONAL "Who's Who" books, and turn them DOWN--and now this has me accused of being self-promotional. Ridiculous. Anyway, try a google search for "Stephan Kinsella"; or Martindale. Nskinsella 01:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Martindale is a directory of lawyers, not an encyclopedia or biographical database, and it contains listings for over a million lawyers. Surely not all of them deserve an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 01:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • True. What do you think Who's Who is? Do you think everyone there deserves encyclopedic entry? You do not answer my point: that you are in effect penalizing me wiht the "self-promotion" critique because I did not engage in enough self-promotion earlier in response to all those dumb Who's Who offers. Nskinsella 03:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are not being penalized. An encyclopedia article is not a reward or something you deserve or have a right to. And no, I do not think that an entry in Who's Who should automatically get you an encyclopedia entry here, but it's a damn sight more notable than appearing in a directory of over a million lawyers. I'm assuming you are referring to my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tom G. Palmer where I noted Palmer had a WW entry. That was not my only reason for voting a weak keep, nor should such an entry be the sole reason for inclusion. My opinion was also swayed by both the content of the article and the posted opinions of other Wikipedia editors I respect. Also note that WW was hardly the only biographical database I search. Here is an unformatted list of all the databases in which you also do not appear. Gamaliel 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to criteria... all right. Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a guideline, not a firm policy; it is a set of suggestions on how to look at biographies. The main section says that biographies meeting some criteria may be included, not that they must be. I happen to like the Google test, one of the criteria mentioned in the article. My own vote was originally based on an application of a variation of the Google test, using Google Groups. I then confirmed my impression using a Proquest search. I am now about to do a third: I personally regard a person as notable if they have written a book with an Amazon sale rank number that is less than (i.e. higher ranked than) 200,000. I do not know how this test will turn out. I believe by the way that this is a weaker criterion than "sales over 5,000." If Amazon shows that Stephan Kinsella has written a book with a sales rank number under 200,000 I will change my vote to "keep." Here we go:
  • Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk by Paul E. Comeaux, N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379213710 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,849,346 in Books
  • International Investment, Political Risk, And Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide. by N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379215225 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,236 in Books
  • Online Contract Formation, N. Stephan Kinsella (Editor), Andrew F. Simpson (Editor), ISBN 0379215195 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,235 in Books
  • A Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary, N. Stephan Kinsella, ASIN B0006QKZCG, out of print (no sales rank given)
  • Digest of Commercial Laws of the World, N. Stephan Kinsella (ed), no sales rank given
In interpreting these sales ranks: I happen to know of a particular book that has sold less than fifty copies and has an Amazon sales rank of #785,746.
My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Amazon sales ranks depend strongly on recency of sales. a bookm that has sold fewer copiees, but sold them more recently will generally have a lower (better) rank. The ranks are really not meaningful until you are dealing with books currently sellign well -- then they may be used to compare how well. Also they only record online sales, and are thus subject to systematic bias against books disproportionaly sold directly. I think you can get actual sales figures fromw Bowker (the people who maintain the Books in Print database) that are much more accurate, and give actual numbers of books sold, not a "rank", but I don't know exactly how to do this. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, and thanks. The Civil Law dictionary is a mistake by Amazon; it's not even a book. I tried to get them to fix it but they won't. I have an article by that title. Someone at Amazon is confused. The other books are expensive, specialty books. They hardly ever sell on Amazon; almost all of them are bought directly from the 50 year old publisher Oceana, which has an established catalog and direct mail and online presence. Digest is a 6 volume set so has less than 5000 sales. I am not sure of the sales of Online Contract Formation, but I think it's less than 5000 so far; but it was jsut releated last year. However, the International Investment book IS BEING RELEASED NEXT MONTH so there are no sales yet (though there are over 1000 pre-orders). The book it's replacing is the 1997 book, on Protecting Foreign Invesmtment. Its sales have petered of in last 2 years b/c the new book is coming out and b/c it's dated, but that book did have well over 5000 sales, and I can get a letter from Oceana to prove it if you want. MOroever, the criteria say articles in publications w/ more than 5000 subscribers, and several of mine have that. The Freeman for one, and probably some of the law reviews. Stephan Kinsella 00:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough, Wikipedia is not bound by paper restraints. Rangerdude 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per Gamaliel. The article contributes absolutely nothing to human knowledge. Arrogant, deluded vanity. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not an outlet to be used by non-notable lawyers for self-promotion ("hey, he must be good... he's even featured on wikipedia!"). It should also be speedied as a previously deleted article. If he was that notable then someone other than him or his department would have created the article. The JPS 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks The JPS. Duncharris, I think, already tried to speedy delete it, but it was decided that was not appropriate, due to the large number of discussions and the spare number for the first delete. So it was decided to let this process play out, to see what consensus emerges. Stephan Kinsella 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to being speedy deleted, WP:CSD criterion G4 says A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. (bold added). I gather that this article is not substantially identical to the previous version even if it is on the same subject. Thus it is not subject to speedy deleteion under this criterion. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious keep. Seems like vanity, but somewhat notable. Especially when you consider that we have articles on far less notable actors, singers, heads of organizations, authors, etc--the distinction being that it is doubtful that the parties themselves or their surrogates wrote them. Mmmbeer 19:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a lawyer, I suggest that he's only notable for the size of his ego. Why is he so desperate to have a Wikipedia article about him? 66.9.126.26 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My original vote was deleted from this page. This is a vanity page, and Kinsella admits he wrote it himself. If you delete it, he's going to repost it as Stephan Kinsella 3, anyway. But it should be deleted anyway. Also, nearly all of the "keep" votes are sockpuppetish, or, I suspect, people on mailing lists that Stephan Kinsella has urged to vote for him. Virtually no libertarian knows who this guy is, except for a small band of people in Alabama. He's not cited in any serious academic articles. He's not published in any serious academic journals. He's just some lawyer guy who has a gigantic ego and a lot of free time to play around on the internet. Look how many times he comments on others' votes. Does this seem like the work of a leading intellectual, or a crackpot looking for net.notoriety? Jstrummer.
  • As far as I can tell, your post was never deleted. But at som point Galadriel (sp?) moved it to the bottom of the page--clearly you are a newbie, probably signed on recently on behalf of Tom Palmer just to attack Rockwell and Mises sites. Just a guess. A troll, IOW. Stephan Kinsella 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware of any delete of any votes; I certainly did not do this. There are not sockpuppets as far as I know. You are wrong about other libertarians not knowing me. This is just factually incorrect. You have not seen the correspondence I have gotten over the years from all over the states and increasingly, from around the world, as more of my articles get translated. I have published in serious academic journals. This is not boasting. It is just a fact and a correction of your misstatement. You are also wrong about my ego being gigantic. You are wrong, and do not know me. My ego is normal sized. Stephan Kinsella 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephan: I have been in the mainstream libertarian movement for 10 years. I've met every notable libertarian academic in the U.S., and many foreign ones. I have also met you. I have met and had discussions with nearly every important libertarian legal theorist from Epstein, to Posner, to Volokh, to Barnett, to Post, and so on. Not once has your name been mentioned by ANY one of them, even when we've talked about IP law. It's very likely that not ONE of them knows who you are, although I wouldn't know for sure since your name doesn't come up. You are not cited by them. You are not invited to conferences hosted by or attended by them. You haven't taught at any particularly impressive schools, or published in any respectable academic journals. You may be a fine practicing attorney - I would not know - but you do not qualify as a libertarian thinker, if by you mean "taken seriously by others." What's more, my vote was deleted. And that's annoying. Jstrummer.
I'm sorry, but by what criterion are you defining "respectable academic journals"? It seems to be an arbitrary one. Others have already listed journal articles has Kinsella has published. And I find your assertion that you have met "every notable libertarian academic in the US" laughable. It sounds to me that you have such a monster ego that if you have not gained personal audience with a "thinker" than you refuse to allow them to be referred to as notable. I have been in the "mainstream libertarian movement" for five years, and I HAVE heard of him. Maybe you should read more, so you could open your eyes to the notable libertarians that you haven't had a beer with.
Also, I am curious: Which "Barnett" are you referring to to? Bill Barnett, Andy Barnett, or Randy Barnett? All are published Libertarian thinkers. DickClarkMises 20:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I will change my vote to KEEP if the page says: "Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property lawyer living in Houston, Texas who has published on paleolibertarian legal theory and is an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute." Then the page isn't vanity, it's truthful, and it's about all that Stephan deserves, if anything, on Wikipedia. Otherwise, my vote remains DELETE.
  • Comment Off-topic comment and following discussion regarding a barnstar I gave Kinsella has been moved to my Talk page
  • Über keep to counteract all the other strong votes. —RaD

Man (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This guy does seem to be known on the internet and so what if it is only through blogs. Surely the network of blogs has already brought major stories to the attention of the world so a recognised name in this sphere must be as valid as other journalists who are on wikipedia. 82.41.214.151 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user's third day of editing.
  • Delete. Vanity page, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote to keep. This article is an example of what I want to find in a Wikipedia article. As a libertarian (with no association with Shephan Kinsella) I value this article as a noncommercial document that provides information I find educational. In reviewing the other votes for deletion I find many votes citing what I see as a weak reason (vanity or non-notable) outweighed by by what I believe is the reason Wikipedia or any encyclopedia article should exist: to provide useful information in context. It seems to me that if I find the article useful, that is a valid counter to the claim of non-notable. Thane Eichenauer 07:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit.
  • Strong Delete. The average law professor has a longer and more substantial list of publications, as do average (even below average) academics in many fields. Anyone who can run behind a Green Party candidate in a statewide election in Texas is a very, very minor character. (Texas judicial elections are complicated; his vote total fell between that for the Green candidate running directly for the same court seat he was and that of another Green candidate running for the same court.) Judge Magney 03:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Judge. But I don't know why you are equating electoral success with notability. Especially when someone does his best not to win. You might enjoy his interview in a laser industry trade magazine. Some found it humorous. But then, I get the impression many around here are Seriosos with no sense of humor. I think you are totally wrong about comparing my writing to that of typical law profs. But then, to each his own. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not equate electoral success with notability. I did imply that a candidate like yourself who is so resoundingly ignored by the electorate is likely to be non-noteworthy. Judge Magney 13:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Biography of a person alive with multiple book publications.. it seems as if he is probably notable enough for inclusion, and that this is not merely vanity. --J. Hess 02:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this result on the talk page

Religious persecution by Jews

edit
  • A confused work of pure original research created for WP:POINT. 95% of it deals with actions of the ancient Israelite tribes over 3500 years ago; describing them as Jews is dubious at best, and the "historical source document" for the actions listed (the Old Testament) is considered even more dubious by most modern historians. As well, it throws in one sentence asserting that the Arab-Israeli conflict may (or may not be) an example of "religious persecution by Jews", ignoring the more obvious ethnic underpinnings of the conflict. No credible sources have been brought which assert that any of this is actually "religious persecution by Jews"; it seems to be another back-door attempt to revive the "Jewish ethnocentrism" topic using a novel approach; articles on that topic have already been deleted via two VfDs: [21] [22] Perhaps there is an article that could be written about this topic, though it's not clear exactly what it would be referring to, but this article certainly isn't it. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article, like the articles on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians covers a very real and very notable topic. These articles are intended to be the first three of a series of articles covering outgroup religious persecutions committed by members of the world's religious/spiritual groups. So far all the contributors to these pieces have shown themselves willing to withdraw or source material that others request be sourced. I agree, of course, that these articles are likely to attract POV warriors. But this is not grounds for preemptively destroying the articles. If you have particular complaints, please make them on the Talk pages so that they can be addressed. Don't just impulsively go a VfD. Also, I suggest that this might as well be a VfD on all three of them, and on the other planned additions to this series, since each of the articles in the series covers equivalent topics. I think it would be a shame if this new series were deleted out of wikicowardice and unwillingness to protect Wikipedia from the POV mosquitoes who will be attracted to these articles. Babajobu 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You comments do not deal with any of the issues I raised. Please focus on them. Oh, and providing a source does not help at all with the Original Research problem, unless the source itself also asserts that the information provided is an example of Religious persecution by Jews. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm absolutely flummoxed by your claim that this is original research. Please help. I guess I'm slow. I quite literally do not understand what you mean when you say that it is original research to state that the Bible claims that Jews, qua Jews, committed acts of violence against non-Jews. Take a look at my Wikipedia edit history and see whether you think I am acting out of the anti-Jewish agenda you suspect has motivated this article. Babajobu 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review the Wikipedia:No original research article; the "Religious persecution by Jews" article asserts that there is such a phenomenon as "Religious persecution by Jews", and that actions by the ancient Israelite tribes constitute examples of the same. This is a novel thesis which needs to be supported by citeable sources. Considering that the Bible is not considered a particularly reliable historical source, and that the Bible nowhere says the incidents mentioned were done by Jews (but rather by Israelites), the whole article is questionable. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh incidentally, the Bible repeatedly describes these events as being committed by "Yehudim" (Yud-heh-dalet-mem), then and now the Hebrew word for "Jews". I think what you are trying to say is that the Torah (pentateuch) describes only Israelites, but the transition to "Jews" is made at some point in the Nevi'im. Not that any of this will influence any votes on the VfD, which is fueled by more, uh, primal concerns. Babajobu 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would posit that drawing a connection between ancient Israelites and modern day Jews is not a "novel thesis". Certainly members of every synagogue on the planet would be startled to learn that this is a novel thesis, as would anyone who has glanced at any primary or secondary source covering 2300 years of post-Tanakh Jewish theology or Jewish history. "Moses was a Jew" is not an outlandish assertion, though it certainly can stand for scholarly qualifications. Anyway, why did you not raise these concerns on the Talk Page? Why did you go straight to VfD? And yes, you did speculate on the motivations of the contributors, by speculating that the article was an attempt to revive some already deleted article that none of us had actually heard of. Babajobu 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's not a "novel thesis", then please present a scholarly source which asserts that the alleged actions of the ancient Israelites are examples of "Religious persecution by Jews". I went straight to VfD because this article was an obvious candidate for deletion. And I did not speculate about motives, but rather about actions. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, please do your best to focus on the article rather than indulging in idle (and innacurate) speculation about the motives of the contributors. Thanks so much. Babajobu 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't speculated about any motivations at all. I've discussed apparent actions, not motivations. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, and add some sort of "religious persecution series" template to every one of these RP pages. Or maybe just a Man's Inhumanity template? — RJH 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was unaware of those two previous VFD that Jayjg highlighted, but they are irrelevent anyway. This is one part of a proposed series on Religous Persecution, a series I did not start. As for them being Jewish, a quick look at the Jew article tells me "The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith...." This is the first time I've heard a Jewish person tell me that Moses was not a "Follower of the jewish faith", I woul have thought he wrote the book on the Jewish faith. In all honesty this VFD seems to me to be more about making a point than a genuine reason to delete the article, frankly I would have liked Jayjgs help with this piece. But Consensus is Consensus, and we'll see how this goes. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, yes, you did start the series. No series existed until you put your nose to the grindstone and willed into creation a series you clearly wanted to see. And I'm glad you did, I think it has the potential to be a fantastic series. Babajobu 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV personal essay full of original research with no sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • How can you guys regurgitate this tripe?? The article has an inline sourcing for every important assertion!!! "No sources"!!! Unbelievable! Babajobu 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't rely on the Bible as your sole source. You'd need scholarly sources for an article like this. And please don't call people's comments "tripe." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that the great weakness of the Bible as a source must be prominently mentioned. But providing inline verbatim citation from the most frequently cited source in human history is not the same as providing "no sources"! I'm sorry for calling your comments "tripe". That was wrong. Babajobu 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (user has less than 50 edits, but who gives a flying fuck unless you're making ad hominem attacks) Strong Delete - Bad enough we deal with anti-Semitism in real life, this is pure nonsense and has no place in a decent encyclopedia.Existentializer 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article's contributors have inadvertantly added spurious, malicious material that qualifies as anti-semitic, please help us purge it. If you find any Islamophobic material in the Religious persecution by Muslims article, which has the same contributors as this VfD'd article and which includes prominent discussion of Muslim massacres of Jews, please help us purge that material as well. Nobody is trying to offend anyone. Babajobu 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but this article is irredeemable. The various editors who have "contributed" to it (most notably IrishPunkTom) have not seen it as a decent article but an excuse to engage in Jew-bashing. Leave it, and it will probably remain in the same state as any other article that is targeted by Wikipedia's Islamic population. No, I'd rather delete it and not give them the temptation. We've already got enough trouble with articles like Jihad and Islam to deal with.Existentializer 20:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No merits. The record in the Bible, even if correct, cannot be termed "religious persecution" - it certainly was not by the standard of those times. The Biblical record is not a "hard source" for most readers, and should not be used as such. As for modern-day Israel, the so-called "religious persecution" is not the result of the perpetrators being Jews but Israelis. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most "religious persecutions" cited as examples were military actions and were not perpetrated because of the recipients' religion. I removed those. JFW | T@lk 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - for several reasons. 1) The evidence presented is very weak and makes the assumption that biblical literature can be used as historical sources, an assumption that would be met with harsh opposition if it were made anywhere else, e.g., the status of the West Bank and Gaza; 2) the title begs the question, namely that Jews (in some timeless sense) are guilty of religious persecution; 3) it makes a strained point that the Arab-Israeli conflict somehow is grounded in Jewish religious persecution. I certainly agree that point #2 also applies to articles about "Christian" and "Moslem" persecution as well, but this article - as often is the case in this area - appears to have a hidden agenda. If someone wants to make the point that societies in biblical times were religiously intolerant, that should make a separate article. --Leifern 19:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wish people would stop with the panicky speculations about "hidden agendas". I don't want to reveal too much about my real world identity here, but suffice it to say that anyone who knows me would find comical (or just nonsensical) the idea that I had been tagged as having a sinister, anti-semitic agenda. Well, what can one do. The article, and the whole series, could have been very good. I contributed more to the Religious persecution by Muslims than to this one, but still I think they all had potential. But I don't want to waste my Wikipedia time contributing to articles that paranoid folks will preemptively VfD and dog with their unfounded anxieties. I'm giving up on the "religious persecution" articles. I'll stick to uncontroversial topics. Have your way with it, paranoid deletionists. Ciao. Babajobu 19:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move. The original nominator had problems with it being considered Jewish, but that's not a reason for deletion. And whether the bible is historical or not is irrelavent, the bible is still extrememly notable and hence information in it is by definition notable. Stick a {{NPOV}} is u like, but don't see any reason for deletion. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I had problems with it being pure original research; the fact that it uses the Bible as a historical source and equates the actions of ancient Israelites with Jews is a symptom of that problem. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I agree with most of the comments above by those urging deletion. The State of Israel is a haven of religious tolerance compared with neighbouring countries. RachelBrown 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How in God's name does that justify a "delete"?? Compared to Saudi Arabia, Syria is a haven of religious tolerance. Does that mean that an article asserting that religious persecution takes place in Syria would warrant a deletion??? Of course not, Syria is rife with religious persecution just like every other country in the region!! I'm sorry, but the supporting arguments for the delete votes are absolute blather!! But you POV wolves can take the whole series and delete it to your POV hearts' content. Babajobu 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kindly get off of your high horse:
        1. If you hit a bee hive, you will get stung. You hit one here.
        2. Most of what you wrote above is valid, but the part starting with "I'm sorry" is not needed.
        3. You have so far failed to produce a scolarly article on the topic. See my vote just below.
  • Keep but cleanup, otherwise delete - The topic is valid, but the article as written is a poorly researched anti-semetic rant. Specific book-chapter-verse must be cited for biblical qoutes. Appropriate sources must also be cited for documenting the Arab exodus at the inception of Israel and why it is listed. Other incidents such as those noted in "A History of the Jews" are missing. Also, the use of terms like "ethnic cleansing" must be avoided. The facts can speak for themselves. We Jews have not been angels, but we have not been Nazis either. --EMS | Talk 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • EMS, in most other topics that were in this condition I'd probably agree with you that "keep and clean up" would be a good vote. Unfortunately, from my recent experiences and looking back at the history of articles like Jihad I'm pretty sure that this article cannot be redeemed. The moment anyone tries to do so, expect the POV warriors from those articles (and I'll note that one of the worst offenders, IrishPunkTom, frequents both) to come running for a chance to bash Jews.Existentializer 20:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, thanks for that Personal attack. You will of course note that I have edited the noted Jihad article less than once. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree that putting terms like "ethnic cleansing" in these articles does nothing but fan POV flames, and should be avoided. I agree with you that cleanup and improved citations are needed. On the other hand, I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant. The biblical quotes are cited "book-chapter-verse". I agree that the discussion of the dislocation of Palestinians must include other arguments and explanations for this dislocation, just as I have tried to solicit Muslim explanations for Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza at the Religious persecution by Muslims article. That article is no more Islamophobic than this article is antisemitic. Babajobu 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article on the book of joshua uses the word genocide, and I thought, perhaps unwisely, that Ethnic Cleansing was less POV-laden and more Flame-resistant than genocide. Also, it did originally cite specific Verse, Chapter and book but these were edited away by another--Irishpunktom\talk 21:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • Babajobu wrote:
I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant.
I do not believe that this was the intent, but it sure is the effect. For example, you use Ethnic cleansing as a header instead of Palestinian exodus and Biblical incidents. Compare this article with what you did for Religious persecution by Muslims, which is much more broad and where the headers have no inflamatory POV.
However, I repeat that your worst offense is that you do not know the material. Since we Jews have for most part had little opportunity to perseucte over the last 2500 years it is a somewhat sparse record, but it does exist and you have barely scratched its surface. For example, there was a forced conversion episode during the Maccabean period that is famous amongst Jewish scolars, but which you are apparently quite ignorant of. You need to settle down, do your research, and produce a product that is at least as concise and comprehensive as Religious persecution by Muslims is.
If this gets deleted, I encourage you to try again later, once you can produce a product on a par with Religious persecution by Muslims. Note that Religious persecution by Muslims has not been marked for deletion. Nor has Religious persecution by Christians, but that is stub anyway. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EMS, thanks for that comment, it was appreciated. I had only barely began the piece and my intention was to start at the prophets work my way through history and end up at Present-Day israel. The Palestinian Exodus was edited in, I had said that Critics of israel claim that the foundation of the state ofd Israel was an attempt at Ethnic Cleansing, And that is a point I've eard made many times over, I then noted that rougly One-Fifth of the current population is Arab, which substantially disproves that, I would have thought. I appealed for help from JayjgSee his talk page, but he just VFD'ed it. I do, or rather did, need help with this, I don't claim to be an expert of the history of the jewish people throughout the lands, and if this article stays (Which looks unlikely) then I will still appeal for help. The more specificly Jewish editors involved hen the better, surely, this will be. If it gets removed I'll be requesting Religious persecution by Christians get taken off too. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I strongly counsel you to keep what you can. This is a valid topic. However it is also a sensitive topic. To do this properly, the article has to be thorough, well documented, well written, and with a genuinely neutral POV. It has to be a calm, collected, organized recitation of the relevant facts and incidents. As a found it yesterday, it was a hearsay filled diatribe screaming that Jews engage in "ethnic cleansing". Even with my edits, it still fails to do this topic justice in any way, shape or form. I repeat to you what I have said to Babajobu: Do the research and do the work needed to do this properly. In your case I also add in a strong warning: The offensive headings seem to be your doing. Keep that up and this topic will never survive a Vfd vote. --EMS | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Thats fair enough, Your edits read well. The article was a Stub, it was no-where near complete I wanted more Editors involved on all the proposed series.. Oh well. I'm not going to touch another Jewish-Related subject again. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
It sounds like it would be very nice if you made good that promise.
I thank you for liking my edits, but you do not seem to be very interested in defending them. Because of that lack my vote is now "strong delete".
I hope that someone will revive this article in the future, but it must be someone who can and will do a good job with it. There are a lot of votes to keep this article because it can be used for Jew-bashing and a lot of votes against it for the same reason. In the middle is a core vote that dislikes it because it is just plain a poor article. A good article will have the approval of that core and will therefore survive a Vfd effot. It's too bad that you could help to create such an article, or even be bothered to defend an improvement (however inadequate) of this one. --EMS | Talk 01:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • New vote: Delete or reduce to a stub. This is a poor attempt to document a legitimate subject. The author shows that he can do better in Religious persecution by Muslims. This article needs and deserves at least that much better. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I updated the article last night, revising the headings but keeping the content. Those changes seem to be sticking. This article now looks and reads better, but still is an very inadequate treatment of a highly sensitive topic. I regretfully maintain my vote as listed just above. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final vote: Strong Delete. The edit war finally started over my revisions. None of the other editors cared to support them (although only one other editor opposed them). Without a community of editors dedicated to doing the truth in a NPOV manner and to defending both the truth and the NPOV, this cannot succeed. No such community exists at this time. It is time for this article to go, and to stay gone for a while. --EMS | Talk 01:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article Religious Persecution by Muslims might also fit into this mold, were it not for the fact that its statements are legitimate, have relevance, and are well researched and properly sourced. See the original state of THAT article here. Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of "tit for tat" article creation is usually called WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thats A personal attack, and it does not assume Good faith. Existentializer, whats with the constant attacks on me.. I barely even know who you are. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No personal attacks is all fine and good but it requires a few things. "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions." You are a user who has a noted history of personal attacks and violations of NPOV, including a presence in constant reverting. I have read your comments throughout this talk page and your first instinct overall was not to assume good faith, but to attack those who voted for deletion. You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user on this page, a user who appears to be operating in good faith. And then there is the highly POV and un-encyclopedic content of this article and the Religious persecution by Christians article, which were OBVIOUSLY created in violation of WP:POINT.
Assume good faith does not require that I disregard common sense, and common sense tells me that you are NOT acting in good faith. If you want to claim that my statement that I, personally, believe you are not acting in good faith is a "personal attack" then you are free to do so but it is not, and I invite you to look back on the history of your own edits. It should be readily apparent from your own history why a neutral observer would have cause to question whether or not you were acting in good faith. Existentializer 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks doesn't really require too much aside from, you know, No personal attacks. The articles were not created for any "Jew-Bashing" purposes, it was created to be part of a series which was to chronicle the Religious persecution by the various major World religions and Non-religions. The one on Christians, Muslims and Jews were only the First three. The main article to which I would have contributed would have been in the Zorostrianism one. What exactly do you mean by "You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user". If you are referring to Ni-ju-Ichi then you will note that his user page contains a Sock-pupetry tag "It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of Enviroknot"; It is hardly an "unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry" to ask them if this statement was true. i don't think it's true, because the evidence is missing from the tag, but the user hasn't removed it, I thought maybe it was some sort of odd joke. Indeed, I didn't even make an accusation, I asked for clarification.. indeed, seeing this as such an accusation could be seen as further evidence of you acting in bad Faith. Your point, insidiously made, that my edit history presents a Picture of anti-Semetism, or "Jew-bashing", is either inherently incorrect or another Personal attack on me, But I'm going to assume good faith and preseume that you have made a mistake. I have no hatred of either the Jewish or Christian faiths, far from it. I do have a sever prejudice against the Orange order, Loyalist]s in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, etc, and that is exactly why I have never, not once, edited them. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Look, moron, one of your toadies (probably the "Envirofuck" vandal) vandalizes any page that isn't a toady of Islam and seems to love to add that tag to people's pages.. I don't buy it, and I've removed that fucking vandalism from Ni-ju-Ichi's page. Cut the crap and start acting in good faith.Existentializer 16:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? Are you even capable of giving a civil reply? Referring to someone as a "Moron" and claiming, for whatever reason, that I have "Toadies", while amusingly stupid, is hardly "acting in good faith", and is also yet another addition to the commpendium of your Personal Attacks. Does it make you feel big when you swear ? --Irishpunktom\talk 08:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If there's one for Christians and Muslims, then there has to be one for Jews as well. Unless people are honestly claiming that Jews have never religiously persecuted people before...Heraclius 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but doesn't it have to have actual instances of religious persecution by Jews in it? (see my previous discussion) Gzuckier 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This won't get a fair trial. Any time that there is an article like this which discusses factual examples of Jewish negativity, it goes for VFD because people blanket label it some Nazi POV and if not that, an Islamic POV that nobody will take seriously. Now for me, I have had many offhanded bad experiences with Jews and their attitudes but this could be because they lived in the city or because of their culture and I'm about to say it's a bit of both. There are no people on this planet with a blank check for how much damage they can do without return criticism. Those who believe the Jewish people are unable to be guilty for any significant charges, are just as wrong as any Nazi who tries to paint the White race as unfailing in kindness and decency. For instance, Jews in the media(yes, I checked names) believe it is all right to paint White culture and history in a negative light and you will only ever see Jewish culture expressed negatively by Jews. Then again, the Jews don't mind if Whites hate on themselves and speak against their people, even for the sake of propping other races up on their shoulders instead. Fox news is probably the only station that I see which steps away from the chronic anti-Gentile bias which plagues most of the other media conglomerates, but you'll probably meet a Nazi who disagrees with me on that. There is no justification for institutional prejudice by Jews and Judeophiles, any more than there is for Whites and Blacks. Of course, most here would be loathe to act bold and decisively where there is a case of potential ego dropping for the people who shove the Holocaust on Whites. For me, I find a problem with the outspoken Jews who rail on about that Holocaust as if it was all about them and not other people, with their complete sense of innocence in comparison to carving a plot of land out where the Palestinians live because the British said they could. Jews rewrite White history with Jamestown and the Wild West, while Whites cannot criticise the Mid-East conflict. It's almost like using the word Nigger/Nigga, or that only Whites owned slaves. While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan. Henry Kissinger, anybody? Can we please, get NPOV in all these persecution-related articles? TheUnforgiven 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good; "While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan." You should definitely put that in the article as an example of religious persecution by Jews. Gzuckier 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After plowing through that mess of horrid grammar and racist ramblings by User:TheUnforgiven, I can only say this: what a pile of racist crap. Existentializer 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, why does he say "The Jews" and "The Whites" as though they are two different entities? Aren't a high proportion of Jews white? RachelBrown 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what they'd like you to believe. Gzuckier 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it is currently in a very bad shape, I do believe that it has the potential to become a valid article. -Dv 20:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Dv (talk · contribs) has a very low edit count (48 edits, to date), yet has been a user for several months. This user pops up occasionally, and has voted "Keep" on the "GNA" VfD. All these traits are shared by Incognito (talk · contribs), who voted "Keep" on this VfD, as well. HKT talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: “Religious persecution in Israel” could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: “Religious persecution under king David's reign” or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: “Religious persecution under Judaism.” While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; “Religious persecution under Islam.” This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: “Religious persecutions by Muslims,” or even more direct: “Religious persecution by Arabs” (I'm making the comparison, because being a “Jew,” is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: “Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes.” It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure. Fadix (My Talk) 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like more information on how "Religous persecution under Judaism" and "Religous persecution by Jews" differ, and why the former is better. Also, I for one do not see why this requires a delete instead a move of the existing article. (I support deleting the article, but that is because it is a lousy article on the subject.) I also cannot support your view of their being a lot of smaller articles. In that case, the larger scale article is still needed to pull it all together.
      I also disagree that such an article is inherently POV, but to be NPOV it has to be dry recitation of the facts, something which most of the current editors seem to be struggling with (when they are trying for it at all). --EMS | Talk 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
“Religious persecution under Judaism” report persecutions under a system, while the second directly point a finger on a group of people. If I say that Jews are idiots, it is a generalization, I directly point a finger on a group of people. On the other hand, if I say, Judaism is idiotic, I criticize a system. Jews may be offended, but I criticize one aspect of their being, rather than criticizing them as a whole, because I am criticizing an aspect of their being, rather then directly and entirely criticizing them. And also, by this statement, I am not saying in anyway that Jews are idiots. From the same logic, when I say religion is stupid, I am not necessarily saying that those that practice a religion are stupid. An encyclopedic article, to maintain an objective tone, should as much as possible, not point a finger. It should be “encyclopedicaly” correct(in allusion to politically correct).
Secondly, I did not mean to include many smaller articles, I just gave examples, to show the differences.
Thirdly, it is true that one can just change the title of the article. But just read the article, it points to some Israelite crime taken from scriptures, and then Palestine, neither of those two can stick there to find the appropriate name to include both. The first one is from an Israelite system, taken from scripture(which BTW, doesn't present the critic of it), the second one is from the Israeli regime.
Lastly, an article to respect its name in this cases, it can't be otherwise than POV. How you make that NPOV, you write “what is called religious persecution by Jews, is the persecutions by Jews against other people adhering to other religions?” Don't you see anything wrong here? The articles aim is to directly point a finger on a group of people, and not report, in a cold encyclopedic fashion the persecutions by a regime, a system etc. If you neutralize such article, you somehow disconnect it from its name. Fadix (My Talk) 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your argument on the semantics of the article name. However, I retain my position on NPOV. I admit that a finger is being pointed when writing on a subject such as this, but if the facts are there and properly documented, then that finger deserves to pointed. In other words, the article can be neutral without being neutralized, and need not be comfortable for the subject group while still being NPOV.
It is unfortunate that those who most wish to write on this subject are the least capable of producing an article with NPOV. As a practical matter, that is more of an issue than whether an NPOV treatment of this issue can be done.
      • His point escapes me also. I guess this is what you get when you allow anyone to vote (except me, because I have too few edits apparently). -Dv 20:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
What you propose, a dictatorial regime, in which, there is no votes prior a decision? Fadix (My Talk) 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes! Delete as soon as possible. It is clearly original research and shows no knowledge of a huge amount of historical research, about both Jewish history and about the composition of the Bible. Its use of the word "religion" itself is anachronistic. Israeli policy on the occupied territories is something worth analyzing, in all of its complexities (which does not mean "defending" it). But that policy is not religiously motivated or about religion (the Israeli State that occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 was secular, and Fatah, the major militant wing of the PLO, was/is secular). And then to conflat it with stuff reported in a document writtehn 2500 years ago about stuff that may have happened 3000 years ago — well it is just baffling. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Looks like nothing but an escuse for Jew-bashing.--Revas 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Tanakh and thereby the Bible do not mention the Jews by this name for most of this period. This article is crystal clear anti-Jewish POV. Also, it is original research (and not very good at that either). This article is totally against our guidelines. gidonb 00:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOR: According to the biblical account, Joshua's war was one of land conquest, historically similar in that regard to most other wars. Additionally, the opposing armies and tribes were given the option of withdrawing peacefully. In many cases, specifically involving tribes dwelling east of the Jordan River, the biblical account details that the Israelites were not threatening opponents with conquest. Several tribes (such as the Emorite and Bashan) initiated hostilities by attacking first when offered complete peace. There is no basis for allegations of "beating" or "unwarranted arrest." This appears to be an exercise in the desire to show that every group is equally guilty historically of every offense as every other group, despite evidence to the contrary. The Indians aren't guilty of the slaughter of Armenians, and the Turks aren't guilty of employing the Hindu caste system. History isn't a monolith. HKT talk 01:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • HKT, by no means was this series an attempt to show that each group is equally guilty of everything. It was an attempt to document those instances in which each group had committed acts of religious persecution. My God, I've never seen a series of articles so relentlessly scoured for some nonexistent "agenda". Babajobu 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...by no means was this series an attempt to show that each group is equally guilty of everything." You know, from the looks of that "religious persecution" template, it sure seems like an attempt to show that each religious group is equally guilty of everything! HKT talk 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anti-semitic POV trash, original research. --Mrfixter 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV original research. Postdlf 09:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historically relevant. --malathion talk 11:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It took me a while to decide on this (and to be sure that my response was not POV), but the entire section seems to be unnecessary nonsense. Most groups of some identifiable type, religious, racial, sexual, etc, have committed some form of organised persecution or crime. It is simply difficult to justify the need or purpose of an entire section in this vein except to feed arguments to those against particular groups, often ascribing to modern groups (note the site does not consider extinct religious sects) the actions of their predecessors. And on that note, I agree with jayg that it would be problematic to academically ascribe the acts of ancient Israel (even Yehudim) as those of Jews, and to further consider them factual, even if many Jews would happily claim both of these statements as true (on that basis the article would be POV!). And then there may also be similar problems in ascribing the acts of the State of Israel as those of Jews, even if the Christian acts article included those done by Christian countries in the name of their Lord and Saviour. Again, this idea that it is an act of persecution of the group as a whole would be difficult to defend. --jnothman talk 12:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are already POV OR disasters. WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones. Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group. Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities. If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month. Tomer TALK 16:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wholeheatedly agree with you. For Judaism this article can be part of its conscience. However: Are you willing to help expand this article and its series? Are you willing to defend it against POV warriers? I myself tried to defend are more neutral POV for this article, and I was the only one doing so. Unless there is a community dedicated to this project and to doing it right, it cannot succeed, as much as I would like it to succeed. --EMS | Talk 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Babajobu has done some good updates, showing more of what this article can be. So people may want to look again. However, my insecurity that this article can be kept as comprehensive and neutral as Babajobu left it remains. Between that and this article still being a pale shadow of what it should be, I retain my above vote of "strong delete". --EMS | Talk 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, all it's done is show exactly why this article should be deleted. Babajobu has still failed to provide a single scholarly resource which describes any of these things as "Religious persecution by Jews". It is 100% original research, and no amount of qualifiers can get around that. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Original research is where the person is presenting and/or justifying a novel thesis. There is nothing novel about this. I therefore reject the label of original research. Also, the article now names scolarly sources for the Modern State of Isreal section even if there is not an explicit References section yet. My complaint is that this article is still inadequately researched, missing important incidents that can easily be gleaned from authoratative sources while retaining lesser content that is only weakly justified. That is also grounds for deletion, but is not the same thing as it leaves open to door to new, improved article at a later time. --EMS | Talk 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • EMS, Jayjg's tourretes-ish blurting out of "original research! original research!" is his way of avoiding the entire issue. There are plenty of citations in there. We could put a Harvard citation after every word and he'd still be muttering the same b.s. Babajobu 20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of couse Jayjg is calling this "original research" to avoid dealing with the issue. So what? I suspect that his opinion is so biased that the sysops will discount it for just that reason. However, you still lack the support of people like me who approve of the topic, but not the article. That is what is going to get it deleted. --EMS | Talk 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand the concept of approving of a topic, but voting for deletion because you dislike the article. My understanding was that the wiki way is to improve poor articles on legitimate topics, rather than delete them. Babajobu 01:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is getting more ludicrous as it is expanded. Babajobu has essentially made a list of any situation he could think of in which Jews held any kind of power or autonomy. Anyone familiar with the Khazar kingdom's history will know that not only did the various religious groups in the Khaganate enjoy complete religious freedom, but that its supreme court included Christians, Jews, Muslims and pagans. The one incident that even comes close to persecution is the execution of a muzzein (reported only in Muslim sources) and the destruction of a minnaret in retaliation for persecution of Jews in Persia. Likewise, he has listed Birobidzhan despite his inability to recall its name. That province, of course, was settled by a few totally secular Jews who never held any real political power or composed more than a small fraction of the oblast's population. It's more clear to me now that this article was from its inception intended purely as a platform for Jew-bashing. --Briangotts (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Briangotts, yes, I suggested a section on the Russian oblast, and yet, for shame, could not remember its name. I was hoping that people who had more knowledge of it might contribute to that section. I forgot that such people were more likely to sit around on the VfD page trying to snowjob the whole topic rather than contribute their knowledge. Viva la Wikipedia! Brian, do me a favor on run over to the VfD on Religious persecution by Muslims (to which I contributed more than I did to the Jewish article), and show the same disgust and dismay that such a topic should be tackled. I'll be holding my breath. Babajobu 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't hold it too long, as I wouldn't want to be the cause of any asphyxiation. The difference between that article and this is that one, however flawed it might be, documents numerous examples of a centuries old, ongoing phenomenon for which one could come up with thousands of examples. The proponents of this article have yet to produce a genuine example of religious persecution that did not take place in a single, 3500 year old source, and certain proponents (not naming names) then proceeded to list every single instance they could come up with (not many of those exist) in which Jews had any kind of power over others. --Briangotts (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I listed the few instances in which Jews held power in between the displacement from Judea and the Yishuv. Why, perchance would I have made such a list, other than the virulent antisemitism that you assume motivated this article (and presumably somehow also the persecution by Christians and Muslims articles)? Is it conceivable that I made that list because this series of articles was intended to describe how dominant religious groups misuse their power? And as such, that it made sense to explore those rare situations when Jews, though in exile, wielded some power? No, no, it must just have been my virulent antisemitism acting up again, like a troublesome canker sore. Oh, and as is clear to everyone but you, your explanation for why Religious persecution by Muslims is a legitimate topic but Religious persecution by Jews is illegitimate and offensive, is a bunch of pungent ethnocentric bullshit. Babajobu 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh! Ooh! Idea. Let's make a new article about religious intolerance, with everyone's side being told. Umm. How many ways can we do this without being POV? The titles of this "series" is so POV.  :( I agree, it's history, especially that of Christianity (anyone remember The Spanish Inquisition? So I guess that goes under comment. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idea might have some vague encyclopedic reason to exist, but this article is atrociously written and pretty much unredeemable as it exists.
    Guy Montag 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello? This is a Wikipedia. If it exists wrongly in its current form, but does have encyclopedic merit, try the "edit" button. Shem(talk) 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shem, what a novel idea!!! But no, no. I like the present way of doing things. When an article appears on a sensitive topic, just attack it in its original form, demand that it be deleted, and never contribute a single edit to making it better. Yeah. I prefer that. Babajobu 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • When a piece of trash article like this is created by a POV warrior in violation of WP:POINT it should be deleted as speedily as possible, and the only thing stopping it from happening in this case is that the creator's particular anti-Semitic POV happens to have support from a number of editors who are also racists.Existentializer 21:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm an anti-Semite? That's the best laughter I've had all day; I suppose "Shem" is a German name, yeah? Nevermind that I've also voted "Keep" on this article's partner VfD's for Islam and Christianity. What worthless, trite playing of the race card on your part, Existentializer. For shame, really. Shem(talk) 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shem, don't you get it?? We're surrounded by anti-semites!! They're everywhere!! The Hebrew names give them away!! So does their consistent voting in matters applying to different religious groups! Unless they show Jewish ethnocentric bias, they are antisemites!Babajobu 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who do you think is an antisemitic POV warrior?? Me? The only remotely Jewish-related article I'd worked on before this was one I created about an Israeli photographer I like named Adi Barkan. Get over your paranoia! BTW, I hoped you voiced the same outrage on the VfD for Religious persecution by Muslims, which I worked on much more than I did this one. I'm sure your indignation is at the nature of the topic, and not just on the particular ethnic group focused on here. </sarcasm> Babajobu 21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm guessing Existentializer is having a go at me again. He's been on at me a good bit, and I don't know why I've never crossed his path till this VFD.. unless of course he is someone else... --Irishpunktom\talk 22:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
              • A quick look at your edit history was all I needed to see, "Punk". You're as obvious as they come. Watching you claim not to be a biased POV warrior is like watching an old Southern plantation owner complain "I'm not racist some of my best friends are niggers." Existentializer 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd appreciate it if you could mind your language when making groundless personal attacks, ok? --Irishpunktom\talk 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
                  • I'd appreciated it if you'd cut the bullcrap; I was simply being honest.Existentializer 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Existentializer, you're all class. You and the other people here and in the Muslim version's VfD who claim that "the other versions are dandy, it's just the one that discusses my ethnic group that is outrageous and offensive"...all of you, you're all class. I think your last statement channeled the spirit of the whole ethnocentric lot of you. Babajobu 22:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Concurring with Guy Montag. The concept might have some encyclopedic reason to exist, but this article is atrociously written and pretty much unredeemable as it exists. Also this sort of article tends to decend into a POV warring playground for anti-semites.Klonimus 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • can you be specific? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's atrociously written then you'll have no trouble looking it over with your wonderfully practiced eye and cleaning it up. That's how wikis are supposed to work. (If, on the other hand, your objection is just a matter of ethnocentric wagon-circling, then of course you'll have no interest in cleaning it up. No prizes for guessing which one is the case.) Babajobu 00:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will be "more speific". When I first found this article, one of the main headings was "Ethnic Cleansing". Need I name the person who above admited being responsible for that?
        One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that a dedicated group a defenders can keep an article like this from being a "POV playground". However, I do not see that group in existance for this article at this time. --EMS | Talk 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • second opinion: Merge with Jewish views of religious pluralism? - maybe some of this content should go somewhere, but as more be discussed in an article Jewish attitudes to other religions and people, rather than their acts of supposed persecution. The other religion as persecutor articles should similarly be merged with articles on the attitudes of that religion to others, rather than lists of their persecutory acts alone. In such articles, this information has context. --jnothman talk 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this filth. Neutralitytalk 00:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • At last! Someone who is unafraid to pull punches, someone who calls a thing by its true name! Neutrality, thank heavens you're here. You'll notice that there is also a VfD on the filth over at Religious persecution by Muslims. Go bring that same unshakable integrity you've shown us here and go demand they delete that Islamophobic filth! Look forward to seeing your vote! Babajobu 00:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm resisting the temptation to use a very rude phrase here... --Neutralitytalk 04:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Certain proponents of this article (not naming names) have basically admitted that this is basically a soapbox from which to attack the article Religious persecution by Muslims. --Briangotts (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't know if you were alluding to me; if so, I'll just point out that I've worked on both articles, and support keeping both articles. Neither is an attempt to attack the other. I've simply pointed out that demanding that one be deleted while the other retained is PEB. Babajobu
  • Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, yes. Especially the one on "Religious persecution by atheists" (French Revolution, communist countries), which was already being discussed before this whole VfD fiasco derailed it. That would have been the most shamelessly anti-religious of all. You know what, I think the people who wrote these articles just hate people. Yep. They're people haters. Babajobu 01:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • All these groups (atheists included) are too large and diverse to be lumped into some monolithic label as perpetrators of persecution. It would be more appropriate to address various persecutions that have occured in history in the relevant articles that discuss their more specific contexts. In fact, most of the content in all three of these up for vfd already seems to be handled in a less provocative way within other more balanced articles. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The groups are not too monolithic to be covered as such in numerous other articles, so I don't see why this one should be different. And you cannot honestly tell me that there is a more balanced description of the displacement of Palestinians anywhere on Wikipedia than is in this article. My guess is that the Hebrew wikipedia covers it with less sympathy to the traditional Israeli perspective. More thorough, perhaps, but not more balanced. Babajobu 01:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, I think it's a common (xenophobic) human problem to project monolithic (particularly negative) behaviors, beliefs, intentions, attributes onto *other* people who are different than *us*. Reality is that people are individuals, influenced by all sorts of complicated unique variables that shape each person's outlook. As far as balance RE Palestinians... if we get more editors like Ramallite highly qualified to represent the Palestinian perspective [ multi-faceted of course :-) ], I'm sure there will be vast improvement. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 talk 01:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all three and cleanup. ElBenevolente 02:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. Almafeta 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time. In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis. But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once. This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page. Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true. Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
  • Delete Just a plainly biased article which will upset readers of the encyclopedia. I suggest that the articles on Muslims, Christians and other religions are also deleted and any worthwhile content reorganized for specific event pages. We know that wars on religous issues were common, pointing it out is just plain anti-Religion (specific to case). Evolver of Borg 22 July 2005
  • Delete - for the content (being dubious and loosely tied), and especially for the very idea. I'm sure many Jews persecuted and are persecuting others on religious grounds or otherwise, but such a subject for an article implies Jews as a collective are responsible for this. What's next - famous Jewish rapists?--Doron 07:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but persecution should be limited to religiously motivated persecution. --Germen 11:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crazyeddie 08:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Babajobu --Ttyre 15:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete deliberately POV article with distorted presentation of information. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sources are provided (preferably academic publications, books and external links would also be useful). Otherwise, delete. Does seem to fit into Template:Religious persecution, but should be 'judaism' instead of 'jews', I think. Whether there is enough info for an article or just a short section would depend on amount of material provided by contributors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Briangotts. If someone actually writes something encyclopaedic, I'll change my vote. --Zantastik talk 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Incognito 17:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incognito (talk · contribs) has a very low edit count (33 edits, to date), yet has been a user for several months. This user pops up occasionally, and has voted "Keep" on the "GNA" VfD. All these traits are shared by Dv (talk · contribs), who voted "Keep" on this VfD, as well. HKT talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete this page and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article on faith-centered persecution can be made. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I commented eariler (see "Ooh ooh!" in bold), I've rethought my decision... Delete this series and possibly merge if we can write an all-encompassing article without it being POV, which I feel is nearly impossible, since this is likely to be inherently POV. Again, delete until further notice. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • #REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Bible is not a reliable source for historical information, and there are no other sources. -Willmcw 19:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, together with the other all-in-one stereotyping articles like Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians. -- Olve 20:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This work, besides being original research and holding that the documents used to show religious persecution are both unusable but usable enough to write such an article, also contains facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for which there is already an article in existance for (and such matter is not nessicarily religious either). Many of the padding is simply the writing of other articles to soften the presence of this article. This article simply doesn't serve any purpose beyond aggrivation and recycling select informatino. SF2K1 22:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as we have articles concerning Christians and Muslims, we should probably have one including Jews. But if we get rid of one, we should get rid of all of them. LokiCT 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is LokiCT (talk · contribs)'s 13th edit, made 30 minutes after the user's first edit. Also voted on related VfD's. So far, this user has removed this notice once. HKT talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
He has now removed it twice. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know why the two of you seem to have nothing to do other than to follow me around attempting to discredit my edits on every page I touch. LokiCT 14:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:LokiCT for an answer to that question. HKT talk 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not supporting the article as it stands, however we all have an 'edit this page' button--ClemMcGann 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete together with Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment. But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles.--DNicholls 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV, but that is not the reason to delete. The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole? Is all of history covered? Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims? The articles do not have a clear mandate, and are likely to be disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Polonius, I agree that the title is ambiguous and has caused problems. In my contributions to the articles in this series I've understood "religious persecution by..." to mean persecution of a minority religious group by a majority religious group, irrespective of whether the motivation for the persecution may have included economic, political, cultural, nationalist or other considerations. Thus the Jedwabne massacre would definitely apply. Babajobu 13:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Babajobu, but that is the problem - it basically means that anytime anybody persecutes anyone else of a different religion, in any way, that it is religious persecution. This would mean that almost every war since Martin Luther in Europe would be religious persecution of some group or another, and every incident by an Israeli against an Arab in Israel would be religious persecution, as would any incident against the Jews from 140 CE to 1948 CE, anywhere in the world. I don't buy it, and it seems like a mess. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Or delete all other Religious persecution articles as well. -- Toytoy 04:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't go through the whole history, but the current version I just read doesn't mention religion at all. There is no discussion of different religions, heresy, restrictions on religious practices etc. The article makes no mention of any aspect of Judaism. A real article on 'Religious persecution by Jews' could definitely be written, but this sadly is not it.--Pharos 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Babajobu--Witkacy 07:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 13:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these. The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages. AndyCapp 17:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jayjg, with the rest of the 'religious persecution by' articles.Palmiro 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs rewriting, and its controversial, but the topic is important Salsb 00:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This article is written by a Mohammedian to deflect attention from the atrocities commited by the Mohammedian sects.--CltFn 14:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are objections about "Mohemedian" influence on the article. Those concerns may be legitimate, this is an important part of an important coherent series about religious persecution. I don't claim to be non-partisan, as in fact I sympathize with the Zionist cause, but I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim. --Zeno of Elea 14:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its present form, the article contains no actual information about "religious persecution" which is what it is supposedly about. Xtra 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -asx- 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is as valid as any other addressing the issue of religous persecution. Ezeu 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I return from the dead, to have this obliterated. This link is Broken 20:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this totallly pathetic "attempt" to smear Jews. What will they think of next? "Jews as the founders of roach extermination?" What a joke this would all be except that in the sick minds of Jew-haters this is taken as "gospel truth". Tut tut, what morons, or as they say meshuga in kop! IZAK 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What race-card-playing tripe. I trust you'll vote the same at this VfD's partner articles concerning Islam and Christianity, IZAK? 'Cause you know, I must be a "Muslim-hater" and "Christian-hater" too, supporting that these be kept and made encyclopedic. Shem(talk) 07:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tripe, tripe, you say?? Aha, yes, it is tripe to assume that a very puny Jewish population's acts (of about 13 million Jews) is equal to the havoc that has been caused by about two billion Christians and about a billion and a half Moslems over the span of the last 1500-2000 years. Get real, who has persecuted who around here in history? It's pretty sad when all the article can do is cite the Hebrew Bible...how about the other parts of that Hebrew Bible that affirm the Jews as God's chosen people? You can't have it both ways, either all of the Hebrew Bible is accurate or none of it. This is not about "race" (what a weird thought!) this is about pure facts and logic. Wikipedia is not in the business of setting up the "relativity of religions" and such like. The fact remains, Christians and Moslems have killed millions of Jews over the last 1500-2000 years, and not the reverse...and now, to "hide behind the mommy's skirt" of the Jews' own Hebrew Bible is a mental distortion worthy of the Nazi hate machine. Or don't you get that either? IZAK 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, over the past several thousand years there have been significantly more than Thirteen Millions Jewish people. This article should not, and does not blame present generations for what people of their religion did hundreds and thousands of years ago, that would be stupid and ridiculous, it just records them. However, to pretend it did not happen is to whitewash history. Clearly, like the Zorostrians, the Jewish people, being a minority, have for most of their history been those oppressed, however, like the Zorostrians, when they have been in the Majority there have been instances of Oppression of those who do not share the faith. I don't see why this, along with instances of oppression by all the major Religions, should not be documented --Irishpunktom\talk 09:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
"This is not about race," yet those who support all of these articles are "Jew-haters." "A part of the Nazi hate machine," too? Sure thing, IZAK, I'll remember that one. Shem(talk) 08:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am only voting here because the facts of history are being twisted here completely. I am not voting on other articles. (Nowhere are their "rules" that one must vote on the votes here of what religions do as the "mean guys".) I wish you would realize that from from your line of reasoning you show that you know little about Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and that you would do yourself a great favor by staying out of this discussion as a mark of self-respect. IZAK 08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would realize that from from your line of reasoning you show that you know little about Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and that you would do yourself a great favor by staying out of this discussion as a mark of self-respect. IZAK, keep ramming that foot down your throat. I'm enjoying it. Shem(talk) 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, Shem's making a heck of a lot more sense than you are. I don't know whether you're meshuga in kop, but you've sure got a lot of nonsense in your kop. Please, dear sir, show me where the account in this article of the dislocation of the Palestinians is "twisted completely". The irony here is that the article as presently written is extremely sympathetic to Jews, and very much partial to the traditional Israeli account of the War. But the hasbarah brigades are too conditioned to even notice! If it says "Jews", it's got to be antisemitic "filth", as another luminary commented earlier! Babajobu 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Babajobu, you are writing in an extremely patronising and offensive tone. Please refrain from it. Xtra 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, he's being no more patronising or offensive than IZAK here was from his first sentence, and certainly less so than IZAK's most recent response. Shem(talk) 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Baba: Now what are you saying here, that this is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There are so many articles about that already! Are you claiming that the Israelis (as Jews?) are RELIGIOUSLY "persecuting" the poor Palestinians??? Now you know that that is a load of crap! Israel is the most religiously tolerant country in the Middle East! (Errrr: How free are Jews in Iran or Libya or Saudi Arabi to practice Judaism?) No-one in Israel is stopping anyone from practicing any religion (plenty of mosques and such like to prove it), but Israelis do have a right to capture or kill TERRORISTS who want to kill Israeli citizens. (Ever heard of Self defense?) That issue has no relevance to "Religious persecution by Jews". What is Shem saying? That we must also excuse Christian and Moslem violence against Jews over the last 1500-2000 years if this article is to be deleted? Is that good logic based on facts or is it a meshugane POV? IZAK 09:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, please refrain from calling contributors with whom you disagree "insane". Xtra has a very gentle nature, and is no doubt profoundly upset by this insulting characterization. Unless, of course, Xtra's umbrage was politically and selectively motivated, in which case he probably won't ask you to refrain from insulting people. As for the points you made: no, this article is not exclusively about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but some of the events which occured in that conflict will naturally be relevant. I don't necessarily deny that Israel is the most religiously tolerant country in the region (see earlier comments on this issue). I think Shem was making the commonsense point that even groups which are ordinarily on the receiving end of persecution can themselves occasionally act as persecutors, and if we are to reject the very idea of an article on religious persecution by Jews, then we really have to reject such "persecution by" articles generally. That's not meshugas, in fact it's just plainly true. Babajobu 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are making personal attacks against me. Calling someone a "meshuga in kop" is insulting. And saying "If it says "Jews", it's got to be antisemitic "filth"" is just a common way that people who defend anti-semetism counter allegations of anti-semetism as it is just political spin. As such, that is also offensive. Xtra 09:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xtra, I agree that calling someone "meshuga in kop" is insulting. Please note that I did not call anyone meshuga in kop; rather, it was IZAK who called people meshuga in kop. Please redirect your comments toward him. Looking forward to seeing that. Thanks. Babajobu 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that kind of backwards? "We cannot reject a priori the concept of religious persecution by Jews, therefore we should start the article and see if we can find some". I'm not impugning your motives or anything, just questioning the plan. It still reads to me like an article on ethnic cleansing and nation building; the modern Israel part is entirely such, I think unavoidably because the conflict is national-based, not religious, at least from the Jewish side. Israel was originally intended to be secular, Islam is still freely practiced along with pretty much every religion known to man. The Biblical part might be put into a religious persecution context in that it's in the "God told us to kill them" vein, but religion was pretty much indistinguishable from nationality at the time and my feeling is that in such a case, religion is subservient to nationality, much as is diet, clothing, language, etc. You wouldn't characterize Biblical conflict as persecution by people who don't eat milk with meat, for instance, but it's the same population whether you're defining them by nationality, religion, or diet. Gzuckier 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier, I don't think there is any way you can entirely disentangle religious persecution from nationalist, economic, ethnic, cultural, et cetera. The Republic of Ireland has been virtually emptied of Protestants since the state's founding. Was that due to religious persecution, or nationalistic persecution because of their association with Britain? Muhammad massacred the males of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza...was that religious persecution, or just an act of particular barbarity during an intercommunal struggle over power, resources, et cetera? Trying to come up with a single monocausal explanation for these examples and others is a fool's errand: there were lots of contributing factors, the motivation was complex. So for the purposes of these articles I've considered "religious persecution" to be persecution of a minority religious group by a majority religious group, rather than restricting it to cases in which motivation could be proven to be exclusively religious. No real-life cases exist of such perfect and idealized "persecutions for exclusively religious reasons". And yet persecution of religious minorities is a real and important phenomenon. Babajobu 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But writing an article on "religious persecution by Jews of Palestinian Arabic Muslims and Palestinian Arabic Christians but not of Lebanese Christians or European Christians or Bedouin Muslims or Muslimish Druze" is a bit like writing an article on "the color which is exhibited by objects which are blue before Jan. 1 1005 but after that date is exhibited by objects which are green". Gzuckier 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The color which is exhibited by objects which are blue before Jan. 1 1005 but after that date is exhibited by objects which are green", surely that article, too, is worthy of a stub. Remember, I'm an inclusionist (See the tramautic-for-all-involved events that unfolded below in response to Ambi's post). Regardless, I think that if the article on Religious persecution by Jews survives the VfD, it should certainly be expanded to include any instances of persecution of the other groups you mention. I don't think that's quite so jarring or arbitrary as the switch from one color to another that your new stub adopts at the change of millenium. I think they all fit neatly under "Religious persecution by Jews", just as persecuted Sudanese animists in the 20th century and persecuted Yathribi Jews in the 8th century both fit under Religious persecution by Muslims Babajobu 21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I have stated on the other two VfDs I believe this should either be deleted or link to Jewish groups. Jews as a whole have not persecuted in any coherent manner but various groups of Jews have no doubt. Therefore the scope of this article should be much more limitted to avoid massive "Jews do this" generalizations that creept into articles like this. gren 16:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Grenavitar. Ambi 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Holy mackrel!!! The high priest of Deletionism has graced this VfD with his presence! Quick, somebody VfD London and see if hu votes for it!! Babajobu 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, I'm a regular dues-paying member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and since Ambi is the prophet and founder of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, I thought it not outside the norms of decent society to make a gentle jibe at his expense. I've since been contacted by a wikifunctionary and informed that such behavior poses an existential threat to Wikipedia, and reflects very poorly on myself. I don't know what to say except that I am so, so, so deeply ashamed of what I've done, and the harm and discombobulation that I've caused, both within the larger Wikisphere and to Ambi huself. Don't despise so much as pity me: to do something like that I must surely be a deeply, profoundly unhappy person. Please work on either martyr complex, Hashem or Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, three of this week's Babajobu collaborations. Babajobu 17:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this question is really about the validity of the series as a whole. There's no doubt that there've been persecutions by Christians and by Muslims. The question is whether there has been sufficient persecution conducted by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. etc. to justfy articles on each one of these faiths. IMO, the article on Jews provides no good evidence that there has been a history of religious persecution by Jews – persecution, maybe, but not religious persecution. Like Babajobu, I am an Inclusionist, but I don't think this article makes the case that its title implies. Change it to Historical persecutions by Jews, but don't pretend that it is part of a "neutral" series on religious persecution that inclues all faiths. That's hypocricy designed to conceal the fact that some faiths have a history of persecution and that others don't. Paul B 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Historical persecutions by Jews would have been a better title for this article. Not perfect, but definitely better. I don't know what the perfect title would have been. Babajobu 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Historical Persecutions title isn't perfect, true. Part of the problem is the "by Jews" bit. Individual Jews may have been responsible for persecutions, just as individual Christians, Atheists or whatever may have been, but it would be absurd to list all persecutions by by individual Jews or groups of Jews. But "Judaism" is no better, since the belief system itself does not do the persecuting. Part of the problem lies in the fact that Jewishness as a belief and as an ethnic identity can't be clearly distinguished. There isn't really the same difficulty with most other faiths. Paul B 08:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sujre about that; I think the "universal" faiths are more of an exception than a rule. Christianity and Islam, of course, and Buddhism I guess. But even then individual subgroups are tied to different nations. Coptic Christianity, Druze version of Islam, etc. and in the ancient world, I think distinct religions for each nation was pretty much the rule. Judaism has a funny spot, as it posits a universal God who everyone should believe in, but doesn't require adherence to the faith itself for anyone other than Jews. This of course is interpreted as some sort of superiority complex by.... here it comes..... get ready..... antisemites. Gzuckier 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All religious groups persecute others? I look forward to your Religious persecution by Buddhists article. Paul B 08:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I breathlessly await Religious persecution by Discordians, then. It should be quite entertaining. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've wondered (but done no research into) whether there might be instances of Religious persecution by Buddhists in Myanmar to form the basis of such an article. Is Vietnam majority Buddhist? If so, has it been smooth sailing all along for religious minorities there? On the other hand, worshippers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have an absolutely spotless record in these matters (though atheists do not). Babajobu 10:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think some Tamils in Sri Lanka have made the complaint that they are vicimised as non-Buddhists, and it's been suggested that the 1596 ban on Christianity and execution of Christians in Japan was influenced by Buddhist institutions, but these are all rather weak examples, since there is no unambiguous link between the established religious institutions and the persecutions, as there is with Christianity and Islam. Paul B 11:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When's that Religious Persecution by Bahai going to be done? Gzuckier 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bön practitioners (claim they) were persecuted to near extintion by Buddhists [23]--Ezeu 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As distasteful as religious persection by one or another religion happens, the fact is that it happens, no matter what the religion is. Lionizing one religion and/or another as "perfect and clean" isn't a reality, no matter what your religious beliefs (or if you have any at all) are.--Mitsukai 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, just because you haven't actually committed any felonies is no reason we shouldn't list your felony convictions. After all, you're not perfect. (using you in the generic sense, I don't mean you) Gzuckier 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would have no problem with an article on the topic, if it were done sensibly, and cases were cited. However, to start citing biblical figures (Abraham, Moses, Joshua), who are claimed by all three monotheistic religions (Ibrahim, Musa, etc.) solely as Jews for the purposes of this article is biased, and to account for semi-mythological wars between neighboring tribes and clans in the ancient Near East as examples of religious persecution in the modern sense of the term is utterly anachronistic and unhistorical. Danny 11:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Pugliese

edit

vanity/attack/whatever by habitual vandal IP Ben-w 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Dmcdevit·t 08:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Organica

edit

As not notable. Lamb seem to be the only example of this genre, and even they seem to not be widely categorised as such. The only examples I can find with Google are mirrors of wikipedia. It seems to be a genre of which only one band is an example, and it is seemingly used by only one (unnamed) critic. -- ascorbic 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Creatures

edit

Created in August 2004, although the template never got completely filled in, nothing since. Hiding talk 18:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Expansion Pack

edit

Not true. They have announced no such plans and the game itself is far from bug free for them to start working on something new. Delete ASAP and remove from the template and respective pages. 142.58.101.46 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Are you a moron? The source is the producer of the game, and they are working on this expansion. If that source is not good enough then we should just remove PlayStation 3 and everything else not released yet. Havok 09:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or Delete. This seems more like a comment that I'd see on my IM than an entry I'd hope to see in an encyclopedia. However it does have a notable source and would be good news for those into the game, but it's just that - news. Hello World! 19:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, my reason for that is because of its minimial content, rather being a crystal ball. SYSS Mouse 00:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to main WOW page. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It will be expanded when more info is given, deleting it won't do anything seeing as when more detail is released it will only be started again. Havok 09:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We do have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, so we might as well keep this and revise it as we learn more. Ninuor 22:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been confirmed to be in development by Blizzard entertainment. Read the following excerpt from this article at Gamespot: "Shane Dabiri, lead producer of the World of Warcraft development team, posted a lengthy message titled 'World of Warcraft Battleplan.' Besides outlining increased customer service, the addition of servers, and gameplay additions, Dabiri's post also addressed the $64,000 question. 'Some have asked about an expansion and what it might hold,' he said. 'I wanted to let players know that it is in the works, and we'll release details as soon as we can.'" --tomf688(talk) 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While there is no evidence of what will be in this expansion as of yet then there is nothing much that the article can be based on. It will how ever be expanded quickly when more news is released by Blizzard regarding what all will be included in the expansion pack and when it is due out. WCX 22:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Daddy's Favorite Porridge

edit

Delete or BJADON Humerous, but not notable. "Daddy's Favorite Porridge" gets 0 Google hits, and it appears to be a simple game someone made up. Icelight 19:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

BJADON. If nothing else, seems like original research. Superm401 | Talk 19:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pook. This game's real. I've played it. It's real. Dunno what else to say.

This users first edit outside of the creation of the article in question. Icelight 22:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

BuyLowSellHigh. Played this game years ago at boarding school in England. Could be a British/European thing, but it's definitely legit.

This user's first edit. Icelight 22:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Voice of Reason. Hey, here's a crazy thought. Why don't you guys stop acting like a bunch of colossal tools and leave the stupid entry alone? Honestly, this is pathetic. Do you really have that miserable of lives, where you feel the need to lord your nonexistent powers over everyone else here by playing Wikipedia Nazis? Go outside. Go get laid, for Christ's sake. Go do something -- ANYTHING -- constructive with your time instead of sitting here and acting like your socially inept opinions matter to anyone. You are a bunch of man children. All of you. Who cares if you can Google this entry successfully or not? Who died and made you king of the internet? Seriously. Get. A. Freaking. Life. Yes, "Icelight," I'm talking to you. Do not delete the entry.

  • BobsBigBoy. Agreed. Do not delete.

DO NOT DELETE This is the original poster of the article again. Maybe I can help shed some light on this, because it's clearly caused some confusion. I actually did first play this game in England when I was studying aboard in 2000. It was taught to me in the kitchen of our dorm by some local students as a drinking game. We then started using it as a means of dividing chores, or deciding who had to do a particularly unappealing duty in the building (kitchen duty for the week, for instance). Now, living in Los Angeles, I've played this game in many contexts. I'm not sure how else to explain it's real other than by offering my experience. I can't vouch for the universality of its name, of course. Perhaps the people who taught it to me renamed it, or perhaps those who taught it to them renamed it. I just don't know. All I do know is it's a common occurrence in my life, the lives of many people I know, to play this game. I'd ask you to not dismiss it just because you haven't happened upon it, and because nobody has chosen to write about it in his blog or on his site (as if being on a personal site confers any legitimacy anyway). Thank you.

DON'T DELETE! Everyone should at least have the opportunity to learn the rules of this clever game. What group of roustabouts wouldn't want to take part in a game where one player per round is burdened with the label of Daddy's Favorite Porridge?! Please don't delete. I've played this game (and loved it), and want others to have the opportunity to learn the rules.

DO NOT DELETE This game is of fairly recent origins, but it is legitimate. I've played it myself a few times. GodAmongMen 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was RESULT: Speedied by Manning 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Molatar

edit

Delete - Web site advert / Vanity / not notable - Nearly speediable as vandalism. Tεxτurε 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied by Manning 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brotiger

edit

And some more pseudo-linguistic hoaxery. Joyous (talk) 19:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Save this article: it is an obscure yet significant linguistic development that needs to be documented. A failure to do so would fly in the face of Wikipedia's very purpose

T. Blake Littwin

---

Save the Brotiger!

-Andrew: Boston,MA

  • Delete, (no supporting evidence, appears spurious) and kindly ask anon IP users to register and make progress with supportive edits instead of using their first appearance on a VfD. Also: wax my mustache. --Icelight 22:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Save this entry At first glance, this entry seems like a farcical excercise in wordplay. But after consulting with a few of my colleagues, I came to the realization that 'brotiger' is a genuine linguistic development. Please reconsider.

Regards, Prof. Carl J. Harris (Utah State College)

  • ^^^ Heh. Anyway, delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 14:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto restaurants

edit

This page was tagged for cleanup-rewrite but has not been touched for nearly three months.

Delete. This is a good idea for an article, but if no one is going to write it, it might as well go. Some one can recreate later when they actaully want to write something. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 17:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Steve Summit

edit

Delete - Vanity/advert - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/C Programming Mistakes - Looks like an advert for the book/site/person in combination with the other article about the book. - Tεxτurε 19:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11

edit

reason #1: content is copy-paste from gasb.org; reason#2: it's a very narrow topic only nerdy accountants would be interested (too insignificant to have 50 different articles about them); reason #3: the list is not finished and the guy disappeared; reason#4: I created just a simple list of all those statements so they don't mess up the accounting category (see List of GASB Statements) -User:Renata3

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Members of MPA 2005

edit

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It just as worth while as a list of members of parliament. It's level is part of the Birth Place/Grave Yard of UK politicians. If some one every get around to writting the much needed Political COntrol of UK Police Forces it will be a useful example.--Jirate 20:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Isais

edit

Apparently a Star Wars character. The article had a speedy tag, which I removed since it does not fit the criteria. It should still go, however, unless someone can fix it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. This is not a canon character, but one created by a user who's bordering on being a vandal.--Kross 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable fanfic. JamesBurns 08:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The link from the VfD page to here appears to be bad. Dcarrano 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable fanfic. Dcarrano 14:51, July 20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Tugendhat

edit

Very short article with no references, near speedy but not quite. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and expand. "Ernst Tugendhat" "Martin Heidegger" gets 278 unique Google hits, which would not normally be enough for me. However, he has lots of books at Amazon (the link won't work after copy-paste, so check the search yourselves), which I think is enough for the WP:PROF test. However, the titles I can only guesstimate as being in the same field and thus by the same author: I could be wrong. -Splash 21:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some bits of information I could find (but it is just first shot). Someone should translate German Wiki article. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not someone I know anything about, but he definitely exists, is a well-known philosopher, and has published pretty widely. "Ernst Tugenhat" gets 7,570 raw hits from Google, incidentally. I've expanded the article a little, and have started work on the bibliography. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Figure is notable within his field, article meets criteria for inclusion. Hall Monitor 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 02:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Police Cantonment Complex

edit

No real content but not quite a speedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Street Bakery

edit

Spam. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stara navika

edit

Well, if the new proposal for non-notable bands passes, this will be a speedy candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dupper

edit

Neologism. Google gives >30 000 hits for "Dupper", but that's because it's a surname and a Norwegian plural noun. DS 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 14:56, July 20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Divorced for the third time

edit

This is another of Striver's article creations. There is interesting material here, but it should be placed in an article on Islamic law re marriage. I am not sure that there IS such an article. No one looking for this material could find it from this bizarre title. Zora 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, wow, how amusing, my article got a Vfd... and guess by who? If im not mistaken, this is the 4:th Vfd she has been puting on my articles.

Zora, why dont you just link it, or put a sugestion to merge or rename it? No, we must have a Vfd, it just would'nt be the same, whould it?

  • Keep If she want to rename, merge or link, she can sugest it, but not delet.


My motivation for not having it in another article: It easier to link to it, since ther is 3 articles that result in this and ther is 3 article that can resolve it. It would not be fair to the other 5 articles if it would be put in one of the 6, if the reader wants to read only about this, s/he will have to searh for this in the article it will be put in. Hence, it is easier for the reader if it haves it own aricle, even, or just because, it does not contain so much information related to a single one of the 6.

--Striver 21:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. You said there is some interestig material, then why should it be deleted, instead it should be expanded

--Khalid! 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

coment Islamic view of marriage is a overview page linking to separat articles, not a independen article of its own. The title needing to be changed does not warant a deletion. --Striver 15:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Another of Striver's creations. It refers, obliquely, to a fine point of Islamic law. Should be put into Sharia. Zora 21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not do the same to this articles:

not delet for the same reason that the above should not be deleted. --Striver 00:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Not all Islamic denominations have exactly the same "Sharia". This article, along with many other fundamental Shi'a terms, should be kept separate.--Zereshk 03:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. For the same reason as Zereshk

--Ya Ali 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have the Shi'a contingent here saying to keep, in solidarity.

Regarding Striver's first point, re articles for various Arabic technical terms -- I presume that those articles are there because someone found them as technical terms in English books/articles/whatever, and felt that they should have an explanation. I gather that some editors feel very strongly that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and would argue that any one-sentence articles on Islamic technical terms should be moved into the Wiktionary. Or they might be better in the List of Arabic terms article, whatever it's called. But I don't think the matter is urgent because the titles of the articles are so obviously foreign-language-technical-terms. No one is going to be confused.

However, "Recommended precautions" is a completely opaque and misleading title. If I google on it, I get 2,430,000 hits. 99.99% of which have nothing to do with sharia. So, the title is completely wrong. Could the content be slotted somewhere else? Yup, it is just a stub and could be put into Sharia easily. So why have an article with a misleading title and no content? Zora 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goatsephile

edit

Originally, I was going to leave it as a redirect to Goatse.cx but anon users keep restoring this article. I therefore see fit to nominate this article for deletion as a neologism and as shown by google and therefore a lack of notability and verifability. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Married life in Quran and Sunnah

edit

VFD was not correctly listed, trying to fix that; no vote on my part --Metropolitan90 04:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC--Striver 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Another of Striver's creations. He seems to have fixated on the topic of Islam and marriage and to be starting many articles on minor points, often with oblique, opaque, or misleading titles. Should be merged into one article. Zora 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep oh god, that makes it 5 Vfd. Did you see the "exapand" sing? No? Did you see the "Stup"? Not that either? Oh, well, ill unstub it, maybe you'll get happier then...
  • keep. I think it would be a good idea to expand or merge this topic, as marriage, as viewed by the denominations in Islam, is a topic not well understood by the western academia.--Zereshk 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere, too narrow a topic. Radiant_>|< 12:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Islam does not have the same view of marriage as the west have. In the west, most people consider marriage as based on love. So is not the case in Islam. In Islam it is based on worshiping God, and that diffrens needs a lot of explanation to make sence to a non-Muslim.

--Striver 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Islamic view of marriage is a overiew of manny topics related to marriage, the current topic is to large to fitt entirely into a overview article. --Striver 15:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by user:Joy Stovall, presumably as a vanity article (criteria #7). Thue | talk 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually it seems patent nonsense to me - "She plans on saving the koalas in Australia with her best friend. ... she was aubduted by aliens and has not been seen since.". LOL. Radiant_>|< 12:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Carissa wohlferd

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 --Allen3 talk 13:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gatekeeper, Sony Web-Agent

edit

I'm really not quite sure what this is, aside from an attack on Sonycorp's web policies by a non-native English speaker. I don't think it's encyclopedic. DS 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, attack page. Dcarrano 15:10, July 20, 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 Delte --Allen3 talk 13:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

2005 Hudson Valley Mall shooting incident

edit

On 14 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The final decision was a judgment call. I called it as a m:transwiki to WikiNews. We have since learned that transwiki to WikiNews is incompatible with GFDL. I am returning it to VfD for reconsideration. The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2005 Hudson Valley Mall shooting incident.

I recommend deletion because this is a news article, not an encyclopedic event. Wikipedia does not need or want an article on every non-notable crime. (It would be nice if we lived in a world where this was a notable crime but we don't. Similar incidents occur on a daily basis. I believe this got attention only because it was a slow news day.) There have been no significant edits to this article since 14 Feb (the day after the article was created). The article is an orphan. While low edits and orphan status are not deletion criteria, they are supporting evidence that this is not a requested article. A good WikiNews article already exists here. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

edit

VFD was not properly formatted, fixing that; no vote on my part. --Metropolitan90 04:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a repository for hadith dumps. If the "evidence" doesn't fit in the main article, then it should either be in Wikisource (?) or relegated to external links. As it stands, this article is completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what nikah mut'ah is and why it is controversial. If that is added, then the article is just a repetition of the nikah mut'ah article. Zora 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is not about explaining what Nikah Mut'ah is about, rather it's to represent the arguments used to validated its abrogation or the lack of using hadithes as sources. But how could you know it, you didn't even bother to read it. --Striver 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The article contains useful information that can help better understand the characteristics of Islamic denominations.--Zereshk 03:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Internal links give context and background, as is usual with Wikipedia. Thousands of articles here would be difficult to follow out of context — but they have the context of thousands of other Wikipedia articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mut'ah (marriage), where it needs to be cut down and put into context. WP is not the place for extended interpretation of holy books; any such interpretations need to be closely tied to specific, encyclopedic issues. Dcarrano 15:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

coment The article does not interpret the hadith, it represent how diffrent famous scholars imterpreted them. A major difrence, and worth representation. furthermore, Mut'ah (marriage) presents the concept, not shows how the scholars interpret wheather it is allowed or not. The concept is one thing, the cholars view of wheather it is allowed or not is a tottaly diffrent matter.

    • You're right, I misspoke. Rather, WP is not the place for extended discussion of interpretations of holy books, unless it's tied to a specific encyclopedic issue. When you're discussing a religious concept, that's where the compare and contrast of interpretations should come out -- in the article about that concept. Dcarrano 15:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • commentwell as you said it your self "unless it's tied to a specific encyclopedic issue". In this case it tied to Nikah Mut'ah. Howeverm, i do not agree that the "contrast of interpretations " should come into the article in this case, since ther is no contrast of interpretation regarding what it is and how it was reaveled. The contrast is about how and when it got abrogated. And that is a whole other issue than describing what it is. For example, a Jew might decide to enter a nikah, in that case s/he does not want or need to know about "contrast of interpretations " regarding if its abrogated or not, s/he only wants/needs to know what it is.

--Striver 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 9/11½

edit

Crystal ball, likely hoax (see talk page). Delete with prejudice.  Grue  21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spade Honorary

edit

I'm not sure how notable this is or if this could be expanded. It was made and later blanked by anon. JJLeahy 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creflo Dollar

edit

Delete Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 14:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a renomination, just a week after the first was closed and the VFD tag wasn't even added to the article. I don't think that renominations should be made this early when the reasoning is a subjective "not notable". Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd removed the VfD as invalid due to the recent voting ont it. I'd forgotten to remove this entry too. I'll do that now, despite the vote from Sjakkalle. -Willmcw 17:17, August 4, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creflo Dollar

edit

Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 22:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These TV preachers are a dime a dozen, and they pay to be on TV. Some of us in the industry call them Satan's Infomercials, since they are worse than infomercials. At least with Ronco, you get something you can use, these guys bilk little old ladies out of their last dollar. UncleFloyd 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like 'em either, but 27000 google hits indicates certain degree of notability, even if it was achieved through self-promotion. Pburka 00:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion on the article itself, but the nominator's 7th edit was placing the article into VFD. Nominator has made other bad-faith VFD nominations. Kaibabsquirrel 01:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Anyone with a national TV show is encyclopedic enough to merit inclusion. -- Grev -- Talk 02:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. Grace Note 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per User:UncleFloyd. JamesBurns 08:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National television guy, even if he does have to pay to be on TV (so did Colonel Sanders). - The inclusionist known as Eric 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; 4 column-metres in New Yorker ("Pray and grow rich" 2004 Oct 11) qualifies him to have a WP page right alongside the actors, dippy popular "musicians", and Simpsons and Tiny Toons characters that also don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Kwantus 14:34, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Delete If I had this "church" scam going and I was paying to be on TV then I would be worthy of an entry? It is not like this guy is the Pope. Half of these bible thumpers claim to be bishops, yet they lack the Apostolic succession. These guys are all con artists and have a special place in hell reserved for them - an eternity of chatecism classes with Sister Mary Catherine and her ruler. Please contact me to send your donations to save your soul and get me on TV! Praise the almighty Federal Reserve Note! Toasthaven2 14:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although editor really should have specified what "national television" meant in article; this could easily be weasel wording to mask that he was on in three cities at 3am Sunday morning, but as it turns out, here it does apparently mean BET. Dcarrano 15:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as per User:UncleFloyd. I can't remember if this is the "miracle water" guy or the guy Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of or some totally different guy. As the Church Lady would say about this guy, "Who could it be? Satan?" The article needs some POV work. As mentioned above these people "have a special place in hell reserved for them" and that is in the George W. Bush nut job Christian wing. The only way I would watch this guy would be on a pay per view bout with the Pope. My money would be on the German. FunkyChicken! 23:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no original sources and it is advertising. Just because someone is on televison does not make them notable. WilImcw 15:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable American. KiwiPunter 22:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user only has two edits to articles and now three edits to Votes for Deletion. I know this is not necessarily a qualification for voting, but it is useful for the closing administrator to know this sort of thing. John Barleycorn 04:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Well-known evangelist, whether you agree with him or not. John Barleycorn 17:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:UncleFloyd. Frühstücksdienst 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of this vote, this User had only had 13 edits to articles, and several edits to VfD pages or adding VfD headers to other articles. Since that time, he/she has made many more edits. I know that an edit count is not necessarily a criterion for discounting a User's votes, but it is worth mentioning to the administrator who closes this vote. John Barleycorn 04:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. KraftyNoodle 01:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was this User's first edit to Wikipedia, and since then, he/she has made only one other edit. John Barleycorn 04:41, July 26, 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. It's unanimous apart from the dubious nom, regardless of which votes I discard or not. -Splash 01:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Chin

edit

Not notable, why not include everyone who was murdered in the greater Detroit area in 1982? SquirrelKabob 22:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Nominator's 11th edit was placing VFD tag on this article. Nominator has made other bad-faith VFD nominations. Kaibabsquirrel 01:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC) By the way, my vote on this is keep. Kaibabsquirrel 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent article. They made a movie about this. There was a million dollar settlement. This is a civil rights article. Deleters are nuts. - The inclusionist known as Eric 10:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yer Chin up, so to speak. — RJH 15:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, hate crimes are often more notable because they galvanize the minority group targeted as apparently happened here, plus movie on the subject. Dcarrano 15:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was most likely a sock-puppet nomination, even in light of WP:FAITH. Hall Monitor 23:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Trovatore 06:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-You must keep this article. Racism against Chinese people and other Asian minorities is too often overlooked. LZ 20:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep – If they can have an article about Rodney King whose beating galvanzied African Americans, then they can have an article about an Asian American whose death galvanized the Asian Americans. – Clayjar_Azn 10:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus'humble'fool®Deletion Reform 19:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Falklands War

edit

No major edits since March 2004, nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Families

edit

It's a template, been that way since July 2004. Nothing to archive, arguably redundant with the equally inactive but arguably more substantial Wikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationships Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink

edit

Nothing substantial here, just discussion, no major edits since 2003. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fountain pens

edit

No major edits since October 2004, no major structure worth saving. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Future Prospects

edit

I'm not sure what it's about. It was created in June, and its creation is also the creator's only edits. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical figures

edit

No structure, no major edits since December 2004. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (I'm redirecting on my own). humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Inquiry

edit

Redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject JFK assassination

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 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature

edit

Redundancy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Malt whisky

edit

Seems to have been created as a template for articles on Malt whisky in Feb 2003, and remained thus ever since. Is this the best place for such information? Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Math 1.0

edit

Inactive since October 2004 and redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Models

edit

No edits since creation in October 2004 Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Speculative fiction

edit

Project not completely defined since creation in October 2004 Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam War, Wikiproject:Vietnam War/Accelerated Pacification Campaign

edit

Not edited since creation, doesn't fit WikiProject format and would seem better suited to being userfied along with associated subpage Hiding talk 22:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiProject Disinformation

edit

Runs counter to Wikipedia spirit. Not encyclopedic. Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONGEST DELETE This is a group dedicated to sabotage of Wikipedia, at least in principle. Horrible idea. Utterly unencyclopedic, and (in fact) anti-encyclopedic. Xoloz 05:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, direct users to Uncyclopedia if they enjoy writing misinformation. -- Francs2000 | Talk   15:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's a part of WP:BJAODN, and deleting "deleted nonsense" is redundant (and somewhat silly). The category tags should probably be removed to prevent it from showing up with real WikiProjects, though. — Kirill Lokshin | Talk 12:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject wikipedian birtdays

edit

Not encyclopedic, unnecessary. Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vagoo

edit

A 5-month-old neologism from a webcomic. Joyous (talk) 22:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC) 

   -you just don't travel to the right places(preceding unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] {{{2}}})

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unsigned"


Discounted votes

edit
Votes by new users and potential sockpuppets are discounted as consensus is reached within the Wikipedia community, see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. Dunc|☺ 12:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Vagoo is in danger!" forum post.

  • Keep: It is not just a word, it may very well be the answer to the meaning of life!
  • Very strong KEEP*: I was spreading the word for a week or two, then heard people I didn't tell it use the word and asked them if they knew the source. Seemed to be bar-talk from a city about 50 miles away! It's catching on rapidly and plays with curent day language, not only showing the creativity of the word and it's users but als how well the users know their language. A person must master his/her language in order to 'play around' with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.121.210 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 July 2005
  • Keep: A term that has got into use already, a lot better than any of it's predecessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.154.43 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 July 2005
  • Keep: Very funny and catchy term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.200.228 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 July 2005
  • Keep: A a catch phrase quickly becoming well known both within and without the webcomics community. Popularity is growing in its usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.46.121 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 20 July 2005
  • Keep: Same reason as Arcidius. This word is becoming well-known, being featured on merchandising, and is increasing in popularity as a catch phrase, which merits preservation and explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.185.164 (talk • contribs)
Above is user's first edit. --TheMidnighters 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Much more amusing and non-offensive than other synonyms. Also, very funny. Becoming widely used among large webcomic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.16.52 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Same reason as above, the source base of it is growing every day and it is becoming a catchphrase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.37.222 (talk • contribs)
Above is user's first edit. --TheMidnighters 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Above is user's first edit. --TheMidnighters 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've overheard random people using it and seen it in several web forums. The point of wikipedia is to define the world around us, and like it or not, the Vagoo is here to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.63.64 (talk • contribs)
Above is user's first edit. --TheMidnighters 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Had friends say this who do not read online comics, it's spreading like wild fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.220.117 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 July 2005
  • Keep: Same reason as Arcidius, this is becoming a very well known catch-phrase, i have noticed people that do not read the comic saying it in everyday converstaion. definalty a reason to keep and expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.57.17 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 July 2005
  • Keep: Same reason ans Arcidius. It's better than most the other synonyms for the word, and is becoming widely known. I know people who don't even read the webcomic and are using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.134.29.87 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: This word is a part of a heritage that should be passed down for generations to come. It is crucial that it be saved! (Orelinde, july 20)

'Keep The might be a new word to you long established people here. Might be new to this, but that doesn't mean my voice doesn't count. Keep the Vagoo, its good for all. Keep: Keep the Vagoo, its a great word for use in many nonvulgar discussions. Plus its just fun to say.

  • Keep: Isn't this website here to explain the world around us, and the internet community? Don't make Wikipedia a joke, and keep this word. (ForgottenCode, july 20)
  • Keep: wtf is a neologism, is it an omnipotential word to kick against anything new or unknown? If I say neologism is derived from neologic, then neo=new and logic speaks for itself. Vagoo on the other hand is far more straightforward... yoshida
  • Keep: It's becoming a well known word, appearing on shirts, comics and posters. A softer, kinder term for the female anatomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohmer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 July 2005
  • keep Uhm, I'm not sure if I'm doing this right or not... but I wanna keep it. My name is GeneralJackAss, and have been with LICD for many years now. Email addy is TimShapiro gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.120.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Becuase what kind of global community craps all over new people? everyman 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.147.103.143 (talk • contribs) then faked. Rich Farmbrough 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We've already seen this word in use on it's own. "The other night I was out clubbing with some friends, 3 hours into it my friends start talking about how well groomed there ladies VAGOO'S are...I ask them if they read LICD and there like "whats least I could do?" ". Don't understand why the desire to keep information out. Guess the regulars need to keep the community 'clean'. And I've never heard the term 'neologism' myself. Looking it up: 1. A newly invented word or phrase. 2. The act of inventing a word or phrase. Hmmm. Looks like some people are allowed to make up words, and some aren't. Nice, that. --Katwyld 16:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (User's only edits are to this VfD. Rich Farmbrough 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to hock T-Shirts 66.9.126.26 21:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nom. -Splash 01:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Ho

edit

Not notable scientist SquirrelKabob 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimous apart from nom. -Splash 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Voltaire

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bert Payne

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carstairs family

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT: 3r, 1m, 1d. 4 votes are a form of keep, but 3 of them don't want the content so I will WP:BOLDLY redirect. -Splash 01:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content security

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nominator. -Splash 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong Valley Highway

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The old men

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nom. Appears to have been cleaned, so not tagged. -Splash 01:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drums of death

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep but disabiguate. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pickwick

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

EShip

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete flashanimationfancruft of the lowest order. Name of a ship in some web animation -Harmil 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable flashcruft. JamesBurns 08:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please provide more rationale for deletion than "NN, D." It is one thing if someone says that after a more detailed argument has been posted on the page, but to kick things off that way is not fair IMO. Dcarrano 16:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if the animation were notable, this setting within it would not deserve its own article. Dcarrano 16:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus --Allen3 talk 22:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

N-Affil

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems obscure to me, but I'm not a psycologist. He seems to have been a researcher in the 1960s who introduced a set of terminology around his theory of psycologicial motivation. Seems encyclopedic to me. -Harmil 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MOVE (so keep redirect). I presume Harmil's suggestion concurs with Alarm's. -Splash 01:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sverifandom

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Betts

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Scatologists (band)

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio, keep rewrite --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's College High School

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, despite a considerable number of votes by new users and anons. Defaults to keep. --Allen3 talk 22:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Stardestroyer.net

edit

Vote

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Merge the useful content with Star Wars v. Star Trekand provide a redirect..
  • First VFD can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Guys, this forum's information is great, it has more than 2000 members, and is worthy of Wikipedia.
  • Keep DXM just kicked in yo
  • Weak delete As the original VfD noted that it would be good to re-run the VfD later, I'll treat this on its own merits. Google shows 832 hits for this Star Wars vs Star Trek fan site. That's not a lot and not enough to make me want to see it go away badly. If someone else knows of some reason that this sit is notable, it woudl sway my vote. -Harmil 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now, since it does have over 2000 members, a benchmark that meets some notability requirements on here. But, if the dicussions are primarialy about other topics other than ST vs SW, then it is just another forum. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is just another vanity article. Dump it. No need for every two-bit forum to have an article on Wikipedia.
  • Captain! There's a quantum infundibulum in the deletium crystals! --FOo 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable forumcruft. Xoloz 06:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's delete this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOO. Radiant_>|< 12:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is the second time someone tried to delete it, the fact that this article is creating such a grand fuss, twice in a row, no less, is reason alone for it to be kept. This vote was placed by Majin Gojira (talk · contribs), his 17th edit.
  • Delete, non-notable forum per Google and Alexa (#230,975), Star Trek versus Star Wars already gives them a namecheck. Dcarrano 16:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The page survived the first VFD and its content has improved since then to include far more then just information about the forums. A second VFD is merely people trying to be vindictive. Alyeska 17:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those calling this a vanity website. I guess you missed the points that SD.net is directly related to the STvsSW discussion (which has a Wiki entry) and SD.net has related sections ranging on other topics. It is not a vanity forum entry because it includes information on more then just the forums. Try researching the subject before condeming it. It makes you look immature and selfcentered to judge something from afar without bothering to learn the subject material. Alyeska 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frivolous VfD. Suggested by ComCat, who appears to be delete-happy. RDalton 17:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was RDalton's 19th edit (first edit in September 2004).--Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems the VFDer has been nominating alot of articles for deletion.--Kross 18:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article proved itself last time that it should stay. It is informational and is not advertising. The forums have over 2400 members and is worthy of recognition.--Elfwood 19:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Elfwood has had 5 edits, all to this VfD --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Delete ComCat and the 'vanity-site' accusers instead, for A> failing to do proper research on the article before opening their big giant bazoo or reaching for the delete button, and B> frivolous VfDs. They are not there to be abused. --E. Sn0
Vote signed by E. Sn0 made by 68.11.114.209 --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Vote was made by Mike castaldo, all users edits have been to this VfD or to the nominated article --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Keep the site!--24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The whole internet subculture of "Star Trek versus Star Wars" has its own article. Many of the major players on the scene are already linked from the article. If the versus debate merits its own article, than so do the sites that best epitomize the debate (since discussing the sites on the versus article directly would only muddy it up,) such as Spacebattles.com and Stardestroyer.net. I also feel compelled to point out that Spacebattles.com only turns up 73 more hits on Google [25] than Stardestroyer.net does, has its own equally sparse article (Spacebattles.com) which suffers nowhere near the unfavorable attention that this one does. GMT 19:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GMT has 3 edits, all either to this VfD or the nominated article --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If we have articles for spacebattles.com and trekbbs, I don't see how we can justify blocking another very similar site. Plus, its already been up for deletion once. SpringheelJack
This vote is SpringheelJack's first of two edits --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

--24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (this signature was placed at the top of the debate, for no apparent reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment If you want to see vote garnering, check out those two threads I mentioned. User:Mike_Castaldo 00:12, 27 July 2005 (EST)
  • Comment Since you can't actualy make a legitmate case against the wiki entry you try and marginalize the votes that disagree with yours. You claim innoncent on the issue of attacking others, but its false. You quite openly attack those you disagree with and try to marginalize them. Alyeska 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am a former member of Stardestroyer.net, having been banned recently here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=72553. As a long time member, I am intimately familiar with the website and its forums, and this puts me in a unique position to judge the merit of this website wielding familiarity and no positive bias. I can honestly say that stardestroyer.net is unequalled in its technical commentaries and as a forum for discussing Startrek versus Starwars, and the various other topics it deals with are also noteworthy. Secondly, there is the matter of consistency. Others have already listed examples such as somethingawful.com, spacebattles.com and so forth - either these must also come up for deletion, or stardestroyer must stay. I do recommend an expanded entry however. PredatorX 10:26, 28 July 2005 (GMT 12)
This vote is PredatorX's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Youre kidding Man in Black.... To say that the LynchPin for the Entire SWvsST debate on the internet is a "non-notable" fansite would be like saying "george lucas had nothing to do with starwars" TTMSHU 12:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's a fansite of little importance. If someone writes an article about the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate, Stardestroyer.net should probably be mentioned and linked, but the site itself is not significant. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If we can keep SomethingAwful and Spacebattles on this site, then SDN can stay. SAMAS 9:10 July 28
  • Keep A) It survived the first one B) Its fairly notable C) It has some basis from some other pages - it does need to be expanded on a bit more, however --RN 21:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The site's simply a retread of the SW-v-ST article, which actually does mention SD.net. No need to be redundant, delete it.
  • Comment Oh really. Since when does the STvsSW article have mentions of Creationism vs Evolution? The entry is more then just the STvsSW content. Alyeska 17:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a reason to retread your comments when they and the rebuttals to them are right below? Mike_Castaldo 15:46, 30 July 2005 (EST)
  • Strong Delete This site doesn't have anything special about it, and certaintly doesn't need a wiki open on it. Toren122 Aug. 1st, 2005.
Vote is user's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Informative, objective and entertaining. Chardok Aug. 1st, 2005.
Vote is user's 6th edit. --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Provincinal page with little unique info. S_Brown Aug. 2nd , 2005.
Vote is user's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Vote was made by 147.133.30.233. --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete They aren't interested in discussing ST vs SW. Anyone that goes to the site to discuss it in support of the ST side is banned for being a 'troll'.

Argumen -- er, Discussion

edit

Moved mudslinging to discussion page. Have at it!

68.51.80.209 00:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalist, too lazy to sign in)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUDAAN

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trudi Le Caine

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, as others have said below, there was a move mid-vote by someone who didn't realize that that would cause confusion. My vote continues to be keep, as stated above. I also feel that the redirect should be kept, as it is a likely misspelling, and not otherwise used. -Harmil 18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of Canada -Harmil 23:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Trudi LeCaine is a member of the Order of Canada. She has been a Member of the Order (C.M.) since 1991. Her citation can be read at [26]. Keep, but move it to the correct spelling Trudi LeCaine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of 5053 recipients. I'm not sure every single recipient is notable enough for an encyclopedia. I also feel the same way about the OBE for the record. Gamaliel 00:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everyone who is a Member, Officer or Compaion of the Order is on the encyclopedia, just yet, but I believe that someone who was inducted into the Order of Canada is worthy for inclusion on here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trudi LeCaine. Ben-w 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that during the voting, we now have two pages, and the new page does not preserve the history. I respectfully ask that we make the (new) duplicate article a redirect until the voting is over. -Harmil 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then, once the vote is over, we can speedy delete the new page, so we can make way for the moving. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Thanks. -Harmil 10:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 21:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Valiant Video Enterprises

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wurth Skidder

edit

NN, D. ComCat 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O'Brien (musician)

edit

It's a non-notable vanity band article, Babajobu 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Valfajr

edit

Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Eegees

edit

Delete nn company that sells "samwishes". Gets 326 unique Google hits, at least some of which are from people's blogs and things. -Splash 23:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

28 Weeks Later...

edit

Delete crystalball-gazing. IMDb has a page, it contains no information and does not confirm the info in the article. Should be recreated when there's something non-speculative. -Splash 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo to Basingstoke railway service and Waterloo via Weybridge railway service

edit

Delete non-encyclopedic. This just says that trains run between two towns — we could have articles about X to Y where X and Y are one stop apart! -Splash 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the pages are about entire routes, not just one stop between towns. My comment was

  • if we plan to do such things, it will be a massive task,
  • couldn't it be on South West Trains where a whole rail system could be done at once?
  • there ought to be some way of automating page generation for such rote tasks
  • if it can be autogenerated, it could more easily be programmed into an external site and linked to from wikipedia.

Ojw 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment Waterloo via Weybridge railway service, a similar page, was created by me. The point from Splash above is a entirely valid, via reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps a more appropriate page title might provide resolution? However, information on what regular, timetabled, multi-stop railway services are available to UK railway users is encyclopedic, and useful. Sliggy 00:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

    • Personally, I don't think the information is encyclopedic. There are rail lines between nearly every town, village, and city in the UK. To explicitly state so doesn't really impart information of encyclopedic note. I think the absolute most it warrants is mentioning under the operator's article, but none of the operators do so at present. I'm inclined to suggest that there is probably a reason for this: the information is not really encyclopedic. For consistency, and not out of spite, I'm going to add that other article to this VfD. I will let the editors so far know. -Splash 02:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Agreed both pages should be considered. Sliggy 11:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, nothing suggesting notability of these train. Pavel Vozenilek 01:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with South West Trains. If these are stretches which are covered by frequent commuter trains, the articles are as valid as articles about individual subway lines, even though naming them is quite awkward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is something I don't understand. Looking at pre-existing pages, it seems it is encyclopedic to include the fact that a railway service can run between stations (for example Bexleyheath Line). It is also encyclopedic that a railway service used to run between stations (for example Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway). I do not see why it is not encyclopedic to include the fact that a service does run between stations? That said, I'd be happy including many services on to a single page (although I am not sure whether a service should be linked to a particular train operating company). Sliggy 11:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • The difference is between line and service. Railway lines are encyclopedic - they last for a long time and even when they carry no trains they leave their mark on the countyside. Railway services are much more transitory and belong in WikiTravel not here. -- RHaworth 11:53, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've updated the Basingstoke page to rectify the faults Tony Sidaway identifies above (I did before remembering to log in; no intention of acting as a sockpuppet, just forgetfulness)
    • OK, not one of my best days. The above comment was written by me. Sliggy 15:24, July 28, 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. jni 10:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Karen Pender

edit

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelowna International Airport Flight Schedule

edit

Should the flight schedule of an airport be included? An entry on the airport is fine, but... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An old discussion. Should WP be a bus timetable? More seriously should WP deal with such a volatile information? Guess what: last time the conclusion of the vfd was "if we don't leave such an article, it's is gonna be re-created over and over by all the ___ on the planet". Nontheless, I would say delete. Gtabary 23:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmanageable. There should be rule to automatically delete such things from Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As the creator of the article, I suppose I have to play a biased role and propose to keep the article. I'm a heavy contributer to the Kelowna International Airport page as it is my local airport, so I thought I would create the schedule as an aid to those wanting to learn a bit more about the airport. However, in retrospect, I can see how this article might be promoting the airport to too much of an extent, something against Wikipedia policy. For that I appologize to anyone I might have offended. I'm fairly new to the site, so I suppose this article will end up being my first big "mistake" on Wikipedia. In the end, it's up to the administrators to decide on the future of this page. Either way they decide, this is just a learning process in what will hopefully be a long and contributing stay on Wikipedia. If it is deleted, you need not worry about me re-creating it. Knest 02:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Knest! Don't worry about this "mistake"; remember that Wikipedia policy is to be bold. There is no damage done at all. Just a note: VfD is not just for administrators; anyone can vote and nominate articles. It is, however, administrators who "close" VfDs once they have reached consensus. We appreciate all your contributions, and we do hope you will stay. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or at the help desk. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Williams

edit

Delete character in NN webcomic we just vfd'd. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Captain SNES: The Game Masta. As goes the comic, so should its characters. Postdlf 23:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbreath

edit

Delete nn, admits to having no albums or any other claims to notability. Fails WP:MUSIC.-Splash 23:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was disambigged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brando

edit

non-notable vanity band article Babajobu 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Dmcdevit·t 00:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Juan Jose Costanzo

edit

Delete so much advertising it even includes a phone number. It might be 60 years old, but I can't find Googles, so it's unverifiable from here. -Splash 23:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gab

edit

Delete, admitted invented slang, dicdef at best. Could possibly redirect if there's anywhere sensible, but redirects are for things that ought to stay but point elsewhere. This oughtn't to stay.-Splash 23:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Perverted-Justice.com

edit

VFD isn't a court of opinion, but it's up to law enforcement to "bust" predators, not pejorative idiots. However, an article shouldn't just go on vfd because I don't like it... I just thought I'd state my opinion.

Alexa ranking of 153,797. Not doing anything original (besides ruining people's lives, of course); feds entrap predators all the time. I don't think we should have articles on websites, with exceptions like Google, Slashdot, and Wikipedia. Not-notable. However, the writers have done a pretty good job writing the article, but that's not enough to save it from my delete vote... 24 at 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an inappropriate VfD. The website is clearly notable. It gets lots of press coverage, and has had national network coverage too. The article's well sourced with lots of credible, third-party references. No grounds for deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Grounds for deletion are that it's a non-notable website. Most websites don't deserve a place on Wikipedia, and I have a special black spot on my heart just for this one. The only reason it gets alot of coverage is to hype pedophilic fear. They entrapped 20-some predators? So what. That's really a pathetic number... they haven't done anything notable. 24 at 01:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Entrap? Excuse me? I think you're a little confused at the definition of entrapment. First of all, only police officers can entrap anyone, by definition. Second of all, if they were law enforcement, they wouldn't be guilty of entrapment, as they never initiate anything... all "busts" are initiated by the pervert in question. Additionally, what on earth does whether or not you LIKE them have anything to do with NOTABILITY? Press attention, positive recognition from police officers, a nationwide network, what more do you want? Fieari 01:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable. Not just a website, they do things. I mean, members actively testify in convicting the people they catch doing this stuff, they get press attention, they were instrumental in the rescue of a girl... how much more notable do you want? Just because they operate online doesn't mean that it's "just a website". I can't believe this is even here... Fieari 01:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very notable. Have done notable things. Have been reported on by the media. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article on verifiable notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 01:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:WEB with flying colors. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why don't most websites "deserve" a spot in Wikipedia? What a bizarre thing to say! Grace Note 02:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good example of where the Alexa rankings fail us, (and it is going to make me rethink the use of Alexa as an indicator of encyclopedic content). The media coverage is extensive, as the article shows. func(talk) 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The website has had major press coverage and also has caught the attention of law enforcement as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly. WP:POINT. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable, NPOV, sourced, etc. -Willmcw 05:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am glad the article is NPOV now after all of those edit wars and RFC's. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that this article is now NPOV and stable is directly attributable to the hard work, patience, and time of user:SlimVirgin and user:Katefan0. It was once among the most contentious articles in Wikipedia. Those two editors (SV in particular) brought together the (almost literally) warring sides, scrupulously researched and sourced the material, and achieved the goals of the project. Our feelings about the subject of the article are irrelevant, we are only adressing the quality of the article. This article is among our better efforts - odd though that may seem. -Willmcw 07:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Rhobite 05:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For the reasons stated above, site is very notable. I don't even know why this article has to go through a VfD to begin with! --Gramaic | Talk 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I too dislike them. I support the nominator, however; Alexa ranking makes a non-frivilous VfD case, and he was upfront about his position. Xoloz 06:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable website although their brand of "justice" is perverted indeed. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of this entry is notable. El_C 07:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have had a good bit of coverage. -- Lochaber 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I recently discovered this site and found the wikipedia article to be extremely informative. The argument that there shouldn't be a wikipedia article for sites we don't like is exceedingly strange. I see no reason to differentiate wikipedia articles about websites we don't like from subject materials we don't like. (It's also worth nothing there is a wikipedia article for rotten.com and goatse.cx)
  • Keep, extremely notable. Shem(talk) 18:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noteworthy. They took an especial dislike to me personally in one particular edit/revert war a couple of months ago, and I'll still support the existence of this article. :) --Modemac 23:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable troll organization. Almafeta 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. Dmcdevit·t 01:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Albrecht Prinz von Croy

edit

This was marked as a speedy, but does not meet any of the speedy criteria. His article seems to have been deleted from the German wikipedia, and the page now contains the text

Dieser Artikel ist gesperrt, weil eine anomyme IP, vermutlich auf Grund massiven Eigeninteresses, den Artikel immer wieder einstellt. --Philipendula 10:52, 19. Jul 2005 (CEST)

Or translated

This article is protected, because an anonymous IP, probably because of massive own interest, keeps recreating the article.

No vote from me. Thue | talk 15:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was proposed deleted on the German WP and a clear majority voted to keep it. It was however unilaterally deleted, and the sysop Philipendula, who seems to have strong personal interest in the article, seems determined to delete a valid article about a well-known journalist and editor of one of the larger German newspapers at any cost. The German Wikipedia clearly has a problem with abusive behaviour from some sysops who delete articles in contradiction with community decision. The only argument for deleting I saw on the German Wikipedia was that he happened to be noble, and obviously some POV pushers with sysop access doesn't like nobles. Here on English Wikipedia we do however not accept such totalitarian behaviour. There is no reason for deleting this article, but Philipendula should be desyopped at the German Wikipedia.
For those interested in Google stats: The two used spellings of his name returns 216 Google hits.
I found the German vfd debate, and found it strange too as it indicated a keep to me too, but was wondering if my bad German language skills were tricking me. Since nobody has given a good reason for deletion I have removed the vfd template. Thue | talk 21:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
my5cents on the "comment" above:
(1) clear majority: on de:WP at the time I deleted the article, we got 4 votes belonging to this, two of them to "keep", two of them to "delete" it if there would be no more biographical relevance to see after the 7 days of discussion [27] (meanwhile one of the voters to "keep" changed his opinion!). I decided to delete the article because I didn't see any elemantary progress to this direction.
(2) totalitarian behaviour: no comment on this.
(3) After the deletion of the article, the author made very strong efforts to get the decision reversed (writing to all involved voters and in an offensive mode to me as the sysop; reinstalling the article many times and under different titles); at last he called for undeletion on the equivalent to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, but he got no support [28].
(4) The sysop Philipendula is only one of the about 7 sysops supporting my decision - it is very unkind and incorrect to drop her name here, where no one will be able to understand the background.
(5) (and last) Belonging the relevance of this journalist (cause the author named the google stats): You may check th google results here, where I gave the links on three different spellings of the name. In short: The above mentioned 216 hits reduce to about 60 (reduced by google, hiding very similar results) - and all of them are pages either only naming Croy (most of them by the newspaper or affiliated pages) or blogs written by Croy himself, nothing about him.
IMHO (and following the deletion in de:WP) the journalist is not notable but this is no vote, because I'm only part-time-visitor here and not familiar with the delition policy on en:WP. Excuse me writing very simple english - cu --Rax 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC) vfd reopened in agreement with User:Thue --Rax 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

clear majority: on de:WP at the time I deleted the article, we got 4 votes belonging to this, two of them to "keep", two of them to "delete" it if there would be no more biographical relevance to see after the 7 days of discussion [29] (meanwhile one of the voters to "keep" changed his opinion!). I decided to delete the article because I didn't see any elemantary progress to this direction.
The article was significantly expanded after the votes. When the first two people voted to give it more time, it was only a sub-stub. If you hadn't deleted the article history in contradiction with the result of the VfD process, you could have discovered this by yourself.
The sysop Philipendula is only one of the about 7 sysops supporting my decision - it is very unkind and incorrect to drop her name here, where no one will be able to understand the background.
Benutzer:Philipendula seems to primarily be an aggressive revert warrior, and has herself engaged in nasty slander against me and even against the person the article deals with, which is really childish. I believe such a person should not be sysop.
cause the author named the google stats
It was the Germans who started citing Google stats, however manipulated/false stats where they claimed to only have 49 hits when the factual number was 216. This is the reason I mentioned this.
IMHO (and following the deletion in de:WP) the journalist is not notable
The Handelsblatt is a leading German newspaper and is clearly notable. The Wikipedia has articles about quite a lot less notable people than editors of newspapers like Handelsblatt, given that m:Wiki is not paper. The real reason for the illegal deletion on de: was something which looked like hatred against nobles. You have failed to cite a single relevant argument for deleting this page.

I suggest we close this VfD process (again) unless we soon see some actual arguments for why this page should be deleted.

  • I agree; no arguments about the merits of the actual article has been given. When those arguments have been supplied, remember to relist this page in the VFD page so people can find it. Thue | talk 11:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added it on Votes for deletion/Log/2005 July 19 at the end - hope it's right? --Rax 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - in using the same arguments as been given earlier by User:Cyrius which had been reverted see this diff "editor of a not terribly big newspaper? Revert warring anonymous supporter? Smells wrong." (see history of this vfd page and (meanwhile deleted) history of the articles talk). IMHO the article has been created to promote a journalist to get him relevant; see 30 google hits (hiding very similar up to 120) with the "von" in the name 12 google hits (hiding very similar up to 168) without the "von". All of them are pages either only naming Croy (most of them by the newspaper or affiliated pages) or blogs written by Croy himself, nothing about him. IMHO (and following the deletion in de:WP) the journalist is not notable currently - when he ever will be, it's early enough to give him an article here. --Rax 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • vote should be discounted. Recently created account with less than 50 edits, main activity at the English Wikipedia seems to be the campaign to get this specific article deleted.
  • "All of them are pages either only naming Croy (most of them by the newspaper or affiliated pages) or blogs written by Croy himself, nothing about him." This is obviously untrue, his appointment as managing editor was a news story published various places, e.g. here. .... at 05:12, July 22, 2005 83.109.140.181 wrote this but forgot to hit the ~ key four times
The page link above is from dpa - and is nothing but a copy of the announcement of "Verlagsgruppe Handelsblatt" - --Rax 10:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - editor of a not terribly big newspaper? No other apparent notability, and only the barest verifiability? Revert warring anonymous supporter who keeps recreating the deleted German article on the English article's talk page? Smells wrong. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Handelsblatt is clearly an important newspaper in Germany (can be compared to The Wall Street Journal). I don't know how much you know about newspapers, but in Europe is a serious (not tabloid) newspaper with a circulation of 148,319 daily copies a fairly big newspaper.
  • Comment. The merits of the nomination are tainted by the mistranslation: The German page does not say that the article keeps being recreated, but disfigured ("entstellt"). That's a huge difference. The German VfD apparently did not result in a consensus. No vote until more information is provided. Martg76 22:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I just discovered that I misread the German sentence (entstellt instead of einstellt). The translation is correct, even though the sentence is not normally used idiomatic German. Martg76 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect, judging by the responses above the German 'pedia had it right. Radiant_>|< 12:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • completely ridiculous argument which has nothing to do with the article. According to the German Wikipedians, arguments is what matters. So why are you not able to produce a single relevant argument? Is it so difficult? We are clearly not going to delete a valid article withouth a single argument cited for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.143.115 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 July 2005
  • I have an actual vote! (What a concept!) If this person really is the "managing editor" of Handelsblatt (which should be easy to verify from the Handelsblatt web site), keep. Handelsblatt is a major German newspaper (I'd heard of it long before), and being the managing editor of a major newspaper meets the notability threshold (but just). Compare, for instance, Bill Keller. Noel (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Times has ten times the circulation of the paper in question, and Bill Keller is a Pulitzer Prize winner. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are only people who have received American prizes included in Wikipedia? US centrism? Smells wrong. ...at 04:56, July 22, 2005 83.109.140.181 wrote this but forgot to hit the ~ key four times
    If you continue to twist my words, this will become quite ugly. I see no German, European, worldwide, or other awards, accolades, or honors listed for this man. The Pulitzer Prize is an example of something that would make a newspaper editor notable, and is one of the reasons Bill Keller has an article. All I see is that he's been working for a newspaper with an unimpressive circulation for a couple of years. Stop making claims of abuse and tell us why he is important. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The US is a lot bigger than Germany, so of course a major US paper will have a larger circulation than a German equivalent. (Actually, a better comparison might have been the managing editor of the WSJ, but I was too lazy to go look up who that was.) As for the award, I agree that Keller is more significant - which is why he has a much longer article. Anyway, I did say it was "just" over the keep borderline. Noel (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem...
    • The entire reference to the German VfD is entirely pointless, as the VfD process on de.wikipedia and article relevance criteria are significantly different there.
    • The managing editor information can be verified, e.g. http://www.presseportal.de/story.htx?nr=444420&firmaid=8076
    • Whether that makes Croy significant enough for en.wikipedia I cannot say. I've seen quite a number of biographies here, which I'd consider entirely pointless, so it doesn't seem to be a big problem. Pjacobi 22:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Verifiably the managing director of a notable newspaper, and thus obviously worthy of inclusion. Keep. (True, his name is ridiculous, but I've seen few objections to, say, Pokemon on the basis of their silly names. What else is not to like?) -- Hoary 03:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - the anon who created this article keeps recreating the deleted German article on its talk page. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User:Cyrius is in violation of Wikipedia policy deleting the article's talk page where a previous version is stored for historical reference. ... at 10:45, July 22, 2005 83.109.140.181 wrote this but forgot to hit the ~ key four times
  • Delete: Not notable enough and not enough material. Someone who gathers enough material can write a new page. (SEWilco 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • I'd be happy to supply more material, but it's really not easy when the article constantly is attempted deleted. I believe the current size is reasonable and common for a stub at Wikipedia. ... at 10:45, July 22, 2005 83.109.140.181 wrote this but forgot to hit the ~ key four times
Also, the English Wikipedia has articles about all people who hold a British noble title. A German Prince should automatically be significant enough to be included. .... at 10:57, July 22, 2005 83.109.140.181 wrote this but forgot to hit the ~ key four times
Actually, it seems that certain people have made articles here about just everyone who now hold a British peerage. However, such should not be a standard here.Arrigo 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (i) Mr/Ms 83.109.140.181, when you comment, please end by adding ~~~~. This is pretty easy. Thank you. (ii) I find it hard to believe that "the English Wikipedia has articles about all people who hold a British noble title". After all, the latter include a lot of utter nonentities. (iii) I'd agree that German (or Albanian, or Lithuanian, or Bugandan, or whatever) "nobility" is no less noteworthy than British "nobility"; but really, I couldn't give two hoots about Croy's "nobility", though I find his continuing use of this name ludicrous, mildly disturbing, or both. I say he's worth inclusion as managing editor of a notable newspaper: for all I care, he might call himself Ras Albrecht X and wear dreadlocks. -- Hoary 13:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
If I understand German law correctly, "Prinz von Croy" is, legally, his surname, and has been from birth. (Former noble titles automatically became surnames when everything went to pieces in 1918, essentially.) So that doesn't indicate any particularly outré pretensions on his part, AIUI. Choess 00:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for my partial ignorance there. But I had thought that people dropped the "Prinz", "Ritter", "Hochrattenfänger" or whatever immediately preceded "von", and that the more progressive types dropped the "von" as well. Anyway, to me his name is an irrelevance. -- Hoary 02:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why should people drop the "von" or their titles? Britons do use their titles, Italians do use their titles, Swedes do use their titles, so why shouldn't Germans? The vast majority of noble Germans use their title if they have any, and those belonging to former royal (souvereign) families do also use styles like "His Highness" etc. I essentially agree that the reason we should have an article about him is his position at the Handelsblatt, which is why I wrote about him, but I also find it mildly disturbing that people say his nobility doesn't matter when it seems to matter for British barons who get an article without being noteworthy in any other way. 83.109.156.172 05:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I were born Josef von Bloggs, I'd be disturbed by the reminders of nitwit nobility as depicted by George Grosz and others, and drop the "von". Brits and others can and do drop their titles. Let's have some examples of articles about unremarkable British barons: perhaps these could be put up for VfD. -- Hoary 05:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
But "von" is not a title, but a name-part, just like "van" is in Holland, "di" is in Italy and "de" is in France (examples: Dominique de Villepin, Antonio Di Pietro, Max van der Stoel). Continental European names are different from English in that way. Predicates have historically nothing to do with nobility per se, and there are also un-noble families with "von" in their names, especially in Northern Germany. Would you really change your family name, as used for perhaps centuries, if you were born in Germany (especially when "von" (as generally, but not always, indicating nobility) and titles do have high social prestige), or in France, Holland or Italy? It's true that not all German nobles always use their titles. Richard von Weizsäcker, who is a Baron (Freiherr) and whose official name is "Richard Freiherr von Weizsäcker", did mostly not use his title in daily business, but that is something different from actually changing the family name. 83.109.162.34 09:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If my name were X Prinz von Y, I'd introduce myself as X Y, yes. (But why do you ask?) If titles have high social prestige, I hope that this is not among the general public but merely among a minority of ninnies. -- Hoary 09:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Titles have high prestige in most of the society. Germany is no different from Britain in that way. I believe it's rather those who are not impressed by titles who constitute the minority. Germans are generelly focused on titles, if they hold a doctoral degree they always call themselves "Dr. [Name]", even in situations where the degree is completely irrelevant. 83.109.165.239 13:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have lived in Britain for quite some time, and can assure you that the huge majority of people I know are uninterested in aristocratic titles. (Granted, few of these acquaintances are readers of Hello or the Daily Mail.) I don't claim to have run any surveys. A doctorate is a different matter from a baronetcy or whatever they're called: you get to be a doctor by hard work (unless of course you use a degree mill). A doctorate may impress me to some extent; being a viscount does not. -- Hoary 14:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
And btw: the nobility was abolished in Germany after WW I, so there are no German nobility titles anymore. "von", "Freiherr" etc. are parts of the name, not titles. --Rosenzweig 12:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently noteworthy person. Arrigo 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I doubt the article will ever be useful to many, but it does meet the criteria. As Hoary said: Verifiably the managing director of a notable newspaper. The German WP has stricter criteria for keeping articles throughout, no wonder they had it deleted. They don't have Pokemon character articles, either. Rl 15:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Managing editor of a mass circulation newspaper. I consider this to be very close to a frivolous nomination. Utterly inexplicable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
mh - the only reference for this 'editor' has been given by Pjacobi above; following this he is responsable for "Budget, Organisation und Technik ... [and] alle redaktionellen Servicebereiche". He is not part of the Masthead or the editorial board - see the "Impressum" of the paper: [30]. --Rax 16:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a confusing case, and a perfect time waster for many good editors. His job title certainly has a very executive ring to it. The imprint does indeed mention many people, none of which is this guy. On the other hand the press release did mention a position that makes him borderline notable (e.g. "Chef vom Dienst des Magazins der FAZ" – these guys don't hire just anybody to lead their magazine). Ah well, I don't care what happens to this article. I just hope it won't become a precedent for cases that I do care about. Rl 17:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, I know what a managing editor is. That he isn't responsible for daily editorial decisions is immaterial. He holds a very senior post at a mass circulation newspaper. I continue to find the proposal to delete this article completely beyond understanding. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - no doubt about that you're knowing what a managing editor is. But is Croy really the "managing editor"? The announcement with the information (managing editor = "Geschäftsführender Redakteur") about this is from 08.05.2003 - and the actual imprint gives other names (managing editor = "Geschäftsführung"?) - for the same post? For the Verlagsgruppe Handelsblatt GmbH there are named Bernd Ziesemer (also named in the WP-article Handelsblatt) as editor-in-chief and the editor Julius Endert as responsible editor; for the Handelsblatt GmbH (the paper) there are named Ziesemer as editor-in-chief again and Andres Arntzen and Harald Müsse as "Geschäftsführung" - is to say, that the information given in the article obviously can hardly be verified - pfhh - but this will be my last piece on this entry - R1 is wright. Best wishes --Rax 22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_19&oldid=1081092122"