Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 9

September 9

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 under WP:CSD section G3. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Kiyama

This is another one of the violations of WP:NOT assigned as homework by some prof (see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#University_of_South_Florida for details). It is a dictdef, a likely neologism, and from the IP range used by USF (see http://www.fcla.edu/FCLAinfo/ip-list.html)

• Delete with prejudice, preferably speedied. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Meddlesome students, original research.--Knucmo2 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete point-making nnneologism (or, really, a protologism). I wouldn't object to speedying these; we're not a bureaucracy or a playground. -Splash 00:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as vandalism. —Cryptic (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slowly or speedily, then redirect to Kiyama, Saga. Kappa 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect per Kappa. Nateji77 01:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alex Duensing has clearly not read some important policies. Sean 01:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm feeling bold today, so I'm going to speedy this. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lachlan Martin

This page seems to be a hoax and is completely idiosyncratic. A google search returned virtually nothing of note. Knucmo2 00:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. obvious hoax. Nateji77 01:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - comment: I put in a speedy request Ashibaka (tock) 03:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• And I fulfilled the request. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, September 9, 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 Consensus delete and speedy delete. Taxman ^Talk 19:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Sariacc

We don't need definitions of words used in a single issue of a webcomic. Neither does Wiktionary. Googling finds a couple hits; only two are in English, and at least one of those is a misspelling. —Cryptic (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. this isn't even a definition, this is a request for a definition and an attempt at communication. author apparently unaware that people who can create their own web comics can also create their own words. Nateji77 01:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for attempting to communicate (one of the criteria), or not. However, it's clear that this is not an article at all -- not a dictdef, not a discussion, not an article -- and yet it has category tags. (Some folks'll put cat tags on anything.) Geogre 01:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The category is a side-effect of the deletion notice. Uncle G 02:47:14, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an article. -Splash 01:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I beileve they're confusing it with sarlacc. Sean 02:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "attempt to communicate" isn't actually a speedy guideline, only "attempt to communicate with the named person" Ashibaka (tock) 02:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not only is this not an article and a request for a dictionary article, but the cartoon referenced clearly says "Sarlacc Pit". Delete. Uncle G 02:47:14, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Delete Delete Delete. Aside from how inexplicable this article is at face value, the cartoon doesn't even say "Sariacc". This article makes the Sarlacc cry. RMG 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdefs should be deleted, and thus requests for dicdefs too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at the QC comic line again, I realized my faux pas, mistaking an "l" for an "i". Thanks and kudos to Sean for pointing me in the right direction. It is obvious to me now that the QC author's intent with the phrase was "SARLACC Pit of Platonic Frustration", and he was not making up a word "sariacc"... I am now going to go hide in a dark place, and lick the bleeding, torn holes in my self-esteem, received from the vicious and savage 'tongue-scourging' my attempt at a "Request Article" received. If I had known that Wikipedia editors and administrators were this bloodthirsty, brutal, and maliciously vindictive, I never would have submitted the request in the first place. Now I have learned my lesson well: Stay 'AWAY' from Wikipedia, and never soil the pristine cyberspace of Wiki with my detestable and malignant presence again. To the Wikipedia Adminitrators: I recommend, to prevent such obviously abhorrant and disgusting "non-Articles" from appearing in the future, please change the "put up a request for it" link on the Search:No page with that title exists page to *not* point to the "Wikipedia:Requested articles" page. This will prevent such droogs and drubs like myself from dirty-ing the unsullied expanse of Wikipedia with deplorable "non-Articles" like my "definition of Sariacc" request. Thank you.
  • Nice try for some sympathy, but common sense should have told you that wouldn't be a valid encyclopedia article. I'm sorry if your feelings were actually hurt, but a thick skin never hurt anyone. I'm speedying this one too folks. - Taxman ^Talk 19:25, September 9, 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. Reasoning as follows:

• Discounted are (from the bottom up, just because that's how I did it):

1. The anon
2. werty8473, since that username never edited the page and the IP associated with that edit has not edited werty8472's userpage, so this edit was effectively by an anon. Sorry.
3. Headcase88, too new
4. Ewlyahoocom 30th edit, new, and this is their only edit to Wikipedia: space
5. VC3 (Vcthree), user's only edit
6. Orioneight, user's 6th and 7th edits
7. Spriggo, only edit

Nearly discount are "Last Malthusian" and "I kant spel", but I kant spel is the nominator so, imo, gets a free comment irrespective of newness. Last Malthusian had only been here a week at the time of entering this discussion which is short but not hypermegashort.

On the raw numbers, then, I count 18d, 10k, 1m. It is unclear if Natejji77's conditioning is activated one way or the other, but considering the addition of some referencing, it might lean towards a keep. The problems, specifically NPOV and OR, cited by the deleters are very serious in this article, despite the (rather thin) referencing carried out. The enthusiasm of the keepers often stems largely from "but other articles with different titles and different subjects are still around" which is rarely a useful comparison since we are talking about this article, not the others. So I find the deleters more persausive than the keepers by a fairly wide margin. However, the raw numbers are somewhat below two-thirds. Since there is a lot of participation here, even dropping those listed above, I'd expect a consensus to be fairly clear: the quantity of comments should see to that. Since we're below the minimum guideline and the consensus is hard to determine, I'm going to call a no consensus.

I do not think this AfD should be considered binding if, in future, someone wants to renominate this on the basis of lack of references and NPOV if those problems have not been addressed. They are key parts of writing an encyclopedia, and trump anyone's loving enthusiasm for an article they do not plan to contribute to. For future reference then, note the title of the article: it is not "games that someone rated with 1/10", but "games considered the worst ever" and it is that that needs sources citing. -Splash^talk 21:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Games_considered_the_worst_ever

Providing neutral information here is nearly impossible. I kant spel 00:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not at all; if this article needs to be removed, then the "Worst Movies" article will also have to go. Dariustriplet 01:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

...and your point is? :-) MCB 06:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

... And there's the rub: the "Worst Movies" article has been up for deletion a couple of times, and always ends up being kept. I'm not keen on it because it's (a) POV and (b) just a list ( which "Wikipedia is not..." ), but equally, it's a great article to read, and we'd be poorer if we lost it. The nice thing about the "Worst Movies" article is that it tries to be NPOV by citing things like the "Razzie" awards - still just opinion, but opinion in the same way that an Oscar is opinion. What's the equivalent to the "Razzie" here ? WMMartin 10:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the npov issue here is who considers these to be worst games ever. if it's wikipedians, delete. if it's published professional video game reviewers, if game pro for example has published a "worst games ever" list we can cite, then cleanup. Nateji77 01:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently POV list. For whatever it's worth, I felt the same way about the "50 Worst Films" list, and that one was a report on Medved's list/book. The passive voice "considered" is way too wiggly, and the contents are unreferenced. (I think Jarts was the worst game ever. It involved throwing weighted lawn darts at a circle and the neighbor kids. This article, though, seems confined to computer video games and video game system games. None of them would enter into the top 500 of actual worst games ever played.) Geogre 01:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Needs a move to List of poorly-reviewed video games or somesuch and serious cleanup to add and cite credible sources. I'm not fond of these kinds of lists; their suitability for an encyclopedia is questionable, and they usually degenerate into unsourced POV, but this might be salvagable. android79 01:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently NPOV, until such time as there is some official body that determines these things. This is not at all like the BBC list of 100 most famous Britons or whatever it was called, on AfD last week; that issued from a highly notable mass media outlet and was sourced as such. MCB 06:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An list like this might be interesting and useful to people interested in computer games in general. Unfortunately, this article is unsourced, and without references as to who has declared these games the worst ever, it looks like original research. No prejudice against a list backed up with references though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Marskell 09:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious delete, as cannot be NPOV. WMMartin 12:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I liked the list of the films considered the worst ever, and don't believe such a list is inherently POV. Saying that a man, film or game is universally considered 'bad' is not POV, and by extension a list of such people, films or games is not POV either, as long as it's sourced like anything else. Consequently I believe there is room for a 'worst games ever' list. However, this particular list is OR and has a misleading title. Last Malthusian 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV Spriggo 13:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic could be covered, with documentary evidence of some outside discussion on it — as is the case with the first rock and roll record — but, unless that discussion exists, this list is just a message board thread. I could only find a list by a sixth-former called Poo Poo Pooey [1]. Flowerparty 13:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Add "WP:AfD" to list, then delete. Not encyclopedic topic, not NPOV, and if it were replaced with a similar list from a major publication I'd still vote to delete. If kept, would need renaming per Geogre; I've played cardgames and boardgames that had better reasons for listing than some of these computer games. Barno 14:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Clear delete. I cannot see how this list (and that title) could ever be written with a NPOV. The suggestions that it might be okay if the claims are sourced to external reviewers seem to me commendable for their concern for good references, but rather miss the point. Let's say you have game X under consideration, and you find 4 reviewers who say "X is the worst game in the world." Being a good WPn, you also find a source for a different view; this one says "X is certainly not the best game ever, but I felt it's pretty good; it's at least a reasonable buy." Like most things in life, there are gradations of views about games. So would you or would you not place X under a title that said "Games considered the worst ever"? There is no way one can do this in an NPOV fashion; for the list to exist, you'd have to take sides, either for or against. That is to say, lists like this are an inherently non-NPOV construct. One cannot treat the subject in a fair, neutral manner (like one may be able to do in an article about a subject, for example), because the mere act of placing the game in the list (or deciding not to) is a non-neutral action (and that, you will notice, is because the title is a judgement). The attempt to soften this by adding "generally" to the title is spine-tingling in the assumptions it makes over what the majority may say about the minority. As an illustrative exercise, try populating the list Countries considered the worst ever in an NPOV manner. (Add "generally considered..." if you wish). Lists like this are very damaging to WP, and I hope they do not become prevalent.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  16:02:58, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree wholeheartedly w/Encephalon. Dottore So 16:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Orioneight 17:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Any list like this would be subjective at best. However, this list seems to derive from one person's POV, and it lacks depth or fact-based consensus. It assumes that the reader believe what the author tells them. And it seems like all this information on these specific games on the list a piecemeal Google search project, with pieces of articles plagarized and then rewritten. Get rid of it, or replace it with a list with actual sources and consensus. VC3 18:37 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect applicable content to List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming, which has the ability to be a more substantial and reasoned list. Lord Bob 17:47, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. This is great stuff and it's great stuff like this that keeps me coming back to Wikipedia! Ewlyahoocom 18:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this excuse for pov-pushing --TimPope 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I apologize for the weak line in my first edit; I'll expand here.

There are some games created that are universally loathed; games that have been for years the punchline of jokes about bad games. In some cases, the fallout in the gaming community alone is enough to merit a game's discrediting - Derek Smart instigated one of the largest flamewars in the history of the Internet by proclaiming the greatness of his game, promising the impossible, and eventually releasing a half-finished game. John Romero did something similar with his advertisement, in which he threw down the proverbial gauntlet only to wield Daikatana as his weapon. Other games truly have zero redeeming qualities - In Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, the game is more akin to an exceptionally poorly-done tech demo than a game. Some were created half-heartedly for corporate reasons; Shaq-Fu began life as an awful fighting game not planned for release that the developers put out just to use the Shaq endorsement. If you want me to, I can find dozens of references from reviewers about games, and point to all sorts of "Worst Ever" lists such as Gamespy's (featuring Action 52, Custer's Revenge, and Bebe's Kids). There are also GameFAQs review pages, where some games have dozens of 1/10 and 2/10 reviews. On top of that, gamerankings.com takes an average score from a number of sites; games with very low scores on that site can very easily be considered awful. On a side note, some lists really should be ignored; previously, many of this article's entries came from Seanbaby's list, which while humorous is a very poor listing of bad games. While this article could in theory be abused, with people saying "Game X is terrible, and should be listed!" despite that game's known quality, it is mostly here for games that are mind-boggingly terrible. All mediums of entertainment have their bottoms of the proverbial barrels; television had Turn-On and movies had Plan Nine from Outer Space - and Wikipedia has lists for all these media. There's no reason gaming should not have a similar one. Therefore, I strongly vote to keep this article. Just give me time to get citations.Dariustriplet 19:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, most of this is going to be plagiarized content from Seanbaby, content is available elsewhere, and there ought to be some objective criteria to belong on the list. Tempshill 23:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as each entry is sourced adaquately ala the movie page. Encaphelon, note that there are some games which indeed are regarded as truly horrible by every single reviewer in print and reporting a POV is not the same as endorsing it. Also "[Barbie House Adventure]] was featured in a segment on terrible games on X-Play. It is a game where you play as Barbie and ride horses and features the line, "You're running out of trust on the friendship meter!"" I suggest we add a friendship meter to AfD. Sdedeo 01:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• ...some games which indeed are regarded as truly horrible by every single reviewer... Hi Sdedeo, thanks for commenting. Your point is a very fair one. The issue for me I suppose is in the reliability of such claims. I admit to taking WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V rather seriously, and so titles and lists like these quickly raise alarm bells. A neutral way to treat these claims is to note them in articles (you could say "X has recieved many poor reviews [ref1,2,3,4,5] which pan it for so and so reasons"). By placing them in a list with the above title, however, you are taking the POV of the reviewers you cite. Is there a national or international organization dedicated to appraising games objectively? If so, and there is no violation of copyright, starting a list along those lines may be acceptable, as MCB suggests. Even so this is a stretch, unless this organization collates review data from every single source, world wide (much like the way the Cochrane Collaboration collates medical trial data from every single available source). Placing these claims in articles however avoids all the NPOV problems, and is a much better way of recording that information in an encyclopedia.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  08:45:43, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

• Encephalon, the closest thing in gaming to a worldwide collection of reviews is GameRankings. As an example, the GameRankings Big Rigs page (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/919220.asp) lists many sites giving the game 1/10 and such as reviews, with links to said reviews. While it's not an "official" source, it's the closest thing in gaming. Dariustriplet 04:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Dariustriplet, thank you for providing that link. I appreciate what you're trying to do, I really do. (If the List is kept, I hope that at least this sort of change will be made to it). I remain unpersuaded, however, that the List as constructed is of a NPOV (I've explained why I believe so above). This website page contains links to just 6 reviews; it is quite apparent that this is not a systematic assessment of the product (this must be a fraction of a percent of the available reviews). And this is the closest thing. If you wish to start a list along the lines of MCB's suggestion, using this website's data and an appropriate title, there may be something to it (although I strongly suspect copyright difficulties), but otherwise the construct is not NPOV, in my humble opinion. There's a good reason why you'll never find this list in a paperless Britannica. best wishes—encephalonέγκέφαλος  19:46:16, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

• Encephalon, thanks for the support. I can understand your issue with the lack of reviews for games; while a movie may be reviewed by every media outlet in a market, games only have five or six professional reviews at most. For older games such as Action 52, there simply are no online professional reviews. Sites like [www.gamefaqs.com] do have amateur reviews, and while a conclusion can somewhat be drawn from those, it should be taken with a grain of salt (a 4/10 review of Big Rigs exists, with the author basing the score on the game's hilarity). For games lacking professional reviews, and thus having near-impossible citations, NPOV will always be an issue as games such as Action 52 and Custer's Revenge - while universally regarded as awful - have no official reviews. The closest thing I can think of off-hand would be GameSpy's Ten Most Shameful Games of All Time, or perhaps an article from GameSpy's sister site [www.classicgaming.com]). Dariustriplet 23:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's the same thing as the bad movies page. It does need cleanup, though. -james_anatidae 05:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But I suggest a trimming of the list. It's short as it is, but we should really be focusing on the really popular ones like Superman 64, E.T., Big Rigs and the like. A renaming might be neccessary... i'm thinking more like "infamous" rather than "worst".Headcase 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, although the title should be changed at least to something like "Games widely considered among the worst ever." This is not inherently POV; a statement like "Daikatana is widely considered a terrible game" is a matter of objective fact. In fact, if you don't know that, you're ignorant of pretty much the only thing worth knowing about Daikatana. Penelope D 06:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: change it into either List of poorly-reviewed computer and video games or List of infamous computer and video games and possibly reference flops. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:11, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
• Delete. POV cruftessay. Include salt. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless unsourced entries are removed or sourced to notable reviews, magazines or programs. -Sean Curtin 19:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is just as necessary as the multitude of examples of jokes.-[[User:werty8472|werty8472]
• Delete unless entires are sources/cited and the article NPOVed. Gamaliel 20:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Encephalon. Inherently POV, vandalism magnet, and improperly named since the intent appears to be to limit the list to video games rather than all games. Quale 06:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV cruft Proto t c 11:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not inherently POV, but unsourced material (which is not all of it) can be removed. Kappa 18:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: I went back and gave sources for all entires, removed stuff I couldn't find references on, and overall improved the quality. I hope that those calling for deletion takes another look; I tried to make it as NPOV as possible. Dariustriplet 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if List of films that have been considered the worst ever hasn't been deleted then the same policy should be applied to the list of video games, it's only fair. 64.251.182.80 03:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sdedeo, Penelope D and 64.251.182.80. Doidimais Brasil 00:43, 16 September 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 23/16. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog)

• Keep- It is difficult if not impossible when there is a story of this magnitude to grasp the enormity of it all at once. In any event of this scale, the stories that often hit home the most, and give the best perspective about what the people who lived through it endured are the stories that bring home the individual and personal tragedies and hardships such as this story does. It is unlikely that people will remember exactly how many people lived through the horrors of the Superdome, or the precise number of buildings destroyed, or even the total of how much money was lost. While those kinds of “metrics” might well be important, they don’t tell the story of the people who lived through the disaster. This is one example of a story that does.

• Keep - Where else can I get all the facts about this? It's of great concern to those who understand what it's like to be closer to your cat or dog than anyone else in the world. It's not just the story of a dog, it's a statement of our society. An important one.

• Keep - The level of concern and activity it has generated (websites, organized search efforts, $13,000 in rewards/family donations) and the fact that it is ongoing, (Snowball has not really been found yet as you will find if you go to KatrinaPetfinders.com), is enough reason. There are many, many people who will not forget this story for a long time, if ever.

Don't Delete - Poignantly expresses the displacement and anguish that the Katrina refugees were going through.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.183.24.207 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 September 2005

• Delete It's not notable; it's not knowledge; it's not even news (and if it were it does not belong here); it's trite, not relevant to the subject and a distraction. Nelson50 14:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Um. I honestly don't think this will be remembered or notable in a year's time. - mholland 01:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is kind of strange for an article. I agree it should probably be deleted maybe if it becomes really important it could go in but I don't see how it will no offence I'm glad the dogs okay and all but its not wikipedia worthy i dont think --Shimonnyman 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. While I hope the dog's OK, I don't think that this topic is notable enough for an article. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any thing the press has a field day with like this. We have Numa Numa, which already no one cares about anymore, so why not the puppy? Redwolf24 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into one of the hurricane articles. the american media has a habit of making the most unnotable things notable, tho not being in the states i dont know how much effort theyre putting into snowball. certainly doesnt warrant more than a sentence. Nateji77 01:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At this point, the dog is hardly known, and banking on some notability catching up to buoy the article later is too much. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. Geogre 01:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Interesting as a minor media phenomenon and one of the primary human interest stories to emmerge thus far from Hurricane Katrina. CNichols 02:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - it is noteworthy because it has been so widely reported and talked about

• Keep, partly because I'm in an inclusionist mood, partly because Geogre's reasoning annoys me, since the whole notability of the dog is based on what has already happened, i.e. this news report this article cites—nothing to do with a "crystal ball" whatsoever. Everyking 02:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Crystal ball" was about whether this particular media belch will still be noticed 6 weeks from now or 6 months from now. Let's establish just how widely discussed this dog is, then realize that in-the-news is not part of article space. This is just a soap bubble, at this point -- some red herring the media chased. When it establishes staying power, it would be useful to document it. There hasn't been enough time for it to establish itself yet, and we're not in the business of predicting which submania of the news services will last and which will not. Geogre 11:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • But by voting to delete, you are putting yourself in that business. Right? The correct policy to follow if you don't want to be in that business is to let someone make the article if they want, and re-evaluate later. Everyone's notability changes over time. This is a living encyclopedia, and if Snowball is forgotten in a year, delete the article at that point. As you say, it's silly for us to try to predict notability. Tempshill 23:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I should point out that this is not the general understanding of notability. We generally view notability as independent of the passing of time; something can't be notable one day and non-notable the next. Everyking 07:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews, where people would look for these sorts of things if they wanted them Ashibaka (tock) 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No can do; Wikinews is public domain. —Cryptic (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is possible if you can get the editors who contributed to release it into PD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Glurge -EDM 05:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely. Non-notable and a good example of confusing immediate exposure with salience over time. Marskell 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough to have major coverage with multiple segments on CNN, MSNBC and FNC subsequent to the initial AP reporting. Further, this incident was key in evacuation officials re-visiting the "no pets" policy, and has been used by SPCA and the Humane Society to raise funds for pet relief and evacuation which has already topped donations for Tsunami relief raised earlier this year. --Nicodemus75 11:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Colinmac 12:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Geogre or merge per Nateji77. If the long-term policy effects suggested by Nicodemus75 are shown to be based on this one dog rather than the general situation, I would change my vote to "keep", but I'm inclined to consider those orgs' use of this dog as their "sad cute face of the week", with no more individual significance than one child in an ad for Save the Children. Barno 14:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This noteable incident reflects the hardships that people suffered as well as animals in a catastrophic event. I would hate to have to compare this to any World War but the human emotion, loss, and surrounding circumstances should reflect in our history. Should we delete the naked Vietamese girl running screaming down the street because no one would remember her name a few years later. Or should we recognise that the true meaning behind our civilization is the fact that we can write read and remember our feelings emotions and history. --User:[email protected] 10:45, 9 September 2005
• Delete; I've been following Hurricane Katrina quite extensively, and haven't heard of "Snowball". Apparently he's very popular, but it's not encyclopedic, and doesn't deserve its own article. Ral315 14:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Animal concerns section of the hurricane article. --Fang Aili 16:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete flash in the pan news story. Certainly not encyclopedic. Dottore So 16:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't the place for this. - Orioneight 17:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, some things are a flash in the pan and deserve to be kept. This was an extremely minor flicker of light in an exceptionally large pan, and will vanish into nothingness in about a week. Lord Bob 17:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it may be news now but it won't be next week.--Isotope23 18:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Significant symbol and ah hell lost train of thought why am I even writing in English this time of the day --Kizor 19:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge' as per Fang Aili. Zoe 20:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Johntex\^talk 21:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Fang Aili, just been on SkyNews as I was looking at the article! (10.24 BST) Alf ^melmac 21:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  An excellent place for it to remain. -EDM 21:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It shows the obstacles pets and their owners faced during the evacuation process.Kiwidude 22:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is now illogical to say it's non-notable. In a year's time, re-evaluate. Tempshill 23:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Tempshill said, let's hold on to this for a while & re-evaluate later. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. -- llywrch 00:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any useful information into the appropriate article and delete. And no, this is not a violation of the GFDL; merging is not copying. Neutrality^talk 01:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Minor media phenomenons are still notable. There may be a possibility of merging similar articles together after the dust has settled on Katrina (if you'll pardon the inaccurate metaphor). For now I see no harm. There are other "Katrina notables" that probably warrant their own articles, too.
• Merge and delete __earth 07:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Snowball is an important reflection of the losses from Hurricane Katrina OmegaWikipedia 08:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Fang Ali. Flowerparty 12:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a news dog! Neither real world-notable nor encyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the article about animal concerns. Notable story to have on Wikipedia, but there are thousands of dogs like this one. CrazyC83 17:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Glurge --Urbane legend 23:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• ""Merge and redirect"" The compulsory abandonment of companion animals is important Snowball does not need his own article. Alan 19:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, and MERGE...Who makes all these rules, and why am I only seeing this artical here? No one has a right to decide what is important for someone else, and it is never right to not be very concerned about a minor childs concerns. This artical should go forward as it is very important to reach the public so this child can have his dog returned to him! Thank you, Donna in Texas
  • vote posted to this AfD's talk page by 66.82.9.59 at 10:14, September 16, 2005, moved over here by Lord Bob. Lord Bob 23:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP I was surprised and pleased when I put "Snowball" into Yahoo search and found a link to Wikipedia plus a nice list of links. Snowball is the 'poster dog' for all the animals separated from their families and left behind to suffer and die. It's wrong, it's inhumane and traumatic. Many people died rather than leave their pets in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast. We need legistlation and new rules in place, so this entry will show continuing interest in the topic. Please keep it!! 1:20 PM 9/17/05 LLL
• KEEP then merge at the point when we're sure of his and the boy's wherabouts? Seems to me there's ongoing doubt that Snowball has been found and growing curiousity and concern for his reunion with that poor boy....Bet the Snowball story ain't over yet. ````curious snowball fan

• That makes it a dead donkey news item. Wikipedia is not a news service. --Urbane legend 10:52, 19 September 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 DELETED. Consensus delete and meets speedy criteria. Taxman ^Talk 19:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Depings

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, possibly part of a school project in violation of Wikipedia policy from University of South Florida. Created by IP traced to Florida International University, but seems to fit with the MO of most of the nonsense articles created by the USF users. Does not pass the Google test either. -Loren 01:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nateji77 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy for test: Awful gibberish. Besides, Latina fellat. Geogre 01:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The creating IP address is in the ranges from this list and this is sure to be a word deliberately invented for the very specific purpose of adding invention to Wikipedia. I would not object to all these being speedied as disruption-by-proxy. -Splash 01:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tiresome crap. Paul 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, or speedy as nonsense/no context/newbie test and/or vandalism. Kiyama already got zapped. Kappa 10:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete nonsensical dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy/Strong Delete. Complete nonsense. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Alex Duensing strikes again? --Outlander 16:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or speedy this bad boy - Orioneight 17:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, should be speedy --Isotope23 18:39, 9 September 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 by user:RHaworth who commented why do people waste time putting things like this through VfD?. I concur that this was vandalism eligible for speedy-deletion. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Japsoc

Nonsense about a supposed Welsh football team. Calton | Talk 01:12, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. whose 120,000 seat stadium vanished without a trace. hoax. Nateji77 01:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax of the less than creative sort. Geogre 01:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unpleasant, unfunny hoax/joke. MCB 06:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as obvious hoax. PatGallacher 10:24, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. A stadium vanishes without a trace and the media ignores it? Unlikely. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, September 9, 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. ~~ N (t/c) 23:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Andi "punk" anderson

Non-notable and/or unverifiable. Also seems to be attempted self-promotion. The only relevent hits for Andi Punk Anderson "James Taranto" are a Wikipedia User page and a WP mirror of the same page. Same for "Andi "Punk" Anderson" "David Peel" and "Andi Anderson" "David Peel". Created by User:Andrewzito, who is probably the same person as User:Andrew Zito. Niteowlneils 01:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• yeah, definately delete; probably vanity--Carabinieri 01:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A scenester from the good old days, but is a Geogre's Law failure (lower case surname), has no indication of any actual recordings done by him. The context listed is all legitimate, so far as I know, but we're left with the question begged of "so what?" Knowing those folks, living near other folks, jamming here and there...makes for great cocktail party banter, but not encyclopedic relevance. The other claim is that he ran the first BBS in Queens in 1990. That's possible, but it's highly doubtful, as I was on BBS's in lowly Durham, NC in 1990. I'm surprised if Queens had none until that year, when there were scores in Raleigh/Durham at the crack of 1990. Geogre 02:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep. Found a few references such as: "John Lennon mentioned Peel in the song New York City" [2] Reference at David Peel too {from User:Astrokey44 Niteowlneils 02:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)}

1. The discussion is not about David Peel
2. The reference you provide first is a mirror/copy of the Wikipedia David Peel article, not independent confirmation. Niteowlneils 02:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. --Carnildo 03:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Geogre. I think, if someone worked on it hard enough, one could find a few mentions in older print sources, for example, but... why? Who cares? --Jacqui M Schedler 15:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Geogre. If we start cataloguing aging former music scenesters it won't be long before I get my own wikipedia article... and nobody wants that. As for the BBS argument, not verifiable and seems rather unlikely.--Isotope23 17:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unconvincing arguments for notability. Fire Star 17:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I feel this isn't a article that Wikipedia should host since it seems so ephemeral to the music industry, ans seems not to have done anything notable.....Unsigned vote by Sinkholeca 20:25, 9 September 2005
• Delete as per above.---CH (talk) 03:28, 12 September 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.

Since List of U.S. Presidents by height order already exists, it only seemed logical that this article be redirected there. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Heights of U.S. Presidents

Delete. I am the nominator. The only editor of the page is an IP who has done many height hoaxes. But ignoring that, and assuming the heights are right, as many of them are (though I see Abe Lincoln portrayed as 6'4 here and 6'6 elsewhere in wikipedia). Its unencyclopedic, and it seems to be the IP's way of explaining his actions. Also, Original Research. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if the facts are right. could be expanded too. Have to say its a little amusing. Astrokey44 01:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the facts are right. could be expanded too. Have to say its a little unencyclopedic and this information ought to be (possibly) mentioned in the relevant articles as a subsentence piece of trivia. Collecting all the trivia into one place doesn't make them any less trivial. -Splash 02:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unencyclopedic. A single fact from 42 articles does not create an article, esp. when there is nothing to say about these heights. Obviously, the last three presidents have performed with the tallest best (Clinton, George I, George II), but otherwise? (I'm joking! There was much more than 1" of difference between Clinton and George I's presidencies!) Geogre 02:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• List of U.S. Presidents by height order, and the other lists of U.S. presidents, have this territory already covered far more comprehensively. At the very best, this is a redirect. The discussions of what heights are the correct ones should be at Talk:List of U.S. Presidents by height order. Uncle G 03:26:28, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of U.S. Presidents by height order. - SimonP 03:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per SimonP. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per SimonP. —RaD Man (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect to existing article. MCB 06:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect as above. --Apyule 07:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of U.S. Presidents by height order since this is a reasonable search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Neutrality^talk 01:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Krop

nn ex school board member with school named for him Wow! Weak Delete cause it survived VFD once --Aranda56 01:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Vote Change From Weak Delete to Keep I live in Miami and he was significant here but i thought it was just a local thing and shouldn't be here in particular beacuse of that but i guess i was wrong so sorry im still learning about wikipedia. --Aranda56 03:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for, the AfD process did exactly what it was supposed to do... besides, the fault is largely mine. I should have made the article more complete in the first place. Wikipedia does have its share of local politicians - mayors of medium-sized towns, even some notable or controversial city council members. School board members are not so well represented, but then again, very few of them oversee multi-billion dollar budgets for decades in a row! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Astrokey44 01:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. It's a local scandal, it seems, and that's interesting, but without any effects or regional implications, it's just too much of a news item. No actual accomplishments are given for him as head of the council (not superintendant, which is an elected office and requires notoriety at least) -- not even a particularly glowing smile from a patient -- just that he was a long time member of the board and that a school was named after him when folks thought it shouldn't be. Geogre 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Still not entirely sure of his greater-than-local significance, but he seems to be very significant locally. Removing the delete vote. Geogre 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Did he actually do anything apart from having the school named after him? Pilatus 02:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, he did. Keep Pilatus 21:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per results of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Krop; this person was elected and re-elected for nearly a quarter century to set the priorities for a school district with more students than the state of Wyoming or Rhode Island, and used his authority to champion the needs of the most vulnerable immigrants to one of the most multicultural cities in the country. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not being snarky, but could one of those who knows this other information please add it to the article? I assess articles solely by what it written, and the sorts of information that would have kept me from voting to delete simply were not present. One of the fallacies of VfD-cleanup is that we end up with people doing research, finding information, and voting keep, but the additional information doesn't always end up in the article. This is, in fact, why I insist on voting for the article, not the topic: if we all vote keep based on the article that could be written, then we end up leaving a subpar article in place. If folks go to the trouble of coming up with additional information, they have only to put it into the article, even in the crudest way, if they're strapped for time or disinclined to write. Again, this is not meant to be a personal attack or insult, but when VfD is over 150 articles a day, voting on a reading of the articles is difficult enough; voting on the invisible other articles is impossible, at least for me. Geogre 11:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, and I guess part of the problem is that the best sources of information on the guy's contributions are not readily accessible on the internet. They are well documented in Miami Herald articles - a search of their archives [3] yields over 2,000 results for "Michael Krop" between 1982 (the earliest year covered by the archives) and 1995 (the year before the school naming controversy first comes up, and well before any school named for him existed), but these articles can not be retrieved for free. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per my previous vote. Ran 4th largest school system in the US for nearly 25 years makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And why are we clogging up Votes/Articles for Deletion with this once again? —RaD Man (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412 and Capitalistroadster. -- DS1953 05:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why the second nomination? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with reluctance. We really need to accept precidence here. There's a claim of notability, which has been approved by a prior afd. Let's not re-open every school related article. --rob 06:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the reluctance? Dr. Michael M. Krop High School is named after him, how many living people do you know who have schools named after them? —RaD Man (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: My high school was named after a living person, Queen Elizabeth, and she's not famous because many schools are named after her; it's the other way around. It sounds like he would never have been worthy of a school naming, but he got it, because he was on the board. But, as I said there was a *basis* for the claim of notability, which I reluctantly accept. --rob 07:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - article has survived a previous vote for deletion - no more need be said. Vizjim 10:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cautiously, Wikipedia is not paper, just about passes threshhold of notability, not a good idea to reopen old VFD debates without some substantial reason. PatGallacher 10:18, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Keep, there is no need to keep voting until deletionists get the result they want. How many more times will we have to vote on this article? --Nicodemus75 11:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I find the responses of several of the keep voters frustrating. "Why are we clogging up Vfd", "no need to keep voting", "article has survived a previous vote for deletion- no more need be said". Guys, Wikipedia is an evolving leviathan- as we go forward, there is nothing to say that old rulings can't be changed. There is no Double Jeopardy clause on Wikipedia. One Vfd survival does not create immunity. I wasn't going to vote, but now it's a delete, just to cancel out somebody else's vote.--Scimitar ^parley 14:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the re-nomination of kept articles frustrating. This is exactly the problem. Thanks for so clearly demonstrating the bad faith I was implying by speciously "changing" your vote. Also, great motivation for voting. You should be given a medal.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But even within the context of an evolving leviathan, shouldn't new reasons for deletion be given? If the old reason resulted in "keep" last time, why try a second time for exactly the same reason?Vizjim 15:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, adopting this as a norm encourages "I didn't like the last AfD, so I'll try until I get a result I like." This is a dangerous precedent to set, since there are many people with axes to grid who are more persistent than others trying to stop them. That said, I'm sure that's not what's going on here. I'm just worried about the precedent. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is some precedent for re-nominating articles that were kept based on low-turnout votes. Six people voted in the original VfD (4 keep, 1 delete, 1 merge/redirect - oddly the nominator abstained). I certainly don't think the nomination was in bad faith, but rather represents a attempt to get a larger sense of the community. Also, it spurred me to improve an article which I have neglected. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Guy seems notable enough. Sdedeo 19:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no prob with this article. Alf ^melmac 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but can authors of article add material explaining national important of this school board? How about a reference to New Yorker article on the power of large school boards over the big textbook publishers? (No, I don't recall the exact citation, but you guys are apparently the experts on school boards.)---CH (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this person is really encyclopedic also please try not to be so insulting to the people we write about that seems offensive Yuckfoo 07:48, 12 September 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. At least a few of the deleters say "unless", and Uncle G's research seems to have convinced a couple of them sufficiently to change their opinion. Some still remain as deletes, although some usages etc have been added to the article. The rewrite, the changed opinions and the fact that, on the numbers, we're below the popular two-thirds level (giving the author a presumed 'keep', seeing as they have worked on the article in light of the AfD), leads me to a no consensus. I could count the merges with the deletes and declare a merge, but the merge doesn't have enough support itself for me to prepared to do that as part of this closure: it can be done by someone else if they like, though. The original author should be warned in the strongest possible terms against making experimental articles, and against using that as an excuse in AfD. -Splash^talk 21:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

El Toro Handrail

This is an article about a handrail. Like, a specific handrail that exists somewhere. Somebody skated on it or something. I'm a pretty reasonable dude, but I will throw a tantrum if this isn't gone reeeeeeal soon. Paul 02:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Non-notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Per research by Uncle G and DS below, I suppose it can't hurt to smerge a line or two on this with the appropriate skateboarding article. ^{(Not a typo, "smerge" is a word invented by R. fiend to describe a shrink & merge.)} But do not keep as an individual article... it's a handrail. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, unencyclopedic. -Loren 02:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can make a really good argument for notability. Nateji77 02:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A notable handrail--now I've seen it all. A single mainstream news article about it might change my mind. Owen× ☎ 05:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe it can be merged into a skating article, but the list of tricks people performed there needs to go. Still, I agree, calling a handrail notable is going to cause a lot of problem. Is it actually the longest or just one of the longest as the article states? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and interesting. Delete- down this road lies madness. --Scimitar ^parley 14:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a tricky one.

  Certainly the handrail exists, and certainly it is of some note within the skateboarding community, going by the number of message board posts talking about it that come up in various Google Web searches. (Given that there are various other things called "El Toro", and given that skateboarders tend to communicate in their own argot rather than in English, as exemplified somewhat in this very article, this is quite difficult to search for.) The difficulty is exactly how noteworthy it is in the world of skateboarding.

  The message board posts, from as far afield as skateboarding web sites in New Zealand, refer to the rail as "famous". Moreover, research turned up several interviews with skateboarders by their fans, where the fans breathlessly posed questions such as "Are you going to do El Toro?", "Have you ever done El Toro?" and the like (example example) implying that this isn't just any old site for skateboarding.

  The list of people who have performed tricks there appears, from research, not to be merely a random list of skateboarders. It is a list of people who have performed tricks on the rail in published skateboarding videos. Searching turns up numerous mentions of a series of "411" videos, but the details are not yet clear without further research. It's unfortunately somewhat tricky to source. (The best source that Google Web turns up is a web site that is currently unreachable from here because of a stupid IP routing table error at 67.19.255.62.)

  Currently, therefore, I'm at Weak Keep. Uncle G 15:34:55, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

  • The New Zealand skateboarding web site changed its web server software after Google's spider indexed it, breaking the hyperlinks that Google Web gives. I've now found out how the web site has changed its URLs. For some discussions that mention El Toro without explanation, implying that members of the community are well aware what it is, see here and here. Uncle G 17:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Despite my delete vote, I do have to say that this article is extremely well-done, and... Holy fucking shit. There's over twelve hundred non-wiki Google hits just for "el toro" handrail. Once you add in variants like "Eltoro", it goes up by another hundred. God help me, I'm verging on weak keep. DS 15:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article mentions "switch boardslide by that one kid in digital." That alone should kill it. ::grin:: No, seriously, this is so not-notable that I'm beside myself. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nn, nn. Dottore So 16:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a handrail. I'm sorry to paint all handrails with one brush, but it's a handrail. It could be a handrail that Hitler impaled himself on to commit suicide and was then given to Joseph Stalin where he had it used as a gavel during trials to have political opponents exiled, and I would be uncertain on its encyclopaedic value. This is a handrail that skateboarders involve with tricks, so I am not uncertain. Lord Bob 17:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I appreciate UncleG's research, but that would, I think, merely rate this particular handrail as a mention in a skateboarding tricks article or in a jaw cracking or organ donation article. The object itself is an object, and it seems that the actions performed with/on/near/under the object are the things that are of any significance, and those only within a highly specialized group. Geogre 18:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... just take a deep breath Paul. Merge into skateboarding article. Per Uncle G this handrail obviously has some significance and notability in the skateboarding community, but I'm still not convinced it deserves it's own article--Isotope23 19:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geoogre. Merge into another skateboarding article would also be appropriate. Johntex\^talk 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lest [[User:PaulHanson|Paul] has a tantrum. Oh, and its a handrail. That is a really really good readon to delete it. Sabine's Sunbird 01:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Uncle G. Handrail has references, and notability within skateboarding community seems to be established. -- Creidieki 02:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a handrail. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And the Blarney Stone is a stone. The physical construction of an object is not necessarily all. Uncle G 17:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If, as Uncle G's research indicates, people within the skateboarding world, from other continents are aware of this handrail, then it is notable. Normally mundane objects can aquire notability if a sizeable group of people attach importance to it. Dsmdgold 14:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Also no evidence that this article will ever be written in anything resembling the English language. Quale 06:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you wrote that, the original skateboarder argot has, in fact, been mostly converted into English. Uncle G 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• "Gareth Stehr stuck backside 180 a number of times without riding away. Irvine local Justin Figueroa is rumored to have back smithed it." Is this even English? It is a piece of metal attached to the floor. This is not encyclopaedic. Stick a line about it existing in one of the various badly-written skateboarding articles. Strong delete. Proto t c 11:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The original author has replaced those two sentences with text written in English since you wrote that. Uncle G 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G, and thanks for the research. Kappa 17:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I initially made this page to test out the wikipedia process. I knew how poorly written it was, what with the part about not knowing someone's name and quoting a friend of mine, also incorporating my opinion into the article earlier. However, I assure you it is an important landmark for skateboarding, comparable to Wrigley Field or other sports landmarks. Just because you may not care about a particular subject does not make it worthless. Isn't wikipedia devoted to providing information about obscure topics? My article on Hubba Hideout will be much better written, so look forward to deleting that. In summation, wikipedia is great. Nichols 18:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I want to say how sorry I am that wikipedia isn't prepared to cover obviously notable features like this. It's heartbreaking really. Kappa 13:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Does this article conform yet, or is it inherently non-conforming? Many of the complaints have been fixed.Nichols 18:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously, it's been substantially cleaned up. The list of feats performed on it has been properly wikified and the performers' full names have been supplied, along with the fact that legal trouble ensused. The fact that its name has become a generic for in skateboarding should be indicative of notability. DS 21:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC) (note to admin - do NOT count this as a second vote!)

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

rediculous just keep the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.179.111 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. ~~ N (t/c) 23:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Akasa arai

non-notable ymca club. Nateji77 02:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. RMG 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable --Apyule 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No ntability established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability information added. -- Creidieki 02:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. G Clark 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough and at any rate not very informative. -- Klafubra 16:12, 12 September 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. ~~ N (t/c) 23:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Uroinvixi

It is my great pleasure to present for your consideration this rather blatant and unfunny hoax. Ashibaka (tock) 02:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep', I'm not sure how to use this, but I would keep it. This article was linked to from one of these Yahoo groups (it has tons of members) and there are people in there praising this article saying its long overdue. At least these groups and maybe this article can help a lot of people know they aren't the only ones who like doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.42.119 (talk • contribs) 15:22 EDT, 9 September 2005
  • Which yahoo group? Might be able to get some verification there. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is one of the newer groups on the scene - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/magicwater - its new, only about 70 members. There have been discussions about this at other places as well.
• Delete, term gets 0 Google hits. - SimonP 03:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, it made me laugh :P Rbarreira 03:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODNing now. Karmafist 03:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Nateji77 03:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I wasn't sure that it was a hoax at first, some strange sexual fetishes do exist, but trying a search I found absolutely nothing. PatGallacher 10:39, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Delete. WMMartin 12:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sounds like another of Alex Duensing's students doing his homework ---Outlander 15:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. See Wikipedia:School and university projects#University of South Florida for more on how this page was probably created. DES ^(talk) 18:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - IP doesn't appear to link to USF, but it's NN and not a verified term; appears to be neologism if it is not a hoax. That pic cracked me up though. --Isotope23 20:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteMost likely a hoax, non notable at best. Johntex\^talk 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense... and the image too! -- BD2412 ^talk 22:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something else. Such practice does exist in Japan. (But obviously not the term). That's all I know. SYSS Mouse 22:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A fetish never mentioned on Usenet must be a hoax (and this probably trumps the Yahoo Groups claim, I'd think). — mendel ☎ 03:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it and the picture too without reservations This link is Broken 15:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN unless references are provided. In that case, consider moving to a more descriptive name - we don't invent names here (that's assuming references don't include the name...still, 0 google hits is usually a proof enough). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Crush by elephant. --FOo 05:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I believe this fetish does exist, but I don't have the faintest idea of what its name is. If anyone can find a real name (i.e. at least 1000 Google hits) for it rename, else delete.--Army1987 18:56, 15 September 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. Will move it to Gunplay (BDSM) since that got support after it was suggested. Someone else gets to write the article about the other type of gunplay. Meantime, this will be a redirect. -Splash^talk 21:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Gunplay

I imagine there will be some opposition to this afd, but I nominated it because it gets about 1100 Google hits. Of those, about 200 are verbatim copies of the article, and from a scan of the other results, it looks as if many others aren't even BDSM related. This is the fringes of the fringe-not that there's anything wrong with that-but it doesn't warrant an article. Paul 02:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Google: bdsm gunplay -"actual or sometimes" still gets a good 900 results or so. It's a sexual neologism, which is questionable, but so is, say, furvert. Ashibaka (tock) 03:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this article existed here for over two years, and as Paul points out was copied to some 200 other sites. That by itself should grant it the right to stay here. The activity is, indeed, a "fringe-of-a-fringe", but the term itself is well known in the BDSM community. Owen× ☎ 05:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as BDSM-cruft, article of questionable verifiability. -- Kjkolb 06:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Owen×. It's definitely factual. MCB 06:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Are those verbatim copies mirrors/copyvios or is the article itself copied? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep definitely factual. BTW, shouldn't there be a vfd template on this article? Grutness...wha? 13:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete for exactly the reasoning used by Owen to keep. WP:NOT a forum to spread ideas or definitions. Verifiability seems to be a question if hundreds of the Google hits are WP mirrors and many others are BDSM sites that copied the WP content. Did this concept and term exist in widespread (if furtive) use in the decades before the article appeared? (If documented, I'll change vote to "keep".) Or was this a neologism whose early advocate used WP for a non-policy purpose? Barno 14:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

(Changed vote to weak keep, strong move and disambig per documentation below.) Barno 17:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The term was already in use in the 90s, long before it appeared here. Here are a couple out of many examples, taken from soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm: [4], [5]. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I believe it goes back at least to the '80s and alt.sex.bondage, but I want to stress to others that these references are for verification; the term is not a Usenet neologism, but has existed in the real-world BDSM community for several decades. It probably exists in (hardcopy) books on the subject, but that will take some research to verify. MCB 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If there are a bunch more copies out there, what proof do we have that this was the first? Are we sure it's not a copyvio? --Jacqui M Schedler 15:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • With respect, that's true for uncountable thousands of WP articles; sometimes that can be disproved by stepping through the editing history, or by contacting the original author. MCB 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, nor an advertising medium, and neologisms are inappropriate content. Geogre 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any advocacy or advertising in the article, and I think that OwenX and I have made a good argument that it's not a neologism. MCB 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is a term refering to a BSDM sub-culture. I've heard this outside the Wikipedia arena many years before WP even existed, so I'm not sure neologism is the correct term for this. That having been said, the reasons being cited for keeping this article are rather weak. That this text was copied is no reason to keep it. The examples from soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm are a start in establishing this term as one of notability. I'd say the article could stand a cleanup if it survives. Though I tend to lean Keep, no vote for now.--Isotope23 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)--Isotope23 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Something needs to be done about the title. One dictionary defines "gunplay" as "A shooting of guns with intent to inflict harm," another as "the shooting of small arms with intent to scare or kill." This article is not about the standard meaning of "gunplay" but about a specialized, technical meaning within the BDSM community. The title should be something like "Gunplay (BDSM)". Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard the term for getting on ten years, and it predates that. However, I agree with User:Dpbsmith that this ought to be at Gunplay (BDSM) and a more general article at Gunplay. —Morven 05:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dpbsmith and Morven: rename to Gunplay (BDSM). Owen× ☎ 04:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. BDSM-cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move → Gunplay (BDSM) as per Dpbsmith. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-11 T 18:33:43 Z
• Weak keep, strong move and disambiguate. -Sean Curtin 19:25, September 11, 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). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sponka.tv

Relisting this, three votes, two deletes to one keep as of now. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...amusing name (to a 12 year old) for a local TV station in Slovenia. Is this notable? Can a speaker of the Slovenian language expand this article by personal knowledge or use of the Sponka website? Let's see... Eddie.willers 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NO content, and looks like an ad. Syrae Faileas 21:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable All broadcast television stations are notable. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep without question. Wikipedia is global. —RaD Man (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; possibly qualifies for Speedy under empty and spam. Owen× ☎ 05:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If it was even a decent stub on the television station, then I would vote to Keep. However, given that the article is currently a line article which doesn't even say where the station is, I will vote to delete unless improved. Capitalistroadster 06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I've tidied it up into a mini-stub. If it was expanded a bit it might be worthwhile. However I don't speak the lingo. Megapixie 08:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, broadcasting TV station. Kappa 10:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per RaD Man.--Nicodemus75 11:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if not expanded: Name address = Yellow Pages, not encyclopedia article. It's a fact, not an article. Geogre 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Thanks to Megapixie for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not for Swedish or American regional radio stations and not for this one either. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Jared M. Gordon

Delete Non-notable. Submitting writing to two webzines and running an film company, none of whose feature films have managed to gain an entry in the IMDB, shows a definite lack of notability. Willing to consider that he may be notable, but neither the atricle nor my serach indicates that he is. Caerwine 04:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or even Speedy under nn-bio. Owen× ☎ 05:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - tell him to come back when somebody's heard of him ---Outlander 17:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Random freelancer. Geogre 18:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Written up in rolling stone and on IMDB. Dori 00:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Written up in rolling stone and on IMDB. Mike 00:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• No Delete A pilot he pitched was picked up. He was in one of the media trade papers. User:Liz 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn adspam ---CH (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Ambivalent Hi. This is Jared M. Gordon. A couple of people wrote to tell me that this was up for deletion and I'm still not sure if I understand what's going on or what it's all about. Suffice it to say that you can do what you want. This sounds way too political for me, and I'm just not into Internet politics or power trips the way that some people seem to be. Best regards, JMG

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. ~~ N (t/c) 23:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Macunix

Nonsense? Neologism? Whatever, it makes no sense Delete -- DS1953 05:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete attack page. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't figure out if this was an article on a person (which would make it an attack page) or an article about a previously unheard of neologism. I'm not going to dwell on that any longer, either way it has to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. Added speedy delete tag to page. Megapixie 08:03, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

List of wizarding terms in translations of Harry Potter

I am a huge Harry Potter fan, but this is cruft that has gone way too far. This is the English Wikipedia, and this article's contents amount to useless trivia that has no academic value at all. List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages was deleted a few days ago with overwhelming consensus to delete. Coffee 05:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per precedent of previous VfD. Megapixie 07:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rather pointless. If someone really wants to see this information, they should just include it in the articles for each term. Cyclone49 09:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That way interested users would only have to click on 50 different links to see them. Kappa 10:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, on English Wikipedia articles need to be in English. I've seen a site listing this stuff a long way back before I knew Wikipedia. We could just trace the thing and put in an external link. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Deletecruft. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but hopefully the poster will put the list (which I daresay is orginial research) on some other website that perhaps we can link to in one of the less crufty articles. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Weak keep. Interesting stuff. I have saved the page locally so won't bother too much even if deleted. Tintin 16:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because I'm a language geek and I found it fascinating. --Fang Aili 19:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I have some trouble justifying this; but we do have other collections of information (Presidents sorted by Height), and from a linguistic standpoint this can be very interesting. For my viewpoint as a student of translation theory, Harry Potter provides some complex issues in the terminology used, and this page shows some of that.--Prosfilaes 20:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Chapter titles and actual translations of words are a bit different, IMO. I think it's uesful enough. Sam Vimes 21:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Collecting together information is not original research. I'm not sure the actual chapter titles are very important in english, never mind in translation. The books do not contain a list of their own chapters. On the other hand, a lot of HP names contain jokes one way or another, so interesting to compare them.Sandpiper 21:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This should go to wikicities. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 23:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sandpiper. Kappa 00:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a dictionary, nor a dictionary of foreign translations. Sabine's Sunbird 01:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Valid. and informative. (Contributed by Kiwidude 20:42, 10 September 2005)
• Delete. Pottercruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Prosfilaes and Sandpiper's comments --Presnell 01:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As a would-be translator, I find this article both interesting and useful. --Murgatroyd 04:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Information is interesting, and one of WP's strengths is collating information that it's hard to find in one place. Article could possibly be more attractively formatted (tables?) —Blotwell 05:58, 13 September 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. -Splash^talk 21:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

List of characters in translations of Harry Potter

Again, useless trivia with zero academic value. List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages was deleted a few days ago with overwhelming consensus to delete. Coffee 05:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have combined this entry with the one above. :/ Coffee 00:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Precedent of the previous VfD. Amusingly Otaku. Megapixie 07:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rather pointless. If people really want this information include it, they should just put it in the articles of the actual characters. Cyclone49 09:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• We don't have a list with translations for the word tiger. This particular Wikipedia should be in English. Translating is a job for Wiktionary or interwiki links. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• More Deletecruft. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Again, original research, and plus it's just not a proper encyclopedic article. And again, I would like to see this information somewhere else on the Internet so we can link to it, because it is good research. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I find it interesting. Tintin 16:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOR, plus relatively self-evident and not presented with any context, any significance. Geogre 18:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because I'm a language geek and I found it fascinating. --Fang Aili 19:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Same as for the other list; they could be merged together. Repeated from the other VfD: I have some trouble justifying this; but we do have other collections of information (Presidents sorted by Height), and from a linguistic standpoint this can be very interesting. For my viewpoint as a student of translation theory, Harry Potter provides some complex issues in the terminology used, and this page shows some of that.--Prosfilaes 20:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can not fathom why this is original research. It is based on primary sources - the translated books themselves - not something that someone thought up on the spur of the moment. Reasonably useful list, per Prosfilaes. Sam Vimes 21:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is not original research, evidently, since it is a list of facts. More precisely to the point, it is information required by anyone wanting to research the 'who is R.A.B.' puzzle set in HP book 6. Arguably it is cheating to look up which foreign characters have appropriately translated names, but this is the collected information necessary to do it. Sandpiper 21:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it certainly needs to be reformatted -maybe even with a TOC listing the characters for easy reference? It's interesting, but a bit unwieldy. Don't you dare call me a Poufsouffle. Peeper 21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pottercruft. --Carnildo 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-enciclopedic --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, interesting, part of the sum of human knowledge, and wiktionary wouldn't take it. Kappa 00:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Human knowledge, yes. Encyclopedic, no. Coffee 00:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So you are voting against the promise to provide me with the sum of human knowledge? Kappa 05:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Factual, verifiable information, with references, on an appropriately named page. -- Creidieki 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pottercruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Creidieki --Presnell 00:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it must be interesting for any HP fan knowing more than one language. The article quality is very low, though. Azazell0 17:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per preceding article. If you wanted an example of how fictional words/names/concepts were professionally translated into 20 different languages, where else would you look? —Blotwell 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unencyclopedic and useless. Wikipedia is not a translation service. This isn't even an article, just a list. --Urbane legend 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is helping out in some researching for me and my family. I have even told friends about this and they enjoy reading about Harry Potter and all that fun stuff. Anonymous 19:50, 13 Septermber 2005 (USA)
• Keep Intriguing look at how translations deal (or don't deal) with names that depend on wordplay. An interesting reference. Could probably use some editing. --sfg 01:02, 16 Septermber 2005 (USA)
• Keep I do think that that this can be reorganized but still, pretty neat. If i dont understand something in a book i just go here and i can see it and a easy to understand text! --Anonymous 02:30, 16 September 2005 (USA)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Splash^talk 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Lenin's Hanging Order

Is this important enough for an encyclopedia article of its own? It doesn't appear to be. Delete. Gamaliel 06:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment what links here indicates that this is linked from Vladimir Lenin and Kulak, although those "See also" links were just added, and so were not 'red links' (no pun intended). If this article is deleted, please remember to remove those references as well. Admittedly, the edit comment was rough and the article was POV - I was about to edit it to change the "fanboy" line, and found it had already been edited and AfD'd. Despite the original editor's apparent bias, it seems like a good, NPOV article could be made on it. WP is not paper, nor a place for source material, but the letter is pretty short, and the external link (uiuc.edu) seems like a solid reference. I had never heard of this, and found the subject interesting. Those are my rambling thoughts, FWIW. Not voting because I'm too tired to even log in. 4.229.54.51 06:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge content, such as it is, (back?) into Lenin. I can't imagine it being more than a sentence or two in that article, certainly not an article of its own. MCB 07:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Expand if possible, otherwise merge. I think it's notable enough for it's own article providing the content is there. Megapixie 07:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge content into Lenin. Vizjim 10:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Expand if more data can be added; otherwise merge. WMMartin 12:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I am endeavoring to expand a little. --Bhadani 14:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Expand it, it is a verifiable historical event, but otherwise merge it.....Sinkholeca 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Historycruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have given this article more than 60 seconds of consideration and have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 18:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a criticism of Lenin page can be made or it can be added to the chopped - up Lenin page, but this doesn't warrant a new article in itself. Dean_Sayers 8:34 September 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, so keep. -Splash^talk 21:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Tribal Fusion

Appears to me to be an advertisement. Numbers do not have reliable source. rob 06:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This company is responsible for a large majority of "pop-under" ads foisted on us web surfers, and are a boil on the buttocks of humanity. This is little more than advertising. Al 12:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertising. 109,999,995 of those ad-viewers swore at whomever foisted an unwanted pop-under upon them, without knowing the name Tribal Fusion. The company probably won't attain notability even if Elliot Spitzer or the feds bust them. Barno 14:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's not "little more than advertising," it is advertising. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. --Carnildo 22:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely NOT a speedy. Simple statement of facts that establish notability is not necessarily advertisement. Statement of facts that establish notability can be used in advertisements, but that does not mean these facts and the company the facts are about are an advertisement here. Unfocused 00:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep precisely because the company is responsible for the large majority of "pop-under" ads, and cleanup. ElBenevolente 02:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup: 10 billion monthly advertisements means that this company will be important for anyone studying Internet Advertising. Seems notable and verifiable. -- Creidieki 02:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I had a go at cleaning it up and removed two of the "reviews" that were little more than reprints of their sales pitch. Still needs more work. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 17:39, 14 September 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. ~~ N (t/c) 23:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Redbaiter

NN Usenet troll, attack page. MCB 06:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If he is not notable enough to have an article under his real name, he is not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable. I disagree with Sjakkalle's reasoning, though: it is possible for a person's handle or nickname to be more notable than his/her real name, and therefore qualify as notable and an article title. In this case, however, it is not in fact notable. - mholland 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Usenet cruft. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is non-encyclopedic, it seems almost like self-promotion to me......Sinkholeca 20:35, 9 September 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. Normally I'd relist, but this is almost an A1 speedy as it stands, and hasn't got a prayer. -Splash^talk 21:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Society's plague

No claim of notability. Almost certainly made by one person band themself. I would do a speedy, but apparently I can't because this is a band, not a person. rob 06:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This article was created by User:Joe159 and the first band member's name just happens to be "Joe". --rob 06:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Expand or delete, a simple description is just stupid to keep.........Sinkholeca 20:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC. Tempshill 23:27, 9 September 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. — Trilobite 03:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Anuschka Tischer

Delete, nonnotable history professor. Only link from article space to this article is from the page of her coauthor Derek Croxton. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Coauthor of notable book.Capitalistroadster 07:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs a little cleanup. Borderline notability, but academic and encyclopedic enough - useful inclusion. - mholland 15:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete nn. Co-authoring an obscure edition as well as a dissertation turned monograph is insufficient grounds for inclusion. We don't have an article for Hermann Wiesflecker, for example (wrote the definitive biography of Maximilian I), who is much, much more notable than this person. If at some point she produces a work or monograph of stature, then we should reconsider, but for the moment this should be axed. Dottore So 16:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please write an article on Hermann Wiesflecker.

I'd be happy to translate when our friends on German Wikipedia get around to writing one. Dottore So 23:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Tempshill 23:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Ladies and gentlemen: this PhD lady, together with Derek Croxton, is one of the two people that most know about the Congress of Westphalia, one of the most important congresses of History. For those familiar with International Relations literature, the Congress/Peace/Treaty of Westphalia is cited in practically every single text, it´s practically a cliché. If you want reviews from the book they co-author check here. And if there are two people that understand the Congress, they are Derek Croxton and Anuschk Tischer. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 00:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable in her field. Kappa 00:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This scholar is arguably the world's leading (living) expert on the Peace of Westphalia, and is the driving force behind the work cited (not to take anything away from Hermann Wiesflecker whose expertise is more general). What's next, an AfD for Arnold Toynbee?--Nicodemus75 03:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous to call her the world's authority on the Treaty of Westphalia. Cite your sources for such a claim. This cruft should be deleted. Dottore So 05:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dottoreso, I am making research on the Treaty of Westphalia, alongside university pals, because we plan to simulate it in our university´s MUN. We´ve done bibliographical research and the book by Croxton & Tischer is the most cited or recommended on the subject: simply go to Google or Amazon.com and note that their A Historical Dictionary is simply the biggest dude on the block when it comes to the subject. Cheers Doidimais Brasil 18:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC).

Response: I've clearly lost this argument, so consider this a parthian shot. First, I reject the idea that the Treaty of Westphalia constitutes its own sub-specialty. Thirty Years War, yes. The Westphalian peace treaty (or treaties really), no. Second, the authority of this work is grossly overstated. I could accept your view if you were citing Richard Bonney, Geoffrey Parker, C. V. Wedgwood, even Ronald Asch, and that's assuming you wish to limit yourself to English-language material. But this is a reference work; the authorship is therefore not notable. Moreover, as to your further claim, Amazon returns no reviews and a mere six citations for this academic treatise, which has a sales rank of #1,567,518; by contrast, Geoffrey Parker's (ed) survey enjoys 121 citations and nine customer reviews, despite its (comparatively impressive) rank of #582,194. You will find similar results from JSTOR, if you have access. Michael Roberts, Cristopher Friedrichs as well as Parker, Bonney et al, all of whom are much more famous historians and well-known experts on the Thirty Years War, with much longer publication records, much more established reputations, much more notable university positions, deserve entries. This is a fine reference book, I am sure. But the authors, at the beginning of their careers, with an as yet insignificant publication record and no distinguishing meritorious achievements, are just not notable enough to warrant inclusion. The above comparison with Toynbee is thus a patent absurdity. More like Emma Dench Who? Exactly. Dottore So 20:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-response: I´ve bought both Croxton&Tischer´s and Wedgwood´s books from Amazon.com, and so far the latter has been more fruitufl, I´ll agree to you on that. However, I fail to see why the Congress(es) of Westphalia can´t constitute a sub-specialty. Sure the Treaties of Utrecht and Versailles are? Not to mention Bretton Woods and the UN Charter. I do have access to JSTOR, and you can see that there are both articles and reviews by Derek Croxton there =). As for the review on Amazon.com, I´m planning to write it. Maybe you plan to write Cristopher Friedrichs? You can also see that a research on the Congress(es) can´t be done without precious insights on French foreign policy (for instance). Also, both authors have made works on 17th-century history, they haven´t wrote a single book! Finally, there´s always gain to be made when one stops and thinks about overused clichés - figuring out the actual meaning of what we tirelessly repeat. From my experience as an IR undergraduate, the Peace of Westphalia is an overused cliché. Warm cheers from Brazil. Doidimais Brasil 05:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable in her field.  ALKIVAR™ 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above reasons. --rob 02:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since I take the word of users above for the notability of the book. But why haven't any of you scholars cited this scholarly book in the article on the Peace of Westphalia? ---CH (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

CH, I´m an eventualist. Tischer and Croxton haven´t been mentioned in Peace of Westphalia...yet =). Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 23:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable in her field. --Cethegus 16:43, 16 September 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. — Trilobite 03:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Derek Croxton

Delete, nonnotable historian. "Independent researcher" is a euphemism for "unemployed academic", so he's not even a professor. Only link from article space to this article is from his coauthor Anuschka Tischer. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online lists him indicating some level of notability for him as an author and his book. Capitalistroadster
• Weak Keep. Like his co-author, just about notable and encyclopedic. - mholland 15:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete for reasons cited above in Tischer VfD. Dottore So 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 00:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Ladies and gentlemen: this PhD lad, together with Anuschka Tischer, is one of the two people that most know about the Congress of Westphalia, one of the most important congresses of History. For those familiar with International Relations literature, the Congress/Peace/Treaty of Westphalia is cited in practically every single text, it´s practically a cliché. If you want reviews from the book they co-author, check here. And if there are two people that understand the Congress, they are Derek Croxton and Anuschk Tischer. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 04:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hi Doidimais Brasil, as you created both pages for these authors and seem to know about them, do you think you could put up a reference to any work on them? If there are such works, I will join you in voting "strong keep". Currently however, the only sources you cite are their CV and some online reviews about their book. If the article was about The Peace of Westphalia: A Historical Dictionary, then such a source is acceptable, but you are writing biographies about them, as people, and so we would need sources on them to satisfy the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. For an example of a well-sourced and referenced article about a person, see here.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  08:22:07, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses Derek Croxton as source on article John Cabot, for instance. I do believe that the links to reviews on their works hints at their importance on their field. Moreover, I´ve added one more external link to Croxton´s article. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 18:11, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• keep as per Tischer VfD. Angr, I completely agree that academics in general are not notable as such, but some good historians have hovered around the fringes of academia while writing notable books, so I'm inclined to take the word of F. da Silva (aka Doidimais_ that this book is a standard in the field.---CH (talk) 03:48, 12 September 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. -Splash^talk 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Kreugenpansen's Tea Party

nn band vanity. Not even a sentence about the band, just a list of members. Not in AMG; Google hits reveal it to be a high school kids' band in Los Gatos, CA. MCB 07:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Very true but significant in relation to the town of Los Gatos and especially Los Gatos high school's music scene. (previous unsigned comment by: User:67.169.98.213

• Delete as per nom. Colinmac 12:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:57, 9 September 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. ~~ N (t/c) 23:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Care - L

Article is nonsense. There is no reference to a missile called "Care-L" on google. Someones attempt at subtle vandalism. Megapixie 07:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, *shrug* Usrnme h8er 09:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under nonsense. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 9 September 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 due to it being purely spam. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nick and Jayne Show

High school vanity that's bordering on speediness. Having a podcast on Blogspot doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia. sɪzlæk [ t, c, m ] 07:32, September 9, 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. -Splash^talk 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The suspended

Vanity page for non-notable band, no reason for notability claimed. -- The Anome 07:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --rob 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Jacqui M Schedler 15:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mmmmm! That's some tasty band vanity! --NielsenGW 17:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Hong Kong

Originally the result of a misunderstanding and entitled Pronunciation of Hong Kong in English and created merely because of one pronunciation file. The issue is no way controversial or complicated and the intent of inserting pronunciation files in leads was not to create these potential arenas of dispute over pointless spelling minutae. Delete as unencyclopedic and to curb creation of similar pages. Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a part of User:Karmosin's idea to rewrite the introduction to Hong Kong, which all other involved editors disagreed with, so now he is bringing this article to AFD as another measure. This article gives information about the pronunciation of Hong Kong which is fairly complicated as it has to be explained in several languages and doesn't fit into the lead section of the article. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Páll, you're trying to bring a completely separate issue into this. Please base your vote on the matter at hand, not about your own notions of discussions held in separate articles. This has to do with the merit of keeping this sort of articles, not about how Hong Kong should look. Also, this is not the issue which was contested at Talk:Hong Kong, but rather that the issue of the full title. This seems to have been more or less resolved and I find it most dishonest that you're distorting the debate in this manner. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept, which is why I voted accordingly. I do, however, find it to be an act of bad faith for you to list an article on AFD after you attempted to remove it from the introparagraph of the Hong Kong article failed, thereby making the whole argument moot. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 15:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You got some nerve accusing me of bad faith, Páll. I've spent the last six months recording pronunciation files and adding them to articles, including the Hong Kong-one in Mandarin, and claiming this nomination is somehow illicit just because you've misinterpreted a discussion at talk:Hong Kong does not justify it. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The Hong Kong article can link to wiktionary. This information belongs in wiktionary. --Jiang 16:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This information is useful but there is no reason whatsoever that it should merit its own individual article. If the editors of the Hong Kong article are engaged in some kind of dispute, that's a separate issue. This should be included on the main HK page. Dottore So 16:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Hong Kong article. Factual, interesting, notable. Sdedeo 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • so should we start articles on Pronunciation of the United States, Pronunciation of Beijing, Pronunciation of Wikipedia, Pronunciation of Britain, Pronunciation of Shanghai, Pronunciation of Taiwan....? It's certainly factual, but interesting and notable? the same could be said of every placename in the world. --21:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you read the article, you will see that the question of the pronunciation of the word "Hong Kong" is actually somewhat interesting and encyclopedic. As I said above, I would not object to a merge, of course. Sdedeo 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Right now it includes information I removed because it was pure speculation ("'Hong Kong' only sounds somewhat similar to the Cantonese"), but Páll reinserted it without certifying it. Other than that it just explains that Hong Kong is a multilingual city (something very common all over the world) and that people who speak different languages pronounce it differently in their respective languages. How hard is that to figure out merely by reading Hong Kong? / Peter ^Isotalo 08:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Hong Kong article, give it a section. --Fang Aili 20:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep or Merge per Sdedeo. I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 21:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should go to wiktionary --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 23:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; information is factual, verifiable. Merging with Hong Kong is inappropriate, because this information is peripheral to that article, and because this article could easily be expanded (historical development of pronunciation in each language, linguistics information, the politics involved in an area with multiple pronunciations, etc.). Merging with an article on, say, Name of Hong Kong would be acceptable. -- Creidieki 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hong Kong already includes the sound files for the Cantonese and Mandarin names; the Hakka name could be added too, but then that's sufficient. This article does not belong at Wiktionary, since it's not a dictionary entry. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep don't merge. — Instantnood 10:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think you could provide a motivation for either keeping or merging? Have you understood the part about the pronunciation of a multilingual city being nothing unique to Hong Kong, or to any number of other mutlilingual cities of the world? / Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In what way do you think all these different ways of romanisations of the full name of the territory can be fit into the leading paragraph? — Instantnood 11:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Simple answer: we wouldn't. It's pointless, over-specific trivia that is not necessary in any way to an encyclopedic article, even on Wikipedia. We don't do it in other articles unless absolutely necessary and we shouldn't do it here. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Quoted from Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English): " any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name) ". In the case of "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", "中華人民共和國香港特別行政區" is the native name, and there are many ways to transliterated it into Latin alphabets. — Instantnood 17:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • The most obvious native name is actually just "香港", while yours is the full official title that is only used in official documents and the likes. Stating just the common short form is not any kind of POV, but common sense. You're simply rules lawyering a naming convention (not official policy), because you want a separate article for this nonsense and because you're ignoring that it's clearly mentioned in two other occasions in the same article, all visible without even scrolling down. That's not simply trying to be faithful to guidelines, but seems to me as an attempt to make a point. Exactly what would happen if this became an exception to the convention? Would a band of rogue editors demand that X other articles follow the same format and demand a change in the naming conventions? Would representatives of the Hong Kong government angrily demand that we reinstate the way it is? No, only a few very rigid Wikipedia editors would ever care. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please don't resort to calling people names. Second of all, each and every featured article on a country uses the full official name, as witness to the "Republic of South Africa", the "People's Republic of China", the "Commonwealth of Australia", the "Republic of India", and the "Kingdom of Cambodia". If you want to change the titles of all of these articles, I suggest you take it up with all of the editors on each of these pages, but as long as we're citing policiies (of which there are none for what you propose and there is a lot of presedence for what was done on the Hong Kong article), why don't you go and take a look at WP:POINT. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Change all other country articles just because I want to make a well-motivated exception? Have you gond mad? You're not citing policy but a general guideline; these are called guidelines for a very specific reason. But if you insist on playing the rules lawyering-game, why don't you dig up the policy that says all guidlines needs to be changed to make room for small exceptions? Or, hey, just find the policy that says all guidelines are to be taken literally down to the last paragraph and that all deviations are to be viewed as policy violations. That ought to settle this once and for all. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge' to Hong Kong. I don't see why this information can't be merged, but as the article currently stands it doesn't warrant having an article of its own. – AxSkov (☏) 05:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. -Sean Curtin 19:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Páll, Peter, I can't make head or tail of this AFD, and neither of you is helping. Páll, I disagree with you taking the Hong Kong dispute to this AFD. It seems to me just bad form to turn an AFD into a discussion of the nominator's motives. I have no doubt that Peter is acting in good faith, I consider him a very honest editor. Peter, if you want to help the comprehensibility of this debate to anybody besides you two hotheads, could you try to explain more simply how you see the stub and its creation, please? What misunderstanding are you talking about? Bishonen | talk 23:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The origins of this lie in talk:Hong Kong, but the AfD would've come about no matter what. The initial discussion was about the lead and I was trying to explain how it's not particularly constructive to slavishly follow conventions if they result in clunky leads and conclusions like the creation of separate articles just to mention differing transcriptions and etymology trivia. I've tried to discuss this at talk:pronunciation of Hong Kong and by redirecting the nominated article to the main article, but this was reverted without much attempt to discuss the matter. Furthermore, my removals of pure layman speculation concerning etymology was also reverted. What upsets me the most is that one of the pronunciation files I've recorded to be used in main articles is being used as an excuse to keep this warping of inclusion policy alive. If this goes through as an acceptable article I will have to stop recording any files like these every again, since they will only be used as just another excuse to fill Wikipedia with pointless trivia. If Hong Kong gets one, any other city where at least two major languages are spoken and has more than two sentences to describe etymology will be prime targets for further trivia-articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand on Etymology if possible, then rename Name of Hong Kong as per Creidieki. --Vsion 01:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A significant article about Etymology. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has its own contents that no other means can preserve this knowledge on the topic. Moving this into another article such as Hong Kong will make the article too long and attached with irrelevant contents. Deryck C. 07:56:35, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
• Keep as per PZFUN and Vsion. --Carlsmith 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to some suitable article. This AfD seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• There is a possibility of merging this into the Hong Kong article, perhaps as the first section, although this would appear rather odd, unless it be further expanded to discuss wider implications. For example, Hong Kong didnt become known as Xianggang despite the 1997 handover, another facet of the one country, two systems policy by Beijing. Until then, I would think this article can be kept.--Huaiwei 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, what exactly is it called if not Xianggang? And I'm not talking about the full official name. I'm talking about the common name in Standard Mandarin. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am talking about its usage in English. Your comment does not really apply to mine.--Huaiwei 13:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Hong Kong is never refered to as "Xianggang" in correct English usage. (It's like saying "Wien" instead of Vienna). Native pronunciations have nothing to do with the English name or pronunciation. The soundfiles are there to be informative, not to serve as diction guides, or I would never make recordings in languages I'm not a native speaker of. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I made no suggestion that Hong Kong is refered to as "Xianggang" in English, so I do not know where your reservations lie. Meanwhile, you may be glad to know that Atlases produced around the world has increasingly adopted local spellings in placenames, so Wien is actually quite often used in world maps now. That said, you comparison of Vienna/Wien is not exactly comparable with Hong Kong/Xianggang, because Chinese does not use the roman alphabet. Both Hong Kong and Xianggang are English words, just as both Beijing and Peking are. So what are they in Chinese? 香港 and 北京 respectively! :D--Huaiwei 15:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that this is one in a series of articles that makes the point that some Wikipedia editors hate this Romanization scheme, and other Wikipedia editors hate that Romanization scheme. Unlike other voters, I actually don't think this article is awfully informative. That which is educational is pretty lexical. Further, the article is misnamed, as it's not about the pronunciation of the name, but rather what the orthography in the Latin alphabet reflects. That, as I said, goes back to how some hate this scheme, some that scheme. In all, it seems like a fork. If the material cannot or should not be merged to Hong Kong, then it should be deleted as a fork, on the one hand, and as an unsearchable title, on the other. Let's look at the forest, not the trees, for a second. Geogre 10:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, necessary information for an encylopedia, doesn't look suitable to be merged. Kappa 17:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Legend of the Liquid Sword (album). -Splash^talk 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Legend Of The Liquid Sword

The article title is incorrectly capitalised[6] and an there is an article with the correct title. I merged the information from this article into Legend of the Liquid Sword (album) before I realised that duplicate articles do not justify speedy deletion. Tim Ivorson 17:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect to Legend of the Liquid Sword (album). —Cryptic (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I think I remember reading that an all-capped version will come up in the Go search if the search field is all lowercase; therefore, this is a useful redirect phrase. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:24, 9 September 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Powderhorn & Seabadge

I asked that this article be deleted because its redundant. There are already pages for both training programs. There are also factual errors in the Powder Horn section, and new info in the Sea Badge section needs to be moved to that page. --Emb021 21:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Merge and redirect to Sea Badge, possibly moving history to sea badge first. —Cryptic (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content if appropriate. Need for a redirect looks pretty marginal, so current tending towards a delete. Alai 21:07, 11 September 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. -Splash^talk 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Paradox Trifora

Delete: non-notable web forum. JDoorjam 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote against deletion: I cannot help but think JDoorjam is biased since he removed the bulk of the article and then nominated it for deletion. At least leave it in tact and nominate the article for what it is. . . wadehouston

• Check the page history, pal. I removed "I am bored and very horny" which an anon put in there. Then I added a stub, and then added vfd. JDoorjam 22:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

its a spurious wank. delete it. (previous unsigned comment by: User:24.72.26.37

• Its offensive towards the Tomatoforum and ITF. If you write an encyclopedia article, you cannot write it from a single point of view, and furthermore you cannot write it in such a way to offend people whose tastes differ from yours. While the Paradox Trifora mainly discusses politics, the Tomatoforum people mainly talk about daily events, which (admit it or not) include pornography, rude words and making fun of someone elses misfortune. But it's unfair to say that it's made out only of "massive amounts of spam, pornography, and references to gross-out humor", since many positive topics are discussed also, so it looks like the author either knows nothing about the forum he accuses or his arrogance doesn't allow him to see what he doesn't want to see.

Delete it ASAP.(previous unsigned comment by: User:195.24.9.6

I find it highly offensive that Paradox Interactive are associated with the kind of degenerates that would operate such a forum as Tomatoland or ITF. The information, if it can be called that is highly misleading and in some cases just plainly untrue..(previous unsigned comment by: User:Sir Clive

• As the author of the original article, I refuse to take responsibility for hijacks by teenagers such as the one mentioned above, nor do I see the point in listening to anonymous criticism by non-members. Paradox Entertainment is one of the most popular forums for video game developers, and especially high among European-based ones. The excuse that it is for not popular webfora is relativism at its best, and perhaps this deletion article itself needs a Neutral POV indicator, since you obviously are misinformed, JDoor. Sadistik

• Personal attacks removed.--Scimitar ^parley 14:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Character defamation at its best. I state outwardly that I am Sadistik, while you refuse to admit to your identity, Kyujuni. Regardless, I am not a neo-nazi, fascist, nor a racist. My religion prevents me from being entirely accepting of homosexuality, but I fail to see where that is your business, nor do I see where it effects the article in any way. All of the most slanderous lines were added afterwards by other people, and that is documented.

Sadisdik

• This article is total bollocks, waste of space, and therefore should be deleted. And contrary to what the individual above states, he is a fascist who admires Mussolini. Well anyway, i don't understand what the heck is an article about a relatively obscure internet community doing here. (previous unsigned comment by: User:82.181.92.17

• Personal attacks removed --Scimitar ^parley 14:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is entirely accurate and I find it unbiased. I will be saddened if this masturb.. masterfully written article is removed. -Fireblade(previous unsigned comment by: User:65.66.68.144

Well, a few improvements have been made. :nods: - Sultan of Sausage Sucker(previous unsigned comment by: User:82.32.28.238

• Removed inappropriate comments --Scimitar ^parley 14:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest Sadistik get a dictionary so he can look up words like Libel in the future. As it is I can clarify it for him. Libel is character defimation through the written word, which he admits too.(previous unsigned comment by: User:205.206.187.146

• Delete- nn. Christy747 09:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Removed personal attacks.--Scimitar ^parley 14:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete As obscure as the topic may be to outsiders it is still a valid article. - Josquius (indeed posted by: User:Josquius

• Derlete- It should be several seperate articles giving detailed descriptions of the perversions personal to each poster at the forums in question, also it should admit how much all those forums, especialy this 'ITF' owe to 'The Keg'. :nods: - Rusty The Walruss(previous unsigned comment by: User:64.254.0.30

• Don't Delete Have you seen my sandals? I've lost my sandals. - Albert the Jiang Gelly Bean.(previous unsigned comment by: User:82.32.28.238

Don't worry, I found them. - Me again.(previous unsigned comment by: User:82.32.28.238

Delete - Kyujuni

• Delete Nonsense. MickWest 23:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Protect because of severe vandalism!!!!! 213.76.152.186
• Delete. Forumcruft. WP:NOT a web guide. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Neutral; Alexa rank 47,525 isn't terrible as forumcruft goes. —Cryptic (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webpage vanity, being of interest to insiders does not warrant an article - quite the opposite as it needs to have relevance to people outside its own community. Usrnme h8er 08:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --rob 10:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Marcus22 10:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Colinmac 12:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Terry 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've removed a bunch of the crap posted above. If you really need to see it, look at the page's history (none of the comments removed were votes, or relevent to the article).--Scimitar ^parley 14:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Alexa rank Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wikipedia is not paper. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia may not be paper, but that is not carte blanche to include cruft. Dottore So 16:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The first thing we do, let's pitch out everything on Wikipedia that makes it unlike a standard print dictionary. /sarcasm --Jacqui M Schedler 20:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, as per alexa rank. Wikipedia is not a pissing contest anyway... Roodog2k (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, per alexa. Sdedeo 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Forumcruft --Isotope23 19:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a PR firm for nn web fora. Zoe 20:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forumcruft. --Carnildo 22:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn forumcruft. MCB 01:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of spells in Harry Potter since, unsurprisingly, it's already there. -Splash^talk 21:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Reparo

• VFD: a spell from Harry Potter does not warrant its own page Devanjedi 00:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Merge into List of spells in Harry Potter. —Cryptic (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Megapixie 08:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into List of spells in Harry Potter. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect sounds very sensible. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 00:13, 10 September 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. -Splash^talk 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

RoadCar

This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No useful content, linked from only a list. If it is kept it needs to be stubbed and worked on alot. Only 1490 Google hits with about 1/2 being listings or wiki mirrors. --Terry 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know much about the subject; is expansion possible? That might solve the problem. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, comment: I detest the Google test. Google finds lots of stuff you don't want and often none of the stuff that you do. Plus, it fails to take into account what could be found in books. This seems like the kind of thing that one could mostly find in books or periodicals. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, see Oxford Bus Company, should aim for that level of information at least. Alf ^melmac 21:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No useful content. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 00:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important facet of transport in Lincolnshire. Kappa 17:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Kilij Arslan I. -Splash^talk 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Qilich Arslan I

A Pointless article. Too short to be considered a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessuno834 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even a single sentence is better than nothing though tbh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.160.6 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep, expand. —Cryptic (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Kilij Arslan I. —Cryptic (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 10:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC) redirect. Kappa 11:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Substub. Speedy delete per CSD #A1. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • How does "Turkish" and "Sultan" not provide context? Kappa 11:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• redirect Kilij Arslan I --Terry 14:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Cryptic et al. Alf ^melmac 21:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Cryptic. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanse Fold and Manipulate

Nothing of signficance is even claimed in this article about an album by Skinny Puppy. The band's article indicates they generally got little radio and video play in general. Wikipedia is not an albumn catalogue. rob 08:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Real album by notable band. android79 11:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: I'm open to being proven wrong. I would suggest on expanding why they are notable, perhaps at the top of the band's article. There is a *vast* amount about the band in the band's article and *many* other articles, all dedicated to the same people. 95% of it fan-devotion. Now, perhaps buried in it, is an explanation of why they are notable, and what success they've acheived. I tried my best to read through this monument by fans, but only picked up that they had little play on the radio and video on tv. Also, I ask why is it necessary to list all the songs for each album both here, and on the band's article? --rob 11:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The band easily meets WP:MUSIC. Every other problem you state with the article(s) can be solved by editing, not deletion. android79 12:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Reply: Well, I don't subscribe to the idea, that once the band's article gets in, every other related article get's in. Some bands are so famous and influential, that individual notable songs qualify, but we don't give every song for every "articled" band an article itself. Nor does every album deserve an article. In some cases, only the band itself deserves an article. Merely being "real" is not sufficient basis for an article. I actually would be fine if wikipedia did start cataloging all published musical albums, even obscure ones. But, that should become a formal policy, applied to all, not just some. --rob 12:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Err, there is an entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums devoted to doing just that. I think that's as close to a "formal policy" as you're likely to get. android79 13:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • There was also a "schools project" as well. Did that mean automatic inclusion of every school? Of course, schools don't have devoted fans, that think every microscopic detail is notable. --rob 13:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I just checked again, and found no explicit policy on inclusion of *every* album. If there is an implied policy, than that should be made explicit at WP:MUSIC. If it had been explicit, I wouldn't have made the nom, nor waste our time. --rob 13:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a policy. There are very few inclusion/exclusion criteria that are actual policy. Feel free to clarify with the WP:ALBUM folks what would constitute inclusion criteria for albums, but I'm guessing they'll tell you what I've been saying here: notable band that meets WP:MUSIC = notable album. That's also the general trend on AfD with albums. android79 13:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real album. If the band is non-notable, bring them to Afd. Kappa 11:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They're notable, Kappa, they're notable. Grutness...wha? 13:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Skinny Puppy. Notable band, essentially non-notable album. Barno 15:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nn band? I've heard of them - I'm a rock dino'! Album - nn or otherwise - keep. Alf ^melmac 21:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable album by notable band. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable band, and there is plenty of precedent for album articles, even non-notable ones. If this was some obscure greatest hits collection or a bootleg then, maybe, but this was a major release. If it flopped, that actually adds a bit of additional notability because Skinny Puppy is a very popular group within its genre. 23skidoo 02:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Steve McConnell

vanity, likely self-published, self-promotional in nature, of limited notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deansaling (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 August 2005

• Completely disagree. McConnell is a well known software engineer, and his books are not at all self-published. The page may be promotional, but it's certainly not self-promotional. I say Keep. coldacid 15:05, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep, seems notable enough. —Cryptic (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep McConnell is the author of very well-known & influential software engineering books, particularly Code Complete. SpuriousQ 08:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and hopefully expand and/or restructure. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I own two of his books, published by Microsoft press. Hardly non-notable. DES ^(talk) 22:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 00:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• It reads like book cover copy, if not then Keep and cleanup, too informal (first name use) for encyclopedia._WCFrancis 01:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well-known author, but the article really needs some serious clean-up. -- THL 07:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ministry of Magic. -Splash^talk 21:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Department of Mysteries

This article is redundant. The information on the Department of Mysteries can be found in the article Ministry of Magic. No point wasting space so please vote for deletion. Tomhongs 07:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ministry of Magic — all the content's already there, as Tomhongs noted. -- Perey 2 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect to Ministry of Magic, just like Department of Mysteries does. —Cryptic (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Megapixie 09:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirectsare cheap...Lectonar 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Tim O'Connor

Pointless.

• Delete. Michael 03:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as I have rewritten the previously blank article into a brief item on the actor Tim O'Connor. Incidentally, the anonymous user who nominated this could have requested a speedy delete since the article originally had no content except for the number "3". 23skidoo 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the rewrite. VFD was added to blank page, no longer applies. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 23skidoo's rewrite. Capitalistroadster 11:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the problem is now fixed. Thanks, 23skidoo. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Mgm. Alf ^melmac 21:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind telling you folks I was weirded out there for a moment. I couldn't remember doing this today - and then I noticed it was a revived VFD from a month ago! :-) 23skidoo 02:52, 10 September 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/Merge. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

University of Houston/Intramural sports and University of Houston/Club sports organizations

This article was copied from the University's intramural webpage and obviously does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedia article. soverman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.23.26 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, and delete University of Houston/Club sports organizations too. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Cryptic (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Megapixie 09:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• They are referenced in the University of Houston article. I don't think there'd be a lot of problems with merging. They shouldn't be seen as loose articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 16:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per MGM, no reason to delete this information. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:30, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Splash^talk 22:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Tadao Aoi

A vanity piece if I ever saw one.--Hooperbloob 03:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- de-vanitized it a bit... Maybe stubable now.. Eclipsed 03:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, president of a company with 12,794 employess and a turnover of $2.754 billion. [7]. Kappa 10:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable businessperson. Capitalistroadster 11:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The company is notable, but that doesn't automatically extend its notability to the president. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think Capitalistroadster and Jacqui M Schedler are setting the "notable business" bar too low. Unless, of course, Aoi donates millions to the Wikipedia :-/ ---CH (talk) 08:03, 12 September 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. The transwikiers are too small in number for me to add a tag as part of this closure, and the expanded article probably doesn't fit in Wikt: anyway. -Splash^talk 22:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

White coats, now moved to White coat

This vfd nomination was orphaned. Weak delete or redirect or move somewhere appropriate; I can't see how this is useful at this title. —Cryptic (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - before we get an article for every color/type combination of work clothes. If somebody wishes to do a serious article about work clothes, even one specific to certain areas, that's fine. Such an article should be named and organized based on type of work, or function of clothing, and not on the color. --rob 09:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, laboratory coats (vulgo whitecoats) are a type of work clothing. Pilatus 01:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote But I have made some changes that might alter views of the article's notability. Not sure if these are a bit too dictionary-like, though. The phrase "men in white coats" gets 76,000 hits on Google.Vizjim 10:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. The term as used to describe scientists in general is fairly widespread. Also the name of a good (if NN) song by New Model Army (band). Grutness...wha? 13:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Enough there to change my vote to keep now. Good work folks. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I've expanded and cleaned up. Much to my surprise, I think there is more than enough information out there to eventually turn this into a feature article. For now though, I'd settle for the less ambitious goal of not deleting it.--Scimitar ^parley 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable cultural phenomenon, akin to Hello Kitty. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with Vizjim's and Scimitar's addition. Notable costume. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an expanded dicdef. Transwiki if possible. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This type of work clothes has cultural significance. Pilatus 01:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• The page has been moved to White coat, as per the usual conventions. Hope nothing got broken in the process. Pilatus 10:19, 12 September 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. I would point out that I have counted the userfies as deletes, however. Userfication is for accidental creations in article space that clearly belong in user space. It is not a temporary dumping ground for stuff that people can't make up their minds about. -Splash^talk 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ronin (comics)

Entirely speculative. WP:NOT a crystal ball. SoM 10:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (at least for now). If the character has appeared in official artwork and such, it isn't really just speculation anymore. It certainly isn't some "my friend's mom's barber's girlfriend read on some forum that something might happen in 2008" type of rumour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's an actual character who should be appearing soon. Maybe it should be cleaned up so only the stuff thats been proven is there. --DrBat 14:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• delete "should be appearing soon" which means he hasnt appeared which means crystal ball --Terry 14:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy until "late September 2005" when the people who care will find out whether this will in fact be a major character affiliated with the New Avengers which are of high interest within this niche (but trivial in the context of society as a whole). "If the character has appeared in official artwork and such, it isn't really" encyclopedic. If the character has been the star of a widely read comic, it's only barely noteworthy enough for a not-paper encyclopedia. Check back when "not a crystal ball" can't be used to dispute the verifiability of the article content. Barno 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. Kappa 15:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as per Barno Dlyons493 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but merge later if Ronin is revealed to be a pre-existing character.--Kross 03:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Just say the character is an upcoming member of the new avengers. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:08, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Comicscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 11 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Vid Strpic

I tagged this as nn-bio speedy, but the tag got removed and the nn contested by a contributor - so bringing it here. This chap's only claim to fame is that he is prolific in IRC (1,000 Googles bears that out) perhaps that's an asserion of notability (I don't know) but it certainly does not estabilish notability for me. "He is also known as plonker, wally and a dipstick" also keeps being inserted into the article. --Doc (?) 11:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn --rob 11:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn-bio was right in the first place. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 13:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. Writing prolifically in IRC channels, no matter how voluminous or how "proven", does not create WP-worthiness. Barno 15:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. I know Vid Strpic personally, and I was on the IRC channel when one of the users came up with the idea to make this article. Therefore, I can say with certainty that the article wasn't Strpic's ego-trip, and that it was a practical joke on his person instead. Also, it's a stain on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is supposed to be useful instead of being a place where people put their verbal garbage for their own amusement. The article should definitely be deleted. Stoko 17:52, 9 September 2005 (CET)
• Delete nn I don't know anything about this person expect what I read in the article, which might make me more or less qualified to judge the suitability of this biography in an encyclopedia.---CH (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete i know this person in real life and don't consider him as material for WP
• Delete - I know him as well but he's simply not a topic for Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] 10:07, 14 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Genèse Harris

Vanity page, advertising, non-notable ergo, deletable per the deletion policy Knucmo2 12:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article is as correct as it can be. This is not a vanity page. This is a page that talks about the photographer and her point-of-view Genese 9 September 2005
• Delete; no assertion,let alone establishment, of notability. Note also that the image is tagged with a GPL tag but is clearly marked ""Copyright © Genèse Harris/GDDG Photography. All rights reserved". Tonywalton  | Talk 12:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity? perhaps {{userfy}} it's already userfied Lectonar 12:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, vanity CLW 13:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Sliggy 13:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Don't forget the redirect page. Al 13:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete flag added, as a biography that does not contain anything that could be regarded as a significant claim to notability. PatGallacher 14:03, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Delete, as the article doesn't give any evidence of notability, and don't forget to delete GDDG Photography which is an extension of this article (the photographer's firm). Uppland 20:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to User:Genese which already a longer version of this article. -- RHaworth 21:58:40, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
  • Question - So, it's satisfactory for me to create an article under my real name to redirect it to my user page?--Knucmo2 10:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment a redirect to user space is a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD R2. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Dottore So 23:17, 9 September 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 per CSD A7. -Splash 19:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Guy Powell

NN and a vanity piece - written like a kid's story! The curate's egg 13:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 13:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above, also flagged as speedy. Sandstein 15:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I like how he he wrote this one like a story, even including "The End." --Quintin3265 18:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied per CSD A7. There was no assertion of notability. -Splash 19:29, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hard Times/ Hard Cash

Unreleased album by artists who would not seem to be notable if a Google search for Kyreese and Coney is to be relied upon CLW 13:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Allmusic.com's never heard of them, this album, the one that "only sold a couple copies" or any of the tracks, either. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sandstein 15:15, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

IMTHEDEVIL

Infernal band vanity. --Doc (?) 13:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it back to Hell. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That, with apologies to BD2412, would be Wiki-hell?--Doc (?) 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Sandstein 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Devil is usually more subtle than this - --Outlander 16:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to withholding tax. -Splash^talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Payroll withholding

Already covered better (and with less POV) at Withholding tax and Tax withholding in the United States. BadSeed 13:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• merger and redirect --Terry 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to withholding tax, nothing to merge. --Carnildo 22:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Carnildo--nothing here worth keeping. Paul 23:41, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Milton (band)

Not notable (Google search for all three members only gives one hit - this article) college band. Second para suggests vanity to me. CLW 13:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Sandstein 15:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Cyclone49 21:44, 9 September 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 8/3. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Academic Bias against The Shia

I really don't want to persecute someone's (obviously heartfelt) cause, but this is inherently POV --Doc (?) 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A rename and NPOVing is in place, but the topic is legit and real. --Striver 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is NPOV material in there, it should comfortably fit into Shia.Sandstein 15:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (but see below), well-written article on intrinsically POV topic, No original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Barno 15:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be in favor of a merge of a small amount of the more objective and sourced content into the Shia article. Barno 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Shi'a Islam as per Sandstein and Barno. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any NPOV bits into the appropriate articles Alynna 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if there is any NPOV material, then redirect. Note: "This article intends to address just that, and is written from the perspective of the Shi'a" makes me think there is very little NPOV material here to begin with. Sdedeo 18:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. If one is to study the Shi'a from the perspective as they themselves see it, (not from the perspective of outsiders), this would be the one and only article to address that.--Zereshk 19:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Em, so that's us welcoming articles from particular POV's now? What happened to WP:NPOV? --Doc (?) 19:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

POVness doesnt even apply to this case because the article is merely reporting what Shias believe as the truth, not what anyone else thinks what the truth is. The article is reporting their perspective. It's like me accusing you (Doc Glascow) of being POV for saying "I am Doc Glascow". Another example: If I say: "I, Zereshk, believe that hyenas are beautiful", you cannot accuse me of making a POV statement, because it is what I believe, not you, nor Mr. X, nor the Wikipedia consensus. You cannot say: "No Zereshk. You are POV. Because I know better than you what you believe in, and the world doesnt agree with you either". Follow the logic? The world's consensus opinion is not applicable here. The article clearly states that it is from the Shia viewpoint, not from the standard Islamic or academic or any other perspective. It is an objective report of a subjective view. Therefore your action of even putting this article to vote for deletion is meaningless. Wouldnt you want to know what Shias think? What they (not you or the consesnsus) believe in? Wouldnt you want to hear what they have to say about themselves? How can you claim what they say as POV? Do you know Shias better than Shias know themselves?--Zereshk 20:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is fine to objectively report the subjective views of Shias - as long as we have objective reports of other takes on the issues too. An article that simply recored Shia views on an alledged academic bias without any record of opposing views would be POV. Or else we could have artilces on 'a fundamentalist's view of evolution' or 'a Palestinian's view of Israeli occupation' without any NPOV corrective. --Doc (?) 20:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including multiple POV, indeed, this is the cornerstone of NPOV. But if you read the quote I gave above, it says it is "written from the perspective of the Shi'a". The article is not and does not claim to be written from a neutral point of view; it explicitly excludes (including in the title) all but one POV. Sdedeo 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any NPOV material (with sources when/if provided), then redirect as perSdedeo. It's certainly possible to attempt a balance between Many Shia commentators believe and Opponents often claim but one needs sources first (and even then the result is liable to seem weaselly)! Dlyons493 20:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Commnet Guys, ther is a factual bias against Shias, as they perceive it, and in what i have understood, even in a factual way, since the net is filled with non-sense presented as acctual Shia belives. Zereshk is trying to represent that, and the topic in it self is to big to fit in the Shia article whithout dominating it. So the subject is real, both in that there is much desinformation about shias and that shias feel that themselves. And as i said, there is to much to make all of it fitt in the Shia article. Dont condemn her article as non-sence without having read, understood and commneted it. --Striver 22:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any factual material. There are Shia academics: the title in inherently POV. Vizjim 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. If it is the title of the article that bothers people, then change it. But keep the article itself. Merging isnt a good idea, because it will dominate the Shia article itself, as Striver has pointed out.--Nightryder84 23:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It has an essay title to begin with. Other than that, it's just a soapbox. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:23, 11 September 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 amending my earlier decision, because for some reason I didn't read the debate properly and rather miscounted. -Splash^talk 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Society (song)

Too coherent to be patent nonsense, too obvious to be original research. But says nothing, and anyway it isn't a song.DS 14:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nonsense all the same. CLW 14:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• It is a song. I haven't found out what chart positions the single reached. Weak Keep. Uncle G 14:59:31, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Sandstein 15:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I like Pennywise, and I know this song, but I can't see any reason for it having its own article. Punkmorten 20:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment I could find the song, a video to download but nowhere that mentions its release as a single. Alf ^melmac 21:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Our article on Pennywise mentions it. It's in the list of singles given in that article. Uncle G 00:25:35, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
    • Having thought about this further, there were enough articles which 'eulogised' this particular song on the internet, whether or not it was actually released as a single: Weak Keep as a song that has impacted our culture enough. Alf ^melmac 09:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. My recollection is that this was a single. According to Allmusic.com, the single did not chart in the US - the band has had two singles make the Billboard modern rock tracks chart but this wasn't one of them. The album as a whole performed reasonably well reaching #79 on the Billboard charts according to their allmusic.com article. [8].

One of the reasons that allmusic.com is an invaluable resource is that it lists chart performance in the Billboard charts in their band and album articles. It did reach #90 in the Triple J Hottest 100, 1997 chart of alternative rock tracks in Australia. After all this, I would vote to merge with the Full Circle article except we don't seem to have one. Merge with Full Circle (1997 album).Capitalistroadster 13:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Very few songs need their own articles. This is not one of them. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge, single by notable band. Kappa

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Arch0wl.com

Uh, yeah. Not a very "notable" site. Has been deleted before, but with completely different text. Delete. --SPUI (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sandstein 15:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above people, too. Not a notable website. 66.24.4.236 19:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How can Wikipedia possibly verify the alleged 7700 users? Other sources (google) suggest nn.---CH (talk) 03:31, 12 September 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/merge Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Geeforce

This article mostly overlaps with the better-written articles gee and fictitious force. One area where it does not overlap is a weak explanation of "what Einstein said", a topic that is better treated in the articles about gravitation equivalence principle. Note also this article has already been reverted a few times, and had a bogus anonymous VfD tag stuck on it in the past. linas 14:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, of course. linas 14:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to gee. — brighterorange (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered fictitious force, that's a better merge target. linas 05:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep first half; merge second half into gee. The first half of this article is about a separate topic from gee, and a merge would be inappropriate. The gee article is about a unit of acceleration; one gee is a certain amount of acceleration. The geeforce article is about a type of force; geeforces are something which cause acceleration. Geeforces could be measured in gees, but they are separate topics. As a physics major, I'd like to emphasize that this type of distinction is very important. Also, the geeforce article claims that it is dealing specifically with acceleration that isn't caused by gravity, but which appears gravity-like; thus, it would be appropriate to have a separate article on this, rather than merging with the gravity or gravitation articles. All of these topics are related, but distinct. I'd be happy to discuss this further on my talk page -- Creidieki 04:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The right place to have this discussion is here, and not on your talk page. However, after reviewing the other articles more carefully, I agree with you, you are right, this is a distinct topic. I was wrong about the redirect; the redirect should not be to gee but to fictitious force, and all of this article should be merged with fictitious force, and then redirected to it. linas 04:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to be snippy, but if this article had been categorized correctly in the first place, under Category:Force and Category:Introductory physics, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb in Category:Physics, it might not have attracted the AfD tag. linas 05:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as per above. Karol 11:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• don't merge. "gee" and geeforce ought to be separate. Technically the g/gee ought to be lower case to distinguish it from G/Gee, the gravitational constant, but I think it might be a technical limitation of Wiki that we can't fix that.

The "ficticious forces" label is archaic - it was a categorisation used by people teachng Newtonian theory who wanted to argue that forces due to acceleration that didn't fit the theory could be ignored, because they weren't "physical". This was not a very scientfic argument, and was roundly rejected by many people including Ernst Mach. Einstein's general theory of relativity implemented these forces as fully physical effects, and the term "ficticious" has generally been considered wrong for the last ~ninety years. I'm sure that they still teach "ficticious forces" in schools, but then again, when I was at school, they still taught "Newton's seven colours", introductory physics textbooks have a tendency to contain a lot of discredited "fossil physics". I think that the existing ficticious forces page does a good job of warning anyone who looks for the term that its a bad old historical thing that should be avoided:

" Within physics, there is no obvious use for the term "fictional", or even any precise definition. It is not clear that this characterisation is particularly useful, and many deny that forces are "fictitious" or "imaginary" in any real sense. "

So: "geeforces" should not be merged into the ficticious forces page, they refer to particular physical effects independently of theoretical interpretation. The ficticious forces page might be merged into geeforces, but since "ff" is a term that we are trying to exterminate, perhaps keeping it on its own little isolated page with links out might be the correct thing to do. "ff" might be merged into a different page (such as Coriolis force) , but again, since its a term we probably shouldn't be using, it would be a shame to contaiminate a perfectly nice page like Coriolis force with a paragraph about a dead term that we aren't supposed to use any more. Better to keep "ff" in isolation, I think, and let it wither and die.ErkDemon 13:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge second half and improve first half, as per Creidieki's suggestions. Two more comments: First, Erk, I see that Linas has also noticed, as I have, that you have a marked tendency toward miscategorization. I ask again that you try to be more thoughtful in future. Second, I see that you said that physics teachers have tradionally counseled students to ignore Coriolis forces. That is not true (unless they are neglible in some situation); rather, traditional physics education warns students that these "forces" are treated differently in Newtonian theory, and also in general relativity! So you also got that wrong.---CH (talk) 17:52, 11 September 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 COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite. -Splash^talk 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Treason in Wartime

Article appears to be an internet post or essay espousing an editorial. The notability of the text has not been established, and the content is not encyclopedic. Finally, meets WP:NOT. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sandstein 15:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsalvageable POV screed. Fire Star 15:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because WTF!?!? -- BD2412 ^talk 15:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio from http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id120.html I'd tag it as such but I don't want to add to the copyvio backlog. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Ah, the heck with it. I've tagged it as copyvio, since there's already similar stuff on the copyvio page for today. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:58, 9 September 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Uberfic

A genre of fanfiction. As such, non-encyclopedic. Has no apparent notability outside Xena fandom (if that). First page of google hits are from Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones. Sandstein 15:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete I tried, but couldn't find any evidence that this is notable or that this meaning is authoritative. — brighterorange (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Refs:[9], [10], [11]. This is very common term in XWP fandom and from my experance it seems to be spreading in use. -james_anatidae 04:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Add reference to the aricle on fan fiction if you like, but this doesn't merit its own article. -Sean Curtin 19:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Xena and/or to fan fiction. Per WP:FICT, something has to be more than Xenacruft to merit its own article. I'm not persuaded that this term has any widespread or substantial currency outside this one hobby that has no relevance to reality. Barno 19:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable genre of fanfic. Kappa 17:25, 14 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Storm (novel)

A Xena fanfic softporn (apparenty) movie that doesn't even exist yet. Please. Non-notable. Sandstein 15:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete fanity. — brighterorange (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete - NN... Though it did make me chuckle; I didn't realize Xena fanfic even existed anymore.--Isotope23 20:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

clarification, This is entry is not for a movie but for a novel that does exists [[12]], but it is 641,000 in sales ranking, making it NN in my book. --Isotope23 20:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Jacqui M Schedler 20:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn novel Jkelly 06:40, 14 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Disney Out

Vanity? Not notable - only Google hits for "Keep Disney Out" and "Adrian Subrt" together are mirrors of this entry. CLW 15:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity, advertising. --InShaneee 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete when your self-proclaimed "mega-hit" doesn't register even 1 google hit, it is time to go...--Isotope23 17:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Somehow I doubt the Disney Corporation would allow any real band to use a name like this. They're notorious for suing. Zoe 21:01, September 9, 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. Normally, I'd discount the very new redlinked user, but this time they are clearly being helpful, so I won't. -Splash^talk 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

ToremaX

Hoax movie purportedly created by persistent wikiVandal Julian Thome, whose made-up biography was deleted for the third time a few minutes ago. DS 15:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Probable hoax, but certainly NN. 15 unique google hits, all nothing to do with this. --A D Monroe III 03:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a hoax. This user is a well-known vandal in de.wikipedia where he keeps submitting false information about Fred Ward (his favourite target) and related film-articles. delete--Michael 08:20, 10 September 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. Normally, I'd relist, but this practically a A1 speedy so I won't. -Splash^talk 22:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Scurge (band)

Non-notable. allmusic.com lists a Scurge, but this isn't them. Why aren't these band vanities speediable? Al 15:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• delete bandity. We tried, but the band vanity criterion for CSD was voted down. — brighterorange (talk) 16:12, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

SGSB2

Description of a BBS community. Notability has not been established, and a google search returns few matches. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• At most merge it with the GameFAQs Off-site boards, or delete it totally. unsigned vote by 202.156.2.210 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. If it's so "close-knit," why should it advertise itself on Wikipedia? --Jacqui M Schedler 20:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Metro Coyuya

NN, Little content ; stub since March ; one wikilink here is not substantial ; someone rv to remove speedy del so I am bringing it here. This is a One-liner article on a NN subway station. Terry 15:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. You have my sympathies, but there is clear precedent to include metro stations, wherever they may be, as inherently notable. Dottore So 16:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Something should still be done with it, though. Expand? Or, perhaps, the precedent could be altered, to merge metro station articles into one for each line (or whatever). --Jacqui M Schedler 20:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree fully that putting individual stations into a general article about a particular line makes a lot more sense. However, the larger precedent is that each station is considered notable enough to deserve its own article. Hence, this should be left as a stub. Eventually someone will write a few lines on it. I think that Terry was (completely understandably) unaware of the low threshhold for notability when it comes to metros - also schools, pokemon, Sar Trek, etc... :) Dottore So 22:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep expanded article, thanks Hajor. Isn't it great that we can have comprehensive coverage of metro stations without fighting all the time? Kappa 00:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment well I am still new here and to me it just doesnt make sense, does anyone know the history on why individual stations are included without significant notable content or history of that station? or at least clue me in on the secret? --Terry 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after expansion. -- ElBenevolente 02:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Mexico City Metro, or to a line-specific article. There doesn't seem to be any point in breaking this into a separate article, even with Hajor's information. There's no evidence that any conceptually larger article became overfull, and I'm hesitant to break things into subarticles unnecessarily. -- Creidieki 04:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. –Hajor 19:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete into parent line is my vote. But where is the precedent set? How can we change this? Like Creidieki there obviously is no overflow from another article and not enough in this one to credit for a new article worth of an encyclopedic entry. --Terry 14:30, 12 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rover Accessories

No assertion of notability, written purely as an advert Tonywalton  | Talk 16:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising/promotion --Outlander 17:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:25, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Skelb

Attempted neologism. --Michael Snow 16:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - another University of South Florida homework project? Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#University_of_South_Florida --Outlander 16:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC) (IP address shows up as the Netherlands)--Outlander 16:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 22:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• These things have a tendancy to get speedy deleted. Kappa 02:24, 10 September 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. -Splash^talk 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Toby Clifton

Delete. I can find very little reference to "Gay Pride Inc." of Australia, (20 Google hits, and none at all to Toby himself. While this doesn't mean that he isn't a real person, it would imply that the organization is of at most limitted notability, and he himself much less so. Icelight 16:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There seems to be some sort of war going on here; see Dane Maddams. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a flame war by other means? Dottore So 16:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete couldn't find any references to "Gay pride inc. of Au" as an actual organization. May be a suble attack page between two het guys --Outlander 16:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I saw a similar VfD earlier today. Careful, methinks we are being trolled.---CH (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It doesn't make an assertion that founding a website is notable, so there is no assertion at all. -Splash 18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Anicet Frederic

nn bio. the website mentioned is actually a web services provider that promotes nightclubs. No alexa rating, 9 google hits Outlander 16:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable self-advertising. --Jacqui M Schedler 20:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Makes no claim as to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:23, 10 September 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 Transwiki to Wikisource Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The Fisherman and His Wife

Seems to be something that may belong in Wikisource. Not sure what it is but I don't think it's intended to be here. Dismas 16:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's a copy of a Grimm's Fairy Tale. I'm sure there is not copyvio on that, but reprinting the story is literature, not encyclopedic. --Isotope23 17:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just found out what Wikisource is. I'd support a Transwiki of this fable per Capitalistroadster.--Isotope23 19:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikisource if it doesn't already have this fairy tale. Delete if Wikisource already has a copy. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone cares to rewrite it into an article about the fairy tale. Already on Wikisource. (I don't know if they take alternate translations, though, so it might be appropriate to transwiki this as well.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as above. Presumably it's no longer copyrighted. 23skidoo 02:50, 10 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Dane Maddams

As Icelight sayswith regard to Toby Clifton. I can find very little reference to "Gay Pride Inc." of Australia, (20 Google hits, and none at all to Toby. I'm nominating Dane Maddams for similar reasons: No google mentions at all Tonywalton  | Talk 16:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. These warring heterosexuals are gay, but not in the good sense. Sdedeo 19:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn ---CH (talk) 02:23, 12 September 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. There is plenty of debate, but the outcome is still quite clear: those who would delete are not persuaded otherwise. -Splash^talk 23:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

God Myth

This recently created stub appears to discuss a neologism that is featured in some atheist websites, mostly under the term "Insane God-Myth." Those articles appear thoroughly unencyclopedic, and most (if not all) seem to be written by vociferous, non-academic critics of belief in and believers in any sort of spirituality. This appears to also be the POV of this stub's creator; see WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs) and Baphomet. (talk · contribs). While the term "God Myth" yields over 12,000 google hits, the vast majority of those hits do not appear to discuss this topic. Mostly, the hits include article titles like "God, Myth, and Society," "Moon-god Myth," "Sun-god Myth," etc. I didn't find anything about the topic of this article among the first ten google hits for the term. This article is, at the time of this post, 100% unsourced, and it seems unlikely that it is possible to bring appropriate sources for this term. As such, this article drew immediate criticism on Talk:God Myth. Additionally, this stub is being used as a springboard for virulent anti-spirituality/anti-religious POV pushing. After this stub's creator's recent failed attempt at creating a redundant superstition cat. for his/her own uses (despite the existence of a superstitions cat.) and adding it to numerous articles, he/she is trying a new tactic. Baphomet. seems determined to link other articles to his/her new stub, which compares belief in spirituality to belief in alien abduction (one of several WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations in the short stub). I have reverted those links in God and Spirituality, and Baphomet. has, of course, readded the links. Instead of getting bogged down in frivolous edit-warring, I thought it best to use the same method here as was used for the superstition category. That was placed for CfD, and received � support for deletion. This stub's deletion will hopefully obviate the necessity for dealing with the symptoms of this problem through wearying edit-wars over a POV-magnet. HKT ^talk 16:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Part of a POV agenda. - RDF 17:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Precursory check reveals no usage of this term in the manner it is used in this article. Unless the author can cite some sources, this article should go. --Isotope23 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as argued on the article's talk page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think the idea of an article describing a major atheist viewpoint is POV when similar articles exist describing other major atheist, theist, and non-religious viewpoints, as long as such description is done in an NPOV way. But this exact term does not seem to be a major atheist viewpoint. The idea of a "god myth" might be encyclopaedic but not to the extent that it needs its own article and can't fit as a blurb in religion. Lord Bob 18:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Don't agree with the idea, but thats not a valid reason to remove. It's as POV free as it can get, and considering we have a messiah and mahdi entries outside of their respective religions having God Myth outside Atheism is no big deal --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Original research, rather than POV, is the primary technical problem with the article. In fact, the existence of the latter in the article is fundamentally dependent on the existence of the former. In other words, if this is simply a weasel article incapable of being cited with any appropriate source, the claims in the article derive their strength solely from Baphomet's POV. This seems to be the case. As of now, the article is devoid of any citation, much less any acceptable, notable citation. It seems weird that Baphomet recalls specific comparisons between the beliefs in spirituality and alien abductions, yet is unable to cite an academic or mainstream source. Other sources are irrelevant, as academic and mainstream sources are required to show that it isn't a neologism. HKT ^talk 20:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Right then, I'd recomment moving it, renaming it to Insane God Myth, removing the second paragraph (till a source is cited) and then requesting it be expanded further --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm unsure that moving it would work. Wouldn't it then become, essentially, a vanity piece? "Insane God Myth" is one web-site's pet phrase; and although I'm sure that the author would appreciate the advertisement, I'm afraid it still has problems that would land it in AfD. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've been looking around, and it seems to have a fair auld use outside of indymedia, so should warrant inclusion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• IPT, the "Insane God Myth" thing could have its own article, but from what I've been reading, I don't think it's accurate to portray it as "outside atheism" so much as "outside antitheism". Tomer ^TALK 21:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

While the "Insane God Myth" gets 631 hits on Google, it seems that almost all (if not all) of those hits are sites that mirror or discuss the same article by someone with the pseudonym "The Forbidden Seer of Truth." At best, this is also a neologism. HKT ^talk 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Baphomet has now linked to an atheist website that uses the words "god myth" twice, both times uncapitalized. (This stub refers to the "God Myth." If anything, the uncapitalized term in this site indicates that there is no well established term ("God Myth") that represents the concept/belief that belief in God is a myth; it seems the site could have just as well written "god fable" or "god fiction".) I've not yet researched the website, so I don't yet know if it is academic or mainstream. I suspect that it is neither. If I am wrong, the term still doesn't seem well established. If I am right, the term certainly remains a neologism. HKT ^talk 23:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- There's simply not enough content to make it a viable, NPOV article. KHM03 18:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Str1977 19:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tomer ^TALK 20:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete changed from keep see below (argument used for keep for historical value if any) while I don't agree with the beliefs behind the article I have heard the term used by many people on both sides of the issue and have for years. So I believe this to be true terminology and a vaid article. It may be a bit POV but two things to say about that one it can be reworked and two no encyclopedia in the world is completly lacking POV and no articles on here completly lack POV. It might be better to merge it with an article on Atheism and say that some use this term to describe religion because then it doesnt say anything is deffinatly "god myth" but also aknowledges other peoples POV somewhere. I do admit its a tough line to find but thats my two centsworth--Shimonnyman 09:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Merge with atheism (or another appropriate article) and delete. A redirect may be needed though to the merged article destination(mabey not). JDR 15:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and also delete User:WholemealBaphomet for being a reincarnation of User:CheeseDreams. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's you that's been at the cheese.--WholemealBaphomet 23:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, redirect to deity without merging. -Sean Curtin 05:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is not atheisist it perfectly possible to beleive in God and not beleive in human religion. The existance of God may not vindictate any religion, my personal opinion is that if god exists any connection between it and religion will be pure coincidence.--WholemealBaphomet 23:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Your personal convictions have no bearing here. JFW | T@lk 08:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you think it is only yours that are imprtant, or do you have some other reasons for scatering yours around the Wiki, whilst complaining about others doing the same?--WholemealBaphomet 08:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is probably not the right place to start a discussion about the relative imprtance of mine vs your opinions. I take great delight at scatering them around the Wiki, because I know they are much less controversial than yours and typically don't end up on AFD. JFW | T@lk 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The Claus are out.--WholemealBaphomet 20:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank God this bit of jargon is quite lost on me. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Firstly I'm confused as to what the article is even talking about, the term "God Myth," or those who believe in a "God Myth." The second paragraph would seem to indicate the latter, since it is all about individual responses (defence mechanisms) to, I assume disbelief, or disbelievers, and attempting to make an analogy by comparing those responses to other individual responses in cases that are, I guess we're to assume containing equal or greater fiction? I'm not sure if this section was just mangled through an edit war, but at best its just terribly confused, at worst its completely POV, either way it has no place here. On the other hand if the article is an attempt to discuss the term "God Myth" itself, than there's a fair bit of miswording occuring:

"The God Myth is a term applied by some skeptics, to any belief in a supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent parent-like entity that is held to be responsible for the creation of the universe. This belief is common to almost all the major religions."

It would not be correct to simply refer to the belief in something as a myth. It would be proper to say that what one believes in is a myth, or something along those lines, but not that the belief itself is a myth. To discuss a "God myth," one needs to be discussing the myths of or relating to god(s)/God. If this definition is to relate to the actual term "God Myth," it would need be more akin to something like this:

"The God Myth is a term applied by some skeptics, to any story involving a supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent parent-like entity that is held to be responsible for the creation of the universe."

In which case this article would actually be attempting to discuss "creation myths," a term which is already defined to a much better effect in the "origin beliefs" article.Gheorghe Zamfir 09:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Since the author is just using the term to describe his favorite sort of skepticism concerning the existence of any creating deity, the definition can be adjusted at will to conform it to some more sensible standard. However, the more it is improved, the more obvious the article has already been written elsewhere, and much better; and that this is original research. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that it not your favorite sort of outlook and your incapable of not try to manipulate the system.--WholemealBaphomet 17:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This rings pretty hollow, after I have worked with you to raise the article out of the gutter, to dress it up in its Sunday best for the trial. I've functioned as your court appointed defense attorney, as it were. You could show at least a little gratitude for wanting to help, as it appears that without it the article would have surely been burned at the stake. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is not correct to call a belief a myth does not mean that those who coined the term were being technicly accurate. Antisemetic people don't hate semites homophobics arent nessasarily afraid of homosexuals many missuses of words exist in terminology that doesn't mean the terms are misused it just means they are a little quirky. But a term being quirky is no reason for deletion.

Also I don't find this article to be any more POV than any other article on the entirety of wikipedia the only reasons for delition could be no sources mentioned or sloppy writting as the phrasing is awkward even if it is for the most part correct. --Shimonnyman 10:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply Well, first of all, neither of the terms you mentioned are misuses of words. Secondly, this wasn't a misuse of a word I was describing, nor an appropriation of words or evolution of langauge, it was a simple abuse of language. To define the term "God Myth" as it was, would be to suggest that it would then be proper to utter a sentence like, "That boy has a firm God Myth in heaven," or "My friend has a wavering God Myth in Buddah." Obviously these sentences are nonsensical, and far from any claims of a "quirky" coinage that's been established in any circles of discussion. Its a non-point at any rate as the definition has been appropriately changed, but even with the reformulated definition I stand by my comment for deletion, as I said before even in this case its little more than a synonym for "creation myth," but being that its neither established or sourced anywhere as such, nor that its definable as any kind of significant variant, it has no place as an encyclopedic entry.

I also stand by the comment that its POV, since the second paragraph is nothing more than the author's personal commentary, writing your commentary from the perspective of a 3rd party doesn't make it any more encyclopedic or authoritative. But to top if off its poorly written commentary, since it makes no sense. People have self-defense mechanisms, a myth does not - hence the term "self," which isn't to say removing the term "self" to use "defense mechanism" would make a fix, as it would still be a meanigless use of the term. So despite the claim, NO myths have any self-defence mechanisms. Furthermore, it ends the paragraph by saying "In this way some suppose that the phenomenon of stories about a supreme being with a paternal interest in the petty affairs of mankind can be accounted for." In what way is that accounted for? Supposing a myth has self-defense mechanisms, how exactly does that account for the phenomenon of stories about a supreme being with a paternal interest? Given that self-defense mechanisms in no way relate to or explain either supreme beings or anything paternal, how would they have anything to do with their existance in "god myths"? -Gheorghe Zamfir 11:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay I think I understand you now. I reread the article and agree for the most part but I disagree to an extent. There probably isnt enough to justify a whole atrticle on it so I'm gonna change my vote.

However I do believe if there is a section on athesim and termonology it could just have a sentence saying something like: A term used by atheists to describe beliefs in theological stories pertaining to gods. This would describe it perfectly and doesnt give POV however if there is no article like this it isnt important enough just to start an article.

Also I know they arent misuses just don't fit literal meanings if you take the componants apart. --Shimonnyman 12:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a significant term, and the article seems to be designed to push the author's POV. DJ Clayworth 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I would say that this article merits deletion as a neologism. The article's author has been arguing (although undoubtedly he would see it otherwise) that it should instead be deleted as original research. Either way, delete. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, POV, original research Paul 16:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - There is a request for expansion section at the banner. Lets just wait for it to be expanded before we decide to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 September 2005 --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE This article could be redirected here. Just a suggestion. KHM03 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

excpet of course this has nothing to do with disproving god only a comment on the sad and predictable nature of religion and it adherents.--WholemealBaphomet 17:51, 13 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina genocide

Neologism, highly POV, personal research. --InShaneee 16:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencylopedic (POV, personal research, etc). --Commander Keane 17:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Title is hopelessly POV. Roodog2k (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't even research; research is usually backed up by some evidence. --Quintin3265 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Term is being used by multiple sources as shown in the google search. Benjamin Gatti 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because someone uses hyperbole doesn't mean we have to make an article about it. Sdedeo 18:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV neologism and attack page. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:49, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Delete, rant. Zoe 21:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Benjamin, seriously. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' no kidding. Dottore So 23:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irretrievably POV. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Not in significant real use. A belief system that is not held by enough people to be of encyclopedic importance as a belief system. One of the two references does not even use the term "Katrina genocide." The second is a link to a Google search, but not a search on the phrase "Katrina genocide." For example, one of the hits is to a church website which has one section urging parishioners to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina and another section about a petition to stop genocide in Darfur. When we search on the exact phrase there are only 10 displayed hits (and 54 more which are "very similar"). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure Brown spent months in his basement planning the hurricane, too. Hopelessly POV. 23skidoo 02:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I tried to edit it to make it at less racist, but its very premise is blatantly POV. A few websites that contain the term means nothing; we could have an article on the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race with the same evidence.Schizobullet 4:32, 10 September 2005
• Delete. Oh my. Marskell 14:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The original author appears to have been writing in anger; better judgement suggests reserving "genocide" for purposeful very large scale ethnic murder.---CH (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Plenty of reasons listed above.--Carabinieri 20:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 05:58, 13 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Creditvalley, Mississauga, Ontario

Delete article about a residential development. Mindmatrix 16:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Doesn't deserve its own article (there is little scope for expansion) but info could be in a list with other residential developments in Ontario. This really shouldn't be up for deletion, does it have to stay for a week when a simple redirect is all that's needed?--Commander Keane 17:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Little info, and inappropriately titled article. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about the development. The article merely states that an unknown number of townhouses, and possibly some other dwellings, were built in Mississauga in a coordinated fashion and collectively named Creditvalley. Fluff. --maclean25 03:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; there's nothing here worth redirecting to Mississauga. Bearcat 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No info in article worth merging. Quale 07:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What a horrible name... Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the "Credit Valley" is a real geographical feature of Mississauga, so that's where the name comes from. Bearcat 01:56, 15 September 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 Consensus delete. Qualifies as speedy for patent nonsens too. Taxman ^Talk 19:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikistupidity

Thought about speedying it as patent nonsense, but whatever. Neologism. There: the process works. :) RADICALBENDER★ 17:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Note: There is also an article from the same editor and in the same style on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andi "punk" anderson. Fire Star 17:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Note also that this is a recreation of material deleted twice already as nonsense; see [13], and probably deliberate nonsense; see Wikipedia:School and university projects#University of South Florida. Shimgray 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did, too, but the prospect of a multiplicity of "stupid" voices erasing this mess once and for all seems more appropriate. Delete. Fire Star 17:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as neologism or attack, but first give it a barnstar for being the most pedantic diatribe so far this month --Outlander 17:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's the best this month, but the one on Why Wikipedi is a cult was much funnier. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

WIKISTUPIDITY like the word wikified "See also Help:Editing, Help:Starting a new page, m:Help:Editing Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page.

Editing a Wiki page is very easy. Simply click on the "edit this page" tab at the top (or the edit link on the right or bottom) of a Wiki page. This will bring you to a page with a text box containing the editable text of that page***"

ALL means that you don't have to be all too very smart to edit, write, or delete. In fact you don't have to smart at all as such the word that best describes that which follows Wikipedia guidelines in form without substance is called Wikistupidity as not only is it intolerantly pompous arrogant pretentious and completely callous in a bureaucratic sense it is also stupid and wikified so combining the two words we get the conjunction of WIKI-STUPIDITY.Andrew Zito 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

OKAY first delete wikified also.[[ User:Andrewzito|Andrew Zito]] 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikistupidity"

Is that a vote? Fire Star 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

NO YOU WIKI-IDIOT Andrew Zito 17:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Duhhhh.....deleet! DJ Clayworth 17:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• As a not very smart person who has no idea what "you don't have to smart at all as such the word that best describes that which follows" means, I vote Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you want to delete wikified O my brainless and verbally economic ones? delete or don't delete delete or don't delete do you bureaucratic foundationists (refer to the Foundation Trilogy) have any brains to be expressed or is it all summarized garbage o no value where the functioning of what was created "is no longer understood by those who run it" ask me if I care my eggs are in other baskets(Ibid)? Andrew Zito 17:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a good argument for this being patent nonsense....DJ Clayworth 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Patent Pending at best. Tonywalton  | Talk

If another admin cares to delete this entire fiasco, I will support it. Fire Star 17:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. Give me three more days, and I will. android79 17:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Personal attack on all of Wikipedia. android79 17:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

No No Wikipedia is not allowed to be attacked and criticized as we are all good fascists (sic).It seems that no argument in opposition to the word "wikistupidity", as it is merely labeled and castigated as nonsense such without forethought or consideration for clearly there is a purpose and meaning to the word "wikistupidity" and as such can not be refered to as merely nonsense at all as it describes its detractors to date who egotistical in their egghead middle American lives can't stomach the thought that anything they are connected to can be stupid. If the word wikified was basis and the words stupidity has basis then the word clearly is a conjunction of the two words. Actually the opposition to the word "wikistupidity" is nonsense.Andrew Zito 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As a good WikiFascist, heiling my great WikiDictator, I think that keeping an article that is a big attack (especially in the main namespace) would be true Wikistupidity. Lord Bob 18:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Quintin3265 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

DEAR "WIkifascist" and UBER-LORD (HIGH ADMIRMAL) BOB if you used the word "wikistupidity in your sentence above how can it be nonsense defined by "wikipedists" (sic) as "an utterance or written text in what appears to be a human language or other symbolic system, that does not in fact carry any identifiable meaning" if is so distasteful and detracting then it is not nonsense and there for not deletable as was argued. or is there another and completely unstated argument being offered that should be made for us to distain look down on frown and call humbug? Andrew Zito 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• You know, one of the official policies of Wikipedia is "no neologisms". As you admit that the word is coined by you, that qualifies it as a neologism. Sorry. Also, "wikified" isn't an entry per se; rather, it leads to a meta-page that explains how wiki formatting works. Therefore, your objection on that basis is invalid. DS 18:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Good God, that was hard to read. I can only assume that English is not your native language, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the use of wikistupidity in my vote was purely ironic. In addition, note that it would only apply if the article were kept, therefore demonstrating that there was no consensus that wikistupidity is a nonsense term. So for my comment on "wikistupidity" to apply, "wikistupidity" would need to be accepted as a valid concept. Also, I pray, note that my vote to delete was not on the grounds that it was patent nonsense, although I can understand why somebody would think it was. Lord Bob 18:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dear High Admiral Lord Bob of the Church of Bob in the Land of Nod.

Thank you for stating: "I pray, note that my vote to delete was not on the grounds that it was patent nonsense, although I can understand why somebody would think it was. Lord Bob 18:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)" as now we really know what you intended to state. Perhaps you and all "Wikidom" (oops another word quick get it into print and can learn a lesson in tolerance and grace so that a less coarse approach to matters and be found. If you object to someone over stating something discuss and fix the matter don't delete whole articles as it causes me to dwelling on how I could buy a shotgun and fix matters (another good metaphor)Andrew Zito 18:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC).

• You all know what I meant to state, because I stated it. I've never been known for not speaking my mind, as a look at my history will show. I said I can understand why somebody would think it's patent nonsense, because I do. I understand why somebody would believe in God, even though I, as an atheist, do not. I can understand why somebody would want to live in Vancouver, British Columbia, even though I, as somebody who chooses to live in Victoria instead, do not. Do you understand the difference between comprehension and agreement yet? I can't believe I'm having this argument with somebody who doesn't know what a conjunction is, but I'm a sucker for debate. Lord Bob 18:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Censor this dissent! Quickly! And neologisms/nonsense/whatever too. --Cherry blossom tree 18:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that "Wikistupidity [is] a noun and adjective" is incorrect. Wikistupidity is a noun, wikistupid would be the adjective. Also, I follow the orders of Überlord Bob. Sdedeo 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know but in actuality that is not an issue it is in fact a conjunction as was aforementioned and there for valid if you wish you can delete the passage relating to me coining the phrase but then you may have to replace it. In any case how can a small part of a posting invalidate the psoting as a whole if you wish to edit things edit them but if Wikipedia continues to act with a blugeoning axe when a scapel is needed it can expect to reap my criticisms and condemation eternally in this life and the next from the grave also if necessary as you should be destroyed as antithetical to anything sacred regardless of label.Andrew Zito 18:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Personal essay about a neologism. Also poorly written. Could possiblly be speedy deleted as an attack page, but under the circumstances i'd prefer the regualr deletion process be allowed to run its course. DES ^(talk) 18:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism... other than ironic context here, I've never seen the term used by anyone other than Andrew. My only question: is Andrew a random word generator or just ESL? --Isotope23 18:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My question is (as you sound like a stiff) "Are you living or living dead?" as you sound so mechanical as to give me the impression of you being a machine. In any case there is no objective consistency to Wikipedia, Wikipedists, Wikistupidity, and you my dear Wiki-idiot you are a great arrogant ESL student.Andrew Zito 19:04, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sunflowers, Barrie, Ontario

Delete article about a residential development. Mindmatrix 17:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect as per Creditvalley, Mississauga, Ontario above. --Commander Keane 17:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; there's nothing here worth redirecting to Barrie. Bearcat 23:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The most interesting claims in the article are original research but wouldn't make the subject encyclopedically notable even if they could be sourced. Quale 07:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure spam. -- Corvus 16:53, 14 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Willows at Chillico Woods, Guelph, Ontario

Delete article about a residential development. Mindmatrix 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect as per Creditvalley, Mississauga, Ontario above. --Commander Keane 17:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as per Commander Keane. The same applied to other residential developments in this series. Capitalistroadster 00:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Little info and inappropriately titled article. This article just says that there is a collection of dwellings on the west end of Guelph collectively named The Willows at Chillico Woods. fluff. What is there to merge? Redirect that title? Google says the development is not even complete yet (ie. advertising). --maclean25 03:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; there's nothing here worth redirecting to Guelph. Bearcat 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per maclean25 and Bearcat. Quale 07:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikispam. -- Corvus 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to see here, move along. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 14 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

South Pointe, Innisfil, Ontario

Delete article about residential development. Mindmatrix 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect as per Creditvalley, Mississauga, Ontario above. --Commander Keane 17:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Little info, and inappropriately titled article. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about the development. All this article says is that an unknown number of single family dwellings were built by xxx devleopment company near a lake in the hypocritically-named town of Innisfil. fluff. --maclean25 04:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; there's nothing here worth redirecting to Innisfil. Bearcat 23:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per maclean25. Quale 07:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikispam. -- Corvus 17:01, 14 September 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 COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite. -Splash^talk 23:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Letters and FOIA Requests

Not encyclopaedic, POV, and nn Tonywalton  | Talk 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-encylopedic text. --Isotope23 19:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ne. --TimPope 19:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's the text of a letter written by someone called John McCarthy. Wikipedia articles are not collections of primary source materials. That's Wikisource's job. This letter was written last month. It is still copyrighted and, according to the copyright notice on the author's web site, not licensed under the GFDL. Thus Wikisource will not accept it. The irony of someone seeking freedom of information, whilst not providing it himself, is poignant. Copyvio. Uncle G 01:17:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
  • (Technically FOI has nothing to do with copyright, though there are often some interesting waivers about copyright issues involved. As far as FOI legislation goes, that copyrighted letter on a public page is as free as you could want...). Anyway, delete even if use of material permitted. Shimgray 13:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You are construing the phrase "freedom of information" too narrowly. Uncle G 22:25:37, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
      • No more narrowly than the context of the article. :-) (Sorry, I've been spending the last few days up to my neck in FOI laws; it's interesting enough, but I tend to react on autopilot when anyone mentions them... on the plus side, a hell of a lot of "Freedom of Information in foo" articles pending in about a month's time) Shimgray 23:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment my nomination had nothing to do with its copyright status or lack of it. It's non-encyclopaedic as it's one person's narrow view on what may or may not be the case, it's POV as it's one person's narrow view on what may or may not be the case. If it's copyvo that's potentially another reason. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:38, 12 September 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. I'll rename it as suggested. -Splash^talk 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

License Raj

I don't think the article is encyclopedic. 'Licence Raj' is more of a term coined by individuals than a phenomenon and the outcome of certain government possibilities. Not worth putting in a encyclopedia, maybe a dictionary...

--Gaurav Arora ^Talk 13:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep – popular term used to describe the pre-liberisation days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be spelled licence =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to make the article more encyclopedic. The subject seems notable enough, though the article is rather poorly written. Also, I'd suggest a name change to the British usage "licence" as has been suggested. If a request for cleanup goes unheaded, I'd say this should get another VfD.--Isotope23 19:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A term that aptly describes the red-tape and regulations involved while doing business before 1990 in India. And there are similar articles, like the East Asian Tigers, Hindu rate of growth or the Celtic Tiger, which is a FA. I will try to cleanup and add more meat. pamri 16:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - with changes as suggested. I think over a period of time, the article will mature. --Bhadani 15:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is much more than being a mere word. It defines the economic situation and policies followed by India prior to 1991 liberisation. The article, though, is poorly written and hopefully it would mature over time as has been suggested by Bhadani.--Jodhbir 19:07, 14 September 2005 (IST)
• Keep It needs to be cleaned up and reworked, but the topic is necessary. If we can have articles on a whole lot of similar topics, why not this?--shash 21:09, 16 September 2005 (IST)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, and make a redirect. I'm confused about the transwikim of bitch-slap since the article is still present here in all its dubious glory. The redirect can be removed if the target is later. -Splash^talk 23:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Bitchslapping

slang dicdef. Delete, transwiki to wiktionary.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:42:56, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

• redirect to much better existing article bitch-slap. — brighterorange (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment - I'll agree bitch-slap is the better article, but aren't they both just DicDefs? Why do we even have a category "slang" when WP:NOT a dictionary? --Outlander 18:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • My thoughts precisely. I caught this on RC patrol and tagged it. I've been trying to find a clear Wiktionary policy on slang, but have been unsuccessful. There appear to accept protologisms, however, so they clearly must accept slang. I think both bitchslapping and bitch-slap (is the hyphen necessary?) should be deleted and moved to Wiktionary (the slang category on Wiktionary seems much better done, but surprisingly lacks entries on both the above). They certainly should not stay here, since there is a clear rule against that in a fundamental WP law (WP:NOT). A slang cat on WP may be useful to place articles on the development of slang in various languages; clearly, however, it is being misused.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  18:57:12, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
    • protologisms (usually called Neologisms here) are usually tagged and AfD'd. There are several on the AfD list today. But slang seems to be a grey area, especially if a fairly large article is written with history. I can see a category for types of slang and their origins, such as Cockney Rhyming slang, but listing individual slang terms seems unencyclopedic. I would opt for transwiki to Wictionary, perhaps with a link. --Outlander 20:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary takes slang words, just as other dictionaries do, subject to its normal criteria for inclusion. Wiktionary does not accept protologisms, as is clearly stated in the criteria for inclusion. Yes, Category:Slang is somewhat mis-used. Uncle G 23:58:54, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Delete, useless dictdef. I'm going to transwiki bitch-slap, though; it's genuine slang, not a protologism. Note numerous Google and Google Print hits. —Cryptic (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Cryptic; kind of you. Uncle G, that's an important point abour protologisms in wiktionary. That link was useful to me, thank you very much for providing it. I'm a novice at wiktionary policies, and am just learning enough about it to know when it might be appropriate to move things over there, and when not. Best wishes—encephalonέγκέφαλος  06:46:42, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 19:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - with bitch-slap transwikied to Wikipedia, Bitchslapping is now redundant ---Outlander 14:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bitch-slap creator, and redirect per brighterorange until that article is itself deleted. (The second part was joking.) Real slang, not neologism, but still a dicdef. Barno 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And I hate to call this an encyclopedic reference, but I recommend the game "Lunch Money", from Cheapass Games and published several years ago, as having a "Bitch-Slap" card demonstrating this word's use in its cultural context. Barno 19:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 13:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Timothy Parker

I've searched google etc for some reference to this person and the texts mentioned. Unable to find any confirmation. no pages link to this article. J E Bailey 17:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Contains no info to establish notability. --Isotope23 19:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23 Dlyons493 20:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Makes no claim to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Done!. Coffee 13:51, 10 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sydney J. Bush

Renomination of a rather confusing merged AfD, see Talk. The article has not been improved as requested since the previous AfD. It is a rewrite of an article in an OR/POV series of articles containing e.g. the deleted and protected Cardioretinometry and Occult scurvy. The original author went to great lengths defending these, up to and including conspiracy theories about a "Global PharMafia [sic]" [1], [2] and repeatedly uploading deleted article content to a Talk page [3].

I believe this article still suffers from the same problems stated in the previous AfD, and it is now an OR/POV piece masquerading as a non-notable bio. --IByte 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems pretty non-notable to me.--Isotope23 19:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable biography / vanity / original research. Edwardian 19:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as before. --Carnildo 22:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per my previous comments. ManoaChild 23:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as before. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable G Clark 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn ----CH (talk) 08:01, 12 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wheel barrow films

film club vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Marskell 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:29, 10 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Foster's_Avenue

nn - A road in Dublin with a University football club?? 81.79.176.25 18:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete minor road --TimPope 19:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's not that minor, but it's actually called Foster Avenue Dlyons493 20:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & RenameCarelessness on my part.Well known, home of UCD. Also UCD are not a university football team, they play in the Eircom League--Play Brian Moore 23:04, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark villafane

• Delete, Non-notable director not in IMDB, see also Children of the moon and its concurrent AfD  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity and possible resume cruft ---CH (talk) 05:33, 12 September 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 COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite although some discussion thereof. -Splash^talk 23:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Children of the moon

Delete, non-notable film; see also Mark villafane and associated AfD  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• The production company and movies Children of the Moon, A Place Between Heaven and Hell, Switch and The Seminar are all films that have been filmed or completed in 2005. Ralph Clemente the films Executive Producer has over 33 credits to his name on IMDB. Not to mention that the lead actor Jeremy King is also on IMDB as well as a good percentage of the actors and crew! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophervillafane (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, probably copyvio as well [14]. --Alan Au 19:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, I'm going to tag it as copyvio right now (please use the talk page for copyvio discussion). --Alan Au 19:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment. If kept, it will need better capitalisation, and a note to disambiguate it from the Fleetwood Mac song of the same title. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 10 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Durka

Tagged for speedy, but not a candidate. Reason given was "Very short article providing insufficient context to allow meaningful expansion." No vote from me. -Splash 19:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT a slang dictionary (or even a regular dictionary for that matter). I suppose the content could be merged elsewhere, but I don't know where. --Alan Au 19:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's a nonsense word used in a television series and a film. There's no encyclopaedia article to be had by this title because the word doesn't mean anything, and because there is no source material to be had on the subject. All that can be said is what I said in my first sentence here. There's a minor Farscape character by this name, which is what comes up most often in the Google Web search results, but there appears to be no list of Farscape characters to redirect to, per WP:FICT. Thus, Delete. Uncle G 22:45:58, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
• Delete. It was me who tagged it for speedy. I can't see it ging anywhere. The content could be added to Team America: World Police and/or South Park, but it hardly seems worth it. TheMadBaron 03:37, 11 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Frollett

Neologism: WP:NOT - Original research. Term mentioned on Emo fashion page, but otherwise very little outside of a couple of a couple of blogs. — RJH 19:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 19:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am relatively familiar with weird hair (see: Mohawk hairstyle, 2nd picture down) and haven't heard this word before. I should get a picture of one of my friends and put it on the emo fascism page with a note as to the description. This term is anything but definitive or widespread and should thusly not be used; the hair is very popular, however. -Ich 16:07, 17 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Chortle Wind and Xascdv

nn bv - and a rather bizzare duplicate (strangley titled - and using some form of templet), both created today. --Doc (?) 19:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Articel says it is "little known" and a "garage-type" band. I'll take it at it's word. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment Chortle Wind has very low googles (11, only 4 distinct). On the other hand it was around for 7 years and had an impressive number of albums...if those are full albums. RJFJR 23:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Of the google hits, only those from http://invisionfree.com/ seem to refer to them as a band, and that could be just a joke. The main result is [15] a poll set up "In response to Bagrec's challenge to create the most obscure/least-voted-in poll ever...". I think we're behond non-notable, fan-cruft, and entering the realm of un-verifyable.Silverfish 13:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a crappy article too. Looks like the writer of it didnt know how to make wikipedia articles. And 11 google hits isnt very notable. BL Lacertae 00:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. It's nonsense that's leaked out of The Fall's forum. Flowerparty■ 02:04, 17 September 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 ALL THREE. -Splash^talk 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Dej Desta, Atsbeha, and Buzunish Atsbeha

Hoax or vanity.

Sigh. It can be difficult to determine whether an Ethiopia-related article should be kept or removed. There is no fixed rule of transliteration for names, so one name may be represented by a wide number of spellings; Ethiopia isn't on the Internet in a significant way, so a small number of hits form Google is not conclusive. And we need more Ethiopia-related articles. However, we don't need articles like these.

• Buzunish Atsbeha. According to the article, she was of noble birth, ran a couple of nightclubs during the '30s, & fled the Derg for Canada. Substitute "Paris, Brussels, etc." for "Addis Ababa", & "Germans" for "Italians", & you have the story of countless people during WWII. (Let's be snide, make a couple more name-changes, & say this is the plot of Casablanca.) Her claims to nobility rely on the credibility of the next 2 articles, but even if they were about real people, I don't think being the black-sheep daughter of a noble merits inclusion by for itself. (Although knowing that John F Kennedy would be president one day -- or even know of his existence in the late '30s -- might be notable.)

• Dej Desta. Article claims he was a close friend of Emperor Menelik II. A check in the index of Chris Proutky's Empress Taytu and Menelik II: Ethiopia 1883-1910 (Trenton: The Red Sea Press, 1986) fails to turn up anyone by the name of "Dej", but 4 or 5 "Destas", none of whom fit the biography here. Because Proutky's book is fairly detailed, & mentions all of the people around Menelik II -- especially while he was emperor -- its hard to believe that this person ever existed. A number of other odd statements in this biography confirm this conclusion -- which I can share if people are curious.

• Atsbeha. Let's assume that even if the other 2 articles should be deleted: does that mean we can still keep this one? There is one puzzling discrepency in the ancestory that argues this is also a hoax. Assuming that "Subagadis," is another way to spell the name of "Sebagadis" (an actual person & an important warlord of Ethiopia who died in 1831), why would the author insist he was of "royal" blood when the historic Sebagadis himself made no such claim. However, his daughter Diniqesh was married to an Emperor of Ethiopia, Tekle Giyorgis II, & his primary wife was the sister of Empress Taytu Betul, the wife of Menelik II. Shouldn't these connections to the Solomonid dynasty be mentioned, rather than to just another warlord from the 19th century? (FWIW, this name also collides with a far more famous Atsbeha, a legendary ruler of Axum, who needs an article; or it is another indication of the fiction here.)

A few more points these 3 articles share: (1) had someone added dates -- say the birth or death date -- to any of these articles, then I might be inclined to believe that these people actually existed, but I guess providing these details was too much work. (2) All of these articles have been contributed or editted from the same 3 IP numbers. (3) Oh yes, no hits on Google for any of these people that is independent of Wikipedia. -- llywrch 19:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm guessing "Buzunish" is a name I've seen spelled in English as "Bezunesh," but "Bezunesh Atsbeha" and other variations in spelling did not turn up on Google (for whatever that's worth). Ethiopian names are often made using the person's given name (i.e. first name), then his/her father's name, followed by the grandfather's first name. Thus, Buzunish Atsbeha's father would be named Atsbeha [Something] - perhaps the editor didn't know the rest of the father's father's name, and so only used "Atsbeha." I looked up Adigrat in my Bradt Guide to Ethiopia and it said there was little in the way of sightseeing and did not mention anything about the remains of any castles (though this does not mean they don't exist). (I did tag the Adigrat article with {{not verified}}; see Talk:Adigrat). Note that the edits in question are from two IPs in Canada, where Buzunish Atsbeha lived - my gut feeling is that someone who knew this person wanted to add her to Wikipedia. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, with no evidence to prove otherwise (e.g. birth dates, cited sources, or even external links etc.). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• If original authors fail to verify information, delete---CH (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, not verifiable. Quale 07:09, 14 September 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 and redirect, since it was patent nonsense. However, Mige is part of the band HIM and they are very famous, so I am going to make it a redirect until we get more substance on him. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Migé Amour

This is a redeletion. Seems to be a real musician, but text doesn't assert notability at all. In fact, the old (deleted) version was better! I'm usually pretty lenient with stubs, but clearly no effort went into this one. --Alan Au

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Though I should point out that this service is probably notable enough for a properly written article in future. -Splash^talk 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

IStockPhoto

Sadly, CSD doesn't include a provision for blatant advertising, so I'll have to put this up for deletion the slow way. --Alan Au

Also a copyvio from [16]. FreplySpang (talk) 19:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article looks totally useless......Sinkholeca 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - There should be speedy for blatant adverts.--Isotope23 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• No there shouldn't, because often (although far from always) such an article is about a company that is in fact notable, and a proper article can be created on the ruins of the ad. But unless someone does this promptly here. Delete this clear cut ad. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• iDeleteAdvertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense, redirected as suggested by Martg76. Thue | talk 10:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

King Sigmund I

This article makes no sense and has reason to be an entry, it is only linked by one site and was just created as a joke it seems. Sinkholeca 20:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete... I can't remember if there is a speedy for nonsense. The only mention of a King Sigmund I that I could find is referrenced by a site for the Society for Creative Anachronism where Sig was apparently king of Ansteorra in 1981. Nothing in this entry ties to that, though even if it did I'd vote delete for an imaginary king of an imaginary kingdom..

Ugh, never signed above comment--Isotope23 13:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete tagged with {{nonsense}}. (I will note that the SCA and its kingdoms are real as social organizations, although i don't know If I would approve of articles about individual "kings" (speaking as one who holds an SCA "Award of srms" or AoA.) DES ^(talk) 21:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sigismund I of Poland. Martg76 22:47, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Gulf Bridge (Finland and Sweden)

This is a hoax authored by 12.217.25.182 (talk · contribs). It has been around since July 18. The same author has (the same day) also written Swedish Gulf - there is no such thing, but it can possibly be made into a redirect to Gulf of Bothnia. Please take a look at the other contributions from this IP. Uppland 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - WP is only reference to this and as Uppland is Swedish (if I'm not mistaken), I'll take his word that this is a hoax. --Isotope23 20:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, could even be speedy deleted as it is a hoax. Swede -> -- Elisson • Talk 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax. Such a bridge would not only be "the longest bridge in Northern Europe", but indeed the longest in the world. --Salleman 21:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: note that Cassandra Justins, another product of this IP, has been on AfD since Sep. 4. Kim Rhodes is apparently real but the article had to be purged of most of its content, which was not (diff). Please check Egyptian cobra, Irish fruit cake, Phill Lewis and French Bay. Uppland 21:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I redirected Swedish Gulf to Gulf of Bothnia and French Bay to Bay of Biscay. They could be considered for redirects for deletion, as they are neologisms, but I don't know if it's worth the fuss. Surprisingly enough, Egyptian cobra appears to contain entirely correct information. See for example [17]. --Salleman 03:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, it's been some time since I last visited Luleå, and they might of course have built it since then, but considering that a bridge between Luleå, Sweden, and Oulu, Finland would be roughly 170 kilometres, it can be probably quite safely be dismissed as pure fantasy... / Alarm 22:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fantastic bridge. Martg76 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete entry, but build bridge if anyone has the time CLW 07:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:29, 11 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mewheart

Non-notable fansite. English section hasn't been updated for over three years. --Daniel Lawrence 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, I choose YOU!  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:36, 10 September 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 7 keep/24 delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Roflcopter

Non-notable silliness. Listed previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter. Decision was to redirect to ROFL Attack, which was subsequently deleted. Article was then redirected to LOL (Internet slang) and then recreated. Let's end this madness. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter(game). — Phil Welch 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fully as noteable as several other articles on internet memes that are not under consideration for deletion. CNichols 20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 12th edit. — Phil Welch 20:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Beside the point. We're discussing this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Show these other "equally notable memes" -- and if they are truly as notable as this one -- I'll gladly nominate them for AfD also. :) Xoloz 20:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per my and others' arguments on the related VfDs. This is getting ridiculous. android79 21:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Carnildo 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dottore So 22:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is even a borderline speedy, because to all intents and purposes it is re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course, notable meme. Note that in previous VfD debate the result was redirect which is for the purposes of VfD policy is equal to keep and redirect so it can't qualify as speedy, or anything like that. So if you support the previous VfD decision, vote keep.  Grue  05:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It should have been deleted as a matter of course when the article to which it redirects was deleted; redirects that "refer to non-existent pages" are valid CSDs. And It is speediable as a re-creation of the content voted for deletion as ROFL_Attack. It's the content that matters, not the title. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The content of ROFL Attack is only the part of the content of Roflcopter. There was never a consensus to delete the current content in its entirety.  Grue  17:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Examine the first VAfD and you'll see that the discussion to redirect, on 15-8 count in favor of deletion was quite a stretch of the closer's discretion. At best, it is a very weak result, to say nothing of the eventual deletion of the article to which the redirect was made. Xoloz 20:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I thought it was borderline which is why I listed it on AfD. I was, however, quite certain we'd see the result we have now :) — Phil Welch 20:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to estalbish notability. Martg76 07:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep: Article fails to establish notability but Google succeeds. Sirex 12:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC) I have insufficient edits and am therefore compelled to side with Phil Welch. Sirex 09:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 12th edit. — Phil Welch 20:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Only 92 hits in Google Groups, which is where you'd expect to find it if it were really an important Internet meme. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep PowerGamer6
  • User has <50 edits — Phil Welch 04:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Newgrounds involvement is not notable (again). Hamster Sandwich 23:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the above, with no rude comments. --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It does not matter under how many different titles this is remade, the result will be the same. -Splash 23:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and weak merge with LOL (Internet slang). This isn't strong enough to stand on its own, and the sheer volume of internet fads and memes is astounding. How about a fads and memes wiki? Or would that just be completely stupid? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{23:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)} (see Splash, I'm back!)
  • I call it Cruftipedia. — Phil Welch 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Others call it Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Uncle G 14:48:27, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth afterwards. --Calton | Talk 23:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The point here is that we're talking about whether we have kept up with usage and slang. These are the concerns of a dictionary of a particular sort, and not an encyclopedia. The general phenomenon of which this is a part is far better described already. If we have an article on "insult," we would not then need an article on each individual insult. The "meme," such as it could be implied to be, is a minor single case of the general. Geogre 03:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As I said the last time, the Google bar for internet phenomena is relatively higher, and this little thing fails miserably. NN, sockpuppets, and prior decisions. Xoloz 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Internet slang or LOL (Internet slang). Not notable enough to have its own article. — JIP | Talk 05:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then redirect. -Sean Curtin 05:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just silly. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there's a list of internet slang, this might merit an entry but leave the meme following to sites that specialize in it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most certainly not notable. Indrian 22:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What a delightful, amusing, and perfectly harmless little article. Why would anyone want to delete this? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly popular game in certain circles. Whether we think it's stupid is irrelevant. Only its notability is meaningful. Superm401 | Talk 15:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 92 hits in Google Groups (USENET) does not suggest notability to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we must stop having one level of notabilty for internet articles and another for "real world" articles.
  • Sorry, this is my vote, I forgot to sign it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (again) per Geogre and Dpbsmith. Barno 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is not only a piece of Internet history (which we have a duty to maintain as the encyclopedia of record), but also something which can generate interest and which may generate additional interest in the future.
  • Anon's first edit. Looks like they finally found us out. — Phil Welch 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 05:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stupid. Proto t c 11:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If this article isn't one thing, it's non-notable. It's a piece of internet history, as Welch already stated. It's a very common used term on IRC networks and gaming forums. If people would like to get rid of this article, we might as well get rid of words like 'cool', 'fabulous', 'awesome' etc. which are also terms belonging to a subculture--SoothingR 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Um...I never said that. Anyway, while cool (along with cool (African philosophy) have reasonable articles, that's because they're notable and relate to a cultural phenomenon that seems to be…well, seems to date back from Africa. Awesome has an article, but it's about an obscure video game and not the slang term, while Fabulous redirects to a Brooklyn rapper. I think your arguments for inclusion are arguments for inclusion in a glossary of slang, not an encyclopedia. Even then it might not be notable—what a bunch of sixteen year old kids say to each other on gaming forums isn't very high on the notability scale. — Phil Welch 17:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't have articles on those words to get rid of. You're thinking of a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there, and it has articles with the colloquial and slang meanings of "cool", "fabulous", and "awesome". It even has "roflcopter". Uncle G 18:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is as notable as GameFAQs message boards probably. Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely non-notable, and precedent is clearly for deletion. Chick Bowen 04:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This sort of thing gives Wikipedia it's depth and color. Good article on a minor use of a very notable acronym. Rx StrangeLove 05:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It has a history and is a common term, no reason to delete the article that illustrates and explains it further. Plus it might save some people time, by not having to explain it to others. Rx BlueMech 02:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User's second contribution. — Phil Welch 10:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Convince me that it really is notable and I'll change my vote. It's all just "proof by repeated assertion." Why not Cite your sources? I am now going to try three more informal tests myself. I haven't tried them yet and I have no idea yet what the result will be. First, I'm going to see how often it has been mentioned in Slashdot; second, in Wired; and third, in The New York Times. Slashdot: "No stories were found that match your query." Search Wired News: Search Error: No query results for "roflcopter" . Search Wired Magazine: Search Results for "roflcopter": No query results. The New York Times (online search service available via my local public library): "Searching for roflcopter did not find any documents." If it's "a common term" and "part of Internet history" and a "notable meme" why haven't Slashdot and Wired mentioned it even once? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Grue seems to have created a mirror of this under his userspace at User:Grue/Roflcopter, possibly to facilitate re-creation of the article. I believe we deserve an explanation, as I cannot think of a good faith explanation for this action. — Phil Welch 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we're suppose to assume good faith, that's my understanding of the policy anyway. He seems to have an interest in ASCII art, it probably has something to do with that. In any case, did you ask him on his talk page? He might see the question faster there. Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm keeping it for reference. I never recreated deleted content in the past and I'm not going to recreate it in this case (if it gets deleted after all). Can't see how it's different from adding deleted stuff to BJAODN.  Grue  05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Strikes me as bizarre and slightly pointless, that's all. Especially considering the difficulties we've had with people trying to weasel around this article's deletion. I asked here because it's a public issue relating to this AfD and not a private issue between Grue and myself. I assumed good faith, but in this case I decided to "trust, but verify". Nothing against Grue, whom I hardly know, but the issue deserved some explanation for the reasons I've already explained. But hey, if you happen to like the article, whatever. — Phil Welch 07:36, 19 September 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. I would not normally close a debate I participated in but: this one has no dissent so I cannot have a conflict of interest, save for with the anon who has removed the tag from the article....17 times. -Splash^talk 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Manley-Reeve

Clear vanity. siafu 20:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NYN - not yet notable. Dlyons493 21:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity with a whiff of resume-cruft ---CH (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity. In fact, I have had to block a certain IP address a few hours ago which had a strange interest in HTML-commenting out the AfD tag. -Splash^talk 04:35, 15 September 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. (I came across this one as a result of delilnking the article on the individual in question.) -Splash^talk 22:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

GDDG Photography

Vanity, advertisement, see vfd on Genèse Harris Dlyons493 21:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speedily if possible, since this is an offshoot of a vanity page. Dottore So 23:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Their web site has an alexa ranking of over 4 million. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:40, 10 September 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. Since this has virtual unanimity, I don't think I have a conflict of interest in deleting this. Barno: note that userfication is for articles that were intended for userspace, or clearly belong there: it is not a place to temporarily unload articles that one is not sure what else to do with. -Splash^talk 23:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"I Was There" Wiki Memoir project

This "project" might be an appropriate subject for an article if it becomes widely known, or develops significant results. But the current text is simply an inviatation to participate (with no link or indication on how to actually get to the wiki in question) and a list of links to articles about participants, not about the historical moments which they witnessed or participated in. Most are redlinks, all but one of the remainder are up for speedy deletion, and that is a dab page. Delete unless completely rewritten, with evidence of current notability or significance. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn & misuse. Dottore So 23:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.80.184 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept
• Delete. Misplaced school project. Jimbo has been in contact with the person who started this and they're apparently going to discuss the issue next week and find a more appropriate place for it. Angela. 11:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since insufficient information to serve any useful purpose. Could be an interesting project if they create a proper project page with links, helpful advice, definition of "historical event", etc. For example, I myself am interested in an oral history project on the Golden Age of General Relativity (see Category:Contributors to general relativity), but can't find any useful pointers on how to approach and interview (by email) possible participants.---CH (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete quickly but without prejudice, before more of the participants make articles about themselves. Friday (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Per Angela, userfy until Jimbo and projecteers reach consensus on appropriate place for this. Barno 19:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete school projects don't belong in wikipedia. Tempus0 01:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a free wiki host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:34, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not hosting for school projects (whether you're a reality questioner or anything else). -Splash 02:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to a temp location or userspace until foundation leadership can deal with it suitably. Usrnme h8er 12:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, misuse of Wikipedia hosting. Average Earthman 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Leave LevKamensky
  • I presume that LevKamensky means that the articel should be left undeleted, but this could mean the opposite. I wish this user would clarify this comment, and explain the reasons fo this view. DES ^(talk) 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. Aecis 11:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not a WP article. - Introvert ^talk 21:42, 18 September 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 default to Keep. A bold editor is welcome to do the suggested merge/redirect. Essjay · Talk 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Apollo 21

There was never any such mission in the plans of NASA, or at least nothing official enough to get an "Apollo number". Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There are enough references to this around to justify an article, although this one isn't very good. http://www.arclight.net/~pdb/nonfiction/making-history.html

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/flights/apollo19.htm http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/ap34-1.html http://kosmos-news.kosmo.cz/kosmos231.htm Monicasdude 22:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and mark for rewrite/expansion. Alf ^melmac 22:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reserved I at first thought it was a typo for 12, but that really didn't make sense. If the links that are given above are tosh then I change to delete as I judged it on those. Someone should get the low down from horses mouth though, searching the NASA site picks up mentions of cancelled missions: if the plan ever existed and just never got off the drawing board it wasn't cancelled as such. If deleted, need to look at List of lunar astronauts which the original editor has also contributed to. Alf ^melmac 09:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since NASA said it only went up to 20. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Although it is nice to have speculated what might have been, NASA only ever ordered 15 Saturn Vs. That only takes you through to Apollo 20. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fictional - no A21 planned or possible by 1969; the existence of this would have involved restarting huge swathes of closed production, and certainly wouldn't have been in an advanced enough stage of planning to name names. Even 20 was pretty much abandoned by this point. Shimgray 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it... probably worth setting up a single article for Apollos 18-20 (Cancelled Apollo missions? Would be able to work in the I-class and so on as well), and we could merge this in. As it stands there's not much that can usefully be said on any individual one of them. All of them had about a dozen possible landing sites, the crews for them all are equally debatable... Shimgray 22:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good idea. The three of them are all pretty formulated at the moment - "Apollo x was a cancelled Apollo flight. It would have been flown by blah. The rocket and spacecraft it would have used were used by blah". Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. Apollo 18, 19, 20 which already existed are now redirected to Cancelled Apollo missions. If Apollo 21 is kept, we could just redirect it to this new article. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • And there I was expecting to write it in a month or so! Thanks. I think I'll write in a chunk on "Apollo 21", since I now think I see how the mistake got spread, and we can just redirect this in - as it is, it's pretty meaningless. Shimgray 11:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I've worked it out. Apollo 21 was really just an early name for AS-515, which we know as Apollo 20. Because, you see, in early 1968 they didn't expect Apollo 8 to be a Saturn V flight, so AS-503 would have been Apollo 9, not 8... and then adding twelve to that would take you to Apollo 21. Makes sense? Definitely redirect to Cancelled Apollo missions. Shimgray 11:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified beyond a couple of websites that could have made a simple error, plus the NASA statement saying only up to 20. I'm also skeptical that the mission would have been cancelled in 1969... I look forward to seeing an article on the other cancelled missions. 23skidoo 02:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per bright bunny Shimgray, with a carefully worded note added to that page. Alf ^melmac 12:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cancelled Apollo missions where the subject is covered fairly decently. — RJH 18:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cancelled Apollo missions as the above posters suggest. They're right, there is a nice Apollo 21 section, even though there was no Apollo 21 to cancel, from what I can tell. Definitely don't delete, though, as we need to give people any relevant knowledge on Apollo 21. I -Timvasquez 20:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Cancelled Apollo missions, since this never really existed. Alphax ^τεχ 01:21, 14 September 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. -Splash^talk 23:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Henry Therkildsen

NN guitarist, looks like an advertisement too. Punkmorten 21:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete as vanity; no amg entry for the band he's in. — brighterorange (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn, possible adspam ---CH (talk) 04:17, 12 September 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 by Curps. -Splash^talk 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Cunios

obvious hoax. Note vandalism lock was put on when the article was created. JDoorjam 21:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep this page as it is not a hoax, it is apparently just shown locally, but I know I get it, infact I'm a fan of it! Dwight Ferris 22:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as vandalism by sock of persistent vandal. -- Curps 02:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Inalienable rights Carbonite | Talk 15:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Unalienable rights

PoV fork of Inalienable rights; will be a permanent magnet for biased original research, such as the present text. Has been made into redirect, but things like this keep happening. Septentrionalis 21:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I will join the consensus: Redirect, but I expect it will have to be protected. Septentrionalis 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Inalienable rights. Then protect page if necessary. "Unalienable" and "inalienable" are synonyms. No justification for having two different articles. Deletion wouldn't prevent re-creation, so what's the point of deleting it? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for merge/redirect, and protect redirect if necessary. Gazpacho 23:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Inalienable rights, per Dpbsmith. -GregAsche (talk) 23:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• POV fork. Redirect to Inalienable rights and protect. --Calton | Talk 02:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Inalienable rights, and protect redirect. This is a PoV fork created by someone who lost the argument concerning the naming of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your implied accusations. Many people worked on this article. --Go Cowboys 16:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I have adapted article to consensus; there's no reason a deprecated text should be mirrored. Article text as proposed for deletion Septentrionalis 20:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Are you seriously trying to vote a change to the United States Declaration of Independence? "Inalienable" was a word commonly in use at the time of the Declaration. Even though it was considered, and was even in one of the draft proposals, "Inalienable" was not chosen for inclusion in the Declaration. If the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence had wanted to use "inalienable," they would have used "inalienable." It is not our place to change history. The following two points are historical facts:

• John Locke defined inalienable rights specifically as "life, liberty, and property".
• The United States Declaration of Independence did not recognize Locke's need for property as being a natural right. It referred to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights.

The motives involved are pretty obvious: the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence did not want to include property rights in their declaration. They specifically rejected that word from an earlier draft. Are we now to rewrite history and link the Declaration to property rights by saying that the signers really meant Locke's "inalienable"? --Go Cowboys 16:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, we are attempting to preserve its meaning from the innovations of an eccentric and his original research. 20:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 19:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Inalienable rights and protect. According to the OED, the two words are synonyms.--JW1805 21:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Inalienable rights. It's perfectly clear from the sources given, and from any research _at all_ on the subject, that this is just a variant spelling. --Shannonr 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. We don't make fork articles just because of spelling variations, unless the variation is hugely significant. – Smyth\^talk 17:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Septentrionalis did not call for a vote. The user made a statement, labeled it a consensus, and asked for support. Is there any way we can give our unbiased opinions now with out making User:Septentrionalis angry? In a real consensus, "those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus" ~Wikipedia. I, for one, would like to see a separate definition for how Unalienable is defined in the Declaration of Independence. It certainly has nothing to do with the "theological principles," "non sequitur," or "naturalistic fallacy" of the Inalienable rights article. The Declaration of Independence quite specifically says that Unalienable rights are self-evident. (And no, "self-evident" of the D.O.I. does not mean "because we said so.") --Zephram Stark 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. The sequence of timestamps will show that I joined a consensus to redirect, making it 5 voices to one (it is now twelve to two, counting Go Cowboys and Zephraim Stark as distinct). Septentrionalis 04:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and protect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect and protect, at least from Zephram Stark. This is more original research from a user who should have been banned a while ago. "Go Cowboys" is a known sockpuppet of Zephram Stark, so his votes should not be counted twice here. And after his openly racist comments about myself and several other editors who challenged his original research on another page (where he called us all "fucking Jews"), I would have thought people would have stopped paying attention to him and his sockpuppets. He has certainly shown himself unfit to participate in editing discussions on Wikipedia. I do not know what happened to the RfC on him, but I do think it's clear that he has nothing valuable to contribute here.--csloat 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If I can provide incontrovertible proof that you lied three times in the above statement, will you change your vote? --Zephram Stark 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Proof should not be claimed, but presented. Hic Rhodus, hic salta. Septentrionalis 04:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ice-9

This article is implausible, and no verification has been forthcoming. -Tim

• I have verifed that the references to a non-fictional Ice-9, otehr than as a metaphor, are invalid. I have placed several citations to that effect on the talk page. i have edited the article to refer exclusively to teh fictional Ice-9 in Cat's Cradle and its wider use as a metaphor. In this form i think it is worth keeping. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fictional allotrope which exists in popular culture independently of the source novel. Kappa 23:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Be aware that before the rewrite this articel claimed that there was a non-fictional substance of substantially the same properties, now being used for underwater construction. That was clearly a hoax. Check out the history of the article. DES ^(talk) 23:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Good rewrite. Keep it. Vizjim 23:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now the hoax-related stuff has been removed. Would be nice to cite an example of the term Ice-9 being applied in the real world as indicated, though. 23skidoo 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. I've added a link to an academic journal article that uses the term in that way in its title. Is one example enough, do you think? DES ^(talk) 15:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite, notable fictional material. -- Creidieki 04:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Article needs a substantial clean-up however; at present it doesn't even identify the term's originator. Demogorgon's Soup-taster
  • Have fixed that.Vizjim 09:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• A fine article now that the hoax material has been replaced. I also vote to keep and withdraw my original suggestion to delete. -Tim 12.0.237.66 16:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that is it is clear it is about a fictional substance. The fictional material is notable enough for an article. I remember reading something that discussed whether such a substance was possible (the conclusion was it was not). It references like that can be found, this article can be expanded. Jonathunder 18:10, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
  • I think you will find that at least some of this is in the links I added to the talk page. More might be worth finding. An obvious problem with the fictional Ice-9 is the energetics -- aligning molecules in a solid state generally releses significant energy, which would tend to disrupt the reaction -- but I don't have a specifc source for that off-hand. DES ^(talk) 18:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I just stumbled upon this article and in its current state it would be absurd to delete it. Captain Segfault 06:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I quite agree (and thanks, as I wrote much of the current version). But look at the histroy and you will see why it was put on AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 15 September 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Double standards (band)

yawn, nn bv --Doc (?) 22:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delte, non-notable. -GregAsche (talk) 23:37, September 9, 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 redirect to Sexual Harassment Panda. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sexual harrassment panda

Close to a BJAODN right now, I doubt it can be expanded to the point where it's worth anything. Karmafist 22:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it's hardly BJAODN, because it was a real character. But unless someone expands it, Delete. RADICALBENDER★ 22:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Despite remembering watching it myself, it's not worthy of its own article. No content to merge or do anything with. --rob 22:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sort of. I was going to say merge into the appropriate South Park episode - but there's no article on the episode, which happens to be titled Sexual Harrassment Panda, so this should be moved there (it would redirect there anyway) and be made into an article on the episode. I'll get one of the South Park folks on it ASAP. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • D'oh!!! Bad spelling. Speedy redirect to Sexual Harassment Panda. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:51, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

7227 BC

we do not generally have separate year articels thsi far back, and a year articel with only a single entry (and that for a non-event) seems pointless. Delete. If anyone wants to copy the content into Timeline of fictional historical events feel free. DES ^(talk) 22:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Atlantis. android79 23:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — It's already covered on 8th millennium BC. — RJH 18:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As all above reasons. A seperate page for one tiny detail that's covered elsewhere seems silly. M A Mason 22:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to MidiNotate Composer. The AfD on that article resulted in no consensus after the rewrite, and there is clearly grounds for retaining this as a redirect to the larger article — as implied by the author's final comment. -Splash^talk 00:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

MidiNotate Musician

non-notable commercial self promotion Jdavidb 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ad. Dottore So 23:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: where do you see an ad or self-promo? I don't see it myself... -- Grev -- Talk 02:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is in keeping with other articles about other music software in the same category. I used the other articles as examples to work from, and was offering this information to inform others about what types of music software programs are available. You can check out the other articles in the same category, and I think you will find that they are in the same vein as this one. Sherryc 03:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• "This product allows you to..." is promotional copy if I've ever seen it -- second person isn't the usual writing standard at WP. It's fine to model your articles on related ones like Sibelius and Finale but that doesn't make the product necessarily as notable. No vote —Wahoofive (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Reaffirming my vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Response I would be happy to rewrite the article to sound more "encyclopedic". My apologies if the article sounded too "personal" - I've found many entries on Wikipedia to be quite helpful to me in finding out about many resources, and I was merely adding a voice to that community. I'm not quite clear that a rewrite would be appropriate at this time, though. It seems that it would be more appropriate as a resubmission after the vote is decided for the current article. Is this correct? Sherryc 23:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Amren ^(talk) 01:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite I can definitely rewrite this article, but I'd appreciate some constructive input. I apparently shouldn't use existing articles as a model, because I did that and it's caused the ruckus :) What are your suggestions? I'll start with 1) use third person rather than second person 2)more background on the evolution of the software 3) noted capabilities. Does this seem appropriate? Please remember, this article is listed in the category of "music software", and you can check out the other articles in the category. To my eye, this one follows the same model, so I'm honestly trying to find out what the major problems are here so we can make this an informational entry. I see part of the strength of the Wikipedia as giving current information about a myriad of topics, as well as resources related to those topics (hence the "external links" sections). I want to do this right! Thanks. Sherryc 12:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Note I have rewritten another article that includes the software described here. Please see the article MidiNotate Composer to see this rewritten article. With that in mind, this article could certainly be deleted as the pertinent information about this piece of music software is contained in the other article. If you have any further constructive comments, though, please let me know. Thanks. Sherryc 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable software, not an advert. Kappa 17:18, 14 September 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. Given that a couple of opinion changed after the rewrite, and that the author gets a 'keep' for participating and trying hard, both the numbers and the debate are in no consensus. -Splash^talk 00:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

MidiNotate Composer

non-notable commercial self promotion Jdavidb 23:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ad. Dottore So 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'll ask the same thing here as in the other one: Where's the ad? Otherwise, this one's more clearly in the Keep column: 21K Google hits, notability established. Sure, it doesn't have the notability of the Cakewalk MIDI composer, but would you delete Arby's just because it wasn't as notable as McDonald's? -- Grev -- Talk 02:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is in keeping with other articles about other music software in the same category. I used the other articles as examples to work from, and was offering this information to inform others about what types of music software programs are available. You can check out the other articles in the same category, and I think you will find that they are in the same vein as this one. Sherryc 03:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. It just smells like a press release. I'll gladly change my vote if someone (Sherryc?) rewrites it to smell like - say - an encyclopedia entry instead. Bunchofgrapes 04:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC) See vote change below.
• Same comment as above —Wahoofive (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bunchofgrapes sums up my thoughts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)No Vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Response to rewrite request I would be happy to rewrite the article to sound more "encyclopedic". My apologies if the article sounded too "personal" - I've found many entries on Wikipedia to be quite helpful to me in finding out about many resources, and I was merely adding a voice to that community. I'm not quite clear that a rewrite would be appropriate at this time, though. It seems that it would be more appropriate as a resubmission after the vote is decided for the current article. Is this correct? Sherryc 22:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewriting during this voting process is actually encouraged; much better to rewrite now than to recreate the page later. Thanks for checking. Bunchofgrapes 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Amren ^(talk) 01:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite Ok, I can definitely rewrite it, but I'd appreciate some input. I apparently shouldn't use existing articles as a model, because I did that and it's caused the ruckus :) What are your suggestions? I'll start with 1) use third person rather than second person 2)more background on the evolution of the software 3) noted capabilities. Does this seem appropriate? Please remember, this article is listed in the category of "music software", and you can check out the other articles in the category. To my eye, this one follows the same model, so I'm honestly trying to find out what the major problems are here so we can make this an informational entry. I see part of the strength of the Wikipedia as giving current information about a myriad of topics, as well as resources related to those topics (hence the "external links" sections). I want to do this right! Thanks. Sherryc 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response All the above would be good. Plus, I suggest you use an article like Finale notation program as a basis: it's the most well-rounded article of the Scorewriter bunch. You also need references to claims such as "in wide use" and so on. Your willingness to improve this article is very welcome! Wombat 17:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite complete I've rewritten the article, and would like some constructive feedback. Please let me know what you think, or if you see room for improvement. I've condensed two articles into this one, with the thought of deleting the other one, following the example in the Finale notation program as suggested above. Thanks. Sherryc 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to keep based on rewrite. It's a little rah-rah, with more detail than I honestly think the subject deserves in Wikipedia, but it reads largely like an encyclopedia entry now, I suppose. Bunchofgrapes 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on rewrite. Thanks for doing this, Sherryc. It still needs some more evaluation of pros and cons (perhaps third-party) and perhaps a comparison with other programs, showing the differences between it and its competitors. And I agree with Bunchofgrapes: the article is disproportionately long and detailed, but that's not a reason to delete it. Wombat 10:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the tips, and the votes of confidence! I thought about including some comparisons with other programs, but I was afraid that someone might think I was trying to write a "product comparison review" as advertising or something :) So, I went more with the "what this particular program has" approach (hence the listing of capabilities) so that people would know about these particular programs. Which approach might be better? I don't want to make it a "this versus that" type of article - I've seen some of the discussions on some of the other software articles, and I'm not trying to make a "this is definitively better than that" article. I'm just trying to inform folks about a program that I've found useful, and that others might want to know about since there is a "music software" category in Wikipedia. Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks! Sherryc 16:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 00:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Crawford W. Beveridge

Was marked as {{nn-bio}}, but a comment left on the talk page indicates that this person's significance is debatable. I myself abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - He's one of the top people, in one of the top company's that's very signficant in determing the development of the industry, which has a large impact on the world. --rob 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 640 google seems like he isn't very popular, but as an executive at a Fortune 500 company, I think he deserves an article. -GregAsche (talk) 23:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable businessperson. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all officers from Sun are probably notable. Note that merely having a title called "Executive Vice President People and Places and Chief Human Resources Officer" is a good reason to sell your Sun stock. Bunchofgrapes 04:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I agree that in general top execs of Fortune 500 might be notable, at least if we agree that major league ballplayers are always notable. I myself do not: I think a better criterion would be to cite a featured profile in a magazine such as Business Week. Worried question for the author of the article: are you doing this as part of a job for this company? Are these articles you are creating, which you mentioned in the talk page for the article, simply going to duplicate information avaialable at the company website?---CH (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete in agreement with Hillman, pending specific citations beyond "was quoted in paragraph seven as spewing the standard corporate platitudes." How many EVPs does Sun have? (Some Fortune 500 companies have a dozen or more.) What evidence is there to indicate that he has (or, after he's dead, will be judged to have had) a lasting significant impact on his field of work? Aren't there a bunch of Sun engineers and programmers who actually have made more significant contributions than the guy in charge of hiring? Barno 20:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 00:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

David Bernstein

Was tagged as {{nn-bio}} but I moved it here to AFD because I sense that this person's significance may be debatable because he is a professor at the George Mason University School of Law and he contributes to The Volokh Conspiracy. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. android79 23:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, ~207k google and a professor at a major university is good enough for me. -GregAsche (talk) 23:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep True his Amazon.com sales rank is #420,638, but he shows up on google quite a bit. I disagree with GregAsche: we cannot fathom articles on every professor who has ever taught at every college or university of note around the globe. The bar needs to be higher. Sorry I overlooked the conjunctive. Dottore So 23:59, 9 September 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. -Splash^talk 00:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Craig M. Johnson

Seems to be a very biographical entry and one that is barely confirmed by Internet sources (I got 4 hits on Google). I would suggest userfy, except that the primary editor (the only editor) hasn't created a user. So I'm voting delete as per WP:NOT Kel-nage 23:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Definitely delete. Totally non notable and (auto?)biographical. Evolver 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, probable vanity. android79 23:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under A7 since no notability is asserted. This is autobiography; the author should userfy the info if he wishes to create an account. Dottore So 23:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Maybe speedy, but a couple statements, could maybe, just maybe, be seen as a claim of notability, however week. --rob 23:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully dispute that. Doing your job as an architect is not an assertion of notability. If he'd won an award or co-designed with someone of note, maybe that would count. But there is nothing here that crosses the threshhold. I think it should be speedied. Dottore So 23:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the assertions that consitute a claim of notability:

• Vice-President of national company (not just archetect)
• "he also designed several notable retail centers in..."
• "He currently manages the retail division of the Orange County Nadel Architects..."

Those are claims. Poor claims. Bad claims. Claims I reject. But claims. --rob 00:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonverifiable, per rob. Agree that speedy is inappropriate because article contains claims of notability. -- Creidieki 04:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7. Martg76 07:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity.---CH (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research G Clark 02:19, 12 September 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.