Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29

[edit]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Schleimer

[edit]

Stub on a notable entertainment lawyer.♥purplefeltangel 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline, but leaning delete at present: "Attendant fame" is one of the things we don't measure (being the kid or ex-lover of a celebrity doesn't make you a celebrity). If the fellow is so substantial, and I'm sure he is, he must have actually argued some significant cases or won some substantial claims. These would make him worthy of a biographical stub, IMO. Not to be trivial, but the valet to the stars probably exists, too. Geogre 15:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a partial list at http://www.schleimerlaw.com/trial.htm . Granted, none of them are world-changing trials like OJ or Lindbergh, but several of them made the news, and at least 2 of them are famous enough that I've heard of them despite not following law or celebrities closely (specifically, the ZZ Top one and the John Landis one where someone was killed in a helecopter shooting the Twilight Zone movie). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Hes the kind of lawyer other lawyers want to be. Truely a shark amongst the little fishies. Hamster Sandwich 20:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be less here than meets the eye -- the "client list" is not terribly accurate, since it includes clients of his previous employer on whose cases he worked in unidentified capacities -- and few of the listed cases on his firm's website appear noteworthy. There are, no doubt, quite a few real estate agents in California with even more impressive client lists, but no one, I think, would advocate their listing here.Judge Magney 13:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to have had an impact on US law. Klonimus 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Cross-space redirect made redundant, so not really any need for this VfD to run through. Hedley 01:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:X-Troll

[edit]

Article already exists in article space. This appears to be redundant copy in the wrong area. Buffyg 00:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lfyre

[edit]

Programming language still in beta on sourceforge. humblefool® 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are all sorts of languages that don't get articles because they're not popular, significant, or used. 1,000 downloads is not at all sufficient to demonstrate adoption, and then there are no notices given in trade magazines, etc. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.og. Further, Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or announcing your wicked cool language: when other documented sources speak of it, it will be time to consider an article. I don't know why voters are suddenly having so much trouble telling Wikipedia from Everything2, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, not a primary. Geogre 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org, and Wikipedia is not the place for this article. --Carnildo 19:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for subjects that have not yet demonstrated notability. Buffyg 14:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the "stop giving more slack to technical articles than non-technical ones" principle. Nandesuka 22:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Carnildo said. "Wikipedia is not advertising" is particularly prominent here. JRM · Talk 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside: having articles on things that are not even established yet does harm Wikipedia. It shouldn't become a place where the latest, greatest software projects can be announced/promoted, no matter how neutrally this is done. JRM · Talk 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  19:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No argument. siafu 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Japanese history

[edit]

It's only just been created, but I can't see this ever working, and I'm not sure that it's been done for any other countries. History of Japan would presumably contain anything that goes here, and theres no other Wikipedia glossaries right now. Hedley 01:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valuable resource started by contributor with a long history of developing significant articles. Wikipedia has enormous numbers of lists (and a glossary is a list with a more specialized name and function) that organize information in ways that other articles do not. History of Japan is too long and organized by period. Fg2 01:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am not sure why this fails to work. While I am afraid that it might get too long in the future, we still have to see this for a while. I created this in the same manner as Glossary of object-oriented programming and similar glossaries in math. I agree that this may be unprecedented, but then that might mean that we need similar glossaries for other countries as well. Finally, as Fg2 pointed, this is certainly differently from History of Japan as this one lists historical terms not narrate the story. -- Taku 02:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. TakuyaMurata, given his prolific output, would naturally find glossary pages a useful tool. They aren't common on Wikipedia, but they provide an efficient means for grouping together lots of related (but different, and hence unlistable) articles. Binadot 02:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that would justify deleting this page. Glossaries are clearly encyclopedic. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but suggest a rename to List of terms in Japanese history, or something similar, which would clarify its place in Wikipedia. At present, this is not a "glossary" as I understand it -- it does not define terms except by their Japanese equivalent. -- Visviva 02:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'nuff said. David Hoag 06:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is at least one other Wikipedia Glossary: Glossary of game theory --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 08:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think, however, it needs a lot more terms listed (including perhaps ones without Wikipedia links!) to warrant keeping in the long term. TheDeadlyShoe 08:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia already has a large number of glossaries (see [1]), and knowing the creator of this page, I have no doubt that this glossary will prove to be useful and encyclopedic. BlankVerse ∅ 11:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. needs alot more links, but no reason for deletion, just for editing. Uber nemo 15:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The difference from the main history articles is perfectly clear. CalJW 13:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wow. Just found this. Nice. - Tεxτurε 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about fetal expulsion

[edit]

Currently has three songs; I can't imagine the list growing much longer. tregoweth 01:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Educatethepoor

[edit]

Looks like a Yahoo hosted page that (at the time of this writing) only contains one sentence. There doesn't seem to be any content here, besides the good intentions Rx StrangeLove 02:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs with scat-singing

[edit]

There are way too many songs with scat-singing in. Genres of music generally can't have lists of songs. This list has barely been started, but even so - Does all 22 tracks from two Scatman John albums, with all their remixes, covers and variations get added to here? Does every jazz song with scat singing in go here? Lists such as this with never be completed, aren't been contributed to, and don't belong on an encyclopedia. Hedley 02:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yamahachi Dental

[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. This is vanity. Look at the second first person POV in this statement: They have a 30% share of the artificial teeth sales market in Japan and are proud to enjoy an excellent reputation among our customers. Whoops. Zpb52 02:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No. First person: I/me/mine. Second person: we/our. Third person: he/his/they/their/ Zpb52 16:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, wouldn't second person be you/your ??? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Eighth grade was so long ago. I guess I didn't pay enough attention! Zpb52 18:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

ET Might Write, Not Radiate

[edit]

This is unencyclopedic, poorly titled, and conjectural, not to mention bald-faced vanity. If this information belongs on Wikipedia at all, it should be integrated into the SETI article. Binadot 02:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Okay, this is clearly a case of inept academic vanity. The author of this page is User:24.44.208.18, who appears to be the same as User:Cnmirose. Cnmirose openly admits to being Christopher Rose (yeah, he created an article about himself in the Wikipedia namespace), a (non-notable) professor who wrote a (non-notable) article entitled "ET Might Write, Not Radiate", which is the subject of the article in question. When I placed a VFD notice on the article, he removed it, commenting "DO NOT delete". He doesn't seem to understand our policy on vanity. You'd think a professor would know better. Binadot 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Gazpacho 02:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say Binadot's tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakenly tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Chris 03:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely because an article has been in a notable publication doesn't mean that the article itself is inherently notable. The contents may be notable, and I think in this case they are, but they don't require a separate article. I'd dump the contents into SETI, perhaps into a new subsection. Sorry to come down on you so hard, but we have a strong policy on vanity, for obvious reasons. If a topic is notable, we'd prefer it to be documented by an impartial third party. I would have been more relaxed about things if the VFD notice hadn't been removed, and if I hadn't discovered the Christopher Rose and Gregory Wright articles. Binadot 03:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks -- consider me educated :) Is there a way to expedite the removal of the three pages Christopher Rose Gregory Wright and ET Might Write, Not Radiate (as well as the misspelled version which caused me to mistakenly delete your vfd ET Might Wright, Not Radiate -- if I had a dime for every time I've done that mispelling, I could probably buy myself coffee for a week :) ). I *AM* the sole author, I've removed the links in the SETI article I edited, and I now understand that such entries cannot be taken lightly. So I'm all for an expedited removal schedule. Also, since you seem knowledgeable about wiki-matters, if you could take a peek at my additions in the "Probe" section -- just search SETI for my name -- and advise, that would be really helpful. I also have a question -- how do entries like Robert Freitas get posted/written? Let's just say that the notability quotient you implicitly cite is not high for that page. :) However, I have no objection to it since for someone looking for work in the area, his stuff is useful. Hence, if such pages for Greg and me would be helpful to folks, it would be useful to know how to get them written. Of course, cites to our home pages in the SETI article at appropriate places would probably be just as good or better. Cheers, Chris 04:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, poorly titled, too technical. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Chris. Hamster Sandwich 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with SETI. --malathion talk 06:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, questionable at that - Tεxτurε 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep the rewrite and nomination was withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Theatre

[edit]

I tried Googling this to find out where this 'Little Theatre' might be. It was a hopeless task - there are more Little Theatres than you can shake a stick at, to say nothing of things like "...take in a little theatre on a Friday night...". None of the other clues here helped much in reducing the number of hits. This article is unexpandable unless we know where this theatre is located, and useless for the same reason. Denni☯ 02:25, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Keep in light of EvilNight's fine expansion. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Los Esqueakis 16:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately unexpandable. Tempshill 21:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is expandable, but only if someone from Rochester with a bit of knowledge of this place happens to stumble over your article. "The Little" by name in Rochester will be instantly recognized by anyone in the area (and by not a few people in Hollywood in the art cinema circuit). Considering the original wikipedian's entry for the stub with the clues "now an art house multiplex" (The Little has 9 screens now if memory serves), "oldest active movie theaters" (The Little was founded in 1928, cinema houses don't get much older than that, or last this long), and "built specifically to show films" (which The Little was) it seems clear he meant The Little in Rochester. I know of no other cinemas that match all of those credentials. I've gone ahead and updated the entry to a more appropriate stub with a bit of information, some basic history, and some links (and all of this material is my own writing, no worries about copyright). Give it a go-over and decide if you still want to vote it for deletion. Also, this is my first Wikipedia entry, so check and let me know if I'm breaking any etiquette. I would also be willing to bet that if asked, the management at The Little would consent to a direct import of their history from their website into this article. Do check out the history link, it's quite interesting. EvilNight 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, EvilNight. I happily retract my nomination. BTW, great first article! Denni☯ 03:29, 2005 August 5 (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 PENDING TRANSLATION. Already on WP:PNT. Splash 18:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazaam Abu Shadeed (neé نظام_أبو_شديد)

[edit]

not an English encyclopedia article - Nunh-huh 02:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:PNT --Dmcdevit·t 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It's about someone named Nizam Abu Shadeed. Nothing shows up in an English Google, but a search in the Arabic alphabet brings up a lot of Iranian sites; however, this looks like Arabic, not Persian. I'm afraid I can't understand most of it, since all I have is a smattering of self-taught Persian and Arabic. --Jpbrenna 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am informed that he is either an artist or aesthetic philosopher, born in Ghana and educated in France. The article seems to be in Arabic, not Persian. --Jpbrenna 06:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Translate, Important Persian article. User 24.171.36.233 04:58 AM [11:58], 29 July, 2005 (UTC/CDT)

  • Consider for translation? -- It is not in English, and at this point, I have no hope of understanding a character of it, let alone a whole word of it. --Mysidia 05:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English -- Longhair | Talk 05:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dallow

[edit]

"Up and coming" means "not there yet." Please come back later. Denni☯ 02:41, 2005 July 29 (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 already. Woohookitty 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rose

[edit]

This is a blatant vanity page created by an anonymous user who is most likely Rose himself. It's part of a series of vanity articles surrounding the "ET Might Write, Not Radiate" page. Binadot 02:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say your tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakely tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Chris 03:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wright

[edit]

This is another vanity article apparently created by Christopher Rose. Binadot 02:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say your tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakely tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Cnmirose.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Tek Singh (district)

[edit]

Seems unencyclopedic and not very verifable. It's a nice read at times but full of original research with a bit of personal history thrown in. Sorry. Rx StrangeLove 02:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or delete and replace. The current contents are nonsense, but there is a perfectly encyclopedic district by this name. See [4] -- Visviva 02:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'll give it a shot and replace the content with something better suited to a encyclopedia if that works for everyone. Rx StrangeLove 03:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the content with a stub, if people feel that this VfD should run it's course feel free to revert and we can recreate under Toba Tek Singh or redirect from here. Rx StrangeLove 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Kudos. -- Visviva 14:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pointenslutten

[edit]

Neologism. Come back in ten years. Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher & Robertson

[edit]

Does not indicate notability. Gazpacho 03:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Turing Test

[edit]

"We believe" = original research. Delete. Gazpacho 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PolyMonomic

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poms Ventures Corporation Oil Mills, Philippines

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a means for advertising. Articles about companies should describe companies that are well known, and are notable. This company is definitely not notable. This also looks like some about page rather than an article. Also, if it is confirmed that this should be deleted, may I please request an admin to delete, thanks.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but keep the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI/Archive04

[edit]

Strong Delete No reason for "archive". Amicuspublilius 23:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting and entertaining turn it into a flash video for ebaumsworld.com im telling u it will work

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Posters Will Be Band

[edit]

Small pub band in London. No releases. humblefool® 03:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Fly (Whisper to a Scream)

[edit]

Very short article: not even a complete sentence. No links, no categories. Not notable, not encyclopedic, no useful information. DanMS 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the VFD notice from the article, since I am the person who posted the notice in the first place. There were no votes to delete and the article has been improved. My apologies if that's not the correct way to do it. DanMS 01:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 under criteria related to obviously mis-spelled names. David | Talk 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd the Barbe

[edit]

This is a mispelling of Floyd the Barber and there is no information on this page that isnt on the page with correct spelling. Jobe6 03:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lightsaber

[edit]

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Steve Casburn 03:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bit streams cryptology

[edit]

Huh? Google finds nothing but wiki mirrors for this. I think it's possibly a hoax. humblefool® 03:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Binkovitz

[edit]

Vanity/no evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hillegass

[edit]

The only thing I've been able to find out about him is that he wrote a book on Cocoa programming and wrote a course for teh Big Nerd Ranch. I don't think he's noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article. Exabyte (talk)­ 04:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep >> 14,600 Google hits in quotes. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: There are a lot of Google hits, but they're all blogs, interviews, and bookstores selling his book, and there are a lot of multiple hits from the same site. I was looking for some sort of newspaper article about something noteworthy that he has done. Does the number of Google hits really measure notability? Exabyte (talk)­ 05:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Keep. Agentsoo 09:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podeti

[edit]

Unable to verify notability; only 40 Google hits, all of which are in Spanish (Portuguese?). --Alan Au 04:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RP (GorillaMask)

[edit]

Vanity. --malathion talk 05:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Raiola

[edit]

Undistinguished professional athletes are not sufficiently famous to warrant articles. LisaCarrol 05:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is nothing on the page to indicate why he is notable, aside from being a professional athlete i.e., an adult paid to play children's games. I feel that many if not most pro athletes would not warrant an encyclopedia article. However, if someone wishes to expand this into a proper article there is information on him on Detroit Lions Site: Dominic Raiola and NFL.com - Dominic Raiola, and I would be willing to reconsider my vote. LisaCarrol 05:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. No offense Lisa, but your obvious strong personal distate for sports may be getting in the way of your logic here. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would certainly agree that many athletes deserve articles, such as Joe Namath, Brett Favre, O.J. Simpson, Dan Warner, Larry "Bird" Johnson, Joe DiMaggio, Sidd Finch, etc. I just don't agree that every pro player in history from every major sport belongs in the encyclopedia -- that will inevitably result in thousands and thousands of articles on people almost no one has ever heard of. But I appreciate the way the article has been expanded, and acknowledge that the consensus is to keep. LisaCarrol 09:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Professional NFL player. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand. The man has been the starting center for the Detroit Lions for three years and was a four-year starter at Nebraska. I think all major-league professional athletes are worthy of inclusion, as well as all major-college football and basketball players. Mwalcoff 06:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep >> notable athlete --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:57, July 29, 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maldivian democractic party

[edit]

Only created due to original creator's misspelling, probably due to their lack of English. Nothing on Google for this phrase other than Wikipedia mirrors. Content was merged into real page long ago. Mr. Know-It-All 05:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete >> misspelling or somesuch. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

    • Er, that's what the redirect's for. No harm done, they're cheap. (and in the future, redirects go to WP:RFD) --Dmcdevit·t 23:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rkult

[edit]

This page is clearly advertising for a fansite. They even use "we" to show that the editor is the person who is running the site. At best include something about it in the Rammstein article. Jobe6 06:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Rammstein sucks I mean, nn website. Alexa rating over 1 million. Friday 06:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete >> fansite. On a less related note, I don't even know any Ramstein songs.  :< --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:50, July 29, 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. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sri.GOD

[edit]

This somehow comes off as less than encyclopedic. CJCurrie 06:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Delete. -- The Anome 07:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete >> I laughed out loud. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Ludo

[edit]

A clone of the page Ludo (board game) with nonsense added. The original (anon) author's only other edits were adding the same nonsense to Ludo (board game) itself, which was reverted. —Blotwell 07:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete >> nonsense. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki dating

[edit]

Why was this put on VfD? I mean, almost all Wiki projects have articles in Wikipedia. Despite low google hits, it has a high alexa ranking.

  • Keep per alexa ranking. --SuperDude 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alexa rating I get is a very unremarkable figure in the 500,000 range. Is this "high"? Morwen - Talk 08:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A higher (in numeric value) Alexa ranking means less traffic. For comparison, Slashdot, a high-traffic site, has a 1,380 ranking. android79 11:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • In music charts, #1 is the highest. Alexa rankings also work this way. This site obviously has a very low ranking.
        • It's not 500,000, it's 5,500,000. It's difficult to find anything lower than that. Angela. 00:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete apparent vanity, wikipedia is not a web directory. Morwen - Talk 14:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote myself for deletion!

  • My friend Ben, whose been helping me with the site, left me an odd notice today: the Wikipedia article on "WikiDating" is being deleted. I am flattered someone thought it was worth mentioning, but it still is very new, and when 1.5 MediaWiki stablizes, I plan to upgrade & haven't decided yet if its worth borging in a bunch of age code vs. just asking people to be honest: and of course, there's still the issue of deletions there and the like. Right now, its still very much an experiment & the best support I could ask would be word-of-mouth: instead of provoking the pro-deletion factions I've been made aware of that defend this site. This didn't need to be added to their list: maybe in a few years, if I still run it, it'll be "worthy" of even their support to mention here.

I did not submit this article, nor desired to, and with amusement & regret I vote for deletion. Cwolfsheep 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. There was no consensus to delete or to transwiki. A couple of votes were discounted because the editors are either too new or have too few article edits. I expect at least one month and 100 edits total at the time of voting, with a decent proportion of those being article edits. angrydruid had only three edits in all, Firefox made his first edit a day or two before voting here. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of HTML decimal character references

[edit]

This is someone's attempt to make a companion article for List of XML and HTML character entity references. Whereas that article is clearly useful in its discussion and listing of the standard 5 XML and 252 HTML/XHTML character entity references, this new article merely contains the first 10 thousand numeric character references out of a potential 1.1 million. Nearly any Universal Character Set code point, aside from an unassigned or otherwise disallowed handful, can be referenced in this way.

  • There is no need for this kind of list,
  • its cutoff is arbitrary,
  • its formatting is poor and makes no use of existing character table templates and formats (see ongoing discussion in Talk:ISO 8859-1#Character table format),
  • its length is too great,
  • no one is going to be able to render the characters in it (slapping Template:SpecialChars on it isn't going to help much),
  • and most importantly, there were similar "Table of Unicode characters" articles (with similar charts and arbitrary cutoffs) that existed up until a month or two ago, but have since been deleted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Various Unicode-related pages. — mjb 07:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precedent is delete so I'll go with that. Actually, the precedent is transwiki. So let's do that instead. Agentsoo 09:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any cutoff point is arbitrary, and if there is no cutoff, then the list will grow every time the Unicode working group meets. --Carnildo 19:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki to WS. The precedent is NOT delete (RTFVFD). Its cutoff is not arbitrary. I checked the next few thousand, and none of them appear to have been used yet. In any case, where in the article is it suggested that the list is complete? Poor formatting is no reason to delete an article, it's a reason to post a cleanup tag at most. You delete an article based on content, not formatting. Claiming there is no need for it is also not a valid complaint, since your opinion of a need is subjective. The fact that such lists already exist on the internet, and even on Wikipedia as you have pointed out, indicate a need for the list. What do you mean noone can render the characters in it? If you can see the characters in your browser, you can render them (so already we've found one use for the list). Another invalid complaint. Also, the precedent is NOT delete but to keep or transwiki. In any case, following precedent is only an excuse to be lazy, when other possible suggestions, such as splitting the article, would also work, but require minimal brain power. Claiming that the growth of the list is a bad thing is invalid as well, since Wikipedia is not paper. Claiming that the XML/HTML article is useful whereas this is not is also invalid, since this article simply requires expansion of content, so you should put in a request for expansion, or more easily wait a while (the article just started!). :)  BRIAN0918  21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the comment above is by the person who created/generated the article in question. Re: formatting, inconsequential cosmetic details are not the issue; rather, it is the content. A numeric character reference is not necessarily going to correspond to a renderable glyph (even with an extremely capable browser and all fonts), because not all characters are 'graphic', and some are only usable in combination. That is, while it is reasonable to say "&#169; is ©", it is not reasonable to say "&#65530; is …some replacement glyph for unrenderable 'interlinear annotation separator' character", so the purpose of the table is in question. What exactly is it trying to show? Also, the nature of the numeric character references is such that they are really just another set of labels for UCS code points, just like the 'U+' notation. If there is no consensus on the value of a table that has nothing but code points (listed in U+, decimal, or hexadecimal) and browser-dependent glyph-rendering attempts, regardless of how the table is split up, then the value of a table that differs only by virtue of prefixing each code point with "&#" and following it with ";" is equally dubious. In other words, the new table is nothing more than a minor cosmetic reformatting of the deleted/Wikisourced articles, which were not-very-well-thought-out attempts to automatically generate information found in ISO/IEC 10646 and The Unicode Standard. If they don't belong on Wikipedia, then this one doesn't, either. I suggest following up on the discussion in Talk:ISO 8859-1 where various ideas for where and how to best present character info in general are being floated. — mjb 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FireFox 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki, this article can improve and there is precedence to transwiki. NoSeptember 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To put it plain and simple, this is an article of knowledge and by definition that's what an encyclopedia is! 03:32 UTC 8 August 2005 Kurthalomieu J. McCool
  • Delete this is completely irrelevant (preceding unsigned comment by Angrydruid 04:26, 8 August 2005 UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Alexander Andrew Pickles

[edit]

I couldn't find anything on Google so I initially flagged this as {{unsourced}}, and asked the user who created the article to provide more details. None have been forthcoming, and the tag was removed by an anon editor, which leads me to suspect it's a hoax. Delete. (They would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that pesky choco fudge). OpenToppedBus - My Talk 08:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Davies

[edit]

Vanity Page PMaunton 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete >> non-notable. --[[User:Merovingian|

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!]] (t) (c) 08:53, July 29, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Order

[edit]

An article about a neo-nazi organisation which doesn't exist. How exactly is this verifiable information? And, if at all, is it to be verfified by evidence for its existence or by evidence for its non-existence? --Pjacobi 09:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to compare this VfD. --Pjacobi 09:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstood the entry. It's not an organisation in the sense of having a leader and headquarters, but more a philosophy. If we could check out the related books, I see no reason not to keep. Agentsoo 09:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? But what's encyclopedic about one person's private philosophy, which didn't get any following? --Pjacobi 09:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Everything, it can be an important concept for peoplke studying Manson's followers. Theodore W. 09:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trent holmes

[edit]

Subject is not notable enough for encyclopedic entry. Google search for "Trent Holmes" producer results in 4 unique hits. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hanaoka

[edit]

Probable vanity page. Being VP of Information Systems at Ask Jeeves just doesn't strike me as a big claim to fame. He only has seven hits from Google. But, it's uncertain enough whether this qualifes as an adequate claim to fame to put up here instead of speedy delete.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

County Executive

[edit]

Starts off with " 1) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the county executive committee at primary elections shall perform all duties that relate to etcetera etcetera ..." and goes downhill from there. Delete Dr Gangrene 09:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TELES AG

[edit]

Blatant advertising --malathion talk 10:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project California

[edit]

Article starts with the text "concept yet to be produced but is said to be". 210 google hits. Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thue | talk 10:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Tikka

[edit]

Hoax. Thue | talk 10:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Teen talk central

[edit]

Doesn't seem a notable website. Wikipedia is not a web guide. [[smoddy]] 10:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of albums with names identical to songs done by the performer

[edit]
Note: I forgot to list this on the main page last night. Please excuse the delay. android79 11:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic, not maintainable. Would be more aptly named List of albums with title tracks. Such a list would contain thousands of albums. android79 03:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curl_programming_language

[edit]

Google search for 'curl "programming language"' gives 189 results, the first one of which is an incoherent wikibooks article, some mirrors of wikibooks and a lot of sites that have nothing to do with the programming language described. - Dv 11:08, July 29, 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 --Allen3 talk 20:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

X-Offender

[edit]

Not enough relevance to have a page just for it. There's an article for Blondie (band), so merge and then delete. Lucio 11:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Simon Holford

[edit]

Subject not worthy of inclusion Tegalrof 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Tony SidawayTalk 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus keyboard

[edit]

Vote: Keep: It's a very interesting product that appears to be genuine and in production/development. The article is discussing a new technology that could benefit a lot of computer users, thus it has encyclopediac integrity and merit. Richardbooth 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement. The article is nothing but an ad for a product that doesn't even exist yet. As for the novelty value of the described product, keyboards with programmable LCD keytops were already available many (15?) years ago. Naddy 11:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep.

Artemy Lebedev studio may have not well been known outside of Russia, but it is a very solid manufacturer. I genuinely do not believe that the studio would publish an article on something they did not actually work on. I think the "vaporware" claims, at least as far as accusations of publicity frauds, are not justified.

As for the argument that it is a prototype, I have seen hundreds of entries in Wikipedia about concept ideas by other companies, including car manufacturers like GM or Ford, or not-yet-released software, including those who already HAVE proved themselves vaporware (ahem Duke Nukem Forever. Why don't we go and delete that?

I think the article should be given a chance. It perhaps should be modified, more directly emphasizing the fact that no physical keyboard exists, and/or warn about dangers of vaporware. But simply deleting an interesting article about an informative concept design is displaying bias and triggerhappyness. (Elvarg 18:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete. It is only an artist's concept, and only vaporware. It should not be even mentioned as a 'product' or 'prototype', because it does not exist in physical form. If it is kept, it should be in a "Future Keyboard Artist's Concepts" section.

Vote: keep. This product very innovative, good idea, and current "event". Maybe vaporvare, but I don't think so.

Vote: keep: If it is in advertising style, let's change it. It's an interesting idea (albeit not entirely new), and the article gave useful information (for example: I didn't realise the pictures were cg renderings). The article on coca-cola isn't considered an advert, and other future devices exist on WP, so lets keep this interesting technology page, albeit tweaked a little for encyc. style. Mat-C 11:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep: Definetly an interesting idea and could be expanded to include examples of similar keyboards from the past. --81.154.237.252 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep: This is arguably an advertisement, but could easily be edited to broaden its scope. The advertisement is continued in a number of places on Wikipedia, including two mentions to itself on the Computer Keyboard page (an image and a link at the bottom), so these should perhaps be removed. If this is to be deleted, it should be replaced with a broader article on similar keyboards. RandyWang 23:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: keep: i added the "future product" comment, that should make it clear that we rely mainly on company information Hppl 12:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Delete: What is the point of this article? It doesn't seem apropriate to have an article about a single product (not a broader technology) that doesn't exist yet, and therefore has not historical or cultural importance. While I agree that this could be of technological interest, if that is the point of this article, then a broader article about the technology itself, not an individual product would be the right way to go.

Vote: Keep: No cultural relevance? So I guess numerous promised products that never came to fruition, or even those that did, had no affect on culture before they were released? This is incorrect. Think of numerous gaming systems, software titles, etc. Think of computer designs and concepts which had an impact on society even if they never were produced successfully.

Vote: Major change: Include references to any other programmable keytop keyboards. Vaxalon 13:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • don't vote for it, do it!

Vote: Keep: but rewrite the article so that it has more information on this particular type of keyboard rather than focusing so much on this particular make and model. As Optimus is the brand name might it require renaming the article? --Timmywimmy 13:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete

Advertisement for vaporware. Does Duke Nukem Forever have a page? How about Windows Vista?

Yes, Duke Nukem Forever does have an entry. As does Windows Vista.
  • Vote: Delete: Agree with previous Delete voters. If the article was about OLED keyboards in general, and included this product as an example, that would be different. This is just an advert. Delete it. Elwood00
  • Keep but edit so it doesn't sound like an advert. Ppe42 13:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Delete: Vaporware (see Adambisset's Patented Perpetual Motion Machine for a similar example ;). Merge with the article on computer keyboards if necessary, under the heading of 'future developments' perhaps. (I notice that Mr Lebedev already has a picture of his product on that page). [BTW 'Google testing' gives special privilege to certain subjects. It is an invalid method for determining the content of an encyclopedia. Think about it the other way round: if a subject has millions of Google hits does the world really need another page about it?] Adambisset 13:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote: Delete: The images on the home page for this are nothing but renders and Photoshop jobs. This does not exist, will likely not exist any time soon, and even if it does come to exist, this page is little but an advertisement for it. If this page persists, should I go create pages for all my company's products? N0YKG 13:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, a product catalogue nor an advertising medium. If it's ever a real product, if it gets a manufacturer, if it ships in 2006, if anyone buys it, if any of the other nebulous predictions in the article come to pass, then it deserves an article. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps change the entry to the subject of LED keyboards in general, have the Optimus as a section in that article, and redirect Optimus searches to that article. I hate it when I know something exists and Wikipedia has no information on it at all. If something exists, even if only in the form of a publicly accessible concept, Wikipedia should have info on it if possible.

Nortonew 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is a mere product placement article. If there are any such keyboards around, it is sufficient to mention them in the keyboard article.
  • Delete: this is an advertisement, and the fact that you found the info through /. doesn't make it less of an ad. Bottom line, lots of people have been spamming slashdot recently and managed to get past the not-so-keen eye of the editors. Slashvertisement. Adidas 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote: Delete: Agree with previous Delete voters. Blatant press release masquerading as content.
  • Delete Until it is an actual product that has some impact on the market. Until then, perhaps some mention on an article about keyboards. - Zelda 15:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Delete Agree with other delete posts here. This isn't a real product, and it's worth significant until it is released. If it persists as vaporware and enters the public consciousness (e.g., Duke Nukem Forever), then it warrants a page. But we're not there yet. Rstandefer 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote: Keep: But change the title to something like "Reconfigurable Computer Keyboard", rearrange the structure to minimize the brand placement, and imply that most graphical keycap keyboards have turned out to vaporware, but in 2005, company X announced theirs would use the new OLED technology, but as of July 2005, the only visible evidence of the Optimus keyboard is a computer generated rendition. Then, future changes could say either, "the first working prototype was shown at the 2007 CES in Las Vegas" or "as of July 2007, it appears that the Optimus keyboard also turned out to be vaporware." JJLatWiki 16:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising for a product that does not exist other than as a dream and electrons (very crystal ball), and has no notability, other than a linkspam on slashdot. In a related note, my sypathies go out to the admin to has to sort through this mess or good posts, anon IPs, sock puppets, and a whole slew of users who've made mabe a dozen posts since they opened acounts some time in '04. (i.e. many of those redlinked users.) --Icelight 17:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Computer keyboard under a Future Development section, like what Cabhan recommended. Although some unreleased products are notable, this one isn't, no more so than every other quirky product/thing/idea/meme-of-the-week that gets linked from Boing Boing or Slashdot (and there are thousands of them). -- Lifefeed 17:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Keep: Apparently, this manufacturer is dependable. If/when this product comes to fruition, it could have enourmous ramifications in the computer industry; in mere years, static-character keyboards would be relics of the 20th century. -Ayeroxor 17:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Keep LegCircus 18:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Keep: What is wrong with articles on vaporware? Even vaporware can have important cultural influence. I want wikipedia to tell me what's what, instead of having to rely on the manufacturers website alone. It is definetely of importance to the public since for instance someone might postpone keyboard purchases after reading the article, planning instead to wait for the optimus keyboard. If you think it's vaporware then by all means register that concern in the article. Potential buyers might want to know! --CygnusPius 18:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Article is on significant piece of technology, and, while speculative in nature, is based on factual estimates of available technology and official press releases. jglc | t | c 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote: Delete: Needs to be a note about the technology itself OLED. It would be a shame to see Wikipedia become a dumping ground for commercial ads that are really undercover marketing campaigns. One of the biggest things that draws me to wiki is that it is truely an informational site without advertisements. Advertisements hidden in the form of educational articles are truely insideous. If this article, and otherslike it, stays Wikipedia will enter the realm of commercialism.--P Todd 19:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it ever becomes more than a set of renderings on a website, then we should probably have an article about it. But until then, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I absolutely love the idea, but as per CDC and others, it doesn't exist yet and can only be considered a one-off, non-notable work of art. At best, it's advertising and speculation. I'm also skeptical of the Art. Lebedev Studio article... —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Keep: But please link to, or create articles on other keyboards with LCD displays, or the technology in general. Optimus might be unique with its colour OLED technology, but many other keyboards use black and white backlit LCDs on their key fascias, many being used in the broadcast industry. (I'm sorry I do not have any names right now.) Mr. Brownstone 21:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep or Merge with a more general article, either keyboards or programmable-display keyboards specifically. I'm a programmer by trade and have been using computers throughout my (admittely young) life, and this is the first I've heard of OLED/LCD-top keyboards. A quick Google search did not turn up much else on the technology so far, and it seems this prototype is important among models currently in existence. In my opinion, it seems that LED-top keyboards could become an extremely important part of computing as computers become more global and Unicode support becomes more of a necessity. So I'm in favor of keeping information about this model at present, though I agree ultimately the better place for it would be in a more general article about computer keyboards with programmable displays. --faseidman 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: delete But why is a VFD article on the main page in the first place? Anyway, since this doesn't actually exist, scrap it. 65.0.31.216 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC) EDIT: This was my vote, I forgot to log in. Vonspringer 23:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote: Keep or Merge Space elevators are "vaporware" that has an aticle currently, and this keyboard should be out fairly soon, and we have many instances of specifc products like the Commodore 64 and such. Could be merged too...

Zotel 23:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with computer keyboard or Keep and rewrite as suggested above. It interested me! Keeps the benefits of the article and removes the ad content. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is extremely confused. It talks about a prototype which doesn't appear to exist, and a Technical specification which is more of a wishlist. Some comments on other votes:
    Pburka 04:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Space elevators - yes, we have an article about them, but not about a specific theoretical model. There's no Otis Space Elevator 3000 article.
    • Several voters talk about this prototype. This is not a prototype. It's an artist's impression of what a prototype might look like.
    • Speaking of non-existent products, though, why don't we have an iBrator article? That's notable vaporware!
      • My point was we have vaporware and specific "real" products, so shouldn't a combo of the two be acceptable? Why else have the "future product" tag at all - Zotel 00:01, 01 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If Crew Exploration Vehicle has an article, why shouldn't this? I agree it definitely merits reworkig to make it less like an advertisement. Also, redefinable keys are cool, I mean look what this button doe123nNfj8??!%(?^£"NO CARRIER —Neuropedia 19:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote: Delete it's an ad. I'm taking it out of the computer keyboard article too, where it's taking up a good quarter of the actual content. If they want to have content in Wikipedia it should have less hype splashed everywhere. It does not matter how cool it is. --kop 02:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an informative article that simply requires some NPOV editing.--Fahrenheit451 00:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote: Delete. A list of specifications which may or may not be met, with no available prototype... I don't think this even belongs in the Wikipedia, and certainly not linked to from the front page. This is slashdot/wikinews stuff. Robert 00:51:13, 2005-08-01 (UTC)


Vote: Keep: Like many others who vote for keeping, I agree that simply deleting this article is overkill. The point of wikipedia is that users can change the information. Why isn't this done already? This idea already has a controversial history on this site, in helping define how the community and the project handle vaporware and distinguish between the intent of user edits Certainly these contributions, along with a good strong copyedit that makes everything clear, would allow the article to stay. Ahutson 08:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Vote: Keep: A product that is making a lot of news right now. It might not have gone into production yet, but then neither has the Playstation 3. --PopUpPirate 16:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: It's too early yet to cry vaporware on this. The company producing seems to have some reputation in Russia already and its generating lots of news. If we have an article on The Phantom (a true vaporware story) then we can have an article on this too. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 00:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep: If the advertising is removed. -- Mbisanz 09:32, August 2, 2005 (EST)

Vote: Keep: I think that this is a great idea. This is NOT vaporware because it has not even come out yet, so there is no delay to complain about. this is a new idea, and will likely change the way people will use a computer. frankly, i want one of these "smart keyboards". now Starcraft: Ghost- thats vaporware. -- Fluke 11:33, August 5, 2005 (EST)

Vote: Keep: It's a very interesting product that appears to be genuine and in production

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The United Intellectual Ambassadors for the Southern End, tUIASE

[edit]

Zero Google hits and very recent founding date leads me to believe this is either a hoax or not notable. Delete Usrnme h8er 11:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, while they make no explicit claim of notariety, its not a bio... And the page is coherent enough not to be patent nonsense... Still pretty convinced this should be deleted though... Usrnme h8er 11:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No please don't please (Unsigned vote by 203.94.143.9 (talk · contribs))

  • Leave it it seems legit (unsigned vote by 60.226.184.63)
  • Don't Delete the web site is being produced, it is real and not a hoax (unsigned vote by 60.226.145.51)
Please notice the similarity between the above ip's, likely to be the same ISP, possibly the same user. Usrnme h8er 11:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe it’s two different users living in the same geographical location, heck the geographical location that tUIASE is based out of, which is (if must know) the city of Gold Coast. (yes we really are a Hoax and want to corrupt the world, over throw the US government, steal some nukes and hold the world hostage, and that is sarcasm for those who are a stranger to it) sorry if you have not heard of us. We clearly must not exist if you don’t know about us, because you are so all knowing and worldly that you know everyone and everything that exists in this world. Heck you “know” that if two IP addresses look the similar they must be exactly the same, just like how the countries Australia and Austria look the same and are therefore the same place. IP that look similar could not possibly from the same city and it’s totally illogical that a organization that based a given location would have it members living close by. Clearly IP from the same ISP must be from the same person, because only have one customer and that is how to survive the cut throat world of capitalism. 34 million users of AOL is really the one person, either the other 33,999,999 users are an arbitrary statistics or its just the same person signed up to several accounts take your pick since you dictate how the world is run. You are all commanding that if you say it’s not notable then it be, its impossible for be ignorant of anything. Why don’t you run the CIA they could really use some of your knowledge. (Unsigned comment by 60.226.145.51 (talk · contribs), only edits involve this article)

For fear of getting into a conversation I'm not particularly interested in, I didn't state that the two were the same, I expressed the possibility. I stated that they were likely to be the same ISP, which I stand by (which would indicate a physical proximity although in the case of major ISP's like AOL, this is not always the case). Neither has anyone stated that you are "for fact" a hoax. The matter that your organisation is not notable enough to warrant a page of the encyclopedia. A simple google search or a quick reference to othe encyclopedias gives good grounds for that comment. If you are of another opinion and feel that the organisation is of sufficent notariety, please feel free to post links to references on the Talk:The United Intellectual Ambassadors for the Southern End, tUIASE - Usrnme h8er 15:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency (hydrology)

[edit]

Reason Meaningless question, asked instead of informing. Want a Speedy Delete myself but I don't know if it qualifies... Usrnme h8er 12:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Vomiting. The AE redirect suggested by the final voter has already been created. Splash 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technicolour yawn

[edit]

Another slang term, which is not in all that common usage. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 22:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reauchambeau

[edit]

Slang words are usually deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. This one is also a novelty word and so not notable too. feydey 12:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge a shortened version into the G.I. Joe. I will make a quick attempt at this, but looking at the G.I. Joe article, it seems a bit awkward. I will leave a redirect with the history intact at Fred VII if anyone wants to review this article and merge things in a different manner than I do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred VII

[edit]

Article is on a topic of minimal importance and is overly long anyway. If Breathanach and Wenedyk are up for deletion then this must surely be unimportant enough to be deleted. Jogloran 12:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Data physics

[edit]

This appears to be someone's personal epiphany and discovery that the universe is really a large data structure. —Ghakko 12:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Raw data

[edit]

As with data physics, also on VfD. —Ghakko 12:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

She's cute but I don't believe a gallery of photos is considered encyclopedic. Maybe one or two of these images can be rolled into Fabiana Udenio but there's no need for an article IMO 23skidoo 13:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 13:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Prior Speculation)

[edit]

As was mentioned before, the article is too much about speculation (even the title says so), and although it is "prior to the release," it is still speculation. However, this could be moved into the Harry Potter Wiki, where it would be very welcome. And the speculation thing is tolerated over there. Chosen One 13:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Speedy Keep- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nor is it a repository of old crystal ball readings of little or no significance. I disagree with the verdict, but if a consensus has been reached. Usrnme h8er 13:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - this page has only just today had its previous VfD closed, with a result of keep. Vashti 13:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again. The prior speculation to this book is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as inappropriate nomination. But abridge (drastically) and merge with the article on the book --Doc (?) 14:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless Potter-cruft: If a bit of speculation was correct, it goes in the main article; if a bit of speculation was wrong, what the hell is the point of saving it? --Calton | Talk 15:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a break out article and a valid historical record. It should not be deleted any more than it would be if it was still part of the main article. CalJW 16:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, useless - utterly useless. This is an encyclopedia. Not a historical record of speculation by fans for a book. I know Potter is a highly successful and popular book series, but that doesn't excuse it. An article like this seriously degrades the value of Wikipedia. K1Bond007 16:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This is not speculation. This is information that had been confirmed this time two weeks ago! The consensus was to keep, and disagreeing with consensus is not a reason to put it back on vfd so soon! Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
After a vfd vote, a note is always made in the talk page. Look there before nominating an article for vfd. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jake013 12:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usually I'd vote for my own articles, but I have to admit, this doesn'T make any sense: Confirmed speculation in an article called Speculation? Come on. H.J.Potter 12:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I edit a lot of the Harry Potter articles, but this is just fancruft. Nandesuka 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article on the book. The bits of information about what Rowling officially released on her web site or said during conventions are fact, not speculation, and I find it interesting to compare these bits of information against what was finally in the book. - Brian Kendig 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (obviously). I'd have moved it to somewhere else instead of "prior speculation", except what would you call it? "Prior revelations"? "prior hints"? Just because "speculation" has evil scary anti-wiki connotations doesn't mean it shouldn't be used where it is appropriate, and seeing as it survived VfD, I don't see how the new title suddenly makes it turn nonencyclopedic in a puff of magic smoke. I mean, could I have in theory completely reversed the original decision into a consensus to delete had I renamed it Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (List of Original Vain Fancrufty Speculative Research Links)? Wicked awesome, I'll keep that trick in mind next time I want to get rid of a page. --AceMyth 04:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic at all now that better information exists. Wikipedia is not a Harry Potter fansite or an archive for speculation. Isomorphic 08:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I believe that it is a good article to keep, but even if I didn't, it's still been kept by a previous VfD, and that verdict should hold. ral315 20:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the important bits and delete. I agree that the material here is interesting and relevant for showing, say twenty years from now, some history of this book's impact on Harry Potter fans (and a witness to how strong a hold the book series had on some). It should first be put as it is in the main article (so that people can use the history to see that revision when this article is deleted). Immediately after, a revision should be made so that the main article contains a section of a few paragraphs concerning the speculation the book generated. — Olathe 06:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Harry Potter phenomenon has become so large these days that it is fascinating to look at the amount of spin-off it generates- including predictions, hoax 'insider' info etc. Predictions were a very real part of life in the run-up to to the book and as such deserve to be immortalised. 192.250.97.6 10:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we have already lost the full summary, which is currently the fifth most visited subject page in Wikipedia. Let's not do any more damage to Wikipedia's appeal. Osomec 19:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is speculative and outdated. Ken 23:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dual Ignition Keep - honestly, what is with all this nonsense about types of 'keep' or 'delete'? Aside from that, I really do think this page should be kept. It's an interesting footnote to the Harry Potter phenominon. -Litefantastic 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Clarification

[edit]

I take it that Merge means Merge and delete. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So does that mean delete - keep score is 13 - 12 or not? Chosen One 10:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And? --AceMyth 11:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing, really. Just wanted to know if I'd grasped the concept. Chosen One 13:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know more about the VfD process Wikipedia:Deletion policy might be of help. --AceMyth 13:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I have just taken my own advice and browsed some pages regarding the deletion process. Turns out that "Merge", "Redirect" etc. are actually considered variants of "Keep" (though obviously if there is a reasonable amount of calls to Merge, Redirect, Rename or any such action the admin might decide it to constitute a rough consensus and the result will differ accordingly). I can see the logic behind this in the sense that somebody voting to merge, if the vote depended on them, would probably rather have the content stay at its own page than deleted altogether. Of course many voters are aware that their votes are subject to interpretation and therefore clarify their priorities (e.g. a merge vote of the sort you described would be something to the extent of "Merge, failing that Delete.") --AceMyth 13:41, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Well with this one I think any delete votes should be ignored as this should not have been allowed to be Vfd'ed again after only 2 days. It was kept last time and should be automatically this time since there was almost no time in between the nominations.Gateman1997 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, go ahead with whatever you want to do, but please understand that this was not done in bad faith or that I am forcing you to revote for my own obscure reasons. I had no knowledge of the Vfd prior to this Vfd. Chosen One 21:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop taking it personally when people point out that this shouldn't have been renominated. We've all acknowledged you made a mistake and you've been forgiven for it. We're just assuring that the final decision maker and any further voters don't vote delete and mistakenly delete the articleGateman1997 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunker

[edit]

Possibly a case for a transwiki to Wiktionary - Delete Usrnme h8er 13:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grech

[edit]

nn, google gives 70 hits for '"Brian Grech" fashion', probably a vanity page Usrnme h8er 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED. Splash 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arc_Sine

[edit]
This article is now a redirect to Trigonometric functions. --R.Koot 14:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have arcsine. --R.Koot 14:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not within the scope of this page. Take to WP:RfD, where I will vote to fix and keep it, as a plausible spelling error, one of the purposes of redirects. 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the reirect (now that it is a redirect). I can see it being mis-spelled this way and the redirect is cheap enough. RJFJR 16:58, July 29, 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. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Corey Harned

[edit]

Not notable. Meaningless entry. Newly created Mmmbeer 14:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Victor Rinaldi

[edit]

non-notable artist vanity page, created by an anonymous user whose only edits are related to this page. Delete Ken 14:22, July 29, 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). For those interested in vote count, there are 5 delete votes and 3 keep votes and no comments which sway me to ignore the two-thirds guideline. If anyone wants to merge this with List of freeware games, they can just be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of games in the public domain

[edit]

This list is unmaintainable. Currently has little actual content. I also assume that the user means video games, but that's not obvious from the title. Also, what's public domain in one country may not be the same as elsewhere. Mmmbeer 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic joke, I still think the list should be kept for that purpose --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 08:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

American Football League Hall of Fame

[edit]

Vanity page-this is basically an advertisement for a fan-created page. There is no actual AFL Hall of Fame. Suggest deletion and add an external link on the American Football League page. Cholmes75 14:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nuke 'em til they glow

[edit]

Non-notable fan-fiction. Delete Sabine's Sunbird 15:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge & redirect to Legacy of Kain. Essjay · Talk 05:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dark Eden

[edit]

Fancruft. Lots of other Legacy of Kain related cruftery also, but no point in VfDing them all unless this one passes muster. Take any decent info onto the main page, and Delete. Proto t c 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth D'Amorie

[edit]

Delete. Genealogical vanity. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:31, July 29, 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. Dmcdevit·t 23:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sport Digital Watch

[edit]

Two-sentence nano-stub written by a User:Maoririder, who is adding these sorts of articles left, right, and centre. Delete. Scimitar parley 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is a nano-stub? --Maoririder 15:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nano- is a prefix used to indicate something very, very small; thus a nano-stub is a stub article that's so tiny it's almost entirely without content. --Scimitar parley 15:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Keep --Maoririder 15:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have the watch with me right now and it says Sport Digital Watch and on the back it says made in China. --Maoririder 15:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Church of Stephen

[edit]

If this isn't an unverifiable hoax - I'll go and sort stubs for the next week.

'Delete all micro-faiths (until their leaders have been cucified)' --Doc (?) 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Los Esqueakis 16:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googel returns 78 results for "Church of Stephen" and of those, exactly two might be about this group, and neither of thsoe work, so i can't tell for sure. Not much for a group that came to fame laregely due to teh internet. Unverifiable, probable hoax. DES 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The IP who created this article comes from London. Google in the UK gives 8 hits, none of which relate to the article. So much for the 13 web sites. The later edits of Bobisaslut were truly terrible. My guess is the same person and that this is a hoax, Los Esqueakis 17:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Boy toy

[edit]

This article hurts my brain. It's been transwikied already... humblefool® 15:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bradley Method

[edit]

A lengthy platform for 2 external links. humblefool® 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax τεχ 11:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Dickson

[edit]

Unnotable. Vanity. SqueakBox 16:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. --202.78.174.3 16:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Wand. Splash 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wands

[edit]

Delete, we already have an entry under Wand --202.78.174.3 16:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Flaps

[edit]

Page is about a non-existent subject. Following the IMDB link leads to an entry where the subject appears only as character not an actor. I believe the other telly programmes mentioned to be fictitous too. Also check out this story on BBC Radio Scotland which throws more doubt.

  • Bob Flaps certainly is a character in "The Big Tease" (1999) but I can't find any references to any of the details of his television career or sad demise. A hoax I think. delete The BBC Radio Scotland link above ties him to Iron Balls McGinty, and the two pages have a remarkably similar initial history. As Mr. Ginty, a man of legendarily steely body parts, is also a character from a movie, "The Jerk" (1979), maybe he should be VfD as well? Sliggy 17:40, July 29, 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, no consensus on where to merge. Essjay · Talk 05:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Breeding mollies

[edit]

WP:NOT a how-to guide. humblefool® 16:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Scene points

[edit]

Delete Either a dic def or a neologism, take your pick. Doesn't seem like a canidate for wiktionary. Although if someone feels strongly that it should be included there, I wouldn't object. Icelight 16:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Packaging blogs

[edit]

Poorly formated list. of dubious value even if complete, and likely very hard to maintain. wikipedia is not a link farm, even an annotated one. Delete. DES 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Force Squad

[edit]

Page about an apparently non-existent superhero team created by the original editor of the page. Zero Google hits. Links lead to disambiguation pages except for Captain Canada which will be VFD'd shortly. It's possible this may be a brand new series, in which case it has yet to establish notability. 23skidoo 16:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Canada

[edit]

Article about an apparently made-up superhero and member of equally non-notable (and apparently non-existent comic series) Force Squad. Zero Google hits for this character although there has been a Captain Canada in the past. The write up calling him part of a "series" of captains cries hoax. Image is a possible copyvio of Captain Canuck and even has a similar filename 23skidoo 16:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the making. unsigned comment by: 68.186.70.97

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Dmcdevit·t 23:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

ANTHONY LUIS SERNA

[edit]

Delete, Vanity. --202.78.174.3 16:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this should have been speedied. gkhan 16:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a speedy, but it may also be an attempt to create a new user page. Deb 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Galactaca

[edit]

Force Squad related. Apparent hoax. Zero content except for info box and zero Google hits for such a character. Suggest speedy. 23skidoo 16:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

List of Force Squad members

[edit]

Spin-off article of VFD'd Force Squad. No evidence this superhero team is notable or genuine. Plenty of evidence in related articles that this is a hoax. 23skidoo 16:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Eat to the Beat. Essjay · Talk 05:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Die Young, Stay Pretty

[edit]

Can't have an article for every song, now can we? gkhan 17:10, July 29, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Gaper Effect

[edit]

If you are disrupted by people who gape at already disrupted people, you experienced the Gaper Effect (paraphrased.) The effect is well-known, though I don't know under which name. I can't find anything on Gaper Effect. Rl 17:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-dog

[edit]

Spoof created by User:Spiderfan. No such character actually exists. K1Bond007 17:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Good Actually doesn't matter if it has google hits or not.

I laughed, I cried, I voted to Delete. Hamster Sandwich 21:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Colm Fahey

[edit]

This entry is about me. I do not want a wikipedia entry about me. I do not want my personal details available for the entire internet to read. I do not want my date of birth, my political beliefs, my education and my address to be available to the entire internet 134.226.1.136 17:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus --malathion talk 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Planet

[edit]

substub about a one-time TV program. No particular indication of general or lasting notability. No doubt a nice program, but do we really want articles on every PBS special ever broadcast? Delete. DES 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would have voted to keep this if had any real information at all. Incidentally it was a good program, a real feast for the eyes, beautifully filmed. Hamster Sandwich 21:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've not seen the show, but if Hamster's comments are right, why not keep it as a sub-stub? I'm not sure what's wrong with having articles on every PBS special ever broadcast, personally. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if expanded. If Wikipedia allows articles on individual series episodes, I see no reason why individual specials can't warrant their own. But this needs to be expanded beyond a sub-stub. 23skidoo 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Exir KamalabadiContribs 11:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete then recreated as a redirect. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

República

[edit]

This article spent more than 2 weeks in WP:PNT. It seems to be roughlly taken from es: wikipedia, however, it's amost impossible to translate since it's a vandalized version of such article: the sentences are scrambled, the grammar is broken, and lots of typos are introduced, so nobody considered that the translation ffort was worthy. Delete drini ☎ 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, weighting against anon votes. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

65 Guy Cream Pie

[edit]

Describes a pornographic movie and the activities depicted therein. Both the movie and the activities do not appear to be especially notable. 84.72.2.23 18:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment above from 194.125.158.88, users first edit was to this VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 23:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -- I agree with above. Many films are not notable, but that doesn't mean they should not have their article, if somebody cares to create one. --Divide 02:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's first edit is to this VfD
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 then recreated as a redirect to Tao. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dhao

[edit]

I'm sceptical that Dhao is anything more than a website and California-based tax-exemption. It may be a single person or a very small group. It looks like all google hits for dhao are either misspellings of dao or this wikipedia article. Also there are no links to this article. technopilgrim 18:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bruno Pelletier Sequeira

[edit]

No Googles outside wiki. An artist who's exibited would turn up SOMETHING. humblefool® 18:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 closed (per consensus) due to ridiculous speed of renomination. Come back in about a week. And please do not re-open this one, either now or "then", we will start afresh once more. If you wish to contest my closing, please use the talk page. Thank you. GarrettTalk 01:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week is far too soon to renominate. Given the lack of consensus, at least one month should pass before thinking about another VfD. Give the article some time to improve (or time for editors to decide it should be deleted). Carbonite | Talk 02:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Muslims

[edit]
Please add here only general remarks --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13
52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 21:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Tinch

[edit]

Has not, AFAICT, exibited outside local area. humblefool® 18:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority

[edit]

Non-constructive page inappropriately written in the project namespace, by an anonymous user who keeps trying to unilaterally change policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Assume that this page was an attempt to add weight to his debate, but it has no place in the project namespace. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 19:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I tried to clean up the ranting but it should still go. Not an accepted policy page. FYI this was written by DotSix, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix for more information. Rhobite 19:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Agreed, not a Wikipedia policy, has no place in the namespace. I can't understand any of his arguments in the NPOV discussion, but my guess is that any arguments made here should go there. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't even a policy in it. If anything it should be userfied, but the author is an anon. -Splash 19:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed there is no policy on it. Perhaps a non-policy page about the phrase might be appropriate (the search kept sending me to On Liberty by JS Mill), but as a policy page this definitely is not appropriate. Dot six has had plenty of opportunities to make his minority views known, and to write them as parts of existing articles reflecting alternative viewpoints to the mainstream in those articles. Instead he/she has generally attempted to REMOVE viewpoints other than his own, leaving no discussion. In my opinion, that is just a different kind of tyranny--of the minority. WhiteC 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mill coined the term in On Liberty. It's a well-known concept, perhaps there should be an article about it. Rhobite 19:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Has no content relevant to Wiki policy. Any discussion of NPOV should occur on that policy page. Furthermore a proliferation of pages such as this would be detrimental to the readability and usability of the policy pages. Banno 21:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --63.231.15.66 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
  • Must keep, there is no alternative, if Wikipedia is to be true to it's basic principles consistently throughout. As I understand it, a basic Wikipedia principle is that dispute resolution concerning content is not telling the other side anything like, "You are outnumbered here, and the majority rules, so get lost" it is principled negotiation, aka consensus decision making (find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both sides). As this principle is explained by Wikipedia, quote, "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or 'splitting the difference' is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --67.182.157.6 02:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Font 02:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is uncivil. Robert McClenon 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to VfD etiquette, quote,

That makes the ad hominem personal attack comments of Rhobite, Asbestos, WhiteC, et al above totally inappropriate here, and each of those writers should take it upon himself to edit them out, if they are principled individuals interested in honoring Wikipedia policy. The policy is comment on CONTENT, not on the contributor.

Such comments about the contributor are in the nature of poisoning the well.

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person writes by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

  1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
  2. Therefore ANYTHING person A writes or has written is suspect, and should be deleted, even if the thing written quotes Wikipedia policy, and serves as a reasonable expansion of that policy.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject anything he or she writes or has written. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as valid argument against any statements he or she might make. So, Poisoning the Well, a form of argument ad Homimem, is reasonably summarily dismissed as logical fallacy. --172.192.207.229 20:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote is by the author of the page, User:67.182.157.6, of course. Not only is he violating policy by using a sockpuppet to vote more than once, he also removed the VfD tag from the page. But I suppose these are minor transgressions when compared to my blatant ad hominem obscurantist argumentum numerum unprincipled fallacious behavior. Rhobite 01:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
New ad hominem personal attack by Mr. Rhobite deleted. He should know better, being an Administrator and all. The policy is discuss content, not contributors. Shame shame, Mr. Rhobite. -- 172.196.123.246 03:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced my comment and blocked you from editing. Each time you remove a comment from now on I will block you from editing Wikipedia for a period of time. Enough games. Rhobite 03:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Question - Rhobite says, "The above vote ... violating policy by using a sockpuppet to vote more than once." What I am wondering is where does anyone get the idea it is a vote? Doesn't the "Comment" label on it make it clear (to everyone who has read the instructions for VfD) that it is not a vote, it is only a comment? --172.194.206.204 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DotSix, I purposely did not mention that you were involved in an RfC. That said, I did think it necessary to mention your exploits at WP:NPOV, as it provides background for the reasoning behind this page you created. Although we have an important principle on Wikipedia to assume good faith, a user's intentions cannot be ignored. If this were created by someone who had already made many good contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for a while and see what they were going to do with the page (though, if they left it in the state this one is in, I'd either recommend they did something positive with it or I'd propose it for VfD anyway — I don't have double-standards). In this case, however, it is clear, from my point of view, that this page was not created in good faith but rather was created as a rhetorical device for your arguments on Truth-related pages and the RfC. Also, as an aside, you keep quoting Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers as a shield behind which you can protect yourself from criticism. You have been around here since April, so you would need a fairly long-view of time to consider to still consider you a newcommer. Not bothering to make a user account isn't the same thing as being new. — Asbestos | Talk 09:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that just more lame argument ad hominem/personal attack/poisoning the well, rather than sticking to the relevant policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? --172.194.206.204 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The above argument only refers to things you have done which are relevant to the discussion. WhiteC 21:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Canderson7 20:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- I have thoughts both ways, the article as it exists now does not seem very beneficial, but could it be improved? --Mysidia 21:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- Now I recognize that the page appears not to belong in the project namespace: Tyranny of the Majority as it is described is a prejudicial term for the concept of Majority Rule or Majoritarian Democracy, but we already have WP:NOT and other articles in the main article space on the subject of Democracy, so the page seems to just inherently pose a certain point of view, namely, an idea similar to Anarchist philosophy where things resembling democracies or ruling by majority (respecting groups of people over the individual) are tyrannical. -Mysidia 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- although it needs work. I'm reminded of the gun in the Hitchhiker movie that causes the targeted person to see the point of view of the person (or depressed robot) firing it. A very neat weapon, such a gun. I like to think of wikipedia as a community of fellow inquirers always seeking to resolve disputes by seeing the other disputant's point of view ... and the refusal to do that, the reliance upon numbers as a substitute, deserves some sort of derogatory label, surely! Since we're not an advanced enough species to have invented that gun yet. Also, please note that I've been around since March 2004, made thousands of contributions, and accordingly this vote can't be written off as that of anyone's sock puppet. --Christofurio 23:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Okay, fine. Though I disagree that the arguments here are ad hominem, here is a further justification of my delete vote. This article has two parts:
      • A description of Tyranny of the Majority and its relation to Wikipedia policies
      • A commentary on another Wikipedia policy (here the NPOV rule)
    • The first is invalid here because any information on applying Tyranny of the Majority ideas should be in the policy section that it covers (for example, don't talk about the VfD policy, rather, add this to it). However, you are unable to do so because others do not agree with your assessment. Also, because "Tyranny of the Majority" is not a Wikipedia policy, is not meant to be a policy, and is in fact intended as a contrast to an existing policy, it does not deserve its own page, especially not in the Wikipedia namespace.
    • The second is invalid here because it is a POV commentary, and therefore belongs on the Talk page of the relevant policy, in this case the NPOV, in an attempt to change such a policy. However, you are again unable to do this, because the people on said page are unwilling to agree with you for one reason or another.
    • If you wish to have an article discussing your interpretation, you are welcome to put it in your user space. you can direct people there as an explanation of your beliefs. But it is undeserving of its own article. There you go. Not at all ad hominem. Enjoy. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has no purpose in the WP namespace. ~~ N (t/c) 21:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just the final nail in the coffin. Borisblue 08:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's over five days, and 15 to 2 in the votes makes a "rough consensus", I guess. Is there an admin who would lie to do the honours? Banno 07:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southworth & Hawes

[edit]

Either someone should seriously re-write this commercial or simply delete. Renata3 20:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Freedoms Federation

[edit]

At first glance, it seems like this is a real organization, but on further examination, it is pure vanity/soapbox/original research. Please see talk page for details. The user that created this page (MPLX) also created other extremely questionable pages, including: John Lilburne Research Institute and Province of the Carolanas, and is responsible for inserting original research produced by this "Federation" in several articles, including [15] (see "Influence of John Lilburne" section, which has since been deleted). --JW1805 19:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)
It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of right-wing idiots.
It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.
It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.
Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]


  • Keep unless proven to be a hoax. The article is well-written and rather convincing, and MPLX is one of our most productive users. Or was, anyway, he seems to have left the building in April because of a dispute on another article. Radiant_>|< 20:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by the below, so delete, Radiant_>|< 08:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As stated on the talk page, it's a vanity article about 4 people. Radiant, yes it's nicely made, the articles are a labor of love, but they are vanity articles and need to be deleted. Tempshill 21:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user obviously put a lot of time in this article, but let's review the sections:
    • Origin of name - just some history on name. Doesn't prove this is a real or notable organization.
    • Application to offshore broadcasting = "We talked about buying a boat to use as a radio station, but didn't"
"We talked about buying a boat to use as a radio station, but didn't" ... this is not a quotation but a made-up smear because the statement is not true.
    • Inspiration for Federation = "We managed to get some material broadcast on shady Mexican radio stations, and other illegal foreign radio"
"We managed to get some material broadcast on shady Mexican radio stations, and other illegal foreign radio" ... this is not a quotation but a smear and untrue. There was no cited "we" and FCC licensed broadcasting stations are hardly illegal or foreign.
    • Guide to activities = "We printed up a pamplet and created a phony 'Institute'"
"We printed up a pamplet and created a phony 'Institute'" ... more untrue and phony quotations.
    • Four Freedoms World Service = "We got some more stuff aired on illegal and shortwave radio, and also did some public access videos"
"We printed up a pamplet and created a phony 'Institute'" ... more untrue and phony quotations.
    • StarText Intranet = "We posted some of our stuff on the Internet"

"We posted some of our stuff on the Internet" ... this moron does not seem to know the difference between the various early Intranets and the Internet. The quotation is bogus and the statement is untrue.

    • Second offshore operation = "We talked about buying another boat to use as a radio station, but didn't"
"We talked about buying another boat to use as a radio station, but didn't" ... another bogus quotation and untrue statement.
    • John Lilburne Research Institute = "We made up a phony Instutute dedicated to John Lilburne"
"We made up a phony Instutute dedicated to John Lilburne" ... another bogus quotation and untrue statement.
    • Challenging school textbooks = "We complained to Texas that John Lilburne wasn't in their textbooks"
    • Opposition and eventual demise = "We stopped. Here's what we're doing now."
    • Publications and recordings - A list of self-published material. Note that Province of the Carolanas is a hoax, and was put on Wikipedia.
"Note that Province of the Carolanas is a hoax, and was put on Wikipedia." ... this quotation is bogus, the statement is untrue and the writer seems to have a malicious intent on smearing and destroying.
    • Broadcasts - A list of material broadcast on illegal and/or public access venues.
    • References - A list of some self-published work, general pirate-radio stories, and various newspaper articles (probably mentioning these folks as crackpots, as in Activist disputes Magna Carta's significance).
"(probably mentioning these folks as crackpots ..." ... please note that the writer used the word "probably", meaning that the writer has no knowledge but wants to attack and destroy.
  • I'm sure that they believe that they are (or were) a real organization, but I think there has to be some minimum notability threshold for Wikipedia. Plus, I don't like to see Wikipedia used to disseminate fraudulent information (Province of the Carolanas), which gets repeated all over the internet on the various mirror sites. Anyway, I've written enough about this, so I'll leave it to the vote to decide. --JW1805 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well --JW1805 you really do believe in mass propaganda of the worst sort. Your repeated comments "I don't like to see Wikipedia used to disseminate fraudulent information (Province of the Carolanas)" reveals some sort of malicious intent that you harbor towards this subject in particular. Your quotations are all faked - made up - fraudulent - your comments about the Province of the Carolanas are absurd (since it well documented within the British Museum and UK Board of Trade collections, as well as numerous university libraries.) I would suggest that before jumping up and down again in a rant that you perform a little careful research. Not everything that is to be known is on the Internet! Books still exist and perhaps you should take time in reading a few of them on this subject. Obviously I made the correct decision months ago to abandon my interest in Wikipedia 66.90.217.49 02:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]
Please note, I did not mean to inply that the above summaries were direct quotes. They are just one-sentence summaries of the sections, and I stand by them as accurate. How can you say that "We talked about buying a boat to use as a radio station, but didn't" is untrue, when that is what the article says? --JW1805 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is NOT what the article says. First of all there were TWO ships. The first was to become the home of "Wonderful Radio London International" (WRLI) and a sister station known as "Voice of the Free Gospel" (VFG). The history of that venture is well documented all over the Internet on offshore radio sites and in the book and CD "The Wonderful Radio London Story". The second ship was the vessel claimed to be the MV Sarah by Alan Weiner of "Radio Newyork International" fame. The history of that vessel is also well documented. There was a criminal complaint lodged against Weiner (all of this is well documented on other Internet sites). So your statement is silly. As for this the current cabal who wish to delete, they are very small in number when compared to the Wikipedia registered contributors. but alas they are noisy and determined and have an agenda. That is the reason why I quit. I did check yesterday and found that someone noted my absence but wished that I would put in for admin due to the many contributions that I made on many topics. However, my mind was made up when I ran into cabal who want to remove things that they disagree with. I tried to shut down the Sealand topic because it was silly, but due to a number of noisy supporters it remains alive. Wikipedia I discovered has built into itself some fatal flaws that make its encyclopedia subject to manipulation by a handful of zealots - so I quit. 24.155.161.121 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (former MPLX)[reply]
According to the article (that you wrote) the entity known as the "Four Freedoms Federation" NEVER purchased any ship. So, my statements are correct, you have two sections about talking about buying a ship, but it never actualy happend. Am I misreading the article? --JW1805 04:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, the big problem with this brigade that wants to delete is that it has its own agenda aside from the article. Your statement is proof of this. Nowhere in the article does it say what you are claiming. In the first instance it refers to WRLI/VFG which was documented by many media sources at the time and it is a part of at least two books which have nothing to do with me! On an Internet web site the name of the ship is mentioned. I left it out of the article because I felt that it was not necessary to explaining what this organization was all about. In the second instance there is a line which says: "However, due to complications involving the actual registration of the ship and the inability of the seller to provide proof of legal ownership, this plan also faltered." That statement does NOT say what you claim that it says. In fact there are other Wikipedia articles relating to other subjects which deal specifically with the subject of this ship. The fact is that this vessel gained worldwide attention because of its strange history which was too complicated to go into in the article under discussion. You picked the instance to fight over and clearly you are not only wrong in your rendition but you are clearly motivated to portray a false reading of the article in an effort to remove it. I have now been accused of creating at least three hoax articles and faking information by a little band of people - while at the same time having been previously praised for having created so many articles and having made contributions to many existing articles and at least on one occasion being informed that I should put my hat in the ring for admin! However, I have already withdrawn active input to Wikipedia due to the kind of nonsense which is presently taking place with the VfD issue over at least 4 articles: this one; John Lilburne Research Institute; Eric Gilder (professor); Province of the Carolanas - which someone concluded was a misspelling of Carolina! So much for the informed deletionist squad since Carolina was created AFTER the Carolana venture involving Sir Robert Heath who worked for the beheaded King Charles I! Obviously there is some question as to whether Sir Robert like Dr. Gilder is also a made up character! Really, this entire charade is pathetic and the only reason that I am taking the time to respond is to at least create some kind of record that the deletionists are a destructive bunch who obviously have decided to shape Wikipedia according to their own beliefs. For proof I could point to a string of really non-noteworthy articles which I attempted to tone down or even remove but could not because a number of people wanted them to stay. I had no agenda other than to contribute information across a broad spectrum of topics which were all related in some way by topic. But the little smear campaign is trying to suggest that either a) they were all a hoax, b) they were unnoteworthy or c) they are about me and therefore vanity (!?!). As shown by the ship examples above, it is obvious that facts will not stand in the way of those who want to delete. 66.90.218.47 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]
Honestly, your arguments make no sense:
  • So you're saying that the "Four Freedoms Federation" DID purchase ships and did use them to broadcast radio? Because that's not what the article says. (Maybe I'm misreading it, it is a bit incoherent).
  • No one is saying that Heath never existed. But "Carolana" is, in fact, an alternate spelling of "Carolina". Please see the actual Heath patent [16]. Both terms are used interchangably. (Incidently, the phrase "Province of the Carolanas" is not found in this document).
  • No one is saying that "Dr. Gilder" doesn't exist. Just that he is an obscure academic, and not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --JW1805 16:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well so much for your (Wile E. Heresiarch) knowledge base! Until I quit Wikipedia I was continually inching up into the ranks of editors who made hundreds of edits in real articles ... not just punctuation or voting entries as many are fond of doing. Yours is another classic example of the VfD brigade who love to smear, destroy and tear down. Enjoy your world for it is not one in which I care to linger. 66.90.217.49 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a vanity article with very little substantial content. --JW1805 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yogic cross-legged hopping

[edit]

Article has no content, Google search for title has 0 hits. Laur 19:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. Woohookitty 03:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Lee Panda

[edit]

Performer might be a great singer, but does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Chairboy 19:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...except it was vfd because the performer is non-notable, not because the article was badly written. Even if the copyvio is fixed by a rewrite, that doesn't fix the fact that she does not meet WP:MUSIC. - Chairboy 22:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irotronic

[edit]

Ad. Not a notable store. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 20:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acm 95

[edit]

Not notable. Not encyclopedicMmmbeer 20:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --malathion talk 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cool

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary...and this isn't even about Snoopy! Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sohani

[edit]

Delete. nn. --R.Koot 21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good music

[edit]

Delete - brief rant, nothing to see here folks. FreplySpang (talk) 21:18, July 29, 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 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parents without rights

[edit]

Organisation not notable enough. Article is a vanity page by the organisation's refounder SqueakBox 21:22, July 29, 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. Essjay · Talk 05:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski (Dude) Game

[edit]

This is unencyclopedic, trivial, and non-notable. Binadot 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Essjay · Talk 05:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jody Latham

[edit]

Non-notable stub. Tempshill 21:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio --malathion talk 21:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Blend

[edit]

Article about a Melbourne based community radio show. Badly written, and doesn't establish notability. The radio station itself, PBS 106.7FM doesn't even have an article yet. -- Longhair | Talk 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just found the station article at 3PBS. -- Longhair | Talk 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Likely to be vanity or show promotion. I don't think it is a notable show, and unless the article can be rewritten to show some importance or influence in Melbourne, it should be deleted.--Takver 17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have listed this article as a copyvio, as most of the text comes straight from the The Blend page at 3PBS--Takver 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --malathion talk 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:negotiation

[edit]

This page just redirects to another page with the same name 63.231.15.66 21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep as this is not RfD, and the reason given for deletion is the whole point of redirects. Brighterorange 22:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The point of redirects is to assist users who look up a topic using a slightly different name than the one used in Wikipedia. Not the same name. As it stands now, any user who enters "negotiation" and presses Go will be taken to the topic Negotiation. The article proposed for deletion is serving no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.15.66 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I should explain my comment more carefully. First, the article is a redirect, which is a very common thing in wikipedia. Many pages have redirect shortcuts; for instance, this page can be reached at VfD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, WP:VfD, WP:VFD, Votes for Deletion, and perhaps more. Almost always, the redirect articles have very similar names to the target article, such as abbreviating the namespace Wikipedia to WP. But most importantly, the correct place to suggest a redirect page for deletion is RfD, not this page. Brighterorange 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, can you see the difference between Wp:negotiation and Wikipedia:negotiation? And a redirect page wouldn't be much use if it redirected into some completely different article, now, would it? - ulayiti (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just reviewed the Wikipedia FAQ for "How do I delete a page". There is no mention of RfD, nor is there any suggestion that different kinds of pages should be deleted in different ways. If those directions are not accurate, then please edit them. I think both people voting to keep have missed the point of the anonymous editor. He is not saying that Redirect pages are unusual, nor is he saying that Wp:negotiation and Wikipedia:negotiation are the same page. (And he is certainly not saying that the page should redirect to a "completely different article". He wants it deleted, not changed.) He is saying that this particular redirect page serves no purpose. As he said, anyone who does a "Go" on "negotiation" is going to end up at Wikipedia:negotiation anyway. He might be wrong but neither of your "keep" voters is responding to his point or explaining where he is wrong.--Nate Ladd 05:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, the anonymous commenter misunderstands. Anyone who does 'go' on negotiation will end up at the wikipedia article negotiation. This is about a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, which is for discussion about Wikipedia. "wp:" is a standard abbreviation for that and often used in redirects and shortcuts—it's as simple as that. So, to summarize: he is wrong about 'go'; this is a very standard kind of redirect shortcut, and like other redirect shortcuts it is or may be useful; and the standards for keeping redirects are very permissive. Also, I believe nominating something in the improper place is certainly grounds for a speedy unlisting. Brighterorange 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be so, but someone might link to wp:negotiation on a talk page for example, as it's quicker to type than Wikipedia:negotiation. That's why the redirect is necessary. - ulayiti (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait a minute. No one would write "wp.negotiation" in place of "Wikipedia.negotiation" unless they thought these were synonyms. If they are synonyms, then IF wp.negotiation DID NOT EXIST, wouldn't wp.negotiation take them to Wikipedia:negotiation? On the other hand, if they are not synonyms why would anyone who wanted to link to Wikipedia:negotiation write wp:negotiation just because it is shorter? --Nate Ladd 18:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's what redirects do. They exist exactly for the reason of linking synonyms. Wp:negotiation and Wikipedia:negotiation are synonyms, and one will take you to the other one because there's a redirect between them. If the redirect Wp:negotiation did not exist, going to that page would take you nowhere, since it wouldn't have the redirect. That's why the redirect shouldn't be deleted. - ulayiti (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I understand you better. You are using "redirect" to mean "page containing a redirect tag". I thought you were using it to mean "redirect tag". --Nate Ladd 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • People use shortcuts all the time. As I mentioned, VfD has several shortcuts, including wp:vfd. They aren't just used for linking, for instance, I have a browser shortcut that takes me to a wikipedia article, and (for example) wp:vfd is much shorter than Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. This redirect is totally standard in that sense. I'll take a look at the FAQ to mention RfD; it is precisely the place to discuss this kind of issue. Brighterorange 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I did. (I don't know what the anonymous user who originally wanted the page deleted did.):
I somehow found the page Wikipedia:Deletion policy [19].
I read down until I got to the Contents entry "1.2 How to list a page for deletion" and I clicked it. (It was actually this Contents I was remembering when I said "FAQ" above. I misremembered what it was called.)
This took me to [20] which says "The 3 steps to listing a page for deletion:" following the colon was a link to [21]
This opens a section called VfD footer which tells how to list a page for deletion.
Note that at no point was I clued in that the procedure might be different for pages that contain only a redirect. Nor did I see any mention of RfD.--Nate Ladd 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, above that section in the table is a listing for "useless redirects", which would have brought you to RfD. If you see a way to make that clearer for people who just skim the page (who doesn't?), please make the change.. Brighterorange 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What exactly is the point of this VfD debate? The page is an important redirect to an important policy page, and yet some people seem willing to delete it without any reason whatsoever except that they haven't been informed of the existence of RfD. Dear person, that is no reason to delete a very useful redirect to an entirely unrelated policy page. - ulayiti (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the debate is over and the page will be kept. While it was going on, it had the same point as any other debate on whether or not a page should be deleted. No one at any time said "delete this page because I haven't been in formed of the existence of RfD". Rather, a side issue that arose in the course of the discussion was that there is a weakness in Wiki documentation of how to delete pages.
      • Yeah, but such issues should be addressed on the appropriate talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, and not on some obscure VfD debate. And anyhow, that's the way I interpreted your vote, because you gave no reason as to why the page should be deleted, and instead talked about the RfD. - ulayiti (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's worthwhile to be educational, especially in a behind-the-scenes place like VfD, since people who wind up nominating pages for deletion are likely to become active editors. But, apologies for cluttering VfD. Brighterorange 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, nothing wrong with being educational... it's just that on a relevant talk page it would benefit loads more people than here, since they would be able to find the educational bits. :) - ulayiti (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Yee

[edit]

Smells like vanity. Are doctoral students inherently notable? I think not, or I'd be writing an article about myself instead of VfDing this one. Brighterorange 22:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cabinho

[edit]

Uh oh. "The author intends to release the game onto the web in the last quarter of 2005. He plans to release the information on this page when it is ready." A game this guy made on his graphing calculator. Hardly notable. Delete vanity. --Dmcdevit·t 22:09, July 29, 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 --malathion talk 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident

[edit]

This page violates policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" 63.231.15.66 22:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think the unsigned entry is right. Martin-Löf may have given "evident" a stipulated meaning in his paper, but that doesn't make it a concept from logic. "Evident" is an epistemological or perceptual term or perhaps even a psychological term. But it does not have some specific meaning in logic, accepted by the community of logicians. Compare with such terms as "quantifier", "truth table", "logical constant", "premise", "inference", "proof", "validity", "soundness", "consistency", and "completeness". These are genuinely "concepts from logic". (By the way, it is premature -to put it mildly- to call an article that is only 9 years old from the first issue of a minor journal "seminal". Maybe in another 20 years we can look back and decide that it was seminal, but there's no justification for such a judgement now.) --Nate Ladd 05:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Having now read the Martin-Löf article, I'm more convinced than ever. The article is about the epistemology of laws of logic as distinct from being about logic itself. Moreover, he uses "evident" as an epistemological concept. In fact he equates it with the granddaddy of all epistemological concepts: "known". --Nate Ladd 06:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Tam

[edit]

Vanity. --malathion talk 22:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid

[edit]

This was nominated as below, but received no useful votes beyond the nomination. I am relisting it here for a further 5 days.Splash 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very small number of notable sprite comics. This is not one of them. Nifboy 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagreement - Would you like to know why it's not as widely known as, say... 8-bit theater? It's because I'm highly against spamming my readers with advertisements. Because I don't advertise on my site, nor do I myself ask advertisements to be posted on other sites, it won't be as well known as a site that spams it's existance into every orifice of the web. Remember... some things that don't spamvertise you constantly may not be all that bad. And given I have over 500 comics to date, I can safely say that this site is already doing better than many others out there. And an added note... given many of the major Metroid information databases link to me (Metroid Database, Metroid Source, Metroid Galaxy, several lesser-known ones) of their own free will, that should count for something. - Kabutroid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.239.196.6 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 August 2005
  • Disagreement - You're right. Planet Zebeth is not a notable sprite comic, it's one of the damn best ones out there, and the only one worth my time to read. Admittedly, the first few strips did suck, but if you read past 100 at least they get pretty damn funny. Kabutroid is also one of the coolest people I've ever talked to. There are few who can compare with him on his juggling skills, also (Life, not eggs). He IS late with the updates sometimes, but if I were in his position, I'd be updating ONCE weekly, not three times. And I have virtually no life! So please withdraw your vote for deletion, as it has no logic behind it. Maybe some misdirected emotion concerning the author, but other than that I can't think of what you might have against the comic. Minion-34094 18:51, 02 August 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.43.5 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)
  • Disagreement - Basically everything Minion-34094 said. I am a big fan of Zebeth, and, although there are some great comics out there, this is one of the best. Hydragon 00:19 03 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)
  • Disagreement - Gotta say, I'm a fan. I've got quite a few webcomics on my daily list, several of them sprite based, and Kabs does one of the best. The occasional late updates are the only downside i can think of, but then again, what comic doesn't have them? Kacy 8-3-2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.156.234 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)


  • KeepPart of the reason its on Wikipedia is so people CAN learn about it. I mean, thats one of the points on here, right? I'm Cyrus, from the Subsector on Planet Zebeth. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful site, and great for all kinds of "useless" but at the same time, "useful" information. So what its not as poppular as 8-bit? Its still a great comic none-the-less and should be known about.~Cyrus
  • Keep why the hell do we just delete him because you folks have never heard of him? Ive never heard of alexa, lets delete that article... but whoever wrote the article was not... neutral.

fluke 14:41, August 5, 2005 (EST)

User has a total of 12 edits --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (since my first comment was disregarded as a vote to keep) I've never heard of most of the comic strips mentioned in Wikipedia. I guess we should submit to delete all of them then. For those asking to delete it... how often have you SEARCHED for a Metroid sprite comic? Guess what... Planet Zebeth is the largest, longest running one online. EDIT: Oh, and would you like to know WHY it doesn't have an Alexa rating? It used to. However, I'm in the midst of changing from kabutroid.com to zebeth.com. Because any mention I give of the site anywhere (such as a message board signature, etc) is now listed as Zebeth.com, Alexa has dropped it's status of kabutroid.com, since it's significantly less used now. When the conversion from kabutroid.com to zebeth.com is complete, and all sites linking to Planet Zebeth use zebeth.com, Alexa will once again list it with a rating. - Kabutroid (Unsigned vote by 205.239.196.6 (talk · contribs))
  • Keep With all the other things that few people care about that happens to be on Wikipedia, how is this non-notable? It's a webcomic that has a fanbase of over... let's see... 2000 people. Being in Wikipedia just means it's an easier way for fans to explain to their friends what Zebeth is about. And again, with everything else on this site, WHY SHULD YOU CARE ABOUT THIS ONE?! - Blackflame (Vote by 24.161.34.151) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dude.... Planet Zebeth has inspired hundreds of dorks to keep on being dorks. It's worth your time, and worth a spot on this site, so I want everyone here to stop being a tittybaby and give it a chance. If you haven't heard of it, Get your hairy nerd ass over there and read through 20 comics and then make a judgement. -Nasty Sputnik (Vote by 81.15.88.103) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Guys, if you are saying it doesn't deserve an entry because no one knows about it, then do you think that the problem would be solved by taking this article down? C'mon guys, use your heads! The purpose of this site is for information! Give it a chance, check it out. It's one of the best sprite comics online. -Neon Ninja (Vote by 208.186.52.34) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as mentioned above, why do you all want it gone purely because you've never heard of it? For all you know I could've never heard of, say, Albert Einstein. Should his entry be removed from here then? Seriously, just "non-notable" or "unknown" is not a good reason to remove it. Isn't this place to give explanations on things that aren't known very well? Removing something because it's unknown would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of this site. - L33ch (Vote by 62.166.169.20) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As Kabs himself said, how many Metroid sprite comics have you actually *seen*? There aren't that many out there, and even fewer good ones. Few sprite comics, period, have run for as long as this one has. Have you checked ProjectComics? Zebeth is listed as #4 out of several hundred, and has consistently been in the top ten there. This despite the fact that the "vote" button on the home page is pretty well-hidden. The site gets nearly 2000 unique hits per day, and has accumulated over a million. I see no reason not to keep it. Indeed, I see no actual reason to *remove* it--there are lesser-known sprite comics that have their own entries in Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia really in *this* much need of pruning? I think not. MarsJenkar 19:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)MarsJenkar[reply]
This vote is user's only edit --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Jesus Christ. You people are saying to erase this because you haven't heard of it? You fucking dumbasses. Zebeth is one of the world's best Sprite Comics, and it has a enormous fanbase. You may not have heard of it, but it's still good!(unsigned vote by 71.247.57.45) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A comic based on a massive fan base, that helps to feed said fanbase, thusly keeping it alive. I know many of the readers would not still be interesated in the games if it was not for this comic; This, I believe, makes it notable. Also, with it's wide range of characters, plot twists, sub-plots, etc. there needs to be a place for people who have never read it to keep track of what's going on, and for those who do to let the world know what it is. Again, I shall use Albert Einstein: During his lifetime, was he all that notable? No. For the most part, he was just a guy, doing what he had to to live. So, following that, how can you call something "non-notable" when it hasn;t been given the chance yet to become notable? (unsigned vote by 216.138.232.17) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (My first vote wasn't counted, so I post one here) As one of Zebeth's many fans, I would kindly like ot mention that over 300 different fans have made comics in honor of Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid, with thousands more who haven't made comics. The comic is #5 on one of the Top Web Comics sites, and you think it's not noteworthy? Sheesh! -Hydragon
User has 3 edits, all to this VfD. --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I like the comic, and I think everyone deserves a spot on wikipedia. Not to mention how easy it would be to post 20 keeps. (Unsigned vote by 65.12.52.28 (talk · contribs))
  • Comment. Not that I expect you'll read it or heed it, but let me make a point here for the people who are no doubt being directed here from this web site. "Never heard of it" isn't (really) an issue for notability. Consider, instead, whether you think a sprite comic would end up in an encyclopedia. I suggest you read WP:NOT, remember also that Wikipedia is not a webguide, and consider a more appropriate place for this entry, such as Everything2. Chances are, if a researcher isn't likely to ever search for you, you aren't notable. Furthemore, unless you're the absolute exemplar of sprite comics, with a truly massive fan base (such as 8-bit Theatre) or significant age (Bob and George) and preferably both, you really don't belong, because a researcher would be looking for general information on sprite comics, not information on your comic in specific or information on Metroid sprite comics (and if they were, you should make your comic an external link from the Metroid page). In general, this means that sprite comics are, like Internet forums, personal web sites, and other such things, by default non-notable. You're making the claim for notability; back it up with some Alexa rankings that come close to or match the exemplars, provide something that is extremely important (for instance, "first sprite comic to be featured on CNN," "first sprite comic to be talked about in the media by a major public figure," or "first sprite comic to have a video game based on it, not the other way around"), or realize that you just don't fit in here. Subjective quality is not a concern in this vote, unless you can claim you were the first sprite comic to be discussed in a journal of literary criticism or the like. Yeah, I'm mergist/exclusionist -- especially where sockpuppets who delete their IP signatures are concerned. *shrug* --FreelanceWizard 20:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Kabutroid - Actually, I was the second Metroid comic strip to exist online. The FIRST one was about 10 comics long, and no longer exists online. And as well, I'm the largest, longest running Metroid comic strip in existance. Thusly, if anyone wanted to do any kind of research on Metroid or Metroid fans or the like, they would most likely want to know about Planet Zebeth. And above I gave explanations for the Alexa ranking. However, if NONE of those points count for anything, then I would be glad to just add a link from the Metroid wiki. Given you've said that this is data-based as opposed to vote based, I'll remove my request for people to vote. And I apologize if it appears I'm deleting an IP signature, but I have absolutely no clue how that even gets there to begin with. I'm clicking "edit page", and adding my comments.
    • I didn't mean you when I was talking about deleting signatures. Some of the people who are coming here and voting are, however, doing so, and that shows bad faith (after all, if you stand by what you're saying, why wouldn't you want people to know who you are?). This vote is, I should note, not a democracy (I think WP:NOT describes that), but rather one in which a consensus among Wikipedians is sought with input from others. People from your web site who have never edited here before will, in all probability, have their votes ignored, and it will seem like bad faith on your part to actively drive people here (WP:SOCK). Anyway, I do want to mention something about Metroid fan research. I think a topic like Metroid fan phenomena might not be a bad article, given that it's one of the oldest game franchises around; I think similar ones for Mario Bros. and Sonic might not be bad topics either. A discussion of your site in such an article would be beneficial, but that's because it's part of a notable thing, but is not, IMHO, in and of itself notable. I can further support my argument in that regard by citing this page, where a common argument is that it's the "best" and longest running Metroid sprite comic. Are Metroid sprite comics notable on their own for that reason? I don't think so. However, are they notable as part of a discussion on the fan community of Metroid or sprite comics in general? Definitely. Admittedly, however, this is just my point of view, and there are others. The "vision" of what WP should be is not quite so clear as one might at first surmise. ;) --FreelanceWizard 22:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reason given by MarsJenkar--El cid the hero 22:56, 8 August 2005 (GMT)
This vote constitutes all 3 edits by this user --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Metroid-Star - Despite the fact that some people 'never heard of it,' Kabutroid and Planet Zebeth still exists and should be kept here. It has an enormous fanbase with numerous fancomics that are regularly updated. (Unsigned vote by 69.139.25.48) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep & move to proper title. This has been done. Joyous (talk) 02:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bryn chapman

[edit]

The bar is close on this one...A Miss Indiana, but still just in college and training to be an opera singer. Pretty, though. humblefool® 22:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Liferay

[edit]

Pure advertisement. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I put a message on the author's talk page pointing out that it needed to be NPOV and not an ad, but it could be a notable piece of enterprise software (I don't know it, but that doesn't mean it's not). if the article gets expanded, it could be OK, so not sure I could support this immediately. DavidH 22:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I did see your note after I had already submitted the VfD, David. I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination if notability can be established in the article. The onus is on the author to establish notability right away. Good sentiment on your part, however. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted - patent nonsense. CDC (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's Notebook

[edit]

This article sucks beyond belief, Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.208.117.47 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus --malathion talk 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song Lee

[edit]

Close reading shows that this is a hoax, satirizing the poverty and isolation of North Korea. --Wetman 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another Web Comic

[edit]

I'm not sure anything needs to be said here (its title is self-explanatory), but I feel the need to point out the site has exceeded its free bandwidth. Nifboy 22:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 19:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boll Weevil (restaurant)

[edit]

Chain of restaurants in San Diego. Doesn't seem notable enough for an article. (Side note: This helps pin down Cartoon Vandal/MascotGuy to the San Diego area, for those interested in such things.) tregoweth 22:54, July 29, 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.

They are all out of business. Even their website is history. Must have been bad management, because the concept and previous history of the restaurant was fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertex11 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

XperienceOS

[edit]

Unverified, zero Google hits on XperienceOS -wikipedia and only a few, apparently unrelated, at "Xperience OS"+-wikipedia. Probably an ad for a work in progress, possibly an hoax. Note as the number of planned releases change from 4 to 3 and then from 3 to 5. The same happens with the release date. Take a look at its talk page. Nabla 22:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Depants

[edit]

Delete Probably hoax. Searches "Kenneth Gunnar" + spades (with alternate spellings of name) Depantsdepants + spades and D-Pantz + spades all get 0 Google hits. Icelight 23:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete Did search on Yahoo and found a website about this person. I don't know if I'm allowed to post it here so I won't. Plus I have personally heard of them. Would be very spiteful to delete this entry, plus why do any of you care? This person is a staple in the online Spades community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.98.155 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Usefulness

[edit]

Delete: Is this speediable as nonsense? In any case, it is most peculiar, badly titled and "Technosaur" is a neologism scoring about 190 Google hits. -Splash 23:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it is mislinked. Should be under edits for comments about "vi"

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  !!!!

Defcon scavenger hunt

[edit]

Delete, although I struggled with this one. I think it's just a game that's organised by some people once a year, and is largely non-notable outside its community. It gets 40 unique Google hits, none of which indicate any media attention from looking at the Google summaries. -Splash 23:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Us credit local 2005

[edit]

Blatant advertising. --malathion talk 23:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep or merge. There is no consensus for deletion, and I am not quite sure as to how to merge this into two different articles. (What type of redirect should be left behind?) Therefore I will just keep the article as it is right now, and if anyone figures out how to merge this, they can go ahead and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert alternative education programs

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Spice-Re-United concert

[edit]

I think this is bollocks (fortunately) --Doc (?) 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Ballad of Charles of Whitman

[edit]

Completing VfD process initiated by Amorrow. Page appears to be a title error. At one point of the page history it redirected to Charles Whitman but that's not about the song so the redirect solution is not quite a bullseye. Since nobody is going to search on this incorrect title anyway, I recommend that the page be deleted. Tobycat 23:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ghastly

[edit]

Ghastly has a webcomic, a family, and razzes the webcomic community. He's far below the bar for notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? I personally found the article useful for doing research on web comics. It is already here, so there is no effort involved in leaving it.

(Unsigned comment from User:67.84.218.171 ) drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful, and well-written.

(Unsigned vote by User:Toxicity01 ) drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user:Toxicity01 didn't write it, he/she merely added a photo caption and categories. user:Fallout_boy
I confess, I didn't check every diff to see who did what. I just recognized the names from seeing the history. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I propose you look again. The IP 67.84.218.171 does not appear in the history for Ghastly. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even if you hate the guy you can't deny the fact that he has contributed a lot to the world of webcomics and his work is very popular. There are articles on webcomic artists with lesser claim to fame. I'm uncertain why this one should be singled out unless it is because of the offense associated with his work.

Unsigned comment from (User:65.92.54.177) drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I stand corrected. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 08:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • That was actully a very accurate analogy, I'll have to steal it (but replace Lincoln with JFK). user:Fallout_boy
  • Rodney Caston hasn't done anything of note beside being part of Megatokyo for the first two years. No one's ever contested him having an article. And yes, while I do appreciate that MT is much more popular than GGC, that doesn't change the fact that GGC is still quite well-known and popular as well. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 02:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Majority rights

[edit]

An unnotable blog advertisement. I previously attempted to speedy; the tag was removed and the article made into slightly less obvious advertising. Delete, and would not oppose speedy delete. Scimitar parley 23:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Author agreed to deletion. Joyous (talk) 02:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

International Student Wiki

[edit]

This seems to be someones dump of a brochure or advertisement for getting students to study in the USA. Not encyclopdic at all. Mrmcgibby 23:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who "dumped" the article. I am no expert in the field, just someone who has had first-hand experience with the application process for US institutions (and succeeded - starting this month I'll be studying at Amherst).
It is not taken from a brochure, it is my own writing, submitted as public content, and I do not pretend it to be exhaustive. I just wanted to create a free resource to which anyone who has gone through these experience could contribute in order to help students from foreign countries, especially from developing countries who are trying to get a scholarship in the US. The intent of this guide is not to convince anyone to come to the US to study, just to provide some information in the subject. It would be counter-productive to start discussing here whether foreign students studying in the US is a good thing or not, but I suppose you can see why some people think of it as the former.
I understand that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and if this rule will be enforced, then so be it. However, I urge you to see the difference between a "how to build your own bookshelves" guide and such a guide whishing to provide information to high-school students from all over the World which may otherwise not be available to them.
Just one more thing, I hope that with the contribution of more international students this resource will get as exhaustive as possible and all errors be corrected - that is why I thought wikipedia to be the most suitable medium for such an undertaking
Yours sincerely,
Bogdan State
Ploiesti, Romania

You should put this information on your own wiki then. The title of the article certainly doesn't fit in the wikipedia guidelines. Again, as drini mentioned, wikipedia is not a webspace provider. I have no problem with the content of the article, it just isn't encyclopedic. Mrmcgibby 17:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got the point - I saved the source code on my computer and have nothing against deleting it from Wikipedia. This project will be in my own wiki in order for it not to violate Wikipedia policies. My problem was not with your observation that it is not encyclopedic, but rather such qualifications as "dumped" and the fact that it seemed to be advertising for anything.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 02:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Raymond

[edit]

a successful pornographer whose name apperars on "rich lists": non-notable Wetman 00:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect → Paul Raymond Publications. --Mysidia 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dima

[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Not to mention the entire extent of the article: "Dima is a common Russian nickname for those named Dmitriy." Mmmbeer 02:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_29&oldid=1081092212"