Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:Articles for deletion |Log
<July 21July 23>

July 22

[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 wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

bring back the couch

[edit]

mind-bogglingly non-notableseglea00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of notable in the form of attempts to increase pagerank (500+ results). The domain for this "campaign" was created on July 18th though. A USA Today columnistreporting on blogs mentions the site(the cache may change without notice), but this is still not popular enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. --BMIComp(talk,HOWS MY DRIVING)00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasKeep.Scimitarparley16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crans-Montana

[edit]

Notability not established, presently reads like an advertisement. --Alan Au00:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate waskeep (14k, 9m, 1d).Scimitarparley16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Together Now (The Beatles)

[edit]

Not notable song.Mr Bound 00:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Er, not to nitpick or anything, guys, but stealing text wholesale fromthis copyrighted article doesn't exactly improve Wikipedia's reputation.Nandesuka05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't contain anything from there anymore.Grutness...wha?03:02, 27 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.Hedley21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lawson (artiste)

[edit]

Delete non notableaspiring artiste. Google search of "Robert George Lwanga Lawson" returned 1 result which just listed his name among a long list of graduates.TheMidnighters00:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep (13k, 11m).Scimitarparley17:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Sion

[edit]

Should be either merged with another page or shortened. Not notable enough to be single standing.138.130.214.1307:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


They have been merged. All three of them. Hunger, Pain & Betrayal as one. 50% plus have agreed to this, so i went through with it and merged the articles. I did not know there was a different policy in place for merging articles than deleting articles. It is done now.

Unsigned comment byUser:138.130.215.115.jni08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no one at all agreed to what you just did. Nor does it appear that your merging is done. The present article doesn't even explain why the three of them have been put together in one article, nor are the "lordly" epithets you've added even explained. All you've done is cut and paste the three complete, independent articles into one under what appears to be a wholly arbitrary and unsearchable title ("The Three Dark Lords of the Sith ~ Hunger, Pain & Betrayal"). How did that fix things?Postdlf08:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia requests that you do not copy/past things from one article to another. --Psiedit

User 138.130.214.13 - Actually, I got that advice from the Wikipedia merge page, and incase you can't see, there is a clear cut majority of users wanting the article merged rather than kept the way it is.

  • Strong Keep as per everything I've said inWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Darth Nihilus.Nufy816:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and worth for a standalone article --Neigel von Teighen16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, informing and good info.---Obi-WanKenobi-2005---
  • Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Why do both of theKOTOR II's Sith lords have to have VFDs. With out them it wouldnt be "The Sith Lords" plural.User:Psi edit
  • Please do not nominate articles for deletion,138.130.214.13, if you do not actually want any articles deleted. If you wish tomerge articles, please follow the instructions for doing so, anduse the tags provided. Deletion forms no part of the process of either article merger or article cleanup.Uncle G01:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the anon user's motives are suspect, considering how listing Star Wars characters for deletion is all that he does on here, but nonetheless this should probably be merged into both the article on the game andList of minor Sith characters, and redirected to the latter. It's a character inone video game; until it appears in moreStar Wars media (or more pervasive media like a cartoon or movie), it's a minor character. That the game gave this character voluminous backstory doesn't make it more notable, and the article doesn't even establish how important this character is to the game—what role does he play in what the player experiences? Someone should rewrite the content so that it's actually from the perspective that this is a video game character, and that every portrayal of him is derived from that game. Any unfamiliar reader will have no idea how this character is encountered by the game player or how his "biography" is revealed to the player in the context of the game. Articles should not be written as if this encyclopedia existed in the Star Wars universe, and simply adding the fact that he's a fictional Star Wars character isn't enough.Postdlf01:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And btw, who actually created this character? Do committees write up the "biographies"? Is it a single plotwriter per game? This is the most important kind of information for an encyclopedia article about a fictional character.Postdlf01:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep very important character.Revolución02:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are kidding, right? --Maru02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: A "major character" and a "major villain" ina single game. It is not needed as a stand alone, as nothing can refer to it except a single game.Geogre11:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then mergeDarth Traya,Darth Nihilus,Darth Revan,Darth Malak and the Force knows whom, they are all major villains who appear in a single game each. Many less notable characters have their own articles, and merging of this article will change nothing except set up a bad precedent. -Sikon16:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good God, those are some long articles. I'm shocked a game player has time to actually accomplish anything in the game if he's spending so much time reading backstory. Right now,none of those articles are written with the proper presentation and context appropriate to a video game character—what do they actually doin the game? Does the player actually encounter these characters, or just learn about them?Postdlf08:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It explains their actions in the game quite well, actually. It just doesn't always say "this is what happens in the game at this point," because frankly, that would read more like a strategy guide than an encyclopedia. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they couldn't stand to have a little user interaction detailed in their articles, but to say that because it isn't written correctly by some people's standards then the knowledge it imparts should be limited, isn't doing it, or Wikipedia justice.Nufy816:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article is entirely written as if Sion's story is an absolute narrative that a player passively observes and cannot affect. "He would later duel with the Exile on Korriban, and defeat him, but the Exile would escape." I only learned from readinganother article (not this one) that the "Exile" is theplayer character. So does the quoted sentence mean that the player has no choice but to duel with Sion on Korriban and will inevitably escape no matter what he does? It doesn't say "if the player survives past level 3..." or "if the player decides to go to Korriban, he will be attacked by..." And does that sentence mean that the player is incapable of defeating him, no matter what? Why? It doesn't say "the game designers made Sion impossible to defeat," it just states that the player is defeated. For all a reader of the article knows, it's just because no one who wrote the article was good enough to defeat Sion at that point in the game. Yet somehow the player is destined to escape; does Sion always refrain from delivering a fatal blow? What if the player decides to remain there until one of them dies? Is the player swept away to safety against his will? The entire article is written like this ("the Exile was forced to use his powers of persuasion to turn Sion against his own beliefs"), without any acknowledgement that a real human playerinteracts with this character and becomes involved with the story, which is instead described as if it were merely a self-contained narrative. The entire article is nonencyclopedic fancruft writing, written simply to satisfy fans who want to know the complete fictional history of the fictionalStar Wars universe, rather than to portray facts about how a fictional character was created, how the fictional work portrays him and his relationship to it, how he is experienced/encountered by the consumer/audience, and what that audience thinks about him. The article needs more than just a couple style tweaks; it needs a complete rewrite.Postdlf18:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes. The player has no choice on Korriban. He must duel, and must lose.
  2. He must go to Korriban, or never finish the game. Needless to say, it is stupid to preface every statement with "And if the player decides to keep playing and completing the game, he will..."
  3. Yes. Sion always refrains from a fatal blow. No dialogue option will cause Sion to kill the Exile on Korriban, as part of the story, for obvious out-of-game reasons. The ingame player is not swept away against his will, but the player outside of the game is, as the Exile escapes in a cinema with no dialogue options which will change anything.
  4. You don't seem to understand, Post. The article describes what is canonical. The canon rules for SW state that plot events for games are canon, branching plots have one specific unique singular end-branch which is canonical, and that'sit. The minutiae of the actual game implementation are not canon- including game mechanics and possible plots like you endlessly harp upon. Sion does not need a "Rewrite", it needs expansion. Go ahead, add audience reaction, go ask the producers who wrote in Sion, what were they thinking, what early versions of Sion were there, and how did they differ, etc. But don't call the article unencyclopedic (or, if you do, then go start several thousand vfds to cleanse Wikipedia of all SW 'fancruft'), or use fictional as an epithet. It incorporates what is available, sourceable and reliable. --Maru19:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That should be described and explained.
  2. It should at least be prefaced by "When the player makes it to Korriban;" otherwise, it sounds like a player has no volition over that outcome.
  3. This should be described and explained, and the parts of the game that the player in fact passively watches ("the Exile escapes in a cinema") should be distinctly separated from the parts that the player actively participates in. And what the player actuallysees should be separated from that which he is merelytold about.
  4. What you don't understand is this is not the Official Canon Encyclopedia of Star Wars. The article needs a rewrite because it just relates a story abstracted from the source from which it is derived, without any sense of how the media actually constructed the story. And yes, thereare a lot of Star Wars articles that need similarly serious cleanup. This particular article should focus on describing what the player sees him do in the game, what he does to the player, what the player does to him, and what the player is told about him and how. Considering how he's a bloody video game character, one would think that these would be the most fundamental things to set forth. Then aseparate section on how this portrayal of the character fits into Star Wars canon may be appropriate, but that certainly shouldn't be the overriding perspective. No, "fictional" is not an epithet; I've written quite a few articles about fictional subjects myself. But the article should not itself become fiction; it should writeabout fiction by describingworks of fiction, and write about subjects of fiction by describing exactlyhow the works portray them.Postdlf06:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, informative and a fun read. All you party poopers please don't delete. It just needs a little tweaking on the facts.

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

.

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.Hedley21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ground Baptist Church

[edit]

not an objective article; based on personal opinion and promoting a particular church203.166.5.6801:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasspeedied.

Popularity of Adolf Hitler

[edit]

Lauding of Hitler's character without mention of an opposing viewpoint. Seems extremely one-sided. I expect to attract flack from this nomination but will stand by it. Delete unless rewritten.Mr Bound 01:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is Nazi vandalism, and as such have speedy-deleted it. However, the vandal seems to be recreating the page, so I deleted it, recreated it, and protected it.Neutralitytalk 01:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am not a Nazi, I am not even of European race, and you have no right to either delete the article or delete my earlier comment on this very page. You have no right to police Wikipedia when contributors have not done any wrong. And is it possible AT ALL that some people in the world could admire Hitler without being labelled "nazi" or pushed out and told "you must not express how you feel because we don't like it" ?? --Paul Chiu
Just a quick note. Whether uyou are European or not has nothing to do with nazism (sp?). (added after closing) -Mgm|(talk) 09:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy deleted.

Adolf Hitler's popularity

[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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.Hedley21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lotus

[edit]

Non-notable film production company, founded in2004!Delete.Joel768701:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasSPEEDY DELETE. Should not have been listed on VFD, is just an exlinkManning 04:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Given name etymology

[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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate waskeep (even after discounting anon votes).Scimitarparley17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Battle

[edit]
  • Keep Comeon. There's entries for many stupid things here on wikipedia. Pat battle isn't one of them. Keep the entry!!. -Rob Yoot☯ 21:39, 2005 July 26 (EST)
  • Keep Everything in the article is accurate and true, some of those voting to delete haven't even read enough to realize Pat is woman. Please do not delete this. -Paul Couture☯ 21:23, 2005 July 23 (EST)
  • Keep I think the Pat battle section contributes a lot to wikipedia. SHe is famous in our area. Please do not delete this. Note: I vandalized the vote by accidnet. sorry please delete my IP. Update: I delted my IP if that is Okay with you guys. Anyways Pat battle is a very popular person in the NY area and I can't see the harm of it being on Wikipedia?
  • Delete. NN. 44 Google hits. No claim to notablilty in article, other than he's on TV and has a funny name. --A D Monroe III03:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep This needs a wickedly major clean up. The Opie and Anthony radio program is national, so perhaps some Opie and Anthony fan, assuming they have the IQ to work a computer, get on the internet, and find Wikipedia would want to try and figure out who this Pat Battle is.FunkyChicken! 03:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Change vote toKeep as it was cleaned up a majorly and due to the fact that she won an Emmy.FunkyChicken! 05:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if notable in NYC and environs.Kappa03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the article into something coherent and Wikipedia-like, categorized it and stubbed it. This will give those radio listeners who don't know who she is context, and TV viewers throughout the Americas who watch WNBC some biographical information which has the potential to be added to later.NYTVGuy04:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The edit by NYTVGuy looks good. Further expansion would, of course, look even better.Aerion//talk04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not the same when it was started and has improved greatly. I have crossed paths with Pat a few times professionally and she is one of the best reporters out there by covering her beat very well. Plus she is a very nice person and has great on-air skills, as evidenced recently when she was hounded by some Opie and Anthony fans while doing a stand-up live shot in New Jersey. She is one of the better anchors and reporters in the entire NYC/NJ area and she got an Emmy this year! Now off to add some stuff to the article!UncleFloyd04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winning a New York Emmy makes her notable enough for mine.Capitalistroadster05:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are thousands of Emmy winners who are non-notable. Should Wikipedia be filled with info on the sports guy from Bumblesnort, Montana and the name of his dog?DiceDiceBaby15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment She is not in Bumblesnort, Montana, she is in New York which is the biggest televison market in the country. Her station is also seen in many places outside of New York, including Latin America, the Carribean, and in places in the US there is no NBC affiliate. Plus she is a person referenced on a national radio show, so that means she has more notablity than ths sports guy from Bumblesnort.NYTVGuy15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any and all biographies on Emmy Award winners.Hall Monitor18:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline notable at best - 44 Google hits is scraping it.JamesBurns03:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I seemed to have gotten around 75 to 125 relevant Google hits, not including a couple of pages that were in Chinese, using various search permutations.NYTVGuy05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just on the wrong side of notability.Indrian 15:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.Hedley21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phoinix

[edit]

Not at all notable or encyclopedic, and has little to no possibility for expansion. Saying "It is also what people in Brooklyn call a city in Arizona." is just silly. Delete.Andre (talk) 02:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasredirect (no merge).Scimitarparley17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zedraedi

[edit]

This entry is completely incorrect. The correct entry isZentradi.Epolk 02:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate waskeep (7k,1d).Scimitarparley17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Historical Society

[edit]
  • Keep and expand. Encyclopedic and notable. From theLost Cause of the Confederacy article: "The term Lost Cause first appeared as the title of the 1866 book on the Confederacy by historian Edward A. Pollard." However, it was due to the formation of the Southern Historical Society in 1869 that Lieut. Gen. Jubal Early in the 1870s established the Lost Cause as a cultural and literary phenomenon that lasted for decades.

The Southern Historical Society was founded by Major General Dabney Herndon Maury and not "Jubal Early" as I proved. Please look in Mark Boatner's _Civil War_Dictionary_, or somewhere, for the proof as opposed to any belief.--Maury 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Kaibabsquirrel02:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate wasmerge and redirect (5m, 1k, 1d).Scimitarparley17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade Teams

[edit]

I've looked atWP:FICT and think this is a candidate for deletion as not notable.brenneman(t)(c)02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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/mergeCDC(talk)00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hryb

[edit]

Non-notable outside the xBox community.Denni☯ 02:36, 2005 July 22 (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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Calculated Risk

[edit]

Non-notable gaming clan.Gazpacho02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasDelete - This should've been speedied along time ago.Hedley21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameya Velingker

[edit]

Vanity page. Non-notable outside the high school math competition community (if it can be called a "community").Aerion//talk02:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could bespeedied per A7. --Dmcdevit·t 05:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preferably speedy. Teen nerd vanity.FunkyChicken! 06:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though this is the nicest deletable vanity page I've ever seen.Bubamara09:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think it's speediable, he made a believable claim to notability, but I don't believe winning that contest is notable enough for an article. -Mgm|(talk) 09:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • He did make a claim to notability, and a very impressive claim at that. His notability is such that I had heard of him before seeing this article, and there is very little dispute that theUSAMO is the most prestigious American high school math competition. However, I wouldn't call its fame widespread (I get questioned all the time when I wear my "I survived the USAMO" t-shirt, usually by people wanting to know what the USAMO is, immediately followed by people wanting to know why I would ever wear such a shirt). So I don't think that placing top 12 once is enough to establish the level of notability required for a Wikipedia article. Maybe four times is enough, likeTiankai Liu orReid Barton.Aerion//talk15:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn teen vanity.JamesBurns03:57, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasredirect (unanimous).Scimitarparley17:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CD copying software

[edit]

The first part is just a rephrase/dicdef, the rest can be covered inCD copy protection.Gazpacho03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gomco

[edit]

Band vanity. See alsoA Thousand Years,Greg Pearson,G. Pearson coming soon.Brighterorange03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

A Thousand Years

[edit]

Band vanity.Brighterorange03:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horizon Recordings

[edit]

Record label vanity.Brighterorange03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasuserfy and delete. The content has been userfied, and article deleted.Joyous(talk) 16:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

G. Pearson

[edit]

Vanity. Should probably userfy toUser:PearsongBrighterorange03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Pearson

[edit]

Vanity.G. Pearson is slightly longer and would probably be a better choice for userfication (atUser:Pearsong).Brighterorange03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horizon Sound

[edit]

More recording vanity.Brighterorange03:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy redirected (hey, a new term!) since the content would only ever possibly be a fork of the content already atJapanese writing system.GarrettTalk14:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese alphabet

[edit]

Information about the japanese character sets (I'm uncertain if calling them alphabets is correct) belongs to a broader article about the japanese language. The title is inadequate and the descriptions of katakana and kanji are incorrect.Fbergo03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect toJapanese writing system]Fg2 03:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Fg2. There's nothing here that needs to be merged. What's incorrect about those descriptions? They're incomplete, but relatively accurate.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect without merging perFg2. --Angr/tɔktəmi05:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Android79: katakana is used for emphasis and onomatopoeic sounds, not just for foreign names. The (e.g. your name) is discriminatory and inaccurate: if you are japanese, your name is most likely not written in katakana, and wikipedia should be written for all. And kanji represent ideas; Kanji, either alone or in groups, form entire words. I agree with the proposed redirection byFg2.Fbergo13:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification. I've never studied Kanji, so that didn't jump out at me.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion 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 wasmerge & redirect

Science (Kieron Harvey)

[edit]

Not notablebrenneman(t)(c)03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place onTalk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to beredirect, I havebeen bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (exceptDerek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasmerge & redirect

Craig Coates

[edit]

Not Notable.brenneman(t)(c)03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place onTalk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to beredirect, I havebeen bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (exceptDerek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasmerge & redirect

Anthony Hutton

[edit]

Not notable.brenneman(t)(c)03:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place onTalk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to beredirect, I havebeen bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (exceptDerek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Woohookitty17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worm-Hole rotating ring

[edit]

The page is written by a crank and describes something that is not only nonexistent, but has no basis in reality. It is solely a creation of the crank.

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Woohookitty15:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkins Media Holdings, LLC

[edit]

Not notable--BMIComp(talk,HOWS MY DRIVING)03:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You people are NON-NOTABLE: delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete !!! That is all you know. Does that make you feel strong? Are we superior yet?

Please excuse my previous statements- I understand that you are doing the best that you can to adhere to the standards that Wikipedia has set. I also know that this project would be a massive mess of abstract data if those policies were not in place, and strictly enforced.

What I believe should be taken into consideration though, is that the Internet does not record enough information that is due a notable status. My uncle (Herbert Wilkins) is clearly notable. But because of his low profile, and insider status, not much has been released in "publicity" structure.

My reasons for initiating inclusions to Wikipedia are simply to create an "educational presence" for members of my family that have not been noted by other "educational" mediums. My background is also "notable" in that I have had special relationships with historical figures in the finance and music industries.

My personal intention is to administer to this information, and help with the massive linking work that is associated with it. What I am asking is the time to do so, and an open perspective to what is deemed as notable, and historical. William H. Wilkins III- 07.22.05- 1:24 pm/est historical. William H. Wilkins III- 07.22.05- 1:24 pm/est

  • Do you have any proof of this company's holdings being notable or famous? The founders? The current owner? Wikipedia is not for creating a presence, on;ly reporting on existing presences. The fact the that you claim to have "special relationships" with "historical figures" doesn't help. names might.
  • My vote'sdelete, if you couldn't tell.humblefool®18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A lot of people have associations with famous people. A certain roadie may have toured withThe Rolling Stones orU2. Someone may be a PA (personal assistant) to a Hollywood celeb. Or someone may have been Bill Gates' kindergarden teacher. These associations still don't make them notable in any way, unless they've managed some accomplishments of their own. --Madchester 22:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity/ad/promotion. --Etacar1123:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • HEAR ME MY FELLOW NOBLES!

Shall my humble and simplified modification to a standard dictionary description withstand the cold, steely, knives of thy honored Senate?? William H. Wilkins III- 07.26.05- 11:25 pm/est

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 16:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Agita

[edit]

Dicdef of a colloquialism.WP:WINAD. I see no potential growth here.Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 03:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ratiocination

[edit]

Dictionary definition.WP:WINAD. No potential for growth. Already at Wiktionary.Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 03:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasKeep (3k, 1d).Scimitarparley17:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Langendreer-Alter Bahnhof

[edit]

Reason why the page should be deletedFenice 11:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC): An article on the old train station of a city in Germany.

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

.

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

The result of the debate waskeep (unanimous).Scimitarparley17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language delay

[edit]
This was never put in the log. --Dmcdevit·t 03:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up by adding appropriate content and removing extraneous material. Vote to keep.RToes22:32, 10 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate waskeep at a new title, redirect this title toAnimaniacs (by my count: 5k, 1d, 6r).Scimitarparley17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs!

[edit]

Transferred here from Speedy. Content value is questioned - a plot summary of individual cartoon episode. Title is clearly inappropriate - this actually refers to the cartoon seriesTiny Toons.Manning 04:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This debate should also dictate the fate ofBad_Stitch andKixx. The latter have been removed from Speedy but should share the fate of this article.Manning 04:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This article isnot about the TV showAnimaniacsGazpacho

Gazpacho - correct: this refers to the show "Tiny Toons", not Animaniacs!.Manning 04:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Gazpacho - do you mean redirect toTiny Toons?Manning 04:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Gazpacho,redirect toAnimaniacs. If somebody types in "Animaniacs!" they are looking forAnimaniacs, notTiny Toon Adventures. --Metropolitan90 04:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
My meaning was that this article has nothing to do with Animaniacs!. As I stated in the heading above, the title is also clearly inappropriate. CheersManning 05:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename it so that the title is actually accurate. There are plenty of individual episode articles and I don't see any reason to treat this any differently. But it definitely needs retitling.23skidoo05:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lars Ryen Mill

[edit]

Vanity page. --Several Times13:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Bryant

[edit]

Vanity, best I can figure is that this person may be someone who posts onEncyclopedia Titanica message boardsMechBrowman 04:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasKeep (6k, 2m, 1d).Scimitarparley17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Get You

[edit]

Regardless of the song's notability,this article isn't very informative.DeleteGazpacho04:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten.Gazpacho03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beatles B-side. If there was info on which track it was the B-side for,you could merge it with an article on the A-side but we don't have that information.Comment Looking at the All Music Guide entry for this song [[2]], this song was the B-side of "She Loves You" and appeared on the Anthology 1 and Complete BBC Sessions and was frequently played in their live shows. Delete or merge with "She Loves You" if article doesn't improve - I would welcome feedback if others feel that Beatles B-sides are notable or whether merging as a section of our "She Loves You" article is a better option.Capitalistroadster06:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although if it was the B-side to She Loves You then a mention there would be ok (even throw in a redirect if you like). Certainly doesn't deserve an article on its own. -R. fiend16:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote. While it's certainly been expanded, it's now one of those articles that takes alot of words to say very little. It's still a pretty minor song, really, with little to be said about it. Hell, I've been a Beatles fan for years and I can't recall it (then again I don't like the early Beatles nearly as much as the later Beatles). -R. fiend15:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge toShe Loves You.Dcarrano 16:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, tremendous and notable song in its own right. If it survives, I'll add some information - it really could be a decent short article.jamesgibbon17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created a section on "I'll Get You" in theShe Loves You article soredirect to that article. Keep Grutness's rewrite but failing that merge with "She Loves You".Capitalistroadster01:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete B-sides aren't inherently notable and a sub-stub certainly doesnt establish why it would be notable.JamesBurns04:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and I have now thoroughly (re-)written the article. See if it's up to your standards now (and songs originally intended to be Beatles singlesare worth articles! hell, every Beatles song is worth an article!)Grutness...wha?06:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Dcarrano (sorry grutness)Renata309:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's time to accept that every Beatles song deserves its own article. Merging with She Loves You is inadequate as the song also appears onPast Masters, Volume One and elsewhere.Flowerparty12:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IfMy Bologna survived aVFD nomination, then certainly any song by the Beatles is a keeper. —Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:21, July 25, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate waskeep (6k, 1d).Scimitarparley18:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Paul

[edit]

This doesn't require an encyclopediac entryrail04:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um...according to the article, "Mr. Paul was declared among the best managers in the world by Business Week in 2004. He was also named by Time and CNN amongst the 25 most influential business persons in the world." (Verified--see[3]). Smells like a copyvio, but I can't find it.Keep for now.Meelar(talk) 16:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate wasKeep. Various merge options were discussed but these can be dealt with outside this decision on whether to delete. --Tony SidawayTalk11:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vampire's Assistant

[edit]

This seems to be a work of fiction. Nothing showed up in Google to indicate plagiarismCnwb04:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as to the fact that the summary I gave ofThe Vampire's Assistant andCirque Du Freak exceed in detail and words from that of[4], I don't see how I could have plagarized or copyrighted. There are several articles out there on the books, but I guarantee that my article was written in my own words. I also sincerely doubt that there are as detailed articles on the books on other websites.Jerichoholic

  • The original issue was that, to the original poster, the article appeared to be an original work of fiction. Some further research indicated that the article is in fact avery detailed plot summary of a published work. While plot summaries are nice (although they should be tagged with spoiler warnings), there is a limit to how much detail is really necessary. Those editors who have voted for a "smerge" or something similar are those who feel that the level of detail you have given is somewhat excessive. ... On an unrelated note, you should log in.Aerion//talk02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was extremely unnecessary for me to log in, for I don't see anything different. Why does it matter if I used detail? Who are you to judge? Does it really matter? And, I would've tagged a spoiler warning and put other parts in the pages about the books, but you people gave me no chance, really.Jerichoholic
  • In other countries, such as the UK and Ireland, the series is known as "The Saga of Darren Shan." If you were to use a page for all the books, I would suggest changing the name to the original series name, other than Cirque Du Freak.Jerichoholic
  • Keep and cleanup. I'd say the article should be kept, but the whole thing would need to be rewriten and have just he main points included and a few more details about the series they belong to. I wouldn't think it would benefit anything to have the summary included on theDarren Shan page and I think we should have separate pages for all 12 books (if they don't alrwady exist). The books all seem to be gaining in popularity now and I've seen many books shops with significant displays for them.Evil Eye11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep butmerge, together withCirque Du Freak, intoThe Saga of Darren Shan. If that title is not acceptable, try splitting the currentDarren Shan article intoDarren Shan (writer) (which should probably be a REDIRECT toDarren O'Shaughnessey anyway, and merging all the various individual books intoDarren Shan. HTH HAND—Phil |Talk 08:54, August 4, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate waskeep (4k, 2m).Scimitarparley18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Du Freak

[edit]

This goes along with the VfD onThe Vampire's Assistant.Aerion//talk05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Buddha's Witnesses

[edit]

This appears to be made-up history. No google hits for "Buddha's Witnesses", "Buddah's Witnesses" or "Klaus van der Dam", except for Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in Rick Fields'How the Swans Came to the Lake. -Nat Krause04:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tollari

[edit]

Neologism. Can't find documentation of it anywhere on google, even its external link doesn't seem to work for me. Even if it were truethough, it's a dicdef, andWP:WINAD.Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 04:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasunanimous keep.Scimitarparley18:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman To

[edit]

Appears to be a Honk Kong martial arts actor. Is in IMDB, however, no presence in english-speaking countries as of yet.humblefool®04:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cripes

[edit]

WP:WINAD. A slang dicdef, already in Wiktionary. I don't see a potential at all here.Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 05:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kline

[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 anundeletion 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Deleted.GarrettTalk00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tung Street

[edit]

It appears to be a personal page to advertise an external website that provides no meaningful content on this "landmark". –Mipadi July 3, 2005 15:17 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Deleted, vanity.GarrettTalk00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bentley

[edit]

Julian Bentley (Born June 11th, 1988) - A Canadian actor, dancer, runner. Julian Bentley's life is filled with intrigue, danger and romance. Those who have come in contact with this mysterious man usually leave their brief encounter puzzled by the entire meeting...He attends Yale Secondary School in Abbotsford BC Sorry, Julian. come back when you've at least graduated university.Calton |Talk 05:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion 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 wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jarred walton

[edit]

Not notable.TheCoffee05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Several good articles linked from the page; writes for a major web site. What else is required to be a journalist?User:Jarredwalton
  • Speedy delete under new criterion or kick it over to a user page. Silence, sockpuppets! -Lucky 6.906:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the "new criterion" are or what qualifies for journalist. I have moved the content to my user page, however, so if writing articles that millions have read is not sufficient to be a journalist, go ahead and delete. Besides, I didn't capitalize my last name on the page name. --Jarred Walton
    • The articledoes assert notability of a sort, so I don't think this qualifies for CSD A7.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Read by millions"? Permit me to doubt.Delete. --Calton |Talk 08:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability of subject not established.Barnabypage15:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, writing for a website doesn't do it for me; even if the website were notable (haven't checked into it so can't say), the question is, is thisindividual notable? Write a book or something.Dcarrano 16:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. See alsoKristopher Kubicki.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Gamaliel18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar1123:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge withAnandtech and keep the redirect. This kind of merge can be done easily and takes much less collective effort than a VfD; it also has the advantage of retaining verifiable information relevant to the article merged into. --Tony Sidaway|Talk17:24, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kristopher Kubicki

[edit]

Not notable.TheCoffee05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. Reputable author with noteable sources; Google search on Kristopher + Kubicki reveals 3400 hits, google search on kris + kubicki yields several hundred more.HackJandy
    • A more meaningful pair of search results:"kris kubicki" yields54 unique hits, and"kristopher kubicki" yields63. For comparison, searches for my name in this manner yield 22 unique results, and I've never publishedanything on the web besides a blog that nobody but my family reads.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A journalist is journalist, right?User:Jarredwalton
  • Second edit.
  • Keep This was the Beo-tch who raided all those xboxs.. His cunning intelect and suave demeaner demands attention, as well as his unique perspective of life. To delete a soul of this magnatude would be nothing less than ignorance, not to mention a crime against humanity.— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.167.210.113 (talk •contribs)
  • Second edit.
  • Delete as per comments above.Gamaliel17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kristopher is a high-level contributor to the Anandtech website and has done much work in the online community of web journalists/reviewers. He recruited myself along with several others into this business.Dave_graham
  • Third edit.
  • Keep . Microsoft reveals 2,235entries212.36.15.1417:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it reveals184.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • No you are incorrect. That is 184 PAGES.Page 19 of 184 results containing "kristopher kubicki" (0.13 seconds)144.118.196.16520:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's the case, then where's the link to get to the other 165 pages of results? This is just like getting to the end of the line on Google's search. Microsoft merely phrases this bit of info on its search page awkwardly.There are 184 results. 18 pages of 10 results each plus 1 page of 4 results equals 184. If therewere 184 pages of results, that would indicate that there are around 1,840 results, not 2,235. The 2,235 figure is an estimate.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kris has done a lot of good work and will likely become more famous than he already is. Then again, maybe we need aJonathan Rockway page too :)— Precedingunsigned comment added byJrockway (talk •contribs)
  • Delete. Non-notable and the "support hosiery" isn't helping. -Lucky 6.920:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kris has done a lot of good work and and his knowledege is well above his peers. I could even say that he will be better than. He's well known in the Computer World @ UIC and in many unversities.He's an editor in Anandtech, among the various things he does.— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.252.245.183 (talk •contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate wasuserfy/delete.Joyous(talk) 17:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Descontrol

[edit]

User:Descontrol created this article, on an alleged professional wrestling career. The only support for this is two geocities websites. "The Rabid Luchador," his alleged wrestling name, receives 0 google hits. I call b.s. on it.Deletejglc |t |c05:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. This is what you get when you make VfD entries in the early AM. I meant a vote ofuserfy all along.jglc |t |c13:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense I would like to say that I am indeed a legit professional wrestler. I wrestle in the southeast reigion and am on many federation's websites. Both linked sites have photos of myself wrestling. —Descontrol 06:07, 22 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy delete. –ABCD✉23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schwartzman

[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 wasSpeedy deleted.GarrettTalk00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable and unencylopedic. Entire article consist of the following: "Rachel Schwartzman is an incredibly hot Jewish-American woman." If we were to fill the Wikipedia with articles incredibly hot Jewish-American women things would be crazy!Frühstücksdienst05:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

St Brown's University

[edit]

Presumably a hoax.Uppland06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasredirect.Joyous(talk) 17:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horcruxe

[edit]

This is a mispelling ofHorcrux. The improperly spelled article contains little to no information (and nothing that isn't already in the properly spelled page). At the very best, if left undeleted, it might serve as a redirect for a common (?) mispelling. I should probably add for Harry Potter fans who see this that the page contains a moderate unmarked spoiler for the sixth book.TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 06:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect toHorcrux.TheCoffee07:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 00:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paranoid administrator

[edit]

Appears to be entirely POVoriginal research — it appeared in whole cloth in a single edit. TheGoogle test shows ~750 articles with the termparanoid administrator, but virtually all of them use the term as a standard English adjective-noun combination (e.g., "...a paranoid administrator..."), not as a compound noun. The external links do not serve as references for this term — they instead all point at ways to get around a "paranoid administrator". Full disclosure: I am a professional system administrator and would consider the tactics mentioned in the article "amateurish", not "paranoid". N.B.: this might be a case ofWP:Bite; this appears to be the first substantive edit byBob2000 (talk ·contribs).

TreyHarris06:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please hastily proceed to deletion then! But this is a case of thebites indeed. I did look up and read lengthy instructions on what not to post before deciding to put this definition, and found no trace of "original research" as a no-no. Prior to submitting a new article, there isn't much warning about that except onWP:NOT. May I suggest that "soapbox" is not a well-understood term in the meaning with which it is used?

I agree with the original research label, but not with the POV label. As a professional computer & networking security expert, it appears to me that the patterns described in the article are certainlywell-spread andbased on observation--even if "paranoid" may not exactly be the right term to sum it up. I grant you that this article is far from perfect, but professional systems administrators like you would certainly have been able to amend it. I think there is room for a consensus to build around this concept.

While I understand and respect that Wikipedia's opinion is different on this matter, for me an enclopedia's role, as was theEncyclopédie, is not only to bring consensual knowledge, but also to publish original works of reason. I'm a bit disappointed.

--User:Bob2000

I think you've hit on one of the exact problems that led toWP:NOR. I think it's POV. You don't. But you coined the term the article is about, so how can anyone but you make the call? Maybe giving you control of the article's content is an okay situation — until you go away for awhile, and then the article goes stale, or somebodyelse comes along and claims thatthey invented the term "paranoid administrator" andthey know what it means.... Please don't take this personally: if others can't do the same research you can, then it's not something that can make a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone can point you at a wiki for original works. --TreyHarris16:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I understand the rationale behind the rule.Bob200018:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasDelete --Allen3 talk 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Big Bonanza Silver Day

[edit]

Some annual sale on a shopping TV channel. Advertising.Uppland06:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy deleted byTony Sidaway (unsuitable use of user page) --Tony SidawayTalk11:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denim&Co.

[edit]

User page used for advertising. User has editedBig Bonanza Silver Day and is presumably identical toUser:69.172.243.1 who created that page. Both have also editedQVC.Uppland06:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of novels

[edit]

This list would be useless and nearly endless.Mysid(talk) 07:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Remenants

[edit]

Band vanity. Page creator's username is "Remenant", and this is his only edit.TheCoffee07:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)All songs written and performed by "The Remenants" are copyright © 2005 and remain the property of "The Remenants"[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep and merge toNuestras Hijas de Regreso a CasaEliot16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Alejandra Andrade

[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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasredirect.Eugene van der Pijll19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lims

[edit]

Advertising?Manik Raina11:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep.Eugene van der Pijll19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germanic-speaking cultures surnames

[edit]
Yes, but that was plagued by fake names like "Footfootfoot," these are real German-languagesurnames, which have actual heritage. -newkai |talk |contribs 13:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Writing an article about heritage is much different from a list of surnames with no context whose only relatedness is existing in the same language. --Dmcdevit·t 07:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the actual heritage can be potentially found in the articles that link from this list -newkai |talk |contribs 10:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Verily, I say to thee, "Thy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of thine information," and pursuant unto that I specify to thee, "Thine Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." Behold! For more I have to say to thee, for it is written that the Wikipedia is neither for the genealogical entries nor the phonebook entries. And from the bowels of wikihell did erupt a plague, and it was called listcruft and such was this. Germanic surnames are exactly like all other surnames in that putting together a list of them and calling that an article is absolutely absurd.The Literate Engineer08:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable and arbitrary.Uppland09:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's reference. IfList of North American area codes can be kept, then I don't see why this can't. -newkai |talk |contribs 12:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Then nominate it! -newkai |talk |contribs 00:40, July 23, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Tarin

[edit]

Vanity page--BMIComp(talk,HOWS MY DRIVING)08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep.Eugene van der Pijll19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London slang

[edit]

If this is London slang at all, it's not anything I've heard, in 20 years of living in London. Maybe this is the slang of some tiny group of clubbers; maybe it's nonsense. In any case, a proper article on slang in London would be far more detailed than this, as it would need to describe all the different kinds of slang prevalent in different London ethnic and socioeconomic groups, as well as subcultures.Delete orrewrite from scratch. --Karada08:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.Direct quote fromWP:WWIN: "[Wikipedia is not]: Ausage guide, orslang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep." Exactly. --Dmcdevit·t 08:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this stuff belongs in wiktionary, if anywhere, though they're probably not going to take it in this format --Francs2000 |Talk08:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I said on the discussion page: many of the words are defined quite adequately in the average dictionary; this sounds like a particular subculture's slang (see Gina Yashere on the Lenny Henry show) rather than "London" slang.Brequinda08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete although I actually suspect a copyvio.David |Talk12:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see below.[reply]

All subsequent votes are associated with the cleaned up version of the article, which has significantly altered its content. --Francs2000 |Talk14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: The article was entirely rewritten.Keep new version. It's now linguistics, so anyone who opposed on Wiktionary grounds should really revisit the article. It is not duplicate material, and it is not a list of slang terms anymore.Geogre03:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the rewritten version, and sorry, I still vote todelete. Its starting point is still BA's guide to London slang, there is not a great deal apart from that. Some of the words are general British slang. London is a large multi-cultural city, you'll be hard pressed to find many words that are common across not London but not elsewhere. BA were producing an advertising campaign aimed at an American audience, not a serious exercise in linguistics.PatGallacher 10:43, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Change of vote tokeep following rewrite. --Francs2000 |Talk14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote, tokeep and improve new version. Needs a clearer distinction between general British slang and specifically London slang, but the rewrite is now a good, and improving, article. --Karada22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good rewriting work.David |Talk08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge intoBritish slang orUnited Kingdom slang.Rich Farmbrough11:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge intoBritish slang orDelete, I personally don't see how any of these words mentioned on the article are slang, since when is "loo" or "lift" slang? These are just words used in theUnited Kingdom instead of "toilet" and "elevator". The article is mostly nonsense, needs a cleanup and also at the same time seems like a huge promotion for a British Airways campaign I've never even heard of. —Wackymacs19:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point being that what is being sold/promoted abroad as London slang isn't at all. Londoners know this - the advert isn't aimed at us so we are not exposed to the misinformation.Secretlondon12:44, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lumchan

[edit]

Delete. This is some private joke and is Not Notable.Bubamara08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep rewritten article.Joyous(talk) 17:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yed

[edit]

It'sorange! This is a neologism/hoax. A Google search only shows mirrors. I mean, even the article says "is in common usage, but is of unknown origin." Classic neologism,delete. What happened to the... Oh!Keep all Uncle Gs (do we have any more?) --Dmcdevit·t 08:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Woohookitty15:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wakkipedia

[edit]

This was marked as speedy, but is not a candidate. Instead I propose the normal, slow, lingering,deletion (think aboutChinese water torture before voting) for this article about non-notable website.jni08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. -Sikon10:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 05:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Zetterstrom

[edit]

Notability not sufficiently established, probably vanity. Likely a new user; insists on removing VfD tag but has been gently warned against doing so on his/her talk page. --Alan Au08:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy deleted.GarrettTalk00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Shiel

[edit]

Orphaned article, no notability established, probable vanity --Ferkelparadeπ08:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically all of us Wikipedians are also writer/editors. Can we get articles too? (joke :)Manning 22:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete.Manning 22:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion 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 wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Aelred Doyle

[edit]

Vanity, no notability established --Ferkelparadeπ09:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ross Sands

[edit]

Probably not notable;google hits, few of which seem relevant.Thue |talk10:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy deleted by, um, me! According to the new criteria, vanity cruft like this gets shot on sight.GarrettTalk14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Pitts

[edit]

Some marketing guy, not notable. Only references are now defunct page on geocities[6]. The anon user also added him toJuly 22 births.Feydey11:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion 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 wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Garlic dude

[edit]

Advertising. Article basically amounts to "here's how cute the doll is, come buy it!".Delete. —JIP |Talk11:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

JAXASS

[edit]
  • delete. Not notable. There is nothing called JAXASS except for a newly posted blog entry. This article is a way of gaining acceptance for a newly coined term. Wikipedia is no place for original research and personal opinions. —(Nomination made bySleepyhead81.)
  • keep There is something called JAXASS and its being defined as we speak. Just because you don't like the naming of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. THe domain names have been registered and a call for opinions is being devised. --Sleepnomore
    • delete. No, there is no widespread support of this term you have coined for yourself. Wikipedia is not a place to express your views or attract visitors to your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a blog. Please use your blog to express your own views. And please create an account instead of posting anonymously. --Sleepyhead8111:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC) —(Duplicate vote.)[reply]
  • keep There is no "widespread" support for AJAX either in the scope of the industry. AJAX was coined by Garrett for himself, so that invalidates your second argument. This is not simply "my" view, this is a view that has been expressed by many in the industry. JAXASS has been created out of the animosity of those supporters for REAL innovation with this technology instead of simply renaming the former technology something else. The current JAXASS call for opinions describes client-side support for standard messaging and WSE-n. I did create my own account and haven't posted anonymously. Just because you don't like this idea, or you have some affinity for AJAX doesn't mean that you should be able to squash information about opposing technologies. Your affinity to AJAX is proved by your own blog title "ASP, XML, AJAX, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, DOM. Marketing. 24SevenOffice", and several blog posts:[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13], and the list goes on:[14] Your opinion on this matter doesn't qualify you to make decisions on what opposing technologies are allowed to exist in wikipedia, and which do not. You are free to blog about how much you hate JAXASS, but that doesn't negate its existence. --Sleepnomore —(Duplicate vote.)
    • So if I am against Ajax and make up a new acronym on my blog it should be added to wikipedia? That is the key argument here. If JAXASS is added then every guy can coine these little acronyms and theories and have them added to Wikipedia. Please read [What wikipedia is not]. —(Sleepyhead81 forgot to sign.)
      • Comment Not unless it culminates into a real technology. I have three very influential Microsoft MVP's who have joined me in creating the initial call for opinions on JAXASS to replace AJAX. The difference between simply coming up with an acronym and coming up with an acronym for a competing technology is completely different. In the same line of argument, if I'm against Ruby, and I can make the argument that it doesn't have widespread support, should I just go around making calls for deletion of any wikipedia article discussing Ruby? There was no widespread support for the Betamax videocassette, but you can find information about it on Wikipedia, and its a product none the less. This is not the forum for you to voice your opinion on a technology by deleting every bit of information you find on it. --Sleepnomore
  • delete, is nonsense.Burschik12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment there were many topics that were nonsense in their day but were later shown to be gosple truth [Galileo] is one such example I've commented on below. The world being round was yet another such example.
      • As hoary and worn out example as it is irrelevant -Skysmith09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Its hardly irrelevant in context of Mr Burschik's comment that it's nonsense to him. Valid analogies often do sound worn out -- mostly to those who are on the receiving end of the incontrovertible truth for which they cannot argue against.
          • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for breaking news or for dissemination of emerging new truths. It is not Wired's "memes on the rise" section. It is an encyclopedia. As such, it a vehicle for presenting generally accepted facts. Articles on controversial or disputed topics are acceptedwhen there is a substantial body of people that accept them. We wouldnot have accepted an article on the Copernican world systemwhen it was first proposed. Only when it became clear that there waswidespread belief in the Copernican world system, then the existence of this belief wouldthen be an encyclopedic fact, to be reported neutrally along with the more-accepted Ptolemaic system. In any case, comparing JAXASS with Galileo seems a little... immodest.Dpbsmith(talk)18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • comment While I don't purport JAXASS to be a meme on the rise, I would point out that your argument falls flat when comparing against other topics such asCrazy Frog. Someone else also pointed out thatTime Cube has its own topic. This is far from receivingwidespread belief. Alternatively, I point you toBranch Davidian which has no widespread beliefs, but still retains its status in wikipedia. Instead, it has a warning stating that its neutrality is disputed. This seems to lean much more toward a neutral point of view than to simply delete the topic based on the bias of several AJAX-zealots and sockpuppets who were asked to defend AJAX against the competing specification presented with JAXASS. Your insistence on what is immodest is a matter of opinion. JAXASS is not an emerging truth as the technologies surrounding JAXASS have been available since 1998. If you consider a 7-year old technology to be emerging, you are mistaken.
  • delete, ormerge intoAJAX as alternatives. Especially since "JAXASS was created as a direct antagonist" to AJAX.Mmmbeer13:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An "initial call for opinions" does not equate to widespread acceptance. The difference between this and Betamax is that Betamax, though never widely used, has existed for years. This JAXASS, however, is being "defined as we speak". --Several Times14:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research defended by sockpuppets.Dunc|☺14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep There were no sockpuppets harmed in the making of these edits. (this comment byUser:65.23.106.77)
    • comment Widespread acceptance has never been a good critieria to be against anything. Extermination of the chrisitians and jews was not widely accepted -- particularly by the christians and jews, but that didn't make the holocaust not exist. Just becauseyou don't believe in something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
  • Delete Not yet notable and the article is pure POV to the point of being a soapbox. "techno-weenie?" NOT encyclopedic! Whether AJAX should be listed is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a forum for hashing out standards or conducting software holy-wars.Robert A West15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment see my comments below concerning being encyclopedic. The standard is not being hashed out here. Its being hashed out between several individuals at www.jaxass.org. This isn't a holy-war either and I resent your use of that term in light of today's political climate. People lose their lives in holy-wars. Apple and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Sun and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Just because its contested does not call for its removal and exile.
  • From the author's page: "Obviously the specification is yet to be written". vapour-concept.DeleteDJ Clayworth15:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you show me the manuals forJavaOS? hmm, no? What about the software specifications for [Singularity (operating system)]? no? Not having a specification means nothing in context of being encyclopedic about technology.
  • Delete Not yet an established concept. Not yet worthy of an encyclopedia article.Gregmg16:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, non-existent (except asvaporware, and an attack page. Defender is also abusing the VfD system, link spamming related pages and posting highly POV commments re this page. --Icelight 16:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, vaporware, attack page.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment please see my comments about vaporware below.
  • Delete So what if someone put a name to it. AJAX is much more friendlier of a name than XMLHTTP (bleh). AJAX is something that people are actually using. If anything, put this as a footnote to AJAX because that's all it is. —(Unsigned comment by24.167.224.238; user's1st edit.)
  • keep What does the above comment have to do with the merrits of this article? You may agree with the naming of AJAX instead of XMLHTTP, but that doesn't negate the existence of JAXASS. — (duplicate vote)
  • Strong delete, neologism/original research plus abuse of process.Dcarrano 17:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, this is no more neologic than any other acronym when it was originally created. SNMP, SMTP, AJAX, BASIC, COBOL, HTTP, HTML, XML, XAML, AWK, SED, and the list goes on. These were all new at one point and are noteworthy. —(Yet another duplicate vote bySleepnomore.)
  • keep So something being vaporware is a cause for deletion? We need to delete all of these , and many more then too:Windows VistaWinFSProject XanaduDuke Nukem ForeverPhantom Gaming System. Simply because something is still in development does not mean it deserves deletion.— (duplicate vote)
  • Delete. "JAXASS is currently in infancy and its specifications are yet to be released."Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is precisely the kind of article at which that policy is directed. When it has been released and a good case can be made for its importance and its notability, we can consider an article on it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting projects, however worthy, that are "in infancy."Dpbsmith(talk)19:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The request to delete this article does not lean toward a neutral point of view. Deleting this article would be strictly one-sided -- favoring AJAXians. I'm willing to concede that this article can use some cleanup and will continue to maintain this article as the project rolls forward. I'm also willing to remove links to this topic from AJAX until such time as adoption is more widespread. While the acronym for this project is somewhat farcical, the concepts behind this technology far outweighs that of AJAX and other similar projects/technologies that have undisputed mention on Wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by [[User:65.23.106.77|65.23.106.77)
  • We're not votingdelete because of objections to the term, or of the name of the article, or of the technology itself, or of you as an editor. We're votingdelete because we find that the technology is not suited for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being a term and technology that is not of widespread use or knowledge. That being said, I votedelete as well.Scott511421:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, please don't vote more than once - comments added after your original vote should start withComment.Scott511421:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My sincerest appologies. I am new to the voting concept. I have since gone back and re-read the voting guidelines. Thanks for pointing my mistake out, however. I took the lead from Sleepyhead who voted twice, so I assumed this was the way to respond. It is my fault for assuming anything.
  • commentI understand the apprehension at the existence of this topic in the encyclopedia. Several arguments revolve around the technology being vaporware or in its infancy. Those issues have been addressed by pointing out other vaporware topics listed in wikipedia. Others have argued that the idea isn't widespread enough to exist in the online encyclopedia. I argue once again that other projects such asJavaOS andSingularity (operating_system) exist on Wikipedia that aren't widespread because it doesn't exist. One could argue that while JavaOS is vaporware, the Java language is not. Or that while the C# operating system doesn't exist, it's technological foundations do. Is that not the case withJAXASS? The technical foundations exist, but the concept is still being developed -- just as many other wikipedia-listed topics are. This topic is being hotly contested, in my opinion by a COS (call-for-sockpuppets). Its also being slightly contested because its a direct competitor of AJAX which is obviously well-liked by those of you voting for deletion. While I can sympathize with your plight, the widespread propaganda flair-up of one technology does not negate the need for clarification of another.
  • keep The request to delete this is silly. This is a really cool concept and am looking forward to working with it. I know more than a few other Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals other than myself that are very excited about this and it definitely should be kept
  • delete This is one guy with an ax to grind trying to use Wikipedia as his platform.
    • comment Just because something came into existence for reasons you disapprove of does not mean it shouldn't exist. One could argue that the wordnigger appears in the encyclopedia because someone has an axe to grid with a race. You could make the argument thatHitler appears here because one guy was very anti-semetic -- having an axe to grind with Jews. Java itself came from one guys hatred of a conglomeration of of tools.
"Patrick Naughton, an engineer at Sun, had become increasingly frustrated with the state of Sun's C++ and C APIs and tools."
Having an axe to grind doesn't disqualify something from its useful place on Wikipedia.
All of you are reaching at this point. No one has made a valid, unemotional case for deletion of this topic. At best, you can now join me in editing this topic to match the current state of the technology and help me maintain the topic as it grows in popularity.
  • comment The term encyclopedic keeps popping up, so lets define that from[15]
Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
Variant(s): also en·cy·clo·pae·dic /-'pE-dik/
Function: adjective
of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : COMPREHENSIVE <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>
How can you suggest comprehensive coverage without inclusion of terms so consequential to the industry. 50 years from now, when someone looks back at wikipedia, how can they get the full picture without inclusion of this term?
Alternatively, lets define encyclopedic from the very system we are debating on:
Encyclopedia - An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written [compendium] of [knowledge].
compendium - A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system.
knowledge - Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.
Based on this, your own definition of encyclopedia claims to be comprehensive - containing the full body of knowledge. And by knowledge, we are to include something such as JAXASS, which, in isolation is of lesser valueinyour opinion.
This is no different than the work of [Galileo]. This is a hotly contested and widely controversial topic. Many refuse to have it published as it goes against the core of what you believe in -- despite having truth and backhand support from many true technological intellectuals. And now you hold a 5-day inquisition where I'm forced to try to defend myself simply because I published a truth that you don't care to hear. As cardinals in the inquisition, you would have been threatening [Galileo] with torture until he begged for forgiveness and recanted his findings.
You state this isn'tencyclopedic, but I say wikipedia isn't encyclopedic without [JAXASS] as a topic that will continue to expand in the next few months and years to come.
  • deleteWikipedia is not a soapbox specifically states that Wikipedia articles are not for "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words." I believe this should in itself be enough support for deletion, with no further discussion, but so much more support can be found atWhat wikipedia is not
  • comment And the fact that AJAX was defined a month after being posted on a blog, and before widespread adoption of the word was in place doesn't bother you? There was no hot contestation of that term as it was placed on wikipedia. The original idea wasn't posted on wikipedia. The original idea was conceived locally between several technology professionals, manifested on my blog, and only then brought to the forefront in [wikipedia]. I'm not proposing a new solution here, the solution is already proposed on my blog. This topic is here, just as any other piece of knowledge, to make wikipedia comprehensive. Also, we are not defining terms here. This topic details the information known about an existing technology. --Sleepnomore
  • comment why even discuss this, this article arguably falls underCriteria for Speedy Deletion: it's short and insulting. Just look at the first external link: AJAX = FRAUD. This goes beyond insulting, its defamatory and possibly grounds for legal action. If the author wants to leave himself open to that on his own blog, that's his own business, but, without looking at the specific criteria, it seems to me that exposing a third party to such risk should be grounds for not just deleting the article, but banning the user
    • comment how about you not post that anonymously? I do post this on my own blog and I would dare anyone to find some grounds to file suit against me for posting about a project that was concieved in response to the termAJAX. Anyone can be sued for anything. That's both a good and bad concept of many legal systems. I could sue wikipedia for censorship and harrasment based on this very topic, and I believe many of the points I've made give those charges good grounding. I wont do it. I'd prefer to just show how assinine many of you are by proving you wrong over the next few months. Based on that, sure, I could be sued too, but that doesn't give it grounds and that isn't a reason for deletion from wikipedia.
      • comment censorship and harassment?!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
        • comment Actually, if I had intended that as a threat, I can see how you would consider that to be troll bait, but it was used in contrast to your actualized trollbaiting -- stating that I should be sued and banned for simply making a topic based on the new technology JAXASS. Your accusation of troll baiting, therefor doesn't fit me. HOwever, what does fit you is the termWikipedia:Sock puppet. Noting that your IP address hasn't posted on any topics other than this or/or vandalism of another page (AJAX).--Sleepnomore
          • comment If I'm trollbait, how come I reeled YOU in, considering how you read way too much into my posts. I don't think you should be sued, but I think you are unnecessarily putting yourself into a position where you could be. Your accusation of sock puppeteering is hard to support, considering I haven't used an alternate identity to vote twice on this page: rather, it is to protect myself against possible reprisal by you. You've never threatened such agaisnt anybody, but you seem that unstable to me. On the other hand, your accusation of page vandalism is entirely baseless but not entirely unexpected, and, in my opinion, is yet something else to consider when wikipedia considers not only removing your inane article, but also banning you, which may well follow. Friendly advice dude: you are NOT going to win.
            • comment Fair enough. I wish you luck, but if I "don't win", neither does the community that won't be able to find information out about JAXASS from wikipedia. In that aspect, you are right, I don't win, and neither does anyone else if this topic is deleted.
  • Delete Google returns only 11 hits for JAXASS ajax. Recreate the article if the term ever becomes popular.Rrreese00:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Time Cube has better proof of its existence than JAXASS does. Take your petty battles to Usenet.
    • comment Which, of course, has its own wikipedia topic (Time Cube)
  • Delete - irrelevant, definitely original "research", POV advocacy or marketing, sockpuppets, not to mention unnecessary hyberbolic comments -Skysmith09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notion exists; the ideas, although vague, at least have the right to exist. I'd suggest to return and reconsider it in a year or two. --Vlad Patryshev21:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Clearly this article should be deleted.

"Wikipedia is not a democracy". All issues brought up by those voting to delete have been addressed with comments and are invalid reasons for deletion. Several topics of similar circumstances exist without contestation on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead8112:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. Clearly this topic should remain. --Sleepnomore
  • comment. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but"The votes are a means to gauge consensus", and the consensus is indisputably and overwhelmingly for deletion. Especially considering that you are incorrect in asserting that "all issues....have been addressed". For instance,"NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". In order to assure a neutral point of view, in my opinion you would have to significantly rewrite the article. Bear in mind, this just seems to be the one objection you haven't attempted to refute. You've addressed most of the other objections, but obviously not to anybody's satisfaction but your own. I don't even think you'd find consensus for a rewrite, but that might be one compromise approach you could pursue.
    • comment. This from the same guy who vandalized the page and then tried to put it back as he found it? A neutral point of view is definitely possible with this topic should we start discussing the changes rather than deleting information simply because you like another technology better. I said it before (see below) and I'll say it again, I'm willing to come up with a neutral solution that better suits the needs of those around, but I'm not willing to concede that deletion is the appropriate response to this topic. --Sleepnomore
      • comment. NPOV has to do with articles themselves. You don't like what I have to say, so you attack me. It's a microcosm of your whole JAXASS concept. Can we expect a Wikipedia article from you about every single thing you dislike? Where does it stop?
        • comment I haven't attacked anyone or what they have to say. This article isn't JUST about my not likingAJAX. The fact that this is how the technology started was important to the article about the technology so I included it. Due to criticism from this procedure, I've parred that aspect of the technology down on the page. And, no, I don't expect you to see an article about everyone's opinion -- that's what blogs and rant pages are for. However, when that criticism becomes a competing technology, it is noteworthy. --Sleepnomore
          • comment To me it seems like you are trying real hard to seem reasonable and say the right things, but your actions contradict your words. Your tendency for insisting on having the last word, for instance, to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV, try as you might.
            • comment I make no appologies for defending the topic, nor for stating what needs to be said when false accusations are made. If that requires me to respond to every comment provided in this delete request, so be it.--Sleepnomore
              • comment Case in point. Nobody's making "accusations". This, and your sweeping characterization of same as "false" continue to demonstrate your seeming inability to adopt NPOV
                • comment The very nature of attaching possessive pronouns to negative connotation with myself, rather than the article, acting as the anticedent is accusatory by its very definition. If you believed otherwise, your second observation in the foregoing comment would not have been necessary. I have no objection to the accusations provided they are accompanied with outright claim and admittance so long as my recriminations are also indulged. Backhanded aggression doesn't help your argument, however. You continue to make my point that this process, at least for this topic, is close if not spot-on absurd. I can defend the merrits of the topic all day, but remarks such as, "to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV" continue to lean towards clarvoyance which is definitely out of my area of expertise. If we could get this discussion away from your psychological assessments about my future behavior, and back to the topic at hand, I think you'll find that I'm extremely reasonable with regard to how the article is prsented. I've already made some modification based on comments here. While I can promise nothing about personality disorders you attribute to me, I will be more than happy to continue the pattern of effective and constructive modification in regards to the article. --Sleepnomore

Please take this back-and-forth somewhere else, such as user talk pages. This discussion is for the article, not for disputes between users.android79 03:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • comment. Actually it's been kind of fascinating to see the one and only proponent of this article "in action" as it were.
  • comment Please add comments at the end of the article. This vote for deletion is for the entire article - not specific items in the article. --Sleepyhead8119:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment much like the deletion for your companies advertisement was called for deletion but failed for whatever reason. Clearly you lost that vote 3 to 0 but the article . I'm replacing my comment at the top so its clearly visible to the administrator and replacing the comment type as rewrite --Sleepnomore
  • Keep Is there even one valid argument against it? It's every bit as valid as so many other items here, I honestly can't believe that deleting it is being debated this hotly. -- Vote by user24.214.184.231
    • comment Unfortunately this is yet another time you are wrong. This was not a vote by me
      • comment. Funny how that user also added a link to your blog as well. The user was:[16]. --Sleepyhead8115:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Which if your ever-so astute mind would pay attention, I speedily removed. If you look at the talk page for JAXASS, you'll see why. You continue to be wrong and grasp at straws. You've reverted to playing a guess-who's-who game rather than debate your ideas for deleting this topic. You still fail to make a valid point. I would also point out that before I even started this topic on wikipedia, I looked upAJAX and saw someone placed an external link to my blog before I decided to post my own article about the topic. While I didn't add that blog post to the links section initially, I later returned and modified this entry so it looked cleaner. If you'll note in the AJAX history since my AJAX=FRAUD blog came out, there have been several posts to that page that made the same argument I did. Such as "ajax is not a new approach"-[User:12.33.211.29], "what this link said" -[User:219.95.215.178], "Definitelly not new to us, we have used in various interactive tasks including server-push (experimental implementation of publisher subscribe)." - [User:63.166.226.84], etc. I suppose you would attribute all of those to me as well. But once again, you'd be wrong. I find it funny that you are even acting in this capacity to ask that a topic be deleted when you have overzealously used Wikipedia as your own advertising platform -- adding links to 247 office everywhere that you possibly could. Wikipedia is not your personal opportunity to put up ads for your company.Sleepnomore 00:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I can't see there has been a rewrite of the article. Only minor changes has been done. Besides, this vote for deletion is regarding whether 'JAXASS' should be included in wikipedia or not. --Sleepyhead8115:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Obviously no community support for this. One person using wikipedia to try to gain legitimacy for a non-notable idea. Vote byUser 80.58.11.107.
    • comment so far, I've managed to gain the support of at least 4 people with myself. -Sleepnomore
  • delete Honestly you can't expect to be taken seriously with that offensive name jaxass...85.101.166.18118:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I don't expect anything other than to create a technology. Its up to you to take the name for what its worth. If it makes you sleep any better, one of the most well-feared/respected remote adimiinstration products was namedBack Orifice and it had a very offensive name and logo.Sleepnomore 22:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • comment Respected? You sound like a hacker. A trojan horse may deserve an article just as a disease does. Is your product in that category? On second thought, I don't wanna mess with you now that my IP is exposed.
  • comment. Can someone please make a decision on this vote? Sleepnomore is not only advocating his point of view but has now began repetitive vandalism of this page by adding his comment at the top of the page. New comments go at the end of the article. --Sleepyhead8118:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs alot of work, but it should exist. Mark it with a "Current Events" tag. Edit it yourself if you feel that a biased POV is being introduced. Perhaps this article and other articles like AJAX need to be merged into an article about the ongoing development of this sort of software (I don't know what term to use, and I don't care, because VFD pages are about the merits of the article as an encyclopia entry,not the viability of the subject matter of the article). If we delete this article, what happens when a user out there in the world comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, which he or she encountered in some other context? Users are developing a reasonable expectation of finding reliable information about a wide range of topics here. When no article exists for a topic, they end up disappointed. We should seek not to disappoint. I say keep this article, but bring it up to standard. Deleting is so permanent. If you wonder what my credentials are to support this opinion, I have a BA in History and am an U.S. Army officer engaged in the defense of freedom (location immaterial) that makes it possible for projects like Wikipedia to exist. I would like to see some of thedelete proponents state their bona fides so that we can evaluate how much weight to give their opinion on this structure-of-the-Wikipedia discussion (as compared to the propensity to discuss the relative merits of JAXASS, JAVA, et.al.). And lets remember toassume good faith --Mddake23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • rewrite I've modified the contents of this article over the past few days. I've removed several of the objectionable items and added additional material.Sleepnomore 17:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Since adding this comment Sleepyhead81 has vandalized it four times (see history). He has removed this comment and changed the text of it in all cases. Furthermore, my article was completely wiped by him and it had to be restored by someone else. This has gotten out of hand. This article deserves to stay and the VfD needs to be removed immediately.Sleepnomore 21:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • comment. You can make comments and state your view - but please do not lie. I have never wiped out the JAXASS article. This vote for deletion page follows thetalk page guidelines which specifically says: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made.". So your comment should go at the bottom of this page. Please do not move it to the top as it is against the guidelines. --Sleepyhead8107:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment - I'm no more lying about your wiping the page than you are lying about other contributors. My page was wiped twice by an anonymous IP. I can speculate it was you just the same as you can openly speculate that the other "keep" comments are my sockpuppets. In the spirit of NPOV, I'll keep my comment down here although I highly disagree with your agressive edits. In the future, if you have a problem with my wiki-behavior, I suggest you use my talk page and 'REQUEST' that I change the behavior, citing wikipedia policy with links.Sleepnomore 08:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
          • comment***** Hey Jaxass - yeah YOU. I deleted your bs page, knowing that it would get automatically restored instantaneously because this IP address is banned from deleting. You accusing someone else is just par for the course. You have proven yourself not only to be unwilling to listen to reason, but also to be unable to recognize it. You are obviously on a crusade and to not delete YOUR article (yes, yours, and only yours) is to let wikipedia go to the dogs, so to speak.
  • Strong Delete - it's a software project whose offical website doesn't even provide a way to download the code - this is not notable. Come back when you have 1000 users.JesseW09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - AJAX itself was created a month after Garrett "coined the term". It wasn't notable, it didn't have 1000 users (at least not calling it AJAX), and didn't have a download. Once again, a swing and a miss at a real reason to delete this entry.Sleepnomore 13:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • comment*** "swing and a miss", condescending and POV
  • Delete. Self-promotion, premature. --Michael Snow03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Original research. Self-promotion. --213.179.58.2908:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasno consensus (again).Eugene van der Pijll19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport cricket club (again)

[edit]

Previous vfd atWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club. Votes 11-7 in favour of deleting. Its author (Jimmyb (talk ·contribs) aka62.252.192.9 (talk ·contribs) (though I think the latter is a shared IP)) even recognised its utter non-importance and even requested that it should be deleted[17], and was clearly just arsing around with it anyway.[18]. If that isn'tconsensus, though I don't know what is. (This I think has a quite a lot to do with the fact that I vote on the merits of school articles rather than automatically voting keep).

To clarify: This is a small cricket club, which there are thousands like throughout the country. We lackdepth on the subject; we have articles on each of theCounty Championship sides, but theMinor counties (the next level down) are just listed - and onlyCambridgeshire has an article. It sits like a thorn incategory:English cricket right next to theMCC!. It gets110 Google hits, none of which reveals a website.Dunc|☺12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if you think "11-7" isconsensus, you obviouslydon't know what it is.Kappa12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd like to see a reference to it, and it should be atStockport Cricket Club - but it passes the (admittedly very low) WP notability threshold. As far as lack of website is concerned - if you have a look atList of current first-class cricket teams you'll see that many major clubs lack a website,jguk12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But no cricket club without a website has an article... It is also different for Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Indies where use of the Web for such things is far less. Incidentally, this article is never going to be verifiable, simply because there is no possible reference.smoddy13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already gone through VFD, too early for renomination.Sjakkalle(Check!)12:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel I need to explain the structure of English cricket. At the top level, there is the County Championship. This is equivilent to the Premiership. There are 18 counties. In addition, there is a minor counties championship, perhaps equivilent to football's lower professional leagues. Very few players in minor counties cricket are professional. Then, below that, is league cricket. These are Saturday afternoon cricketers. This is where Stockport is. Now, there is no promotion between these levels. Therefore, Stockport cricket club cannever become any more notable than they are today. I understand that the previous keep was on account of people not really understandingquite how insignificant this club is...smoddy13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand perfectly well, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover clubs like this. This should not have been renominated.CalJW15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I undeleted it because 11-7 is not consensus for anything, and the original poster has no right to ask for it to be automatically deleted if other people have also edited the article. I have no opinion on whether this should be allowed so soon after the first vfd debate, or on the article itself. --Francs2000 |Talk13:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: with "club members who died in both World Wars", it must at least be nearly a century old, which possibly speaks in its favour.Uppland13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, equivalent to a not particularly notable local business.Dcarrano 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be of at best local notability.DES18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability.Nandesuka19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps vanity from a Mr. M. Short? Not notable. -R. fiend20:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge withStockport. The information is somewhat useful, I feel, but it does feel a bit odd sitting on its own.Sam Vimes22:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orMerge withStockport. --Calton |Talk 00:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established.JamesBurns04:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again, both for the reason cited at the previous VfD and for the reason that therewas a previous VfD not so long ago. --Jonel |Speak15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe your original reasoning was "cricket clubs are inherently notable", though it would be interesting to see you justify and elaborate on that comment. The previous vfd ended in "no consensus".Dunc|☺16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony has pointed out the verifiability of such clubs. It is trivial to make the articles NPOV. Uppland has noted that the clubs typically have a great deal of longevity, including the one in question. If those qualities are not enough to create an assumption of noteworthiness that must be overcome in order for me to agree with deletion, I don't know what qualities would be. Also, if people went through and re-nominated every article that finished VfD as "no consensus" (or worse,deleted the article anyway as you did with this one), VfD would be an even more aggravating place to spend time than it is now. I hope you're not really suggesting that articles be nominated time after time until they reach consensus. --Jonel |Speak23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. If our cricket coverage lacks depth, we will achieve that depth by writing more cricket club articles, not deleting the few that we have. --Tony Sidaway|Talk17:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, about half-notable clubs. This article can never be verified, because no sources exist. The club will never become even remotely notable. This isn't just a "lower division" club. This is a "right down the bottom of the scale" club. Improving our cricket coverage will never, I repeat, never, encompass this sort of article.[[smoddy]]19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a cricket club. It's simply incorrect to say that it isn't possible to write a verifiable article.Cheshire Cricket Board lists the club's name and a contact name and address, and gives match summaries involving the club's teams. It isn't a prestigious county club but it's active in local league. If someone wants to write about it, I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed it does appear to be in Cheshire rather than Lancs. However I count about 56 clubs in Chesh. plus 12 unafilliated clubs. There are 53 traditional counties in England and Wales, so we're saying that you've just requested about 3000 rather mundane and difficult to verify articles, whilst bearing in mind thatCheshire County Cricket Club itself doesn't have one yet.Dunc|☺20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whether Cheshire County Cricket Club has an article or not is irrelevant. When someone wants to write an article about it, an article would be written. Just because no one has yet isn't a good reason to delete other articles. --Jonel |Speak23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're discussing whether to deletethis article, not whether a further 3,000 articles should be written. If someone wants to write a verifiable article about a small cricket club, I personally have no problem with that. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local sports clubs generally aren't notable.Radiant_>|< 19:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable.Squash08:49, 27 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Scientific knowledge in the Quran

[edit]

Listed for a speedy as "very controversial and lack of reliable references". Well, first of all we're not here to be politically correct, and second of all it refers to three sources. And so, barring any other easy method, I'm Vfding it. Enjoy. :)GarrettTalk12:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 of the sources are not necessarily reliable (and the Bucaille book is very controversial - even though I found it a great read and agreed with many points in it). In any case, I can live with a vfd. I created this article very recently, but I am doubting that it is worthy of article status (yet); my intention was to create a comprehensive article onIslam and science (does such an article, with a different name of course, already exist?) and possibly includesome of the contents in thescientific knowledge in the Quran article in that one. That's really why I want to delete this article. --Mpatel13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of Caliph Omar's destruction of the library provides the classical example of a dilemma: Omar is reported to have said that if the books of the library did not contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were useless and should be destroyed; if the books did contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were superfluous and should be destroyed.
Need more be said ?
Delete theentire 'paedia --Simon Cursitor14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Talk means trouble

[edit]

Apparent band vanity; 37 google hits from even fewer different websites.Joel768712:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tori Thompson

[edit]

Vanity.smoddy13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Adam poluzzi

[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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

`===Denim & Co .,Denim & Co.===See alsoWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Denim&Co. andWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big Bonanza Silver Day. (If by any chance the brand would deserve an article, it needs to be rewritten anyway.)Uppland14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasREDIRECT (already merged). -Splash02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty joke

[edit]

This is a dicdef at best. An extensive list of jokes or examples make make the article longer and more controversial, but not any more encyclopedic.Gblaz 14:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC). I still feel that a more proper title for such an article might be something more like "off-color humor", but I agree that the recent edits show that the article does have potential. So I would now consider this aWeak Keep assuming the expansion continues.Gblaz 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I honestly feel as though there's room to expand this, including discussing the history of "blue" or "off-colour" comedy.Dolemite,Richard Pryor,Andrew Dice Clay, and other "dirty" comedians could be referenced, and the concept of ananti-joke discussed in brief.jglc |t |c14:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I voted to deleteList of dirty jokes, but I can envision an article that discusses the psychology and sociology of off-color humor, and I have to believe there are peer-reviewed articles on that subject. If no one takes it up for six months or so, we can always reconsider.Robert A West15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I agree with above comments. —RJH15:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

ICFPS

[edit]

I suspect this is a vanity page. The original author was anonymous and appears to be the same asthe author, and the only page that links here is his page. I'd also say it could be nonnotable.Jdavidb14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Eugene van der Pijll19:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of euphemisms

[edit]

Although I have edited this article, and although nearly all the edits made have been in good faith, I am of the opinion that it cannot be upgraded to a good-quality article. Specifically, this article has the following inherent problems.

Wikipedia is not a collection of lists: This is, perforce, a list, and can never be made much else. The list can never be exhaustive, nor really more than randomly selective.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: To the extent that this topic is notable, it should contain instances of first or notable use and/or other information suitable to a dictionary.

Information should beverifiable: nearly all the information in these lists (my edtis included) are unsourced. To the extent that the information can be verified from common experience, it is notnotable.

A huge number of the entries have been, and remain asoapbox, causingPOV problems. The difficulty is that the distinction betweeneuphemism andjargon is inherently subjective, rendering this topic inherentlyPOV.

Accordingly, I believe that deletion is the best solution, but I would be happy to be proven wrong and see a proposal for turning this into an encyclopedic article or an appropriatetranswiki.Robert A West14:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasredirect.Eugene van der Pijll19:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism and War

[edit]

This page is very simply not Wiki material, I think. It reads like a paragraph or so of semi-original research and isn't on a encyclopedia subject. I suppose if you really wanted to be charitable you could call it a dicdef.Endersdouble14:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. No transwiki. --Tony SidawayTalk15:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of dirty jokes

[edit]

Unencyclopedic.--BMIComp(talk,HOWS MY DRIVING)14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected content.Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Y Combinator

[edit]

Not-notable and advertising -Dv 14:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to theY combinator/Y Combinator redirect question: Note thatY combinator is already (properly) a redirect toFixed point combinator -- it has the correct capitalization for a Wikipedia article about the combinator itself, whereasY Combinator has the correct capitalization for an article about the company. There is also disambiguation text at the top to refer people to theFixed point combinator article. There are currently no inaccurate links to the article about the company. I would also be perfectly happy with a move toY Combinator (company) if disambiguation appears to be an issue. --Schoen05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete andredirect. I would argue that they are notable only because sites like Slashdot keep talking about them. The way I see it is:
Graham wrote two books on the programming language Lisp and created a store (in lisp) which he subsequently sold to Yahoo! (I believe they then switched to another application written in C, giving the reason that they couldn't find enough experienced Lisp programmers, but I'm unable to find references). He writes rants, but nobody in the industry or academia seems to take take them seriously (Lisp, or rather Scheme, is usually used only to teach programming. Most of the research is done with typed functional languages like ML and Haskell, and most of the "real work" is done with established imperative languages). He says that he will create a language called Arc and it will be the best thing ever, but he has yet to produce anything.
Morris accidentally created the first internet virus, and later became a small-time academic.
I don't see how these two people make an apparently vapor-ware company notable. -Dv 07:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The company isn't vaporware, it's currently running 10 startups.
Morris is not famous merely because of Slashdot fandom. He is frequently cited (and not just for the worm) in computer security circles.Gazpacho01:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Adams Continuum

[edit]

I don't agree that every fansite should have an entry in Wikipedia; this strikes me as advertising. There's no good reason why the DAC should be singled out for having its own entry.JohnDBuell |Talk14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As noted in theTalk:Douglas Adams Continuum page, the "official" douglasadams.com site, maintained by the company Adams helped establish in the 1990s, isn't updated much anymore, nor does it have an active forum, and hasn't since Adams died. Perhaps if ANYTHING were to be merged back intoDouglas Adams it would be the info on the various fan sites from that talk page, presented in a way so as not to appear like site advertising. --JohnDBuell |Talk22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fansite per above. It's got its link inDouglas Adams, which is good enough.Dcarrano 17:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cynergi Fleet

[edit]

Delete Non-notable RPG. Google reports exactly 2 non repeated hits for "Cynergi Fleet"[19], with the other 2500 being repeats on the same forum, which is now a dead link. Unless notability can be shown, this sshould go.Icelight 15:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Elvis preston king

[edit]

Ithink it's vanity. May be a hoax.smoddy15:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Eugene van der Pijll19:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decryption matrix

[edit]

There does not appear to be a notable concept by this name, as far as I can gather. The term is used a few times on pages indexed by Google, but they nearly all mean a different thing to what is described here. The only place is[20], but I would suggest their assertion that "a decryption matrix [is] a common device in codebreaking" is an error. There would seem to be no evidence of this concept outside that page, and I've never come across it in the literature. There was aprevious VfD to keep, but that was based on the belief that this was a genuine concept, which would appear not to be the case.— MattCrypto16:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak deleteThis is a placeholder vote. I'm going to research the topic when I get home tonight. I'll let you know what I come up with, and expand the article as/if needed -Harmil16:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped at the local tech bookstore and abused their resources in order to peruse the most authoritative books I could find. I'd already leafed throughApplied Cryptography at work, of course, but it doesn't deal with attacks against crypto except from the standpoint of assuring the security of a given algorithm. So, I paged through 4 or 5 of the books that were more of the accademic sort and less of the "teach yourself how to use a crypto library in 10 seconds". I'm crypto-savvy, but no expert, so it's possble that I missed something, but I found no references in the index or ToC to this term. I paged through the sections that looked most promissing in one or two of the texts as well. Unless someone can come up with a sound definition that actually parses well, I'm all for deleting. -Harmil21:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be real. --Carnildo23:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The definition is wrong (a matrix of the form described is sometimes used in cryptanalysis but this is not termed the decryption matrix). However this is a real term used in decryption, specifically with respect to theHill cipher, a family of cryptographic algorithms based on invertible matrices. K. Gopalakrishnan, Associate Professor of Computer Science at East Carolina University, set an exam in which students are required to compute the decryption matrix of a hill cipher[21]. This document is based on an original produced by Ross Moore of McQuarie University and Nikos Drakos of University of Leeds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you would normally use the term "decryption matrix" in the context of the Hill cipher, but that's not what this article is discussing at all. You could, I suppose, write a new article from scratch that defines a decryption matrix with respect to the Hill cipher, but it's not a particularly special or separate concept from the Hill cipher itself, and wouldn't ever be much of an article.— MattCrypto18:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. Changed vote:delete. --Tony SidawayTalk15:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the definition is entirely bogus. A new article could be written on the real definition, but this article is flatly wrong - it's like having thebanana entry tell you that bananas are a type of mammal.Xaa03:56, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

You know you have no life when

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. --pile0nadestalk |contribs16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Failure to comply

[edit]

Band with no records.DJ Clayworth16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 need to list - user page only --Francs2000 |Talk18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Almafeta/Furry/Archive1

[edit]

The current Furry article has been moved to Furry Fandom and vandalized by Encyclopedia Dramaticans. I created Furry/Archive1 because I needed a copy of the original article to go into a bibliography of a book I am publishing. However, five minutes after the archive was created,User:Francs2000 moved it to my userspace, and deleted the redirect. Well, I can't exactly put a page in my own userspace in the bibliography...Almafeta16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately you can't archive in main namespace either. The only thing I can suggest is to reference an older version of the article, but this will result in a very long internet address. As the creator of this archive you can request for it to be deleted: it doesn't have to go through this lengthy process as you are the only person who has edited the main content of the article. --Francs2000 |Talk16:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 06:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Psychord

[edit]

Delete FailsWP:MUSIC test for notability. Admits that he hasn't had anything released, has no other claims.Icelight 17:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Red's Eats

[edit]

Delete. Wikispam. —Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Tally: Keep:Assdl,Firespeaker, IJzeren Jan,Elemtilas,BenctPhilipJonsson, Oldak Quill,SamuelRiv. Delete: Ishwar, Angr,Dhasenan, JamesBurns,Dewrad, Mikkalai, Pne, Wile E. Heresiarch, Prosfilaes, Mustafaa, Trilobite, Muke Tever, Jim Henry, Almafeta. Not counting users with fewer than 100 edits, there are 2 keep and 12 delete.Wile E. Heresiarch15:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aingeljã

[edit]
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an art gallery. The other articles on conlangs may not be appropriate either. I am not singling you out for any reason — I merely noticed that you added Aingeljã numbers to the numbers article. Maybe there is a conlang wiki somewhere where you can display your art. Thank you. –ishwar  (speak) 15:07, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I am a conlanger and support efforts to make conlanging more widely known, Wikipedia is not the place for this content. Instead, individual conlangs should be documented in personal sites and linked to from Wikipedia. (I also assert that articles such asThe Scream should be combined with the articles related to their creators, unless the artist in question is sufficiently prolific to make it difficult to find information in that format.)
I thinkThe Scream is a prime example of why we shouldn't combine them with the author; you don't need to know who paintedThe Scream to be familiar with the painting, and there are many reinterpretations of the painting that stand independent of the original artist. You can be interested in The Scream without caring about Edward Munch. --Prosfilaes21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the article is OK here, as it only shows a summary of the summary of the summary of the Grammar ofAingeljã. Anyone who finds it interesting can learn more at the official website. However, in order to guarantee that it isn't deleted, I can rewrite the contents of the article, if the majority of Wikipedians votes so. But I think that, as far as this conlang exists today and anybody can study it or read about it somewhere else, there's no reason to delete it here. I'm an enthusiastic Wikipedian user and I'd be completely disappointed with Wikipedia if this article, and those about other artistic conlangs, were deleted. Don't get confused about anauxilanguage likeEsperanto, which tries to help the communication between people, and anartlang, which is a personal work of art, modest and humble after all. Pleasekeep the article.Assdl14:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article,Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form. Though I disagree with the terminology "professional" v. "amateur" (I really don't think Syldavian counts as a professional conlang, as it's merely part of a corpus of literature), there is quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. -- Specific to the query below, "I really don't understand why you don't like my article about Aingeljã" I don't think the problem has to do with style or contents of the article itself. The problem is that the Wikipedia isn't the appropriate location for the article. A conlang related Wiki would be more appropriate, and that article could easily by linked to fromArtistic language.Elemtilas
As pieces of art, they deserve articles in the same situation as any other pieces of art. There's no reason to not include an article just because it's a conlang. --Prosfilaes21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not against this in principle. My position isn't really that this conlang or that does notdeserve an article, the question is really whether itwarrants an article. Wikipedia describes itself as striving to offer the internet public what they could otherwise get in a paper encyclopedia but is also kept up to the minute. Generally speaking, authoritative encyclopedias don't cover fictional worlds and similar works of art (unless they are famous). It can (and should) certainly cover the art of conlanging or conculturing; I think it's quite sufficient, given the purpose and scope of the project, to link to an external article about a conlang or conculture.Elemtilas
But that's a lousy description of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia offers the public a depth and richness that no paper encyclopedia reaches.Krypto is an article that no general paper encyclopedia could afford to spend the paper on, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. We have the space and the power to be far more comprehensive than a paper encyclopedia and we historically have been far more comprehensive than a paper encyclopedia. --Prosfilaes21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lousy as that description may be, it is condensed from the articleWikipedia! If we can and should afford to keep around articles on Captain Kirk or Krypto, then by all means we should keep articles on Aingelja and Wenedyk.Elemtilas
  • Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged withConstructed languages orArtistic languages.Elemtilas
  • Delete, non-notable. -Mustafaa11:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for all of you who have complained about the extension and detail of the text, I've reduced considerably the article. I hope you'll like it more now. But if you still think it's a perfect candidate to deletion,please let me know what else I should change in order to keep it in Wikipedia. Thanks.Assdl14:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable conlang. —Trilobite (Talk)19:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.BenctPhilipJonsson19:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion onTalk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta'sconlang notability criteria toTalk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria orTalk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry |Talk16:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak delete. Closest tonotable is being 118 among top 100 languages in Langmaker. But dammit, I don't like this; the way the site is set up means it's a damn good work. A conlang policy would need to have some way of protecting pages like this one.Almafeta05:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I do not entirely agree with all your notability criteria, but I have to admit that you made an excellent beginning. Furthermore, I agree: Aingeljã's website is one of the best of its kind, but what I find an even more astonishing achievement is the 116 p. long grammar, written in the language itself! Even when theobjective criteria don't make a language notable, there should also be the possibility for an "I know when when I feel it" kind of exception. --IJzeren Jan07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from talk page

[edit]
copied fromUser talk:Ish_ishwar:
AboutAingeljã
Hi, I really don't understand why you don't like my article aboutAingeljã). This is anartistic personal constructed language, there is already a category in this Wikipedia about this kind of languages. This is a very short summary of the Grammar, which can be read thoroughly in the external links. In fact, I can't really understand why there are already articles aboutBreathanach,Brithenig,DiLingo,Enochian,Fyksland,Talossan language,Verdurian language,Wenedyk and many others, and there can't be an article about Aingelja.
I wait for instructions about what I should change in the article style, but I repeat that I can't understand your reaction.
Greetings,
Assdl12:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not article style, it is the notability of the topic.mikka(t)18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See alsoTalk:Aingeljã.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 |Talk01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in archaeology

[edit]

I listed a couple of the pages individually but I don't have the time or inclination to do them all. This sort of sub-listing of yearly events is totally unnecessary, especially considering the fact that a very small number of 'events' are actually listed. I would recommend of the deletion of this list and, at the very list, a redirect of all of the 'years in archaeology' articles to the article of the corresponding year. For example1707 in archaeology could be redirected to1707. -Soltak21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Overly contrived category with no relevant information. More an exercise in building a template than anything else. Any relevant events should be listed in their corresponding years. --Corto15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I remember when we had many such stubby and redlink heavy "years in" articles, many of which have grown considerably., but apparently we havn't had many editors interested in the history of archaeology yet. It's a valid topic with much room for expansion. If it is decided to delete this, I strongly reccomend consolodating the existing information somewhere, perhaps into an article entitled "Chronology of archaeology" or something similar, and thenredirect existing articles there. If no one cares to consolodate, I'd say leaving our current stublets is mostly harmless. --Infrogmation18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to consolidating the information into something such as "Important Dates in Archaeology." -Soltak22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. -Soltak17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
really? What is your definition of big and important? It is to me.WBardwin06:33, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 |Talk01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1952 in archaeology

[edit]

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by1952. At the very least, this should be redirected to1952 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with1952 in science, which already has a section for archaeology. -R. fiend18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep. Merging isn't sensible: archaeology isn't science. Why not have this article? Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm sure interesting things happened in the world of archaeology in 1952. This page might come in useful for some archaeologist of archaeology. Whyever delete it just because there aren't many events in it yet? A valid topic with room to expand indeed. Where else would one find a list of archaeological events of 1952? Give me a week or so and I'll dig out an archaeology journal from the 1950s and expand the article. If we do merge, and people like me add tons of stuff to it, someone will suggest splitting again. So why merge?Robinh21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeology isn't science? I'm really interested in understanding why you think that. I took a course in archaeology in college and it sure felt like science to me. -Soltak22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For those that don't feel Archaeology is a science I would direct his or her attention toArchaeology andArchaeological science. -Soltak23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 |Talk01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1707 in archaeology

[edit]

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains only one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by1707. At the very least, this should be redirected to1707 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Stageline

[edit]

Promotion for a product line by same company[23]. Maybe some rough editing could do something of it.Feydey18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Article is primarily composed of useless jargon and is fundamentally promotional in nature. Even extensive editing would only yield a more thickly veiled product advertisement. This page ought to be deleted.Yablohimself18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 06:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Homeirah

[edit]

I could likely claim speedy for little or no content, but I was kinda hoping that someone here would enlighten me as to who this is. All I'm getting on google is some link farms.Delete as the content is too minimal to even expand apon.humblefool®18:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 08:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Otto Olson

[edit]

Delete: not notable, not encyclopedic; only 3 Google hits.Johanus 18:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 |Talk01:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spill canvas

[edit]

Non-notable band.The Uninvited Co.,Inc.18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Socialist Occult Facism

[edit]

Probably a Hoax, certianly PoV. No sources cited; a sub-stub. Does not quite qualify for a speedy, however.DES18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Shock

[edit]

Biography, not notableThe Uninvited Co.,Inc.18:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 06:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hexa do

[edit]

It's a version ofSudoku that hasn't been verified by anyone yet. User is seeking validation via Wikipedia.DeleteFrancs2000 |Talk18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No hits in a Google search on"hexa do" sudoku.Chuck 19:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasredirect.Joyous(talk) 21:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Curved spacetime

[edit]

This article is sloppy, incomplete, and inaccurate. It's content is better covered in thegeneral relativity article, to which I suggest this article be redirected (as noted in my vote below). --EMS |Talk18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect togeneral relativityXaa03:47, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

AttentionTrust

[edit]

Notability not established. Possible vanity. Note that according to the external link provided, they haveno members! "AttentionTrust" only gets 3 Google hits.[24]Sonic Mew |talk to me 18:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Response: We are currently hosting the founding conference. The site will be up in the next few hours. If you would prefer us to hold back on this entry until then, we can comply. Thanks.(Unsigned response by69.120.235.87 (talk ·contribs))
  • Delete, vanity. If you're the ones founding this organization you shouldn't be the ones listing on Wikipedia. Wait till you've gotten media coverage, then someone unaffiliated with your group will add it if it's notable enough. --Angr/tɔktəmi19:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like self-promotion from another misguided person that believes a Wikipedia article begets notability, when it's really the other way around."Attention Trust" doesn't seem to find anything relevant either.Niteowlneils19:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would seem to me that if you just had the founding conference several hours ago, you can't possibly be worthy of an encyclopedia article yet.Aerion//talk04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion.JamesBurns04:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete premature. It strikes me that the notion of Attention Trust and the advocacy that goes with it is being formulated now, and there is a better way to attract attention to AttentionTrust. Later, it may be appropriate to tie into any Wikipedia treatment of social arrangements and protocols for internet-participating communities.Orcmid16:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably means well, but anybody can put up a website with this kind of empty sloganeering on it. Please come back when you have some record of accomplishment. --Michael Snow23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete premature. When AttentionTrust has adoption and a following it would be apropriate forsomeone else to establish a wikipeida entry.Cori.schlegel11:27, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Suitwanker

[edit]

I didn't nominate this article, it was nominated by some anon. However, he didn't create the vfd2 or vfd3 entries, so I'm doing that now. Also, I reformatted some of the votes already placed. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 18:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdeleted.Dmcdevit·t 07:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nice Easy And Tight

[edit]

Non-notable vanity.Sonic Mew |talk to me 19:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasno consensus. Suggestions to merge toUnification Church.Joyous(talk) 01:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

BCworld

[edit]

A web forum for young people from a particular religion. From the sounds of the description, it's not particularly notable.Francs2000 |Talk19:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Eugene van der Pijll19:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Connor-Davis

[edit]

Non-notable. Google "Liam O Connor Davis" says 186, but shows only 3[25], and no webpage referenced has an Alexa rank of less than 5 million. --Grev --Talk 19:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 00:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paula Throckmorton-Zakaria

[edit]

Being related to a famous person is not enough to be notable enough for one article. Only 79 Google hits[26] Normally, a merge would be alright here, except that the little information there is is already inFareed ZakariaSonic Mew |talk to me 19:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ñor

[edit]

Been transwikied, now needs deletion.humblefool®19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 21:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dan ellis

[edit]

Non-notable web cartoonist, probably self-promotion. The article itself sums it up pretty well: "He is not very well known on the internet, only gathering a few fans, but he hopes to be one day."Niteowlneils19:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasREDIRECT. There is no consensus to retain the content, so I have not merged it. It is available from the history if anyone wants it. -Splash02:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of subatomic particles

[edit]

Duplicates the existinglist of particles and is a much less mature version of it. The creator has been given ample time to move what worthwile text is there. (See thetalk page.) It is time toMerge/Redirect this page tolist of particles --EMS |Talk19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Lord of the Pens

[edit]

Web comic with 14 google hits.Gazpacho19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 08:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear

[edit]

del nonnotable expression, with verifiability problems. What is salvageable (and verifiable), may be moved intoVictor Hargreaves (if one existed indeed).mikka(t)19:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term is used when people see something out of the ordinary or strange. I personally see it used when events don't quite go to the speaker's advantage. "I'm afraid you've broken your leg." "Oh dear." I don't live in the North West of England, but I do live near it, and I have not heard it used for that purpose. This borders on dic-def anyway, sodelete.Sonic Mew |talk to me 19:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - More dictionary then encyclopedic. -Chairboy19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy deleted.GarrettTalk00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hye Sung Gehring andSungis

[edit]

The page is obvious vanity: lines such as "He became well known through xanga, myspace, BCworld, and other forum sites." and links to variousxanga sites andmyspace profiles don't help. This should be a speedyuserfy.jglc |t |c19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As perUser:Angr below,Speedy delete.jglc |t |c19:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has IMHO forfeited his right to userfy this page by removing VFD and Speedy labels and creating a sockpuppet. Justspeedy delete both articles. --Angr/t?kt?mi19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy toUser:Sungis.Craigy (talk) 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • UserfyDelete. I'd already begun to VfD this when another user suggestd speedy-delete, becuase it is apersonal page with not serious claim to notability. It's been re-recreated at least once. -Willmcw 19:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion 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 wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Clotheshorse

[edit]

Transwikied, now it comes here.humblefool®19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, and not a very accurate one either -Buuneko09:59, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Fatass

[edit]

No assertion of notability in the article and after a quick search I can only find 1 album release that doesn't seem to be widely ditributed at all. That being said,delete.Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, content has been merged withDairy Crest --Francs2000 |Talk01:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral City (cheese)

[edit]

Delete Cathedral City is a brand name for a cheddar cheese, seehttp://www.dairycrest.co.uk/opb/cheese/cathedralcity.shtml

Despite its manufacturer's hype, there are many many brands of cheddar, and this particular brand has no particular reason to be included and described as a "type" of cheese. Its not. If there was more content on this page, or some prospect of there being so, it might be a more reasonable entry.Francis Davey20:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake with the listing for deletion process. Hopefully some kind person will help me out. For a dyslexic person it was almost impossible to follow the process.Francis Davey20:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasALREADY DELETED, but byUser:Seglea. -Splash02:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner Construct Zero

[edit]

Original research. These constructs have no google presence outside ofhttp://www.markjoyner.name and don't seem to be well-knownDJ Clayworth20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Eugene van der Pijll19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VSPAN

[edit]

transwikied, listed here.humblefool®20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term refers to a feature of aCisco Systems product. Not encyclopedic.Buuneko10:19, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Eugene van der Pijll19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cacat

[edit]

This article is, um, cacat.humblefool®20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Deleted.GarrettTalk01:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzat Gabriel

[edit]

Non-notable, google search finds no hits. Article does not seem to indicate any notability, just a biography of sortsGblaz 20:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy deleted.GarrettTalk00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy charrison

[edit]

Based on the current article I would say that this guy is not notable.Thue |talk20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion 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 wasALREADY DELETED, but byUser:Seglea. -Splash02:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner

[edit]

Vanity.smoddy20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)see alsoMark Joyner Constructs,Mark Joyner Construct Zero,Spread the Meme[reply]

  • Delete, smells of self-promotion. I have just tagged a number of related articles for vfd. Mark Joyner main claim to fame according to the article, his ability to promote MindControlMarketing.com, only gets914 google hits, which is not much for a term which should be notable for having been artificially hyped on the internet.Thue |talk21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI Just updated to remove reference to mindcontrolmarketing.com

which incidentally ranked #1 on Amazon due to pure Internet Promotion, the book was largely promoted by email (which isn't spiderable by Google) Note: the book reached #1 in 24 hours of launch and succeeded in knocking Rudolf Giuliani off the #1 spot (who incidentally was promoting his book, 'Leadership' every half hour on CNN. There are36,000 hits on google referencing "Mark Joyner" Even J Conrad Levinson (the grandfather ofGuerilla Marketing said this: "Mark Joyner is an Internet Marketing Genius. He is the best. No question." PS I added this name spaceDavejohnson23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Idont Havaname - in that case, what is the Wiki entry advertising? :)

take a look at these Google results for this specific search termmindcontrolmarketing.com amazon #1 it's pretty conclusive.like I said, the book was cleverly promoted using email, whichdoesn't get spidered by google. I can understand why you find this hard to believe, getting a #1 at amazon the way he did, and without spending money on advertising is exactily the reason Conrad J Levinson (Author:Guerrilla marketing cites Mark as an Internet marketing genius, and that is exactly the reason why I believe he deserves his place here on WikipediaDavejohnson01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the dates, but if anyone's interested in validating these facts, you could try googling thisMark Joyner Internet you'll find over 121,000 references to him, I'm sure there will be some entries with details of his best seller, dates volume etc. I don't know the figures, I mearly read the book.Davejohnson22:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS.. Interestingly the legendary british football managerTerry Venables only has 26,600 google hits when searching analogously Name + Field ieTerry Venables FootballDavejohnson22:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if would only be classed as vanity if I were him -which I'm not, but I admit I'm probably a little more fanatical about this guy than most :)Davejohnson22:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: This is Mark Joyner, the topic of this entry. Allow me to comment on a few things. 1. Mr. Johnson, I'm flattered and appreciative of your support. If you could provide a link to your site or some other way of identifying yourself it might be helpful to folks who are suspicious that you may be me posting under a pseudonym for the purpose of self-promotion. 2. Amazon best-sellers. First, whether or not I wrote a book that was a #1 best-seller may not be the best gauge of the worthiness of my entry here. Next, the number of Google references is certainly not a valid metric for determining whether or not a book was ever once a #1 best-seller (nor is it's current rank). However, if you wish to verify that it was a #1 best-seller I suggest checking with Amazon. It was a very well-publicized campaign and there are many a witness to the fact that it beat out Rudy's book (if only for two days). What was important was that it was all done with grass-roots marketing. The fact that Amazon just pre-ordered 3,000 copies of my upcoming book might give you an indication of the faith they have in my marketing abilities. 3. Self-promotion. While I would love to have references to my books in here, what's really important to me is that Dave mentioned the Mark Joyner Constructs. If nothing but that project were mentioned here I would be delighted. The intent of that project is to change the world consciousness in a way that prevent humanity's self-destruction - a far more important topic than my books about sales and marketing, and far more interesting than dissecting the facts. I do hope those ideas remain here. 4. Accuracy. As the topic of the post I can vouch that what Dave has said is true. Again, for the Amazon case I'd recommend contacting them directly. I'm not sure if they maintain an archive of the past best-seller lists (it's updated every hour), but that would be the best objective 3rd party to settle the matter. -- Thanks again, Dave for your support regardless of the outcome. I hope I can see hanging out in my community. [Mark Joyner]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sept (slang)

[edit]

A (self-proclaimed) neologism, that "originated in 2001". I've never heard of it, and I can't find any evidence of its existence on Google. It was hard to do a search for it, because of abreviations for September, so I searched for the "related phrase," "septed fool." That picked up no hits at all, so I very much doubt the rest of the article as well. Not notable, and in any case a dicdef, sodelete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kermit syndrome

[edit]

NN unreal dicdef.smoddy20:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep.Eugene van der Pijll19:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vise-Grip

[edit]

obvious advertising copyRobinh20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Crystal objective

[edit]
  • Delete - I believe that this is a further waste of useful cyberspace!
  • DeleTe - the comment below me doesn't make sense. this information is classified anyway!

Vanity. I think the chances of anything to do with a British boys' school and its boys' dersires would have to end with Emba Watso, wouldn't it?[[smoddy]]20:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of Foreign Ministry contact details

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or phonebook. In fact, articles "shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions,phone numbers, etc." This is not an encyclopdia article.Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

New AfD

[edit]

This article was deleted before, someone re-created it, I am re-submitting for AfD for commercial spam.Delete spam --Tawker05:19, 16 February 2006 (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 wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mannatech

[edit]

Obvious commercial advertisingRobinh20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Dmcdevit·t 02:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Project shining light

[edit]

Project started in July 2005. Not yet notable, less than 10 google hits.Thue |talk20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasALREADY DELETED, but byUser:Seglea not me. -Splash02:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the Meme

[edit]

Not notable, 125 google hits for"Spread the Meme" License Model.Thue |talk21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Technology Driven Consumer Health Services

[edit]

Reads like essay and ad.Flcelloguy |A note?|Desk21:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was RESULT deleteseglea21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner Constructs

[edit]

see alsoMark Joyner,Mark Joyner Construct Zero,Spread the MemeNot a notable term, original research,4 google hits.Thue |talk21:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to wikisource and delete --Francs2000 |Talk01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Resolutions on Iran-Iraq war

[edit]

Source text, rather than an article about the resolutions and their (non-)effectiveness, which would have encyclopedic merit. Only referenced from two articles.Proposetranswiki Content moved to WikiSource, article can be deleted. -choster21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Joyous(talk) 22:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Virginia Beach Collision

[edit]

Fantasy football teams are not notable.[[smoddy]]21:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.CDC(talk)22:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mudder

[edit]

This doesn't really belong in a encyclopediaBobbis21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,If this doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia, then neither doesMUD,GNS Theory or anything that defines anything aboutroleplaying games. I vote it stays. --Anonymous
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.CDC(talk)22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ETAG

[edit]

What is this? Google turns up nothing related to extraterrestrials called "ETAG".Nightwatch21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax/unverifiable.Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:33, July 23, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.CDC(talk)22:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeep

[edit]

Eeeep is unsourced and non-encyclopecic, and I don't see how it can ever be an encyclopecic article.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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.CDC(talk)22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Abalos

[edit]

Vanity page.Tempshill22:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleteCDC(talk)22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gualen

[edit]

Not in correct languageHansonc 22:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This ought to be aSpeedy. It is a definition of a purported slang word meaning "French kiss", but I've never run across it, although then again I'm not a native speaker of Spanish. If not Speedy, thenDelete at any rate.Bill22:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirectPimpleCDC(talk)22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackheads

[edit]

propose delete or move to wikibooks.Jshadias22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.CDC(talk)22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows rg

[edit]

Um, it's, um, just a flash movie game thing. Flash jokes are funny, yes, but not encyclopedic.GarrettTalk23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is doubtlessly unencyclopediactic, I confess, but so are many other things in Wikipedia (ex. the JibJab article includes blurbs on many of their minor hits in addition to the obviously encyclopediactic "This Land")
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.CDC(talk)23:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sally jacks

[edit]

138 Googles eh Sally? She's real, but terribly non-notable. The article is sweet though. :)GarrettTalk23:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all.CDC(talk)23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clickpink.com,Clickpink,Click pink

[edit]

Vain adcruftvana. Recommend crushing byelephant orllama.GarrettTalk23:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added two more, tempted to speedy them all as adspam flooding.GarrettTalk00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Llama's dont crush, they only spit :)JamesBurns04:58, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete both.CDC(talk)23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Miandad andMahrukh Ibrahim

[edit]

Was marked for speedy deletion but I moved it here for VFD to get second opinions: The son and daughter-in-law of Pakistani cricket captainJaved Miandad do not seem notable.Zzyzx11(Talk)23:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. not much to merge, really.CDC(talk)22:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Hummel

[edit]

Useless page about a character ofThe Rock.Maybe some of the content can be moved to the movie´s page.See alsoCmdr.Anderson. nomination byIgordebraga (talk ·contribs). Please sign all posts with ~~~~.Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:26, July 23, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. not much to merge.CDC(talk)22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cmdr. Anderson

[edit]

Useless page about a character ofThe Rock

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

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

The result of the debate was already merged toMinor Dark wizards in Harry PotterCDC(talk)22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Macnair

[edit]

MinorHarry Potter character,merge toList of characters in the Harry Potter books or ome simialr list page, or simplydeleteDES23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that this VFD wasn't listed properly, I am fixing it up. That being said,merge.Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:22, July 23, 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 |Talk01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Richards

[edit]

This is a vanity page. This person is not a notable artist, neither locally, regionally or nationally. This stub has been linked to the New Haven listing to gain notoriety and has been unjustly been listed under "notable new haveners." This stub is autobiographical, being posted by the subject of the article. This article is purely used to promote the artist and the movement of "stuckism," which deserves an article.

This is not a vanity page. Richards is a well-known artist and filmmaker both within the New Haven community, as well as within the East Village underground scene and the London art scene. His work has been shown in different galleries in the US, UK and Europe, including a UK national gallery, the Walker. He's had a film in a major film festival, the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival in 2003. All of this information can be verified easily by Googling his name. It seems to me that this James Burns has some sort of personal issue with Mr. Richards and is dealing with it in this way.

  • Keep not a vanity page.Adam Malec 11:31 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy was featured in a Stuckist show at Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. He's a prominent Stuckist--the term comes from an insult by Tracy Emin, who told her then-boyfriend that he was still "stuck" in figurative work and painting as opposed to her more conceptual work. The boyfriend, Billy Childish, went on to found the art movement. --Tony SidawayTalk20:36, 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 anundeletion 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Deleted as per agreement below.GarrettTalk01:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Foulstar

[edit]

Says she's got an internet community, but unless there's some typos I can't find it. Also refers to a male in a wiccen and I thought those were female-only. I assume it's a hoax.GarrettTalk23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.CDC(talk)22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wario Land (Virtual Boy)

[edit]

non-notable game from what the article itself says was an unsuccessful game system.DES00:01, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.CDC(talk)22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.player

[edit]

seems to be one of many mendia player applicacations forWindows. Is this really notable enough to justify an article?DES00:22, 23 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 anundeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasdelete.Eugene van der Pijll19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velveteens

[edit]

They don't seem to be/have been notable, even an another group with the same name has released 2 albums and is in AMG[28]feydey23:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why they can't be included. They released two albums (info added to page), played shows as far away from W&M as at least DC. Would it be a fair compromise if I made a page for the other band?

Matter of fact, I'm trying to figure out if that second album (Art of Compromise) was infact the W&M Velveteens or the OH Velveteens. Please don't delete until I've gotten to the bottom of this.Rbeas 24 July 2005

OK PROOF. Art of Compromise was the W&M Group, not the OH group: I followed the above link to the OH group, and found that the AoC album was attributed to them. Read the OH bio here:http://music.channel.aol.com/artist/main.adp?tab=bio&artistid=199715Now, read the W&M bio here:http://www.scp.org/e-mail/2000/No_024.html

Now, read the album credits on the AoC album here:http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,1132306,00.html

The credits go to members of the W&M band, NOT the OH band. I have also listened to previews of each song at the AllMusic site, and the style matches the Viva album (which I own). Definitely not the "acoustic pop" of the OH group.A further article on the W&M Group:http://www.fcnp.com/issues/0/028/story04.htmRbeas 24 July 2005

  • Delete — From what I've read of them, they just appear to be a minor backup band who never had a hit song and playedska: something of a minor musical trend related to reggae. While I enjoy reggae, this band just doesn't appear notable. —RJH16:26, 24 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 anundeletion 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_22&oldid=1081092157"
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp