Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
plot patent
m The Hideout
Line 93: Line 93:
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Storyline patent}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Storyline patent}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Plot patent}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Plot patent}}
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The_Hideout}}

Revision as of 21:54, 21 July 2005

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. I have merged the list to the list article, and added a mention to the series' article. I have redirected this article to the list since that was the real 'merge' part of things. Changed my mind. There was about as much content to go to both places. It seems more sensible to redirect a thing from a series to the article on the series, so that's what I've done. -Splash 02:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Premiere

Not significant enough for an encyclopedia entry. Should be merged with show's main page. Barkeep49 00:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Parawiki

This article is vanity (or do we make an exception for other wikis?) --R.Koot 02:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --R.Koot 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Psicanica

THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I am Thomas Powell, the author of the psicanica materials, owner of the website psicanica.com, and holder of all copyrights on the books and materials. I have placed that information on Wikipedia. If you wish to verify this, you may contact me by phone at 011 52 951 515 2149 or email me at tompowell@psicanica.com. I furthermore give anybody permission to use the articles I place on Wikipedia freely with condition that they cite the source as www.psicanica.com. I believe that all human knowledge belongs to the race and is the source of our progress -- a point of view, alas, not supported by our current copyright laws. But that is another issue.

I am new to Wikipedia and how it operates. However, looking over some of the comments here, it is interesting to see invalidations of what is very technical, philosophic and psychological material by people who, as far as I can see from their pages, have no background in the area at all, much less have even read the source books they are invalidating. (I have made it as non-technical and reader friendly as I can on Wikipedia, but the source materials are very technical.) I get the impression that for some, it is their hobby to just invalidate/delete whenever they can. The fact that some item of information should be beyond or outside of one's current level of knowledge or even contradict it, does not make it wrong or eligible for deletion. I thought that Wikipedia was a brilliant project, an attempt to gather up and catalog human knowledge. To see such trite remarks/reasons for deletion (other than copy vios, which I have answered above) and without any supporting arguments or discussion of the validity of the information--even if by people not in the field of philosophy--is disappointing.

Tinfoil hattery. Denni☯ 00:16, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. The IP address, belonging to a company based in Herndon, VA, was not much use in determining whether this was an ad; I recommend against using such conditions in future--please focus on content, not presumed place of origin. The recommendation of a move to Viatical and Life Settlement Association of America seems reasonable. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VLSAA

Delete. Advert. Lacks encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 00:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It is a industry trade group that has been around since 1994. It seems they are active lobbists. I personally think it would be great if every special interest group giving money to polititions had a NPOV article here. Granted the article does need work.--BirgitteSB 02:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I could be wrong... but I trust the VfD process to work out the right result. -- BD2412 talk 03:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment the companies listed by this organization may be all linked financially. I agree with BrigetteSB comment about including groups with political influence. Important to general knowledge. If its just a sales pitch for more companies to join some type of special interest association, I would change my vote to Delete.Hamster Sandwich 03:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete seems like an advert to me, yet I can't be too sure. Redwolf24 05:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the IP address that created it is from Orlando, Florida. :rolleyes: Blatant advertizing. --malathion talk 11:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the IP address stuff above is true. Flammifer 14:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep Google returns over 1000 hits, including news stories about this group testifng before regualratory athorities. They seem to be an established lobbying organization, in addtition ot other activities. Insurance company sites list membership as a credential. This probably needs to be re-written/expanded with more NPOV including posible critical POV info and mention of lobbying activity. DES 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Viatical and Life Settlement Association of America. An industry association that has multiple news stories quoting them seems notable enough to justify an article. --Allen3 talk 15:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as verifiable hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Colts

Completely fictional[1] BirgitteSB 00:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as verifiable hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Silver Stars

Ficticous[2] BirgitteSB 01:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as this is verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York Mets (NFL)

Fictitious[3] BirgitteSB 01:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox (NFL)

FicticiousNFL webste BirgitteSB 01:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Browns (NFL)

Fictitous NFL.com BirgitteSB 01:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Rangers (NFL)

FictitousNFL.com BirgitteSB 01:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied - no factual content by Manning 04:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

California Football Grounds

Whether or not the Callifornia Football Grounds ever existed, the text of the article is fictitous. Reference Los Angeles Colts BirgitteSB 01:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Some longstanding editors have made an excellent case for keep, and I have disregarded the votes that are based on appeals to supposed lack of notability as misguided. A few minutes on Google shows that this British performer has had at least one hit single (entered Christmas/New Year 2005 chart at #11, the second highest new entry that week) and was one of the very few black British performers to appear at Live8, Edinburgh. Please be careful when making VfD votes to delete, that your vote is not based solely on your personal ignorance --Tony SidawayTalk 07:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal bizzle

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. allmusic has nothing on him. Best quote from the article is "He is expected to be the next best thing but he is not quite there. " Delete Friday 01:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. Despite the faintest element of truth, this article is yet another one of a series created by an anon user determined to populate the US with mythical sporting venues and teams. Manning 04:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

St. Louis Ballgrounds

Can't confirm the St. Louis Ballgrounds didn't exist but text is false. Check out St. Louis Browns (NFL) BirgitteSB 01:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Please note if you picked any city in America and followed the nome with ballpark you find something that might be what they are refering to. However if you look at the contributions of the creator you will understand it is a hoax--BirgitteSB 02:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The text is not entirely false, just confused and with a few names mangled. Read this excerpt from a page about the park that I think he's refering to, and you'll easily get where the text of the page is coming from:
"Old Sportsman's Park and its predecessors [were] first used as such soon after the Civil War and only a few years after the game was introduced in St. Louis by Jere Fruin in 1860. The first ball park there was built by August Solari in 1871 as the Grand Avenue Ball Grounds. ... Its name was changed to Sportsman's Park in 1876 when it became the home of the charter member National League Club known as the Browns." -[5] exceprted for clarification only
-Harmil 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added a redirect for the correct name from Grand Avenue Ball Grounds to Sportsman's Park, and added note of the old name to the latter page. I don't think there's any remaining value in this page. -Harmil 02:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Altsounds

This text has been given to wikipedia by the owners of the Altsounds website, a music site established in May 2005, Alexa rating 356,805. Page is self-promotion, delete --nixie 01:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this website?? Every time we try and do anything we are getting it deleted. What does Alexa ranking have to do with anything?? We are a quality music resource and can provide people looking up bands on your website with songs, photos, bios and lots more information about these bands that they can't get on your site. Why would you delete a page dedicated to our site????? That makes absolutely no sense, it gives people information about altsounds and what we are and what we do. How is that any different to a band having a page on your site?? Isn't that self promotion too?? I am utterly confused. When I stumbled across your site I spent a good time looking at it and wanted to get involved but everytime I do it gets deleted. Thats no use to me and I am almost at the point where I can't be bothered anymore. Why would you turn away people that are willing to add quality content? *sigh*

Just browsing some more and noticed that Purevolume.com has a page on wikipedia which isn't being considered for deletion. Why is that?? Whats the difference?? And if you say it's because we're not big enough, then doesn't that also violate one of your "commercial interest" policies?? It doesn't say anywhere you have to have an Alexa ranking of greater than x to be allowed on this site. There are so many flaws in your rules. Why do i not understand? I am reading all your policies and posting suggestions and i dont see us in violation of anything...if anything we are totally keeping in spirit with what wikipedia is about.

Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altsounds (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by geogre. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Tree Field

Fictitous Google search BirgitteSB 01:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dan zuniga

Non-notable vanity page. Recommend delete. Chairboy 02:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep). Scimitar parley 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Coast Grammar School

Tagged for out-of-process speedy deletion by Lucky 6.9. Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments and don't bite the newbies. Kappa

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be placeholders either. Substubs aren't needed to have articles created. We already have "requested articles" for that. - Mgm|(talk) 15:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't make us the next everything2.com--our credibilty will be shot. Niteowlneils 16:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We only document the top 10-20% scientists, professors, musicicans, actors, etc. why make schools different? This rampant inclusionism will only serve to make the critics who said 'Wikipedia will collapse under it own weight' right. Do you really want to help cause the death of Wikipedia? Niteowlneils 16:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have a scale of notability, and wikipedia cannot hope to cover everyone of average notability. Schools are not people, they are more equivalent to villages, and the consensus is that every village that has ever existed has a place in wikipedia. Since wikipedia aims for comprehensive geographic coverage, there is no reason not to aim for comprehensive coverage of education in each location, in fact they enhance each other. Wikipedia should worry about its credibility with real users, not random page browsers. Kappa 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Striborg

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, then recreated as a redirect. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sound Frequency and Emotions

Original research and associated tinfoil hattery. Denni☯ 03:01, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious persecution by Christians

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Created to parallel Religious persecution by Jews and Religious persecution by Muslims, which are both currently on VfD. See those discussions for additional debate.

  • Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are valid themes, and the Religious persecution by Muslims article may survive VfD. Note that incidents by a group may permit events against minor groups to be listed that otherwise would not be covered. OTOH, this is just a stub, and the whole series needs a lot of work. Also, Religious persecution by Jews is not viable at this time since there is not a community of people willing and able to have it be anything other than an anti-semitic rant. Even so, I would keep this one unless all of its "sister" pages are removed. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The persecution of any identifiable group by any other group is valid historical reportage. This article needs Help and a solid effort to edit and expand it. In fact, I may take a crack at this personally, and invite any suggestions and help that you as wikipedians can offer. Certainly attrocities have been commited by almost any identifiable religious group, excused by their own belief in a superior ethic or mandate from a preternatural force. In fact, the lack of this kind of behaviour is so exceptional in human society and civilization, it warrants nay it BEGS a separate article " Major Religious Groups Who Never Persecuted Other People". That would be a tough one to research. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Wikipedia does not need to succumb to religious whitewashing. Persecutions by religious organizations are very real events in history. --Tokek
  • Strong Keep persecution by Christians is a known fact of history. I was surprised this article is so short, as Christians since Constantine I's reign to the present day have persecuted non-Christians in many different forms. Christians have persecuted Pagans, Jews, Muslims, other denominations of Christianity, atheists, and others throughout their almost 2000 year history. Revolución 04:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading about Christian warmongering in Lithuania just yesterday. Keep, in the hope that somebody with knowledge and effort will do a much-needed revision. -- Hoary 08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote Pending VFD on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews - This was not created as some sort of Point, and it did should not be seen as such. It was created to be part of a series, and not to disrupt. I was relying on others to chip in, but barely anyone helped. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Historically relevant. --malathion talk 11:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the whinging Christians do about being poor and oppressed they are surprisingly good at oppressing those who aren't infected with their virus. Dunc|☺ 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just going to need some incredible effort to keep it neutral. --Several Times 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incorrect usage of religious persecution, content is more properly dealt with by other articles. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as very important, though difficult, historical topic, already touched upon by article Coercion. --Mario 16:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are already POV OR disasters. WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones. Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group. Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities. If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month. Tomer TALK 16:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. This has potential, I think... Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it will take vigilance to keep NPOV, but a worthy subject. Themindset 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep this please it is relevent Yuckfoo 17:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- not only is it a well-recognised historical subject, it is extensive, and therefore merits documentation. Must be kept non-POV, however. Jdhowens90 18:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although comments about the vigilance needed to maintain NPOV are quite true. ~ WCFrancis 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, just like its two partners. If you have a problem with its current state, fix it. Shem(talk) 18:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 talk 01:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree Strongly with BD2412 on this issue. I will make no further contributions to these related article until such time as they are merged. I suggest only editors that can retain a non-perjoritive stance be allowed to work on this material. Hamster Sandwich 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like I said on the other votes, if we keep one and delete another it would ruin the whole point of the series and make Wikipedia look extremely biased.Heraclius 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews and Religious persecution by Muslims: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, not disruptive (we have similar articles for other religions), ergo no real reason to delete. Almafeta 02:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as with "Persecution by Muslims" and "Persecution by Jews." I make this vote a strong one because I have been persecuted by Christians, and understand the need for dispassionate discussion of this topic. Xoloz 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time. In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis. But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once. This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page. Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true. Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
  • Strong keep -- despite what other pro-delete people have said about POV and edit-wars, if W~paedia is seen as biased, especially towards a "Christians can do no wrong" line, then there will be edit-wars on every page, by those who know Christian sinners. Keep and then audit it weekly to remove the cruft, spam, and hate-mail. Sooner or later things will settle down and it will give somewhere for the nuts (and the people who create series of articles about hoax NFL teams) to hand out--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (forgot to sign) crazyeddie 17:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incognito 17:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Religious persecution by Christians is a legitimate subject. Besides, as a proponent of Christian beliefs I believe this article will prove that the scriptural evidence in favour of persecuting non-Christians is slim and contradictory to main Christian tenets.--Germen 11:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Dv 15:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • #REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete together with Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment. But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. These "religious persecution by" articles are only going to turn into POV fests.LokiCT 02:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles. --DNicholls 02:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : As I voted delete for the article about jews. This kind of article will add nothing to wikipedia but POV debates and trolling.--Revas 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV (as Mustafaa said), but that is not the only reason to delete. The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole? Is all of history covered? Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims? Are the July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks persecution by radical Islamists against non-Muslims? The articles do not have a clear definition, and are likely to be POV disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and vandal magnet. JamesBurns 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for precisely same reasons I've supported keeping the other articles in this series. Babajobu 10:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these. The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages. AndyCapp 17:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, controversial, but important historical topic Salsb 00:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -asx- 05:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No idea why this and the other articles were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Roman Catholics, or by Quakers or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said on the Muslim one up for deletion it's a POV magnet. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Christian groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable. gren 16:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV magnet. --Vsion 04:15, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Quarternary (album)

This article was created by the same anonymous editor that created the fictional NFL teams and stadiums. It reads like another hoax. Delete, speedily if possible. --EMS | Talk 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I dug some dirt on this when I looked into all the contributions by the creator. There was some sort of special EP released as a mail-order off the 1994 Mötley Crüe album. It was called Quaternary (slight misspelling). I imagine most of the test is incorrect because I found conflicting info. I left a note on the Mötley Crüe talk page asking someone to look into. Hopefully this article will get straightened out--BirgitteSB 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research and if it's not a hoax, clean-up. Otherwise, delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax; allmusic.com has never heard of it and it surely would have done if it existed. -Splash 18:04, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

A HISTORY OF THE AFRICAN-OLMECS: BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF AMERICA FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE PRESENT ERA

if an article is to be written on this topic, it has to conform to other Wikipedia articles. Phoenix2 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this article seems a possible copyvio t me, but I couldn't find the source, it's extremely pov, and I think it's a joke. I'm mexican and never heard of "african-olmecs". drini ☎ 04:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
besides, all the refernces to "Barton" are just to a group of webpages created by a single person, probably the creator of this entry. no real references given. drini ☎ 04:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero return

Non-notable band BirgitteSB 03:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

ANTI-HERO

Delete Shameless vanity plug of new band (less than a year) drini ☎ 04:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nom. -Splash 02:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brass monkey

This is another urban legend. There are plenty ([8], [9], [10]) of sources which adequately discredit this myth. Denni☯ 04:22, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

The page has changed significantly, and the quality is much better now (at the time of initial vfd, it stated urban legend as fact), but the fact remains that it is a non-notable UL. A well written debunking of the non-notable is still non-notable. An additional concern is that the article text is now very very similar to the Snopes article. Not word for word, but not by much. - Chairboy 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in changed from. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Disambiguation sounds like a good idea, if someone wants to do it. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The B-Sides

Non-notable vanity page. Chairboy 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Been around for yrs, and still no label has signed them? --Madchester 05:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Could you guys take it a bit easy on me. It's my first time working with this and I admit I was nervous at first. We all make minor typos at times. Especially when we're nervous. User:Pythagoreanman 2:14 AM EDT July 21st 2005

  • Comment. All Music Guide has records of a band called The B-Sides who have released albums and EP's [11]. However it isn't the same band as listed in the article and features a former member of the Squirrel Nut Zippers. I will rewrite this article this evening mentioning the original subject at the bottom of the article unless evidence can be shown under WP:MUSIC guidelines that they warrant an article on their own. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I guess you guys win. You're missing out on an awesome band. Too bad this site is full of bureaucracy.
    • Comment If you can provide some verifiable evidence that this band is notable, and not just a local phenominon, you could probably get your inclusion. So far you have 2 votes to delete, One on the fence (me) and a kind offer of assistance from Capitalroadstar. I think you're either blowing smoke, or not to confident in the actual nescessity of your articles inclusion. Be Bold Your user page is new, and I can tell you as a new Wiki user myself that the onus here is to get articles included, not turfed out. As long as this "awesome band" should be of general interest to a more or less worldwide audience, write about them. If they have members from previously notable bands, probably a good sign. If they have toured internationally, even better. Have they released music on a format other than CDR? More and more interesting. I hope that my comment is takken in the spirit in which it is offered; as a person trying to help another person. Good luck Pythagoreanman! Hamster Sandwich 08:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the article as promised. Keep. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Good work Capitalistroadster, but i think this is a completely different band than the one originally described in the first draft of this article. I vote keep because they seem somewhat notable, might link with other chapel hill bands. Hamster Sandwich 09:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thorns Among Our Leaves 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I count three different bands all called the B-Sides. I'm not sure any single one is above my minimum level of notability, but combined they are. If nothing else, the article can untangle the name confusion. Still needs work, but has potential for being encyclopedic. --A D Monroe III 19:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvement?. Why not add all three bands too the list and order formed and that type? like AD Monroe III said, to sort out the confusion?

-User:pythagoreanman

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

American Championship Wrestling

Not too sure about this one. "American Championship Wrestling" gets 3,420 google hits, however, the article specifically mentions Utah, which when added to the google search, only turns up 30 hits. The googling is definately a problem, for instance, there is a "North American Championship Wrestling" and a "American Championship Wrestling Association", etc. I am actually going to Abstain from voting, but another editor suggested that this was VFDable, so here it is. func(talk) 05:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per CSD rule A7 (vanity). jni 07:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan seah

Non-notable vanity page. 28 matches on google, none appear to be for this guy. Chairboy 05:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The face shop

Non-notable outside of Asia, as far as I can determine via Google. At best, this company (if it exists) is clearly not known outside of Korea, and this substub is not likely to be improved to be at all useful in the near future. I thus propose deletion. NicholasTurnbull 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

37,800. [12] -- Visviva 13:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. 10 delete votes, 3 Keep, 1 Cleanup, even including possible sockpuppetry. khaosworks 01:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chan win hon

Non-notable secondary school teacher. He may be a good teacher and his students may admire him, but that doesn't mean he deserves a Wikipedia article on his own. khaosworks 05:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this was created by Mr Chan himself, but by a student of his. The grammar and structure of the sentences suggests this strongly. See related Vfd at Jonathan seah. --khaosworks 05:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

you all suxx0rs and he r0xx0rs what related vfd at jonathan seah???? non existant thing you talking about there!

  • Delete. Not notable. --*drew 10:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a highly biased article about someone who is not significant enough to merit a page in an international encylopaedia. Singopo 10:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After reading this article, I tend to believe that this person is of notable background. I strongly recommend that this page be edited to perhaps include more information, which would render it more useful.
  • unsigned comment by anon user 203.123.21.145 (talk · contribs) (note contributions). --khaosworks 10:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't it strange that this unsigned comment stating that "After reading this article, I tend to believe that this person is of notable background..." came from 203.123.21.145 – the same IP address that started the article? Singopo 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up It would be good if it were cleaned up and reorganized (Unsigned vote by 203.123.20.7 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mnenta

delete as unverifiable and non-notable Trovatore 05:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by MacGyverMagic. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Alhasan

This is a resume. It qualilfies for deletion for being non-notable and vanity. Tobycat 06:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Kitasei

This new article tells the tale of a recent high school graduate's political exploits in a school club. Not-notable, not verifiable, vanity, and probably a hoax. Tobycat 06:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 16:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Nibbles

Out of context text about non-notable movie. Not on imdb Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon-Fridge

Not notable enough, not to mention the site is dead.-- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 07:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Delete. Non-notable. Seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Also, the domain is dead. Hosterweis 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was guess what?  Grue  19:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shape of my Addiction

Non-notable band. Possible vanity/self-promotion. --Ragib 07:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was, looks like a no consensus... not quite sure through all the jumble but, keep. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sheep vote

What's this doing on Wikipedia, especially in the Wikipedia namespace?-- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 07:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nom. -Splash 02:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts

I don't think this article is sutable for an encyclopedia. I wish to Delete it Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin bardin

This "notable Internet personality" looks more like an unexceptional teenage "Something Awful" participant. Vanity. -- Hoary 08:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brocore

Possible neologism, unable to determine from (sparse) content. --Alan Au 08:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Kitasei

Advertising, it would seem, for an obscure teenage actress. This does say that she's one of four hundred plus actors who've played in a musical; the link given in the article tells us nothing and actually looks like a freebie advertising opportunity that Hana Kitasei (or agent) hasn't bothered to fill out. -- Hoary 08:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Saling

Probably new user test, vanity in any case. I recommend delete or userfy. --Alan Au 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Shoplifters Pty. Ltd.

Non-notable high-school band, formed this year. jni 09:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fine delete it then (unsigned comment by Mr Brightside)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cyber shock

This entry is not encyclopedic, so need an huge rewrite, but I don't see references of this book. Amazon has an author with this name but it write about dinosaures, and google no hits about his title. Considering also the style of article, IMHO is a vanity page of a non notable schoolboy Cate 09:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Fong

Slanderous / nonsense text An An 10:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An An 10:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that next time. Sorry. An An 13:00, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

LCR

Advertising for NN nightclub. smoddy 10:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dont delete - its a factual page about my Uni club - Matt Riley
  • "Probably one of the best nights out you will ever have out." is not factual. Neither is "Definatly worth a visit!". If you can write about it on the University of East Anglia piece without all the promotion, maybe this material will be worth keeping around. --Several Times 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo for a nn student club. JamesBurns 03:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LCR is a common phrase in electronics design indicating inductance (L), capacitance (C) and resistance (R). These are commonly used in combinations to form filter networks. It is a common topic to those who understand filters and a common question for those who do not. This page could serve a possibly more widespread and diverse audience by addressing this topic instead of the university club it currently references.[[User:AB|AB] 03:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. As usual I leave it up to the editors to arrive at a consensus on how to proceed. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arfa Karim Randhawa

"[T]he youngest person ever to successfully pass the MCP exam". Not notable enough. Uppland 11:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move, merge, rename and redirect as per Jerzy below. Uppland 21:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too trivial. There are tons of MCP's--I've known a few dozen myself, and their magazine claims readership of 996,000. Being the youngest/oldest/fattest/tallest/shortest/etc among them is no big deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Microsoft Certified Professional. Would make a useful little addition to that page, however this page has little hope of being extended. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Talk:Microsoft Certified Professional/Arfa Karim Randhawa, overwrite the resulting rdr into rdr to Microsoft Certified Professional, lk to the talk subpage from the talk page, and use the text as a source for a line or 'graph in MCP -- basically agreeing with Zeimusu. (Being the y'gest MCP at 9 is far different from being the y'gest MCP.) Keeping rdr is crucial. I got here after reading her new (and misplaced) entry on List of people by name: Ar, saying "not another damn bright kid", and coming to the article and then VfD to do my due diligence before trashing the entry. (I think i'm still going to do that, since LoPbN is for those who do or should have WP bios.) But she's getting press notice that IMO is substantial enuf for a footnote, and (besides helping a few users soon) the rdr to MCP will facilitate in various ways our becoming aware of any need to reconsider: assuming she doesn't burn out, and if & when she accomplishes something that manages to overcomes the inevitable suspicion that she got her MCP the way at least one South Asian grad student must have gotten their score on the TOEFL and their resulting North American graduate assistantship. IMO there's reason to hope she'll deserve a WP bio in 10-15 years, maybe sooner, and preservation of the text of this premature bio should both help us judge when it's time & give us a head start on writing the ready-for-prime-time bio.
    --Jerzy·t 20:33, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Microsoft Certified Professional per Zeimusu; little chance of expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Starblind. There are nearly a million of them! -Splash 18:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN/Vanity. Trivial "achievement". --Ragib 23:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Duk as copyvio. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"PC Tools"

Advertising. smoddy 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted after listing at WP:CP--Duk 04:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yujiro Fujiwara

not yet a not notable person. seems a vanity page Cate 13:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Computer Engineering and Computer Science

This is more of a dicdef than an article. Doubt it could be extended any further.

Delete or merge with computer science. --R.Koot 14:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Computer science does an adequate job explaining the differences between CS and CE. The names of these majors seem school-specific anyway. (At my school, for example, CE is done through the college of engineering and is part of the department of electrical engineering, rather than being done through the CS dept or its college.) --Idont Havaname 17:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, because I don't think it's possible to merge to two separate articles . Ensure both the CS & Comp-E articles explain the differences between the two, and leave it at that, I'd say. My university does the same thing as Idont Havaname's, incidentally. The Literate Engineer 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

ITYLLBC

Dicdef of acronym used on non notable bbs Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move and merge with Newt (disambiguation). --Tony SidawayTalk 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newt (name)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Descendall 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dimensional informatics

Google doesn't find anything on this and it is poorly wikified. --R.Koot 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. smoddy 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albus Dumbledore

{{spoiler}} Not encyclopedic at all. The entire known skills and possessions parts are prime examples. Nobody needs to know that a character in a fictional book discovers uses for dragon's blood or is extremely skilled at transfiguration. This is more of a fan FAQ than an encyclopedia article. Needs to be shortened to a paragraph or two and merged with Harry Potter at best, deleted at worst. Severus Snape 15:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Very bad joke, look at nominators username. We have precedent to keep major fictional characters. - Mgm|(talk) 20:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: if there is no serious objection, this VfD should be closed as a "speedy keep". -- BD2412 talk 21:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

there is no objection here Yuckfoo 21:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Main Page

The purpose of this project is to organize articles related to the Main Page. However, from what I know there is only such article, the Main Page itself, which is protected. Seems that this project has only one contributor, who started it and then did nothing else. The wording is also very vague. I'd say this page is not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is my hairbrained scheme for organizing some other strategies related to Wikipedia:Browse via Wikipedia:WikiProject_Categories and another hairbrained scheme Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikiportals. It's a sort of top-down approach. So pending further analysis and posiible participation...

Note that the information you put in the category got deleted together with the category (that was not the right place for it anyway, it should have been in the article). I doubt the top-down approach is the right one, on Wikipedia things usually go bottom up. Oleg Alexandrov 19:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 05:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Phillip Berryman

Vanity. smoddy 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Bluemoose

Paul Oh

Speedy delete. --R.Koot 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Elway

Delete. As the daughter of John Elway, she has not done anything herself notable enough to be included. The mention of her speech could be merged with (or just added to, because Delete and Merge is invalid) her father's article. Icelight 15:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain This really sounds like a vanity page, written by her or someone else. However, she is John Elway's daughter. I don't really know where you could go with this article though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Devayan

advertisement/self-promotion

  • Keep. Since yesterday, we, the creators of the article, were confronted with a number of very surprising incidents involving the user goethean. First, the article was tagged as disputed by goethean because it supposedly violated Wikipedia’s rules of neutrality. Quoting from the user goethean; “It is not written from a neutral point of view. It will have to be re-written to conform with Wikipedia standards of neutrality. Specifically, the unattributed claims that a god led men to write a particular book represent a particular point of view and must be attributed to those who hold these claims…” We made the changes requested by this user and asked him to have the disputed tag removed. Instead of acknowledging the changes, he put a request that this article be entirely deleted. We find this absolutely incomprehensible. He claims that this article is meant for self-promotion. This article can in no way be considered self-promotion, as the author, Dr. Hajari, passed away in 1978. goethean also said that he did a search on google for Hajari+Devayan, and the search engine only provided two relevant hits. We would like to suggest to goethean that he makes another search in google for Devayan, and he will find many websites associated with the epic Devayan. Dr. Hajari was a life long devoted disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Sri Aurobindo was his guru. If he received any assistance from his guru, then there should be no reason for surprise. In the article, we have attributed all supposed claims to the author, Dr. Hajari, and the article in no way suggests that these claims are absolute facts. goethean also mentioned that Devayan is not listed amongst the books issued by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. It’s a fact that many ashramites have written books which have been published outside the ashram. Since this was our first Wikipedian article, we did not know that we did not have the right to delete comments posted by other users. We deleted goethean’s comments. After he told us that this was not allowed, we apologized to him and he put his comments back on the page. And as far as we know, we are allowed to post links on other articles which could be related to the subject matter. If still there are any points which need to be ironed out in the article, we would be more than pleased to make the changes. Considering all of the above, we strongly feel that this article SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!!

19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment There's only 2 separate google hits for Hajari+Devayan, one of which is a home page and the other a New Delhi book catalog. This is dishonest self-promotion --- the article's author claims that Sri Aurobindo was involved in the composition of this epic, a claim for which no evidence is offered. Sri Aurobindo is sort of the Indian equivalent of Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. The Sri Aurobindo Ashram publishes all books that Aurobindo wrote, and this title is not among them. --goethean ॐ 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the article [16] [17] has removed the disputed tag, has blanked the talk page, has spammed many articles with links to this one, and has attempted to protect the article. --goethean ॐ 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More recently, they're just vandalising the Scientology article, --Icelight 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've searched high and low, and though the book does appear to be refered to more often without his name, it's not by much, and most of those references are copies of a single boilerplate. Unless someone can come forth with some off-line references that are authoritative, I have to say that this is a non-notable book by a non-notable author (WP:NOT a soap box). -Harmil 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It seems like the book could indeed form a page of its own, if the claims behind it can be backed up and the POV is removed. --Several Times 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find much in the way of a basis for the notability of this book. Many of the links searching for just the title turn up either unrelated pages, or links back to the home page, often on user-submission sites. The article is also still not encyclopedic in the least, as it affirms that the book is a true prediction of the future. (Curiously, my crystal ball shows something completely different...) --Icelight 22:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete; non-notable fringe book by unknown cult. Note that this book is not authored by Aurobindo (which might have made it encycolpedia-worthy). --Bambaiah 09:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The first comment is a typical Chewbacca Defense, BJAODN-worthy I think. - Sikon 10:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the usual. Radiant_>|< 14:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: the keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the average length of comment required in its defence in VfD. (And for the other reasons given above.)-Splash 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:08, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Afelhem

This brief article announces that a game will be released sometime in the future, heaps accolades on it, and promotes its intended cheaper price over competitors. The info it contains is speculative (crystal ball). As an unreleased product it certainly is not notable. Lastly, most of the text is promotional. Recommend delete. Tobycat 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Demerath Family

Delete The family of a few minor notables is not with questionable relations to others, is not notable in and of itself. WP:NOT a geneology. Icelight 16:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 23:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

PBS Kids

Merge user 24.171.36.233

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tool Army

Non-notable webpage, no matches in google other then the website itself. Chairboy 16:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ejaz Fiaz

This article was created at a time when his name was being associated with the London tube bombings; there seems to be no evidence for this, and another person has been named as the bomber he was suspected of being. As far as I can tell, he is no longer a suspect, and the article should be deleted as being based on erroneous speculation. Delete -- Karada 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Zacarias Moussaoui didn't actually hijack any planes on 9/11, and Lotfi Raissi was found innocent on charges stemming from original theories he was involved in 9/11. Fiaz is a fairly major secondary player in an event of global proportions, I can't imagine not having an article about who he is. When the Kennedy files get released, would we delete Lee Harvey Oswald's article? I think not. Sherurcij 17:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Adding to Sherurci's reasoning, I'll toss in Richard Jewell, although Jewell did have greater notability owing to his actions at the time of the bombing, his libel lawsuits, and Janet Reno's public apology. Nonetheless, I think we've established an... acceptable, if not ideal... precedent of including articles for persons falsely accused of responsibility for major terrorist attacks. In the event we decide that Ejaz Fiaz is not notable enough a falsely accused person, then we just merge to 7 July 2005 London bombings. If it turns out he did have a role and isn't innocent at all, then I'd think there's no question that the article should be kept in that case. The Literate Engineer 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. His brother Naveed Fiaz will remain in custody through at least 23 July. There hasn't been a mention of Ejaz/Jacksy since 7/14 (via Google News), but he also hasn't, apparently, been found -- which may mean nothing. If the other Fiaz is released without charges, I'll have no objections. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not unthinkable someone will hit his name in future research on the event. I think keeping an article on falsely accused people (clearly labelled as such) should be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 20:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that being accused, then swiftly cleared, under intense media scrutiny in the aftermath of a major crime is independently notable, under the precedent of Richard Jewell. Xoloz 04:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notably involved (if accidentally) in a notable event. -Splash 18:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Splash. Edit article so it is clearer that he is not guilty if it is the case. --AI 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mgm|(talk). Especially in the context of "intense media scrutiny". There is social justice in having innocence disseminated as heavily as guilt is (as per Richard Jewell's comment). While social justice is not necessarily the function of an encyclopedia, it does not detract from the fact that the dissemination of truths (facts) certainly is. L-Bit 07:03, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied by MacGyverMagic. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kahiem

Not notable 66.216.68.28 17:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED per CSD A7. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ayokunle Shoyebi

Non-notable. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ganoria Crew

Not notable, zero google hits 66.216.68.28 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre --Tony SidawayTalk 10:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badnawar

non-notable PhilipO 17:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incontrovertible evidence

Dictionary or should be merged PhilipO 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No articles on Conclusive evidence, Conclusion of fact, or Conclusion of law. It is needed both for Law categories and Logic. nobs 17:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep ... and mathematics too.
  • Delete. Dicdef, not clearly explained anyway, and the notions from law, philosophical logic, and mathematics, are distinct among them. I'd change to "keep" if the article could be fleshed out to explain various notions of what constitutes "incontrovertible evidence", debate over whether there's such a thing, and if all of this were sourced. --Trovatore 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I just noticed that the article is new as of today; that seems a bit early to put it on VfD. Probably should have been marked {{stub}}; then I'd have been more patient. I'm leaving my delete vote for now, but I'll watch developments and consider. --Trovatore 20:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change my vote to keep, for now. R. Koot has put on a stub notice and promised to write the article. I'm assuming article can be renominated if improvements aren't satisfactory --Trovatore 23:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • back to delete, per other discussion --Trovatore 04:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Give notable term time to grow. Xoloz 04:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with evidence. Adjectivizations do not generally warrant their own article. Radiant_>|< 14:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio, from here. But since someone said they'd work on it, I'll hold off a bit. -Splash 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so the "copyvio" seems at odds with what I was thinking, which was close to "original research". But is there some lawyer who can comment on whether "incontrovertible evidence" is a genuine legal term of art, as opposed to (as I had assumed) a mere rhetorical flourish? If it doesn't have a meaning not obviously apparent from its constituent English words, then I want to change my vote back to "delete". --Trovatore 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly what I was wondering which was why I took it to Google instead of one of those silly online encyclopedias. My conclusion was that it probably is not a proper legal term, since that was the only earlyish Google that treated that way. I think I might drop a message to User:BD2412, as I understand he's a lawyer. -Splash 02:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This appears to be a hyperbolic dicdef. It is indeed not a proper legal term - I'm not aware of any case ever ascribing a particular meaning to the term, and it does not appear in the pocket Black's Law Dictionary; the proper legal term is conclusive evidence (defined primarily as "evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary"). However, I abstain from voting as I am not so sure that the article should not exist as a philosophical distinction. -- BD2412 talk 02:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Conclusive evidence is exactly the definition I was looking for when I created the article; this was the only defintion I could find, but would be very much interested in the other term. Thank you. nobs 02:55, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Delirium. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd O'dowd

Notability not established 66.216.68.28 17:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. I counted 4 valid votes for delete, 4 for keep.

Annie Glenn (neé Castor)

Delete While this is a well formatted article, it seems of dubious value to me, regardless of who she is married to. Non-notable? PhilipO 17:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep- I feel that this article is merited, not only because of who she is married to, but because of her decades-long struggle to help people with speech impediments, and other oral disabilities. Jdhowens90 18:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: vote by article author.
  • Strong keep: as a person with a speech impediment myself, I feel that Annie Glenn has done a lot for people like me, and as such is noteworthy in her own right. 172.201.99.219 18:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous user's only edits.[19]
  • Delete. The wives of U.S. Senators don't attain independent notability per se in the way that First Ladies do, and she doesn't seem to have done anything else that rises to the level of deserving an article. She should of course be mentioned in John Glenn's biography, but merging would be pointless because of most of this article is extremely trivial. "She has a long-standing interest in American folk arts and crafts and collects quilts and other needlework as well as historical household items from the small towns of Ohio." Maybe if we were writing a three-volume biography of Glenn, we'd go to such detail regarding his wife. No need to redirect, because the presence of "(neé Castor)" in the article title makes this a very unlikely search. Postdlf 18:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Irishpunktom\talk 18:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Postdlf. By the way, it is spelled née, not neé, and if the article is kept, it should be moved back to Annie Glenn per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to her husband. Xoloz 04:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not a distributable quantity. No redirect. -Splash 14:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable DiceDiceBaby 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if rewritten. Also it should be moved to Annie Glenn as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). JamesBurns 03:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. or merge/redir w/her husband. RE naming, what JamesBurns and Android79 said. Niteowlneils 12:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remarkable contributions to charity and the wife of a U.S. Senator and astronaut.
  • Keep. Her contributions should be known and not lost behind her husband's fame.
  • Keep. I was watching "The Right Stuff" and I found it interesting that there was an article in wikipedia about John Glenn's wife. She is not "notable" in some sense, but if an article meets wikipedia's users' need to learn I don't see why delete it. Disk space is cheap and this article will not strain wikipedia's bandwidth. The fact that one can find in wikipedia information that other encyclopedias might scorn is, I believe, one of wikipedia's greatest strengths. Dianelos 17:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppe High School for Boys

Delete, create article for all the Jeppe schools and merge. Toasthaven2 18:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Francs2000. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Enedy

Notability not established 66.216.68.28 18:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Switch lightning

Google's never heard of it, and we don't even have an article for the game this is based on. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a father of two young boys and playing Lightning at the local park is their favorite pastime. Switch Lightning sounds like a thoroughly enjoyable game, not to mention all the extra exercise they'll get! I'm going to recommend it to my kids. I know I won't have trouble getting them to go to bed at night after a few rounds of Switch Lightning.

The game has seen quite a following in our little community. We started playing this game a few summers ago, and from time to time ,driving by the park, we see kids weve never even met before playing this game.

  • I'm glad you enjoy the game, but for a game to be included in Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable from independant sources and played by a somewhat larger group of people. - Mgm|(talk) 20:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability (eg, discussion or coverage of the sport in a major media outlet) is presented. -- Infrogmation 16:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable, this is probably a very local thing. It would be nice if we had a Wikicities for all of these interesting little games and sports that pop up every so often.--Pharos 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. I counted 2 valid keep votes, 2 valid wiktionary votes. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galoot

Completing a VfD started by Matt.whitby. Looks like a candidate for Wiktionary. I abstain. Tobycat 18:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but make it less like a dictionary entry. There is relevant information on the hobby of collecting used handtools which is not necessarily dictionary content. --InformationalAnarchist 18:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. As for collecting, the phenomenon is certainly notable, as a type of human behavior. However, specific types of collecting are not, IMO, individually encyclopedic. Or do we think collecting vaseline glass or porcelain pigs is encyclopedic? Ken 03:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Galoot is dictdef. An article on just the Internet community, "Handtool Galoot" or some such, would encyclopedic. Peter Grey 15:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary it's essentially a dicdef. JamesBurns 03:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make it less like a dictionary entry. There is relevant information on the hobby of collecting used handtools which is not necessarily dictionary content.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Implementation process

Seems to be a promotion for Evolus ERP, not that I know what that is, but it produces few google hits. Delete. --Joel7687 18:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Faux

This article is aptly titled. The Faux is not about anything real. Research reveals no such vessel and reading through the article itself points to other clues that it's all in jest (i.e. "Jest'liana" is the owner of the ship.) I did find ONE relevant google hit that seemd to associate some of the terms in the article with a website about "behind the stories" in games. It is possible that this is about the backstory of some video game somewhere. At this point, it appears to be very non-notable and the article in its current state doesn't make sense. I vote delete Tobycat 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to something that works for vessel names and fictional entities, say "Faux (name of work of fiction or game or whatever)". I'm skeptical about notability and authenticity, but I'd say give it a chance for now. Peter Grey 15:48, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mujaheedin Afghan

While there most certainly where a lot of Mujahidin in Afghanistan, I've neaver heard of the "Mujaheedin Afghan", and neither has Google nor Amazon, further, the idea that they killed "Millions" leads me to the conclusion that this is a hoax. Irishpunktom\talk 18:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lizzy Berryman

Delete. This is a bogus article, no real person with this name, with claimed history/status/celebrity. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Moiseenko

Dicdef. smoddy 19:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Charlton

NB: This debate also covers the fate of the child page The Cosmology of Love. If the vote is keep, a separate VFD for this latter page can then be recreated if so decided. Manning

I see that all his works are "self-published". No claim to fame other than poetry and being an "activist". I did a google and most hits were unrelated people with the same name. Many of "What links here" appear to have been going for another person of the same name. Having self-published works does not make one notable. Thus, Delete. Friday 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. --PhilipO 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Delete nn. --R.Koot 20:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your redirect suggestion - the suggested redirect is not to the same person. Manning 04:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be the same person. Redirects are not only used for duplicate articles; a title which can be reasonably expected to be a common spelling error for the notable person's name can still be made a redirect even if it was originally created for a different non-notable person. Bearcat 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he's good, we'll see him again in a few years. Denni☯ 00:10, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to what links here and my recollection, Matthew Charlton was the leader of the Federal Australian Labor Party in the 1920's and was Federal Leader of the Opposition in Australia. This page prepared by Adam Carr who I understand is a Wikipedian in good standing [20] shows that he was leader of the Opposition between 1922 and 1928 when he resigned due to ill-health. I will rewrite the article tonight. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten to be about the notable guy above. --Etacar11 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to Mathew Charlton (the Australian politician), which it was until it was recently vanitydalized by an admirer of the young acticist-poet of this name. Uppland 05:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have looked at the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Charlton the ALP politician which lists him as being Matthew Charlton. Ross McMullin's book on the history of the Labor Party refers to him as Matt Charlton. If the aspiring poet gets deleted, I would propose moving the Mathew Charlton article to Matthew Charlton. If we decide that the poet is notable, then Matthew Charlton should be a disambiguation article with entries for Matthew Charlton (politician) and Matthew Charlton (poet). Capitalistroadster 06:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 14:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:BIO at this time. I find only two www links for him. One as a losing candidate in a UofT EngSoc election and the other in a blog of someone who the blogger met and gave him the Cosmology book which he describes as having "some good stuff in there". DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although whoever wrote this article didn't have complete information and did a half-ass job, I'll vouch for Matt. He's an important part of the queer community in his writing, poetry and art here in the city of Toronto. I'm a social worker who loves poetry and I have worked with Matthew before. He has won a few awards even here in Toronto for his poetry and speeches. He was reviewed in Word too many years back to note on the web and has been quite involved in the small press community in Toronto. His collection "The Cosmology of Love" has been read and even discussed at science fiction conventions. I believe Robert Charles Wilson has openly acclaimed Matthew's work. I wouldn't presume that just because a person doesn't have an instantaneously strong online presence that he/she is not notable. (Unsigned vote by Apoetical (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
    • Can you add information to the article with verifiable sources to show his importance and that his work has been reviewed? DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm also a gay man who lives in Toronto, and I can't vouch for Matthew being notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry — I've never heard of him, and queer Canadian literature is one of my areas of expertise. (That said, I have added categories to the article; that shouldn't be construed as a vote in favour of keeping.) No vote. Bearcat 18:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with User:Capitalistroadster's comment of 22 July 2005. However, the poet should be deleted as for now. There is plenty of time to add him to WikipediA at a later stage. Let him win some notable prices for his poetry first. For the time being Mathew Charlton written Matthew Charlton should be found here. --Marbot 09:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Hi I'm Matt's ex girlfriend from grade school. I say keep because this boy has been through a lot and deserves even the most tiny recognition of his gifts and skills. I know he isn't famous, but that doesn't mean the world wouldn't benefit from knowing a little more about him- Cait (Unsigned vote by 64.231.202.232 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me -Splash 02:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circular redundancy

Non-encyclopedic PhilipO 19:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above. I don't get it either. Hansonc 21:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete nm VfD, I've marked this and the other two articles created by the same new user at the same time for speedy deletion. I don't think meaningless rubbish should have to go through VfD. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB The article was speedily deleted ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 13:44, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

Practically empty PhilipO 19:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bee swat

Article is about a dance move. Googling for "Bee swat" returns 30 hits, none of which seem (at a quick skim-through) related. Googling for the band "Awful Waffle" + "Matt Jensen" returns no hits. Delete on the basis of non-notability. jglc | t | c 19:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was VOTE CLOSED. Fate of page tied to fate of parent page, also under VFD. No need for separate VFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matthew_Charlton By Manning 04:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Cosmology of Love

Self-published work by author who's up for vfd. No assertion of notability. Friday 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Kelkar

Not notable 66.216.68.28 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting The page has been edited Half of it's still attack, but the opening sentence, "Sameer Kelkar," has been replaced with dumb vanity. News flash: passing a test with a 73% pass rate does not make you notable. Anyway, it may no longer be a clear-cut speedy candidate, but it's definitely still requiring of deletion. Especially before an edit war happens between attack and vanity! The Literate Engineer 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nepnoc number

This looks like a personal invention by the creator of the article. Not a single hit in Google. Woodstone 20:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jenny Souksavath

Not notable, vanity 66.216.68.28 20:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pawg

Introduces a non-notable fetish website, then diverts directly into a POV fork. Several Times 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ron Black

Talk radio host in Oklahoma City. Low Google, non syndicated, in this case, means non-notable. ArmadniGeneral 21:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cooleeney

It's the name of a company--the article makes it sound like a specific kind of cheese--that gets 583 google hits. Single sentence stubs like this that possibly border on vanity/promotion should be removed until someone is willing to come along and write an encyclopedic article. func(talk) 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as very short article with little or no context. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it has enough by way of context to escape that fate, barely. It tells us it's a type of cheese, and cow cheese at that as well as what it tastes like. Context is not the same as content. -Splash 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The term only gets 501 Googles, but their summaries, even to several pages in do seem to indicate that this is a type of cheese, even if a minority one. -Splash 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject appear legit, and the article has been expanded into a short stub. --Allen3 talk 13:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Fab

Band vanity. DS 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete it. It wasn't made by us. I swear. We've got our own site that we work on. We're sorry! - Nork of P.R.E.F.A.B. (vote by 70.48.2.103 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Storyline patent

Neologism. Non-notable (6 hits on Google [25], 5 from the same web site). Presumably promotional (see the external link at the bottom of the article). I vote delete. --Edcolins 21:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Plot patent

Neologism. Non-notable. Presumably promotional. See also "Storyline patent" above. I vote delete. --Edcolins 21:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (6 delete, 5 keep, 6 votes by new users or anons), so keep --Allen3 talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Hideout

Local radio program, does not establish regional standard of notability EvilPhoenix talk 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Above comment is user's first edit. EvilPhoenix talk 22:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
IP address of page authorEvilPhoenix talk 04:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This IP address's first edit.EvilPhoenix talk 04:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Previous comments blanked by User:Fatbodyricardo [26]. EvilPhoenix talk 00:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bold textKeep great show lots of fans that would love to see this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbodyricardo (talk • contribs) 18:26, July 27, 2005

It was put on VfD: [27]

but I suspect the blanking of it may have removed it from being visible on VfD. EvilPhoenix talk 00:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Surprisingly, this doesn't appear to be copyvio. I've done some googling and can't find anything like it, though it is notable, perhaps, that the [page for this show] links into this page as information on its history. If the history is verifiable, though, this seems to be a show with a long history and might be considered notable especially given the set of programs not on vfd at category:radio programs (2 Sense especially comes to mind) and category:radio programme stubs. If Opie and Anthony on XM manage to land a spot there, a program on a major radio station in a city like Orlando would seem equally notable. While XM may have national coverage, its subscriber base isn't exactly massive. I personally don't feel that the criteria for non-notable has been met, but I'm not exactly convinced on the matter. --FreelanceWizard 06:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This show has a solid history and strong affiliations with legendary broadcast institutions such as WJFK FM, a heritage radio station in a top 10 radio market. This show is referenced repeatedly on shows like Ron and Fez, lending it further credibility. For the record, I am not a host or staff member on this show nor do I work for the radio station they are on or any other station they have graced. I am a follower of their careers however and this page should remain. Radiopeople 06:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (Note: Radiopeople (talk · contribs) has four contributions; three of them are to this VfD.)[reply]
  • Delete, nn local radio programme jamesgibbon 10:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this isn't a copyvio then I see nothing wrong with it. Agentsoo 10:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title sure seems familiar. Are you positive that this wasn't already VfD'd? ... hey yeah, I just checked the VfD history and this has been through before and prior votes have been deleted. Things that make you go hmm... — RJH 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is a copyvio -- the show as written in the article is fairly new and I doubt this much is written about it anywhere else. Besides, other radio shows have articles; this one's heard online and has callers from across the US (particularly DC, Texas, and Michigan), so where does 'local' radio become 'national' radio? Kutulu 01:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep,Has fans all over the country,good enough for an entry.BillyBob 16:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Above edit made by 24.165.249.72 --Allen3 talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_21&oldid=19330241"