Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 24

June 24

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Pluma

slang term You (Talk) 00:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, you barely beat me to it!-Splash 00:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• A definition. Should be speedily deleted, not voted upon. ‡ Jarlaxle 00:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I was hum-haahing over whether to speedy tag it or not. Which is hardly a speedy way for me to proceed!-Splash 00:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this SHOULD fit the speedy criteria, but I don't think it does, unfortunately. You (Talk) 00:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neoglism as stated above. Falphin 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable slang — Bcat (talk | email) 01:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Wetman 02:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Pluma delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:50, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 06:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ливай. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang neologism. JamesBurns 08:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just a reminder that Wikipedia is not a slang guide: WP:WIN drini ☎ 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same reason as Livi.~~~~ 11:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete and redirect --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Mountain making

Neologism with no supporting references. Claimed to have been used in regard to Jeff Gannon case, but a search for ["mountain making" + Gannon] doesn't bring up any applicable sources. Questions left on the talk pages of the editor and the article haven't been answered. Willmcw 00:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism not worth own article You (Talk) 00:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Bcat (talk | email) 01:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 06:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this, then make a redirect here to orogeny. Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with the redirect. I was looking for the right "mountain making" article to redirect to and that is obviously it. -Willmcw 19:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm changing my vote to redirect. (I wasn't aware of the Orogeny article.) — Bcat (talk | email) 22:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect barely. This seems like an unlikely thing to search for but is possible, I suppose. -Splash 23:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted page --cesarb 03:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel

Tagged for sppedy but not reaching any of the criteria (though it does appear to be vanity). no vote. Dunc|☺ 00:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Recreation of page twice deleted. The first was userfied to User:Edip Yuksel. I believe the second was speedied by JeremyA (deletion log). --Xcali 00:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete recreation of deleted article, duplicate of User:Edip Yuksel --Henrygb 00:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: already deleted once — Bcat (talk | email) 01:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Extreme vanity, but still not a candidate for speedy delete according to the criteria. Denni☯ 01:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." WP:CSD Section 1.1.4. --Xcali 01:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I was bold and added a speedy notice to the article (keeping the existing VfD notice). If this is in violation of deletion policy, please revert my edit. — Bcat (talk | email) 01:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From my experience, where there is a strong agreement among VfD voters that an article is appropriately speedily deleted, it is appropriate to put the speedy template on the page. I agree, by the way, speedy delete as a repost of previously deleted content. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy for reasons above. This does get the Biggest Awful Picture award, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure what the criterion were for the first two deletions, were they both speedy? I don't think this should be a candidate for speedy deletion... it's not pure vanity... he does have books out, which doesn't mean notability... but it does mean it's not blatant "I'm a 10 year old from Alabama" vanity. I'd think about keeping this, and if it was speedily deleted the first two times then I'm not sure that should be used as a justification for this deletion. gren 02:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What are the criteria for author notability? Anyone know? - Mustafaa 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would like to know that as well -- and I would like the users voting here to base it on that, not because of past (speedy?) deletes. And, just because the user who created his own page isn't the easiest to deal with doesn't mean it gets speedy automatically. gren 03:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

• Undeletion -- This has been posted for undeletion by User:BrandonYusufToropov and seconded by myself. This is a strange case...I've yet to see the original VfD that led this to be labeled as reposted content. I'm beginning to think that this was originally speedied, and people are just jumping on the "reposted" bandwagon without examining the article. I agree it was originally a vanity page (the version now appearing at User:Edip Yuksel), but the current version (yes, apparently someone reposted it yet again...bad users) seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. I will concede it needs a lot of NPOVing, but Brandon attests to the individual's notability. As I have on VfU, I recommend undeletion.

• Khizar- I too vote for UNDELETION. The article is now perfectly ok according to me as well as neutral. Also this is by no means reposted content. It doesnt resemble old content of yesterday.

• Undelete for me too. People confused by the bizarre back and forth of this case are urged to read the non-vanity version people have been busily editing into shape. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Note: This is an archived version of the old vfd closed on June 24. For the new vfd, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edip Yuksel 2 --Ragib 5 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP NSR 1 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

Stikfas

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was advertising. Seems unlikely to me that this was done by the company, more likely it was a fan. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep fairly-famous toy line. I've certainly heard of it. Like LEGO but with an emphasis on characters instead of buildings. 213,000 Google hits places it way beyond the ballpark of most VfD subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even more google hits than some porn stars. I wonder how many are 'relevant' though... Kappa 03:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmmm only 367 of those elusive 'unique hits' [1] Kappa 03:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Stikfas is the brand name of the glue that Singapore's Führer Lee Kuan Yew once sold. Delete the current one, and replace with Stikfas glue. -Hmib 05:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So this article should be deleted because something else has the same name? Kappa 05:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, because the object this article talks about is not notable and the other one is. -Hmib 06:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: looks somewhat notable, doesn't really strike me as an advert. — Ливай | ☺ 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Somewhat notable. JamesBurns 08:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable brand/s. Capitalistroadster 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per JamesBurns and Capitalistroadster - Very notable brand. CAPS LOCK 17:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable brand/s. LoneRifle 11:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Subandhu

bogus information, Subandhu is Indian, article claims Arabic, zero was later than 4000BC, more like AD something, other "facts" made up GangofOne 00:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete, patent nonsense. - Mustafaa 00:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an arab born circa 5000BC named Raphael? That doesn't ring true, as that'a a Hebrew name. In any case, probable nonsense based on above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certain nonsense. We do not know the name of anyone alive in 5000 BC; writing hadn't been invented yet. Nor is the name of the inventor of zero known. There were no Arabs in 5000 BC; there may not even have been Semites yet. There were no Arabic numerals until 400 BC. Subandu is not an Arabic name either. Arabic numerals does mention an early Indian mathematician named Subandhu, author of the Vāsavadattā, but this article sure doesn't tell us anything about him. - Mustafaa 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete clearly ridiculous. --Mintie 03:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems highly unlikely that the number zero was invented before writing. — Ливай | ☺ 06:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mustafaa. - 07:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Worthless. I have heard of Subandhu before, but as a mythical figure comparable to the diefied early pharohs.--Tjstrf 08:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. utcursch | talk 09:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Nonsense. Hindus of India and the Mayas of S.America are believed to be the first ones to use the concept of Zero. The very concept of 'Sunya' meaning void or empty orginated in India in 460 BC. --IncMan 12:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- for reasons given above.--Bhadani 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absurdity. -Splash 23:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

15 Seymour Street

"15 Seymour Street is the birthplace of the notorious serial killer James Cole. Pilgrims regularly visit." So sayeth the article. Presumably these pilgrims know what city or town the street is in, and who the mysteriously red-linked Mr. Cole is, too. Unless further facts emerge, delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's either made-up or not notable—Google search of "15 Seymour Street" "James Cole" yields zero hits — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:36, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• 15 Seymour Street gets 4,340 Google hits, but James Cole 15 Seymour Street gets none, so Delete unless the street's notability is genuinely established. CanadianCaesar 03:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Fingers-of-Pyrex's comments. --Mintie 03:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, dubious. — Ливай | ☺ 06:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, let's have an article about Mr. Cole, if he's truly noteworthy, but granular stuff like an adress shouldn't be an article. (at least not in this case) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James Cole is the name of the character Bruce Willis plays in 12 Monkeys. Does this address appear in the film too? If so, it's obviously a hoax. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ... or a contribution from someone who doesn't understand the need to separate fact from fiction or to provide context. Delete with gratuitous use of the F-word. Barno 17:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence such a serial killer exists. And not a reference to 12 Monkeys, that I know of (I love that movie). --Etacar11 23:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Zealand, fantasy, Google, Billie Piper

This could be from some unnamed work of fiction such as a novel or film, or the anabatic perambulations of a deranged psyche. There's no indication either way at the moment, but this gets a perfect googlewhack - one hit, so my money's on it being piffle. If I'm wrong and it's from a real fictional work, then either add to it or merge with whatever it's from, otherwise drizzle this shizzle'. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. I think they are all works of fiction created by Amadeus, a non-notable amateur author whose page is tagged as vanity. --Xcali 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:26, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "fantastical" and "made up" as patent nonsense. And "Hootersville" gets zero Google hits, so it's alsononnotablee, if not unverifiable. Delete all. CanadianCaesar 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as above. Grstain 11:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unverifiable likely extension of vanity. -Splash 23:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteinn fiction with no context. --Etacar11 23:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

' 'The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 'Please do not modify it.' Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk age if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

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

Pointenslutten

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

• Delete Neologism. Not even BADJOIN worthy. Hamster Sandwich 08:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. If this ever catches on, I shall stop speaking English out of principle. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wiki-Hell. Neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Tempshill 21:39, 29 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Creation science's attempt to question the reliability of dendrochronology

Looks, smells and feels like a POV fork. Unwieldy name, etc. Clearly a topic that should be addressed, but in the respective Dendrochronology or Creation science articles. FCYTravis 01:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Dendrochronology Rocky 01:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Addresses this real issue in an objective neutral way. If you merge this with dendrochronology it will be like merging Star Wars with astronomy. If it needs to be merged, do it with creation science. Bensaccount 01:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Objective and neutral? I suspect that a creation scientician wouldn't agree with that analysis. Pburka 02:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Such a person probably wouldn't, but objectivity and neutrality do not impose a duty to present bunkum as reality. Creation science in general, and this bit in particular, are not widely accepted by those with expertise in the field. As a minority "theory," their beliefs are entitled to respect and dispassionate presentation -- but not "equal footing" in the absence of equal evidence. Xoloz 07:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd vote for "merge and delete", but that's an incompatible vote. I'd vote for "merge", which would leave a redirect; but then I'd have to rfd the redirect. P.S. I agree that the merge should be with Creation Science. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Merge with Dendrochronology, which is the subject in question. If something else is done with it, there should least be a mention on the dendrochronology page. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete Silly title, POV, no value. --Mintie 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even the title is POV. Might be able to merge into Dendrochronology. Pburka 04:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content to Dendrochronology. A redirect seems unnecessary, but I take no position on the redirect. Xoloz 05:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to dendrochronology, no redirect. It might be true, but it isn't neutral, so it needs to be NPOV-ified first. — Ливай | ☺ 06:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it starts to address this non-issue. (Or this issue, if you (a) have just arrived from the nineteenth century or earlier, or perhaps (b) live in red-state USA.) Merge within Creation science -- not dendrology; see Bensaccount's comment above -- and redirect. -- Hoary 07:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Although I too appreciate the wit of Bensaccount, I think the Creationist's "theory" will be more readily and obviously debunked at Dendrochronology. Putting it at Creationism or whatever only piles fiction on fiction and obscures the question. Xoloz 07:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If it questions the reliability of Dendrochronology it should be merged there. We need to preserve the history per GFDL, (maybe copy to the talk page and then delete the redirect, seems to be appropriate for transwikies, so why not for merges...) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Creation science Peter Grey 07:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Creation science. JamesBurns 08:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I merged it with dendrochronology. Anthony Appleyard 09:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont necessarily agree with that but I'll abide by the majority decision. JamesBurns 02:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Creation science and Delete this silly article name without a redirect. As there is no consensus on where to merge this content yet, I reverted the merge by Anthony Appleyard into dendrochronology. I believe it belongs in creation science, but a link or "see also" in the dendrochronology article would also be appropriate. - Jersyko talk 14:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• See the guide to Votes for deletion on top of the VFD page. Merge and delete is not a valid option. We need to preserve the edit history when merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a POV on dendrochronology and should be present there, not at the page of the viewpoint to which it is attributed. Placing it on creation science makes very little sense. Right now scientific criticisms of creation science take up about half that article; perhaps we should move all that content to pages like evolution and leave a see also. I'm sure the creationists would be highly amenable to that change. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete Revolución 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe weak merge to Creation Science drini ☎ 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete detail, merge info Young earth creationism. Gazpacho 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete SchmuckyTheCat 15:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Scientific inquiry into multiple tree-ring growths exists. See [2], [3], [4] or [5]. Dan Watts 29 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
• Delete Quackery masquerading as science. POV. Tobycat 30 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)
• Delete This should have been a quick delete if for only the ridiculous title. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Null the bits. Deletion may not be good enough. Project2501a 30 June 2005 13:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus (split between keep and merge), so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

My Bologna

not article worthy: Merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:51, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Agree with Radiant: merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic (album). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:28, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The song is fairly notable and there are plenty of articles about less notable recordings. 23skidoo 02:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Gosh, I'm surprised at the number of Google hits. Keep, notable. CanadianCaesar 02:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to "Weird Al" Yankovic Columbia 03:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable song. Rentastrawberry 04:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic (album) unless expanded. JamesBurns 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic. I happen to be rather fond of his music but still, single songs do not require articles - Skysmith 09:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment - however there are many songs that do already, so there is precedent, and this is a rather notable parody. 23skidoo 11:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a merge to "Weird Al" Yankovic (album) - the album on which the song appears. Radiant_>|< 13:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most songs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Radiant. I know the album, I know the song, and while the artist is notable, this song really isn't, except (barely) as part of the album. Even the song which is being parodied had no significant influence. Barno 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. CAPS LOCK 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "Weird Al" Yankovic (album) - and merge most songs with either the artist or the album... of course, there are plenty of cases for which I would make an exception, but this is not one of them. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:09, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Weak merge perhaps delette drini ☎ 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Merge - Nn; at most a footnote in My Sharona.
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan - Starblind. -- Jonel | Speak 03:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly though it is, notable song that was a milestone in a long-lived, popular artists' career. Jgm 29 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)
• Keep. It was his first widely known song, and set the bar for his long line of food-based parody songs. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 30, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the song predated his first album. (Gosh, I remember that, too!) Old fogey, I guess ---> Yekrats 3 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Jipsorisen

Delete - apparent neologism. Google returns no hits. I'm also unable to find anything on John Paul the natural philosopher. Rlandmann 02:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a probable hoax or non notable term- Google's complete lack of results fishy. CanadianCaesar 02:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete John Paul (musician) and Terrible Trouble as well. One big hoax. Denni☯ 02:51, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Blackjack Pershing and "Chango Electrico" are part of that hoax CanadianCaesar 02:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all: Hoaxes. Geogre 12:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (including edits to John Paul disambig. -Harmil 21:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Jessica Livingston

Added on behalf of Wetman. He/she marked this article for speedy deletion. IMO, it doesn't match any speedy criteria, so I'm adding it to VfD instead. Abstain for now. (I may come back and vote later.) — Bcat (talk | email) 02:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio: Compare Wikipedia article to text source. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio, also not notable enough for inclusion. A partner in a not-established-as-notable seed money company funding startups. Barno 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable -Harmil 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The legal info for the Y combinator site says that the partners' bios are in the public domain. Sat Jun 25 16:42:04 EDT 2005 [Unsigned comment by 67.95.134.234].
  • Where? It says: "Site (c) 2005 Y Combinator." Nowhere does it state that the content is public domain. — Bcat (talk | email) 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The page reads "Site (c) 2005 Y Combinator, except the partners' bios, which are in the public domain." [Unsigned comment by 67.95.134.234]
      • You're right, it does. I was looking at a cached version of the page. Sorry about that. My vote is now delete as vanity. — Bcat (talk | email) 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's some history for those just coming to this VfD, and also a request for help. 67.180.141.230 created the page using content from [6]. Wetman marked it for speedy deletion as vanity. I removed the speedy notice and added the page to VfD on his behalf. I then commented here that I thought this was a copyright violation. Pburka replaced the page with a copyvio notice and added it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. User:67.180.141.230 then commented here and on the copyvio page that the site's legal policy had been changed to place the content that was in the article into the public domain. At this point, I'm not sure if I should revert the copyvio notice or not. — Bcat (talk | email) 00:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a copyvio, but it should be deleted--nixie 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. I have also copied the text to a subpage of User:Patata3. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars}

Belt Tower

This articler refer to a subject that is of merely local interest. It documents a 'game', which consists of attacking other players, played at one particular school.

(I was reluctant to nominate this since someone made a lot of edits on this, could userfy to USER:Patata3 (has no curent user page).) RJFJR 02:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I have no objection to userfying, but no reluctance in deleting this utterly non-notable vanity article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete patent vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't imagine any school in the days of "zero tolerence" letting its students fight with logs and rocks for hours at a time with blood being drawn. Even on the tiny sliver of a chance that this is true, it's still not-notable. Note: I'm against userfying a vanity article when the user's only substantial contribution is to that vanity article, as is the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps RJFJR's concern is that the complete destruction of this article, which someone has obviously put a lot of (misguided) work into, might discourage that person from becoming a good contributor. I'm largely indifferent, but would not stand against Userfying. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:07, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete: A goof. Geogre 12:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I hate to see this deleted outright. Keep it somewhere, if only on the user's page. Perhaps at least some of its contents could be merged into a comprehensive article on similar children's games like capture the flag or King of the Hill (game). Glad to know that boys can still be boys in Australia. Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, as I seem to be showing a weakness of spirit this evening. Since the user ought to have read some guidlines before embarking on such work, I would also be happy with a delete.-Splash 23:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ℬastique▼^talk 01:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge - Work has gone into it, it would be a shame to see it go to nothing [unsigned vote by Anon 210.50.80.187]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Ulfcar

not encyclopedic Orioneight 02:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable- dismal number of Google hits for Ulfcar paint CanadianCaesar 03:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising of a minor product. Geogre 12:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Now I have a name for my next D&D character at least. Smerdis of Tlön 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doubt it's advertising (though I guess sneaking in a badly worded article and hoping someone else will clean it up is an interesting way to insinuate an ad) -Harmil 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax or advertisment. Both deserve to be deleted. Rentastrawberry 17:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Marc El Duccio Shanon

userfy — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A user ought to know the rules against autobiography, and an autobiographer will quickly create user page material. Geogre 12:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
• Delete Obvious user page -Harmil 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Belongs on a user page. --Etacar11 23:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was MERGE into The Incredible Machine NSR 1 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Jeff Tunnell, Jeff Tunnell Productions

Non-notable. Denni☯ 03:11, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Keep. Lots of Google hits for Jeff Tunnell game. CanadianCaesar 03:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with each other. Pburka 03:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Incredible Machine, I think that's the only published game series he worked on. Radiant_>|< 15:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the two, and maybe merge the result into The Incredible Machine. --Carnildo 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Agreed. It seems this is just extra material for the background on a game (series). -Harmil 21:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Jeff Tunnell Productions into Jeff Tunnell. — Bcat (talk | email) 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both into The Incredible Machine. JamesBurns 03:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Nassar

Article makes no claim to notablility. Civil engineer turned importer. --Xcali 03:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It gets one Google hit that I couldn't even make sense out of; Delete unless notability is established. CanadianCaesar 03:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. Pburka 03:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This to me is total nonsense. Rentastrawberry 04:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nasser, common misspelling. Ben-w 10:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content as vanity, and Redirect title to Nasser,
• Delete vanity -Harmil 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

With Someone Else's Money

Non-notable Denni☯ 03:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete. This article uses the word "Noteworthy", but dismal Google hits suggests they're a little non notable CanadianCaesar 03:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Apparently, not a campus organization (so no merge to University of Georgia##Student life). Therefore, just a group of young folks who sing. Not signed, recorded, or distributed. Geogre 12:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Blackjack Pershing

Another invention by the deluded mind which created John Paul (musician) Denni☯ 03:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. CanadianCaesar 03:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John J. Pershing. NatusRoma 04:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Redirect for famous nickname, as per NatusRoma. Xoloz 05:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pershing. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pershing per above voters. -- BD2412 ^talk 11:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Redirect. Geogre 12:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to to John J. Pershing as above; if someone searches for Blackjack Pershing, it's a virtual certainty that they're looking for the General, not for an obscure rock band. Firebug 14:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, agreeing with Firebug in the absence of evidence of notability for the band. Barno 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as a precaution against recreation. — Phil Welch 20:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily redirected - per WP:BOLD. --FCYTravis 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 11:26 (UTC)

Mumrah

Was listed as a copyvio but permission was granted, however this group does not meet the music guidelines, no relasease, no significant tours, delete--nixie 03:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thundercats. Hiding 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to pansy Thundercats, per Hiding.
  • ^{D'oh!!! forgot to sign my vote. -- BD2412 talk 17:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)}
• Merge to Thundercats. Mumrah (or Mumm-Ra I am not sure) was an icon for every kid who grew up in the 1980s.-Poli 15:38, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Delete I was completely mistaken.-Poli 18:48, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete or Weak redirect (misspelled) Geez, if I was gonna go to all the trouble of naming a band after a cartoon mummy, I'd at least spell the name right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! I don't see what harm its doing? Leave the poor guys alone.
• Delete non-notable, also a terrible ska-band who should get their chops in order
• Keep I beg to differ with user Nixie, they have extensively toured the UK as well as played some notable London venues. In addition to two releases, they have also received some significant airplay on UK music channels.
• Keep Mumrah rule and are so much fun to dance to.
• Keep Mumrah are a very influential band. I have heard a few bands who have cited them as influences

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Creole English

I'm not quite sure what to do with this article. Is it necessary? I'm not an expert on dialects of English but I noticed on List of dialects of the English language that there is a section on Pidgins and Creoles but no link to Creole English. Two articles link to Creole English however: Trinidadian Creole English and Tobagonian Creole English. Both articles say that they are dialects of Creole English. Should we include this article on the List of dialects of the English language article? Please help. Thanks. ---User:Hottentot

• Keep and Cleanup. I'm not sure how language article naming conflicts should be resolved, but the topic is a notable one, so no need to delete. Xoloz 06:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It probably needs a re-name too, since there are plenty of English-based creoles besides Carribean ones. I don't know to what degree these creoles are intercomprehensible with English (and thus to what degree they are either dialects or separate languages), but mentioning them on the List of dialects probably wouldn't cause any problems. — Ливай | ☺ 06:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable linguistic topic. Capitalistroadster 10:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Creole is a name for a group of languages and a mechanism by which a new language forms. This article approaches the subject from the point of view of linguistics, whereas the List of dialects of the English language is more concerned with demographics. Inconsistency need not be a problem if you don't want it to be, but it would be nice to have this article fitted in as a link from the list as a "see also". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup is needed but this is a valid topic.
• Cleanup It is a valid cultural/linguistic article.-Poli 15:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Move to Carribean Creole English CAPS LOCK 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Carribean English Creole --Tabor 20:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Redirect English Creoles has most of this.Unsinkable 01:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, redirect to Creole language, since not all English-based Creoles are Caribbean. Most, however, are called Fooan Creole English. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creole language. JamesBurns 03:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

John Paul (musician), Terrible Trouble, "Chango Electrico"

None have been heard of by Google. Sure bet. Denni☯ 02:40, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete all hoaxes. CanadianCaesar 04:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, unverifiable likely hoax. JamesBurns 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, and probable ban for vandalism. That's what multi-page hoaxes are. Geogre 12:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Probable Hoax. Google results for exact phrase are dismal Same user created jipsorisen. CanadianCaesar 02:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment Vote above moved here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"Chango Electrico" (now a redirect to this discussion).--Nabla 21:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Nabla. Not sure what went wrong with my nomination, but I scratched it out to avoid the appearance of voting twice. CanadianCaesar 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooops. Didn't noticed that, sorry.--Nabla 02:01, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 23:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've added a vfd notice on Terrible Trouble now in case people find that page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Doug Esler

It is 1.) Just a school teacher 2.) Extremely POV i.e., "great" and "popular school below the equator" 3.) The creator typed: "This article is a useless stub." Krystyn Dominik 04:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable... but did you think adding "this article is a useless stub" was necessary? CanadianCaesar 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The creator added the "stub tag", obviously has a sense of humor. Kappa 05:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, my mistake, it looked like someone else added that. But it's still not encyclopedic... CanadianCaesar 05:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete - --harrismw 04:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 05:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli 05:22, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:57, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, if schools are notable than so are schoolteachers and individual McDonalds franchises Weak delete. — Phil Welch 20:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who is this guy? Why do people care for him? Also note that the article was created by an anonymous user (one not logged in) and thus this is most likely highly innaccurate (I don't know how to vote for deletions yet, so please tell me (my username is hunterd)). 19:18, 28 Jun 2005 (AEDST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 03:19 (UTC)

FNG

This page points to two no existing pages. It serves little or no purpose existing. harrismw 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Page seems to have been created so contributor would get to use the F-word in an article. Chortle (not). -- BD2412 ^talk 05:02, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete pointless dab page. JamesBurns 08:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No information -Harmil 21:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki? FNG is a VERY prevalent military slang. Pretty much anyone in any English-speaking organisation since the 80s probably used it. It is certainly not a worthwhile disam page, though, and not really worth an article. If not Transwiki, put me in for strong delete. Unsinkable 01:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary:FNG. I suggest not wasting the time. Uncle G 16:43, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Well, I hadn't ever heard of FNG before, for "fucking new guy" and I came here to look it up. So my vote is for it to stay. Why delete pages that still have meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.189.200 (talk • contribs) 04:00, June 28, 2005
  • Because Wikipedia is not the only WikiMedia project that you can look things up in, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there. Uncle G July 1, 2005 10:42 (UTC)
• Delete Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Phone rule

Too specific cultural aspect, if it exists at all. Not notable. Delete. -Poli 04:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Delete I can't think of a way that this is verifiable, short of wikipedians violating No Original Research to obtain verification experimentally. The Literate Engineer 05:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this utter nonsense - straight to the new and somewhat improved Wiki-Hell!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 05:28, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified (not by original research, but with text sources). - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Two searches on Google ("phone rule" chat and "phone rule" irc) yielded no applicable results on the first pages. -Harmil 21:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, as no valid reason for deletion was given (the article is not alleged to be unencyclopedic in any way, per WP:NOT), and the nomination was one of the first acts taken by a newly-established account. Wikipedia is NPOV and therefore does not censor articles at the behest of their subject. -- BD2412 ^talk 08:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Delta_Tau_Delta

This article is repeatedly used to disseminate secret ritual information of the Delta Tau Delta Fraternity and this is a clear violation of the national fraternity's policies towards the protections of such information. If this continues the abuse will be reported to the national fraternity

• Keep? I'm not sure what to make of this. The article is fine and certainly belongs here, but the complaint seems to be about an edit war going on between two anons as to whether the organization's "secret word" should be posted. No need to list it here, as anyone can see it in the edit history. Having once pledged a fraternity myself, I appreciate the importance of secret words and such to these organizations. Having since grown up, I appreciate the utter silliness of the whole thing. If the secret word is, in fact, a correct piece of information, it hardly seems to be our place to prevent it from being included in an article on the organization. Come to think of it, the article is kind of a puff piece, and leaves out stuff like this, and this. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:54, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep on ground of invalid nomination. Nomination unsigned, and no valid Wikipedia reason for deletion given. Xoloz 05:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, warn user, and "report to the national fraternity." What are they going to do, hold a kegger on our front lawn? -- Essjay · Talk 07:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Nomination does not establish criteria for deletion. --FCYTravis 07:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In light of the above votes, the lack of any criteria for deletion in the nomination, and the fact that the nominator was from a brand-spanking new account whose second edit ever was to start this vfd, I'm calling this a walk in the park and removing the vfd notice. -- BD2412 ^talk 08:00, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Bamboo band

Article is not a copyvio, but it is band vanity, no recordings, no tours of performances of any significance. Delete--nixie 06:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable bandvertising. Googling the band name with the lead singer's gives me just 9 unique Google hits. — Ливай | ☺ 06:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it seems one of those links has exactly the same text as this article, copyrighted. [7] — Ливай | ☺ 06:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in case copyvio clears, this is still vanity. Xoloz 06:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I own the copyright, and the band, but I didn't put the article up and I agree it's probably not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. James Fryer.
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 08:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Wiki crack

Neologism, slang dicdef, self reference to Wikipedia. Thue | talk 06:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete slang neologism. JamesBurns 08:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism... although the fact that I'm doing this at 5:30 AM - when I should be studying for the bar - almost makes me think there's something to it. -- BD2412 ^talk 09:36, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• marginal Keep; acceptable neologism. jamesgibbon 15:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thue. What is an "acceptable neologism" under WP policy? Barno 17:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need to be as narcissistic as our vanity page writers. --Scimitar 19:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism.
• Delete. No such thing as an "acceptable neologism" --Carnildo 21:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article in question does not make any special attempt to define the term and uses it only once, late in the article. -Harmil 21:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. To keep would be self-vanity. -Splash 23:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ha ha ha ha --GrandCru 19:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 03:22 (UTC)

Jonathan Ng, Tan Ding Xiang

I quote: Jonahtan [sic] Ng （ 黄 骏 杰〕is a Singaporean student.He is also a blogger and a Wikipedia browser.Tan Ding Xiang introduced Wikipedia to him. Do I really need to elaborate? -- Hoary 07:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I quote: Tan Ding Xiang,(陈鼎 翔 )born 1992,is a Singaporean student.His friends include Jonathan Ng. Do I really have to elaborate? Oh, OK: vanity. -- Hoary 07:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

PS Or speedy delete, to avoid unnecessary prolongation of any embarrassment for these two people, who perhaps just hadn't understood the difference between regular articles and user pages. Note that User:Tdxiang already exists. -- Hoary 13:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Comment. Combined virtually identical vfd's for efficiency, as no votes had yet been cast. Here's one: Delete both, non-notable, vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 07:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete both. Non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 10:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Damn, I found Wikipedia all by myself. Does that mean I can't have an article? Delete both blatant vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before they start introducing other people to Wikipedia and creating more vanity articles for them! — P Ingerson (talk) 11:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Conceit, introducing the new wave of personality cult. Slivester 11:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, anyone who can use a computer is notable. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review wikipedia:no personal attacks. Kappa 14:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any personal attacks in that bit of general sarcasm. I also don't see anything meeting the speedy deletion criteria, regardless of whether any of us agrees with Hoary's pragmatic reasoning. Non-speedy delete or, better, userfy the one without an existing user page and explain policy to these users. Barno 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Hoary above seems best. Kappa 14:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no claim to notability at all in either article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• delete User page -Harmil 21:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy under section 1.2.1. I'd say userfy Tan Dian Xiang, but it looks like the info has already been copied there. --Xcali 21:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, belongs on a user page. --Etacar11 23:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

Disaster Labs

Not notable. Best merged with the Arfenhouse article LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, or a web 'zine guide. As with band members, you've got to ask yourself whether or not a designer of something notable needs a biography, which is what an article under the personal name should be. Similarly, if a group makes one significant thing, does that group need a discussion? Geogre 15:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arfenhouse. Nestea 15:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Andrew Stephen Lee

Notable? Marked with a vanity-tag by User:SimonP on May 31. Abstaining. Uppland 08:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Andrew Stephen Lee (September 29, 1988 - ) is a notable American photographer, artist, and major figure in the stencil revolution movement. Funnily enough, I never heard about a stencil revolution movement. If doesn't explicitly need to state he's notable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He must be a true prodigy as he is already famous at age 16. If he is still 'famous' in 5 years he should be included.--Porturology 12:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity revolution movement CDC (talk) 14:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Teen vanity/hallucination. "Soon, you will have forgotten the world, and it will have forgotten you," as Marcus Aurelius said. Geogre 15:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the stencil revolutionary in me just sees nnanity. -Splash 23:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 02:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was moved to BJAODN. :o) - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

The Turnip Wars

Unverifiable - no hits for either site on Google or Google Groups (searching for the url as a string as well). Tedious trolling/fantasy. sjorford →•← 09:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. Unbelievably I just found myself google searching "turnips are evil" and "I love turnips" just to make sure. I think I'm losing it. Leithp 09:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Leithp, you've made my day. Delete! -- BD2412 ^talk 09:34, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. even if both sites existed and spammed each other, I don't see a reason to warrant an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly BJAODN as it's a fairly decent parody of the "forum drama" articles we get sometimes. If we do BJAODN, we should remove the name of the alleged "hacker", as it's likely a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. chocolateboy 12:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this actually rises to the level of patent nonsense. --Briangotts 13:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - potential BJAODN material. --FCYTravis 17:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - just kidding. Merge with BJAODN. Ich 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this happened and both sites exist(ed) this doens't belong here. Don't send it to BJAODN, since that should't exist anyway. -Splash 23:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - I love this one. Come on, Splash, didn't you at least chuckle? Unsinkable 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. I chuckled. Especially at "...were now going to concentrate on a "less crap vegetable"...". But that's no excuse for putting anything in BJAODN (imagine the equivalent being at the back of Britannica!). -Splash 02:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 03:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. I liked the part about joining to meet hot girls. JamesMLane 11:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete - If someone wants to write a good, NPOV article on the subject, this start won't help them. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Bai-dal

Non verifiable, dubious content, possibly original research Proto 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, delete Proto 09:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone's fantasy world. Here's the funny part: it gets about 800 google hits, most of which are not in English, but those that are appear to be posts in forums and so forth. Hundreds of them. So, what I think we have here is a nice Korean kid with a bit of a complex over growing up next to big ol' China, who thinks up an ancient Korean civilization that ruled most of China for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. -- BD2412 ^talk 09:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am having second thoughts on this, as further research from some of my fellow Wikipedians suggests that this myth has some legs in Korea - however, it remains highly inappropriate for it to be presented as fact-history. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete As per above, and by reading the article's first sentence. — Kjammer ⌂ 10:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs a {{disputed}} tag or something, not deletion. Kappa 13:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BDA. Radiant_>|< 14:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: you appear to have taken all of two minutes to research that vote. Kappa 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • (Adapted from your comment in a previous VfD:) Please review WP:NPA. Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you know how much time Radiant took to research his vote? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • The timings of his contributions seem to indicate that. Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • And how exactly is that relevant? Radiant_>|< 15:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Would it be true to say your vote is essentially an expression of confidence in BDA's research skills? Kappa 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Hey now, Kappa, I'm not particularly quick on the draw to delete articles - I put fair labor into researching this, and found nothing but similarly-worded collections of impossible claims. To wit: "The first Korean nation, Han-gook (also pronounced whan-gook), was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years". Google shows 239 English language pages for "Bai dal" -Wikipedia, (many of which are still not actually in English) and I tried quite a few of them. There are about 40 actual pages, and a lot of smoke and mirrors. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
              • BD2412 I know you researched this topic, and I thank you for doing so. However I find your hypothesis that "some kid" made the whole thing up to be rather implausible, and certainly not proven, which is why I vote for it to be kept with a "disputed" tag until someone with more specialized knowledge or skills can check into it. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • Then I must revise my analysis to say that some person made the whole thing up. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
      • If you mean that he posted something else 2 minutes before his vote, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done research previously. In any case, there's certainly no minimum research time required before one votes, and calling it out like this veers uncomfortably close to a personal attack. I think an apology to Radiant is in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • OK I apologize to Radiant, it was badly worded and I was irritated when I said it. However I'm pretty sure that BD2412 is the only 'delete' voter who has done any significant amount of research, I'm happy to be corrected on this. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is a mixture of facts to create a synthetic that's unverified and hoax-ish. "There were people in America 30,000 years ago." "Canada was settled 300 years ago." "The ancient American civilization was ruined by Canadians." That kind of thing. Not wicked, but not true, and not encyclopedic. Geogre 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The proper treatment for unverified statements is to attempt to verify them, not to dismiss them as "hoax-ish". Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • • Comment: Kappa, I'm glad you're concerned with the "proper" thing to do. What would be the correct thing for an author to do? Would it be A) Write whatever you want with the expectation that Kappa will vote "keep" for it? B) Present verifiable and verified information, along with references? This article fails its duty as an article. It violates the deletion policy. The "proper treatment" of things that violate the deletion policy is to vote "delete," not castigate other voters for not agreeing with you. Geogre 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Which of those statements can you verify? Which statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China can you verify? Does Geogre's contribution history prove that he didn't try to verify them? Delete, unverifiable. Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I can't verify any statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China. But conveniently, there aren't any such statements in the article. I note that he made the more conservative statement "unverified" rather than the very confident-sounding "unverifiable". Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified claims, no sources given. The article was marked as needing verification on May 30, and it still has no sources three and a half weeks later. I simply don't understand keep voters who insist that a delete voter falsify all the claims in a dubious article. The burden is on the other party. WP articles must be verifiable—this is absolutely non-negotiable. If you want to keep this article, prove that it isn't nonsense. Quale 19:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence given for claims. --Carnildo 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep with clean-up. I believe this is actually a fairly well-known "legend" held by many Koreans and should have an article to discuss it but it would need to be in a factually-based way on the unverifiable legend. It should be noted that this verbatim content appears to have been removed from the Korea and History of Korea pages in the past. See: Talk:Korea#Weird, Talk:Korea#Yello.21, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Korea&diff=next&oldid=7007070 , The Origin of the Korean People: Who are the Koreans?. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I think the source of this legend or hoax or whatever is the apocryphal Hwandan Gogi written in 1911. It's mentioned in Dangun and Chi You. Kappa 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable claims. JamesBurns 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the Baedal (배달) legend has no business being taken as historical fact, it has assumed an important role certain aspects of modern Korean nationalism. In particular, the Christian thinker Ham Seok-heon placed quite a lot of store in it. I'll put some more content in the article when I have time. ... Besides, we need something to point to the next time someone dumps a Baidal section into History of Korea. -- Visviva 05:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an article on the legend. Needs complete rewrite, suggest move to Baidal or Baedal. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 2, 2005 13:30 (UTC)

List of U.S. Highways with freeway portions

Oh no. This is just List of U.S. Highways minus a few. Delete. --SPUI (talk) 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, perhaps put asterixes on the main list notifying any with freeway portions. Proto 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless list, more SamuraiClinton-cruft —Wahoofive (talk) 12:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of U.S. Highways as per Proto, (though asterix already in use on that page for another purpose). DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I normally LIKE lists, and I think this should go. Unsinkable 01:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this information has any value it should be provided by sophisticated software (something like SQL by user), not by hand written lists. Pavel Vozenilek 02:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless list. JamesBurns 03:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)