Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

July 20[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep the article but delete the original versions from the database since they are copyvios. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim al-Marashi[edit]

down the road this guy might very well be notable, but for now delete Babajobu 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability. Friday 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless a list of his published work appears and can be verified.Hamster Sandwich 04:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a notable figure in the context of the Dodgy Dossier. That makes him a minor somebody, but we have articles on less notable people. I'm going to add a prominent reference to his role in the scandal. --Diderot 09:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The originally posted text was a copyvio from his homepage. I've modified the text enough to no longer be a copyvio, but a round of delete and restore is recommended if the consensus is to not delete, in order to purge the history of copyright violations. --Diderot 10:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from original nominator...I'm no longer as confident that this should be deleted. When I VfD'd it the article did not state that this guy was the source for the Dodgy Dossier. He's certainly well known as "the PhD guy whose material was cribbed by the Blair administration", if not as nearly as well known by his own name. I don't know, I could really go either way on it now. Babajobu 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the new information. Pburka 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete the edit history with the copyvio material in it. Sooner rather than later before other people start editing it. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the wub "?/!" 15:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete copyvio edit history if possible. Capitalistroadster 16:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering his importance in the Dodgy Dossier he should definately remain. His history is essential to an understanding of 'why the dossier was dodgy'.24.215.252.158 17:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability established. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some have notability thrust upon them, any possible copyvios are a separate issue. PatGallacher 00:49, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Bickel[edit]

Not notable/unverifiable-- BMIComp (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Verifiable. [1], for instance. Pburka 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shows he has published nothing, and is referred to (maybe) in one book. -Splash 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily verifiable, noted astro-physical photographer. But this article is crying out for expansion and elaboration. Any Takers? Hamster Sandwich 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs work, but certainly notable. Cnwb 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand It seems notable enough Cyclone49 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Forig 11:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pure speedy delete under criterion #1 as it stands. If there is no more than a fact in it by the end of voting, I will pull the trigger. Right now, this tiny amount of content could be in a more general article (e.g. one on recent asteroids or on one of the asteroids he discovered). This is not an article. It's a couple of facts. He may be verifiable and notable, but "is a country" isn't an article, and neither is "He is an astronomer who discovers asteroids." Geogre 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unverifable. I can't read those Google hits, and it's all very well observing asteroids, but anyone can do that. If evidence can be found (and translated in English) that he has discovered something, then that's different. Otherwise, this is a speedy candidate under the "no assertion of notability" clause, which is now official policy (see the examples at Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles before telling me that "prolific discoverer" is such an assertion). -Splash 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above --PhilipO 21:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete not much info out there to establish real notability, but I'd change to keep if it was expanded. (I know nothing about this guy) --Etacar11 23:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are many links to him from the lists of asteroids. Uppland 07:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: clearly notable enough for an article. Uppland 09:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I suppose that discovering a couple of asteroids would make you notable. Radiant_>|< 11:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: There are a lot of people who have discovered asteroids. Unless there is something particularly significant about his discoveries or his career, I see no reason to keep this. ManoaChild 22:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verified stub. Almafeta 02:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. See my update of the article; he has discovered not one or two, but dozens of asteroids.--Pharos 08:53, 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.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ned (Scottish)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1 for the first debate]] Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time, but editors don't want to respect that and insist on keeping the article. It is an identical term to Chav, merely scottish, and it seems that some Scottish patriots are insisting on a separate article even though it is identical in meaning to chav, SqueakBox 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Contrary to the assertions of Squeakbox, 9/7 is by no means a consensus. The previous AfD was closed as a keep by another admin and this decision was changed by Squeakbox two months after the initial closing of the AfD. Although the two terms bear some superficial resemblance, they are by no means the same. The use of "ned" pre-dates "chav" by at least forty years. --GraemeL (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is to decide between keep and merge the article shouldn't be discussed here. Speedy keep this, Pilatus 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland != England
File:ENG.PNG
NO
Scotland+England+Wales+NI= UK

(erm, what about Wales and N. Ireland then? Just arrogance ignoring them really, isn't it?)

Wales and NI don't have their own versions of Chav, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Irish version is a 'spide'. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. This is the place to discuss it if it needs to be redirected, SqueakBox 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy is here: WP:DP. You want to put merge tags on Chav and Ned (Scottish) and discuss the move on the article talk page. Pilatus 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable term that is used in Scotland as an equivalent to the English Chav and Irish Scallywag. Piecraft 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. You have reverted in defiancce of a Vfd and now you are claiming we cannot put another vfd on it, SqueakBox 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that reverted the redirect, not Pilatus (who I assume the comment was directed to). Personally, I have no problem with you taking the issue back to AfD. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no problem not making it a redirect but just merging relevant material and deleting. I am not arguing that scally should get the same treatment because Ireland is a separate country. We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may interest you to know that England and Scotland are also separate countries; They just happen to be part of the same state. Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. --GraemeL (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am English but I respect the indisputable fact that Scotland is a nation with its own culture. By the way there is no such thing as a "marginal consensus" only a marginal vote, which is not a consensus at all. CalJW 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why does everything that is distinctively Scottish have to be homogeneised and fitted in to an English perspective of the planet? Variety is the spice of life. For another example of this linguistic levellerism, see Talk:Public school (UK).--Mais oui! 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is distinct to Scottish culture, irrespective of similar expressions that may or may not exist in other Britannic cultures.--Nicodemus75 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neds are particularly and peculiarly Scottish, in the way that Bogans are Australian. There is no such thing as an English Ned. Average Earthman 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an argument that doesn't work. Consider gasoline and petrol. That "there's no such thing as American petrol and no such thing as English gasoline" doesn't mean that we have two separate articles. See below. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This argument relies on a false analogy. "Gasoline" and "petrol" are synonyms: two words used to refer to the same concepts, albeit in different dialects. On the other hand, "chav", "ned", "bogan", etc. refer to similar -- but not identical -- concepts, because they refer to different subcultures of people. Colin M. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing the point, and you aren't citing sources for your bald assertion. Again, I point to what I wrote below. Uncle G 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, shouldn't the article be called Ned (slang) or something more obvious?--nixie 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's best not to. This is not supposed to be a dictionary article about a word, but an encyclopaedia article about a type of people. For a dictionary of slang, see Wiktionary, which has a long list of these regional slang words. (See Wiktionary:chav and what it links to.)

      The discussion on whether or not to merge is not a linguistic one, as several editors above have erroneously painted it, but a sociological one. We don't have separate articles where the titles are merely synonyms for the same person/place/concept/event; nor do we have separate articles where it is simply the case that different countries have different words for the same things. (Witness gasoline/petrol, squash/marrow, and so forth.) This is an encyclopaedia, with one article per concept, not a dictionary with one article per word. The important question to answer is not about the words at all, but is whether the two concepts are in fact the same. That's (a) a discussion that belongs on the talk pages not here (since merger of duplicate articles doesn't involve deleting anything) and (b) a question that can only be answered properly by citing sources on the subjects of these concepts.

      Unfortunately, citing sources is exactly what is almost never done in chav, charva, townie, bogan, gogan, westies, feral, and their ilk. The articles are perennial original research magnets. (Witness as an example the edit wars over what vehicles certain stereotypes own and drive, and the lack of cited sources on all sides of those disagreements.) These discussions have been, too, with editors using "I am English", "I am from Newcastle", "Xe is not Scottish", and so forth as the sole bases for their arguments — bald assertions that that add no weight at all to the arguments that they supposedly support. I encourage both editors who assert that neds and chavs are the same and editors who assert that neds and chavs are different, to cite sources. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Neds are a different group altogether. Typical Anglocentricism. Why not merge chav into Ned? Vizjim 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as nobody at all wants this deleted, including the nom. Slap a disputedmerge tag on both pages, and argue about it on the talk pages in question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neds, Bogans, Hoons, Westies, Scallywags, Chavs et al. Fight Saxon imperialism! Grutness...wha? 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ned phenomenon has a depth which appears to be lacking in these chavs come lately, and is well worthy of an article...dave souza 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neds are distinctly Scottish and predate chavs on the evolutionary timeline by quite some distance. --Cactus.man>Reply 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Chav. They might be slightly different, but the differences will be best explained by having the two on one article rather than an extensive duplicated comparison on different articles. Thryduulf 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If anyone needs merging, it is the chav newcomers. Both articles should be kept separate though, as there are enough substantive differences to merit this. Leave wur neds alone ;-) --OorWullie 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Unless of course you want to merge Chav with White Trash because those are identical terms, but Chav is mearly used in the UK rather than in North America --Colin Angus Mackay 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Personally I think the definition of Chav, at least as given in the Wikipedia article, is much less precise, and also that article is subject to a factual accuracy dispute at the present time. That dispute, for me, is enough for me to support keeping the articles separate for now. The term Chav, as used in England, is much more wide-ranging than ned, being used to label anyone who is alleged to demonstrate poor taste in their choice of clothing, motor vehicle or lifestyle, even if that person of royal blood (Prince Harry). OTOH, "Ned" is a much more precisely defined term, covering mainly teenagers who are almost exclusively working class. English teens with a similar lifestyle are only one part of the amorphous Chav grouping. If the Chav article is improved then I might support a merge, but not at the present time. -- Rugxulo 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Un-merge. Definitely distinct from chavs. --Meiers Twins 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have just read the Chav article again and see that Ned (Scottish) has already been merged, by User:Squeakbox on 24 September ([2]), yet his listing here (25 September) states: "Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time ..." So why the pre-emptive merge without discussion on the relevant talk pages? There is also a discussion starting about this on the Chav talk page. The merge should be undone, pending concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I can't find the previous AfD discussion to check User:Squeakbox's assertions, it just keeps coming back to the current AfD page. Anyone have the correct link to the old page? Cheers. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The previous discussion is here. Squeakbox did link it at the top of this discussion. It was closed as "keep, strong suggestion to merge and redirect." by admin Dmcdevit·t on July 27. For some reason, Squeakbox decided to overrule that decision two months later. --GraemeL (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I followed the strong suggestion to merge and redirect, and got reverted, which is why we are here. So I did it for the rather obvious reason that that is what was suggetsed in th elast Vfd. Your comment aqbout my overturning the decision is false and makes no sense. I enacted the decision, not overturned it. Or are you suggesting that merging with and redirecting to chav was not a "strong suggestion to merge and redirect." SqueakBox 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and recognise charva as a totally different thing too. How do you reopen these deletion votes? I never got a say on the last one.

>>We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned,<<= BS. Charva is totally different, I suppose in southner terms it is a mixture of a chav and a hoodie (though it does mean more then this). They are certainly not 100% chavs. Charvas also predate chavs by a decade or over, you have only started hearing about chavs this century but charvas have been a common part of the NE for as long as I can remember. >>Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. -<< Again total rubbish. Chav is the derivative of charva, chav is a more mainstream, non-criminal popularization of charva culture with far heavier american aspects mixed in. Just as Scotland has its own culture north east England also has its own culture equally distinct from that of the south. The petrol argument doesn't work. It could apply if we were talking about western petrol and that totally different stuff they used to have in eastern Europe though for petrol/gasaline, two words for the same thing. Definatly not.-Josquius

  • Keep and Un-merge. Is it not time we wrapped up this strand and just get on with un-merging the Ned content that was prematurely tagged on to the Chav article?--Mais oui! 10:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as separate article. Notable also for the political fallout when Rosie Kane (Scottish Socialist MSP) said the term should be avoided. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and unmerge. The term is in widespread colloquial use in Scotland,among all classes. It certainly deserves its own article. Its not as if we are going to run out of pages, and it prevents suprprise when someone follows a link and ends up in an apparently unrelated article. --Nantonos 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Up[edit]

Ding, ding. Time up gentlemen please, drink up now. This discussion has surely run its course. Can some well balanced admin please do the necessary closing up procedure in accordance with the voting. Thank you. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:28, 2 October 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. FCYTravis 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myran[edit]

non-notable vanity stub Babajobu 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Allmusic has never heard of him. no evidence of notability. Friday 02:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DeleteNot Notable. He claims to be a Sony artist, but Sony dosn't have any record of any "Myran".[3] Hamster Sandwich 04:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable rapper vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Vanity. --Ragib 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent vanity or hoax --Irishpunktom\talk 20:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 10:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Valenstein[edit]

At first I thought this article just needed severe NPOVing to correct rampant POVisms like "The eminent neuroscientist ... rejecting the simpleminded 'chemical imbalance' theories used by drug companies in marketing their products" and "biochemical theories are an entirely "unproven hypothesis" - and probably a false one - used to excuse the often unconscionable marketing practices of the drug industry". Then I thought to Google, and this "eminent neuroscientist" gets just 138 hits that don't loop back to Wikipedia. Delete seems more appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He does seem to be real, but apparently not well known. I'd like it if he were notable, but I can't see that he really is. Friday 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's published. He teaches at an acredited university.[4] I'd say thats notable. Hamster Sandwich 05:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of accredited universities. Are all their faculty members automatically notable? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, it needs a rewrite as at the moment it reads like the short introduction in a booklet to acompany a conference or lecture tour. Additional evidence of notability and passing the average professor test would be nice as well. Thryduulf 11:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Authors with a long history of being published in their fields. Rx StrangeLove 02:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Documented & provides an alternative viewpoint that can be cited. | Cwolfsheep 15:20, 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 keep. freestylefrappe 00:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Muslims[edit]

This page has essentially the same info as Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Delete freestylefrappe 01:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. --malathion talk 03:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Freestylefrappe appears to be confused about the status of the Macedonian Muslims - they are a Slav Muslim minority comparable to the Bosniaks, not Albanians (who are an entirely different ethnic group). I've made this clear in the article. -- ChrisO 07:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChrisO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Republic of Macedonia. JamesBurns 09:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be inappropriate and inconsistent with other articles elsewhere on Wikipedia – the article on the Republic of Macedonia is about a geographical entity, not an ethnic group. For instance, the article on Croatia is quite separate from the article on the Croat people. -- ChrisO 10:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Republic of Macedonia article has an entry on muslims, it's not just a geographical entity. JamesBurns 07:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that's just a brief demographic overview of the country's population. It's not an ethnographic article about any particular ethnic group. -- ChrisO 10:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep (The title should possibly be edited however) The basis for the deletion vote is invalid, this article has nothing to do with Macedonian Albanian Muslims. The article is about the community of Slavs whose ancestors converted to Islam. They are ethnically unrelated to Albanians and by the way not all Albanians in Macedonia or Albania are Muslims. There is no reason to delete this information about a unique community in Macedonia, what I would suggest to avoid confusion and for the sake of clarification is that the article title be altered.. instead of simply Macedonian Muslims, I would change the title to Slavic Macedonian Muslims or Macedonian Muslims (LOCAL NAME) with one of the indigenous names for the group in parentheses. --Haraald 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Distinct group of people. Capitalistroadster 11:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not a distinct group of people. Macedonian Muslims are unique from other Macedonians in their religion. However, the percentage of Slavic Macedonians who arent Christian is extremely small. Even if the end decision is to keep, this page should be renamed Slavic Macedonian Muslims as Macedonian Muslims would imply all citizens of either the region or the Republic. This is what lead to my initial confusion and assumption that only Albanians were being addressed on this page. freestylefrappe 19:16, July 20, 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. FCYTravis 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link whoring & Link whore[edit]

Dicdef neologisms. I see no potential for expansion. They are already at Wiktionary. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 01:47, July 20, 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 revert back to the redirect to Thoughtcrime. I will let the page history stay, so if anyone thinks there is anything in the article worth merging with that article, just take a look at the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought police[edit]

Let me state first off that certainly a legitimate, well-cited, balanced and NPOV article could be written on "Thought police". In fact, it was. Then it was merged and redirected to Thoughtcrime. After it had already been merged and redirected for about eight months, someone turned it into a separate article again and rewrote the content to reflect who he believes the modern "thought police" are. This is a POV fork, and it should be deleted without merging. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Per the good point brought up by Christopher below, changing my vote to restore the redirect without saving the forked content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just make it back into a redirect. Grace Note 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikigames[edit]

Wikipedia is not a free webhosting provider. This page proposes an entire wikigames-subproject. It's bad enough that we tolerate these things in the sandbox. Games can be played on http://games.wikicities.com/ which has specific wikigame-extensions; even if such a project was actually to be proposed as part of Wikimedia (whose mission is to distribute free knowledge and which is funded by donations given by people who expect that we use their money as such), it would belong on m:Proposals for new projects, not in the Wikipedia: namespace of the English Wikipedia. Note that there's also an edit war on this page with SDSUPinoy preferring this version. The page also nicely demonstrates the problem with wikigames; it was created by a user who has been doing nothing but playing and creating them, not ever contributing to the actual encyclopedia. It is often alleged that games on Wikipedia reduce wikistress. Given the record so far, I have doubts about that. --Eloquence* 02:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. SDSUPinoy's version is misleading in suggesting this forms a demonstration wiki, which it does not. The page only serves to promote games that were previously "hidden" in the sandbox. This gives too much credibility to a set of pages that ought to have been deleted, and gives the impression that anyone can set up a test wiki within Wikipedia, over-riding the proposals for new projects policy. Angela. 02:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Their introduction more or less admits that this project is contrary to Wikipedia policy. --malathion talk 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not project-related. (Just to clarify, these are the same games listed on WP:FUN) Gazpacho 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Beland 04:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Angela. JamesBurns 09:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jamesgibbon 12:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless page -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are actually quite fun, they've got a whole league going there on the chess page, stop being so boring. --Differentgravy 20:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like it. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. If I liked sucking your blood, would I be entitled to do so? This Wikigames nonsense is nothing less than parasitism and should be quashed as soon as possible. Binadot 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but if you made a game about such a scenario on allowed wikipedia editors to play said game it'd be cool --Irishpunktom\talk 23:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eloquence. Strong nomination thoroughly convinced me. Xoloz 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, the database for this Wikipedia fits in two CD-Rs and a few spare floppies. The onus of a page like this on the Wikimedia foundation is negligible. Almafeta 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could be said for every page ever listed on VfD. The reason for the nomination was not "takes storage space".--Eloquence* 07:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eloquence and Angela. -Sean Curtin 02:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. FCYTravis 06:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reza ghassemi[edit]

Vanity page about an electrical engineer who also plays musical instrument. Userfy or delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since the author of the article blanked it after VfD nomination, it may be considered as signal that he agrees with delete. Pavel Vozenilek 11:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. possibly vanity. Friday 02:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect user to LiveJournal --malathion talk 03:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity.Hamster Sandwich 05:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I find that the contents have been removed from the page. Dear, this is not the way. --Bhadani 10:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, yes it is <nods enthusiastically> — it makes it a speedy candidate on the spot. -Splash 21:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and vanity. --Ragib 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Please note however that I have counted the anonymous vote, because I see no evidence of it being cast in bad faith. Nonetheless, there is clearly a rough consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will Soderberg[edit]

Artist vanity, I don't think that CSD past to here's the VFD =(. Delete, no evidence of notability, no allmusic.com or artistsdirect.com entry. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Friday 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Borderline, yes, but I think that artists can be "notable" even when they work outside the music biz paradigm. Grace Note 03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. If he were notable for any reason, it would have been established immediately; but the only rationale given for his notability is hopelessly POV. --malathion talk 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity, if over 10 years of making noises counts as an entry, wheres mine? Followed links led to CDR's by the group, for sale. Hamster Sandwich 05:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a difficult one. While he has been recording since the late 1980s and playing live since then, his lack of an Allmusic profile indicates that he probably just fails to meet Wikimusic Project guidelines. Weak Delete. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Googling this artist reveals published discs, tours, interviews with him etc. I don't see how it could be vanity - however the article needs to be re-written to be encyclopedic.24.215.252.158 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must be signed in to vote. Anyway, delete as vanity. Binadot 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure that's entirely true, anon voters are allowed to vote and contribute to consensus (as Wikipedia is not a democracy) but there votes are usually given less credibility by and the admin closing the VFD. Anyways, the consensus seems pretty clear on this one so I guess it doesn't really mattter (I may just be beating a dead horse). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, that CSD did pass, and this article contains no assertion of notability. See the WP:CSD page as amended after the poll, and the examples cited for this particular new policy. -Splash 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does contain some assertion of notability if you click through the links and what not, to defend my actions, I knew that the vanity page had passed but wasn't entirely confident that this fell under it as proposal C-3 did not pass. Just to clarify =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. http://white-rose.net/shows.shtml indicates that they've toured in two countries, satisfying WP:MUSIC. 900 google hits is pretty notable, too. Pburka 00:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I'm almost inclined to agree with you there except the page in its current state should be deletable... I'll see if I have some extra time to rewrite it today, until then, my vote remains. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_>|< 12:27, 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. FCYTravis 06:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Frances Galea[edit]

non-notable vanity. delete. Alynna 02:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Friday 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, briefly, to see whether it's a misplaced User page. Peter Ellis 05:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Although I would read an article about a horse psychiatrist. Hamster Sandwich 05:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable--Forig 11:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Agree with Hamster Sandwich! - Lucky 6.9 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ekeni[edit]

Less than 300 Google hits, no Alexa ranking. Sounds like vanity to me. Denni☯ 03:03, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

  • Delete no redeeming qualities whatever. Friday 04:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone figures out how to fit the word "website" a few more times into a single sentence. Hamster Sandwich 05:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terricolous[edit]

WP:WINAD. This is a dicdef that has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 03:36, July 20, 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 07:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

North & South Soundsystem[edit]

Delete. Band vanity. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban (Internet)[edit]

A ban on the internet is pretty much what it is elsewhere. This looks like a dicdef. Gazpacho 03:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per Gazpacho. Hamster Sandwich 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 12:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Same reason as Gazpacho. NickC 18:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could be expanded.  Grue  20:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not expandable, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 20:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd like to say keep, but I've no idea as to how this can be expanded --Irishpunktom\talk 20:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm also tempted to try to expand it, but it wouldn't merit a full article. Binadot 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please it should be expanded too Yuckfoo 21:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand it. The Time Killer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

An Intoduction to Connected Limited Device Configuration, An Introduction to Java Virtual Machines in MIDP, MIDlet Preverify, and An Introduction to J2ME[edit]

Marked {{move to wikibooks}} by its only nontrivial editor, and I agree that it would fit in better there. I have already performed the transwiki. —Cryptic (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (copyvio as well). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire Ambulance Service[edit]

"range of services", "our area"—This is a vanity/advert. The population of the United Kingdom is approx. 60 million. Gazpacho 03:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Gazpacho. Hamster Sandwich 05:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm sure they do fine work but, nothing really encyclopedic about them. Dcarrano 12:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely agree with all above. Grpunkim 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • copyvio and so marked on article page. -Harmil 03:53, 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. FCYTravis 07:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas layfield[edit]

Musical artist, only album is a self-release. Gazpacho 03:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability. Friday 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Can use the rejection as fodder for material. Hamster Sandwich 05:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable--Forig 11:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this does assert notability. Meelar (talk) 14:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn musician vanity. --Etacar11 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Scheer[edit]

Apparently non-notable bamboo artist. Gazpacho 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep see edit. Hamster Sandwich 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published author. Pburka 00:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, publishing a book about how to make things from bamboo is not what I'd call notable. Radiant_>|< 12:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Radiant! CDC (talk) 21:28, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic mythology[edit]

  • Delete. Written in another language and all caps Acyso 18:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article looks a lot better now! It actually reads properly. Acyso 02:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm listing this old nomination. It should have gone to WP:PNT (it's French), but given the name and the word Shiva, it looks like anything salvageable there is likely redundant with something else. Neutral for now until this can be confirmed, but if it is, I'm leaning towards redirecting wherever is the redundant info is. Keep all Bhadanis. --Dmcdevit·t 03:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Vedas. --Jpbrenna 04:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC) (My first ever pro-deletion vote!)[reply]
I didn't realize it was going to add comparative material not found in the Vedas article. Yes, a lot more material exists in French because of Georges Dumézil et al. Let's Keep and get a French Wikipedian to translate the article for us. --Jpbrenna 01:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cahanged my mind after reading the current edit.Nice Work! Hamster Sandwich 05:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely important subject - it describes the foundation (i.e. preceeding mythos) of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, as well as the link to Proto-Indo-European religion. But translate and wikify at the same time. Unfortunately most of the research in this field (ancient near-eastern mythology) is done in French (historic reasons for France to be the major origin of it). Please note, this would be like VFD'ing Greek mythology because it contained the word Zeus as in Jupiter (Jupiter = Dyeus Pater, Zeus = Dyeus, the same proto-indo-european god that became Tew as-in Tuesday). The Shiva that it describes is the pre-Hindu version of Shiva etc. . ~~~~ 07:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject may well be worth an article, but I see nothing in the present text that merits preservation. I have no objection to someone else researching and writing something new from scratch, but unless there is a volunteer, this text might as well be deleted. I provided a translation at Vedic mythology so you can judge for yourselves. --Diderot 08:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it has now been rewritten and seems likely to be a viable article. --Diderot 17:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments- It appears to be a significant topic. I will come back with more comments in a day or two.--Bhadani 10:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I will vote when Bhadani gets back with his edit but I would vote keep for even a decent stub. It appears to be clearly notable in Indian religion see [5].

Capitalistroadster 11:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Forig 11:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments: - I have updated the contents with fresh inputs. I will try to give further inputs, if I get some time. I am not recording my vote for "Keep", as I donot want to do so for my own edits. --Bhadani 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the original texts, after putting frsh inputs. Please see the articl's tal page.--Bhadani 16:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; important and interesting topic, and Bhadani's rewrite is good. Needs further expansion. Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bhadani's rewrite and expand further. Capitalistroadster 17:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand: Looks ok at its current state. --Ragib 17:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly an important topic, the underlying mythology of one of the 4 largest religions in the world.24.215.252.158 18:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete anymore. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. Binadot 21:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since reason for deleting is no longer valid. --Bambaiah 08:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks fine now :) Flammifer 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. Sietse 10:42, 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 KEEP. -Splash 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scott Gall/Museum of vandalism/Exhibit 5[edit]

nazi-page --141.53.194.251 07:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep this. I don't think stuff should be "stolen" from "museums." I'm a good girl. Besides, can you actually read German or did you just recognise the word Hitler? [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{NazismIsntCool/sig}}

Nazism isn't cool]] 3 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

Keep. Same reasons as NazismIsntCool. I'm the curator of this museum, so don't go planning thefts. It's illegal to steal from museums. Scott Gall July 3, 2005 09:50 (UTC)
Delete. It's not stealing because we're using a wiki. I think the page is a bit over the top. 218.101.117.25 3 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
Keep. A museum is just there for showing stuff. That's what the museums in London have - a lot of stuff just for show. I wouldn't steal from them, would I? Barely There 4 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not a Nazi, but this stuff is not there to entertain or raise suspicion - it's just for show. Besides, it's illegal to steal from museums in Kazakhstan. HellRaiser 4 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)
Keep. Petru is right - this stuff is just for show. It's to show people how bad vandals can get. Jesus Lover 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
Keep, it's his userpage, he should be able to put whatever the hell he wants on it. Isn't that the point of userpages? Cyclone49 04:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, almost whatever you want... there are limits though but this doesn't really cross the line. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions
Speedy keep its in his "Museum of Vandalism" so its just to show what VANDALS are doing. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Who cares what goes on in User space, anyway? Documenting the range of vandalism possibilities is what allows this stuff to be boring, old news. If we Delete it, then we allow it to be original again by repeating it. Eric 08:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep jamesgibbon 12:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a record of vandalism, although there's no need to be zany about it. Binadot 21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to get worked up about, but I'd say this is an entirely inappropriate use of userspace. Scott Gall has already stated on his page that he'll move it to Wikicities, I think that's a lot better. From his main museum page I infer that he's doing this to prove he'll make a good admin; I'm not convinced that it actually proves such. Radiant_>|< 12:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep becuase it is in userspace Yuckfoo 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You DO know Scott Gall isn't actually promoting that message, right? Almafeta 02:50, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swapna Reddy[edit]

Notability not established, appears to be vanity. --Alan Au 04:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur. Gazpacho 04:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 04:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only notable in a "quiet" way. Hamster Sandwich 05:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I also concur.--Bhadani 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find nothing to connect her to Hefner or the French novelist so, it's unverified. And isn't it an Indian (as in India) name? Not Native American...? Very odd. Anyway, nn vanity if not a hoax. --Etacar11 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seem to be several Swapna Reddys, and none of them seem particularly notable. Etacar11 (talk · contribs) is right -- this smells like a hoax. Pburka 01:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, unsubstantited information. --Ragib 02:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:Pakaran/Wikipedian political entities[edit]

This was apparently never listed in the log. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 04:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Useless, too cluttered, and nonsense. User:Pakaran didn't even make this page; it was made by an anon. I say delete! - 68.72.128.19 04:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment It could be that User:Pakaran was the anon. I'm not inclined to delete it until Pakaran denies (or confirms) this. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - 68.23.46.106 20:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 69.216.232.38 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 68.72.113.117 21:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This vfd was started on April, yet as May ends, no resolution has been decided upon. - 68.251.209.191 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't make that page. Anons have been making it based on some of my user subpages like User:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia but I wouldn't miss the page in question. Nor am I asking for it to be deleted; I basically don't care. Pakaran 11:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Delete - 68.23.111.5 04:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - 68.72.129.171 03:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - 68.255.37.206 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Normally I wouldn't vote to delete a userpage, but since Pakaran doesn't even care himself, there really isn't much point keeping it. Cyclone49 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Abstain) Comment: good grief. I've never seen so many anon votes. sockpuppet city. Kingdom of Wikipedia must be an IP shelter. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you ever poked an ants' nest with a stick and watched all the ants come scurrying out to see what the problem is? I wonder what the equivalent is for sockpuppets? -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a load of red links that the user admits to not creating, thus the "user-page sanctity" gentlemen's agreement of Wikipedia is null and void, imo -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about just redirecting it to User:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia ? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is just a lot of made-up BS. Why are inclusionists "liberal" and deletionists "conservative"? Where did all these names come from anyway? Somebody must have just made them up. The last thing we need is another index of useless red-linked articles that will never be created. Binadot 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless red-link farm. JamesBurns 07:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What the heck are we losing? We could just as well title this page "List of political terms followed by 'of Wikipedia' just for the heck of it." Almafeta 02:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if Pakaran will not miss the article and does not care about it's fate, what harm is there to delete the page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:53, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mfisn[edit]

Delete. The article didn't give enough information for sorting its stub. It also was deleted in November 2004. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be about a website. no assertion of notability. Friday 04:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Friday. Dcarrano 12:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I never bothered to see its past history, so it's my fault for starting the article. --crumb 14:16, July 20, 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 lame deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbo slice[edit]

Non-notable local 'underground street fighter'. "Kimbo slice" gets 219 displayed hits but almost all are forums and link farmsEG, most of which have it in the keywords, but not in the visible content. Niteowlneils 04:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing verifiable here. Friday 04:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cursory research indicates he is not ranked by any professional or amateur fight associations in North America or Europe. Hamster Sandwich 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hamster Sandwich. Dcarrano 12:47, July 20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista (Mexico)[edit]

Neologism / inaccurate agitprop. MEChA as an organization does not seek what the article claims, even though it has members who believe that it should. See [6] Gazpacho 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article needs to be edited for POV content. A type of article that should be included in Wikipedia, or merged with any similar articles about hispanic separatist movements.Hamster Sandwich 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Info should be added to MEChA article. However, if the organization disputes that this is one of their policies, then I don't think there should be a redirect. Dcarrano 12:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — The existence of the radical Reconquista philosophy is a fact and is notable. Article needs editing for neutrality, not deleting. — RJH 15:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge if someone who knows where to look can find where to merge it to. Reconquista mexico gets 100,000 Googles which is enough for me. -Splash 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RJH. This is a notable component of MEChA philosophy, albeit one lacking any official sanction at the present time. I think it can be developed further. Binadot 21:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Article needs expansion/cleanup. Kaibabsquirrel 02:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable,but needs expansion. Salsb 00:13, 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 No consensus (split between keep and merge), so default to keep --Allen3 talk 11:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Klendathu[edit]

This is an article about a fictional planet in a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein. I don't think it's notable in any way. Bcrowell 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Starship Troopers. Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and expand, if possible) - admittedly, I'm an inclusionist, but, these poor Category:Starship Troopers folks don't have their own HeinlienWiki, and it has SIX legitimate pages pointing to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Shalov (talk • contribs) 03:34, July 20, 2005
  • Keep; there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are at a simliar level of "notoriety", and unlike a physical encyclopedia, there's really not much of a limit on how large this one can grow, so there's no need to delete minor but genuine articles. Atlant 11:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Starship Troopers as per WP:FICT. Dcarrano 12:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion and a bit of a clean up. The ST and ST movie pages are long enough already and this would look out of place if merged. -- Lochaber 13:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, as standard practice for fiction. -R. fiend 14:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a "list of planets in Starship Troopers". If it's not merged into a list of planets, then rename to Klendathu_(Starship_Troopers) to make it distinguishable and keep the Wikipedia semi-neat. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge.mikka (t) 22:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per WP:FICT --Carnildo 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Starship Troopers article - the Starship Troopers universe (as written by Heinlein) is as valid and notable as Trek and Star Wars. Note: User bias: Heinlein fan ~ WCFrancis 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing wrong with it Proto t c 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 12:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. One novel and two movies (both made, IIRC, after Heinlein was dead and with little or no input from his estate) don't exactly make a "Starship Troopers Universe" - certainly not in the same category as ST or SW. Heinlein's works about Lazarus Long might be, however. Soundguy99 15:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charline Murphy[edit]

Notability not established, appears to be vanity. I'm tempted to speedy this as patent nonsense. --Alan Au 05:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dolbydesigns.com[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. --Mysidia 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ad. They specialize in SEO.. ugh. Rhobite 05:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reads like a collective resume. No Alexa rank. Delete and send it to BD2412's Wiki-Hell. —Cryptic (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete "We have; Our; We have" Crass commercialism, total POV if nothing else. Hamster Sandwich 06:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Blatent Canadian advertising. - Eric 08:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advertising not a WP:CSD, unfortunately, unless it is a single external link (or a list of external links is usually speedied too). -Splash 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn advert. Google only gets one hit - their site. -Splash 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Hedley 02:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Nyquist[edit]

Vanity page. Rhobite 05:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Speedy Delete" I had to write a bio for one of my classes here, and my roomate thought it would be funny to embelish and expand it and post it here. It is a bit funny ;) Thanks for the good luck wishingMatthewNyquist 09:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Matthew Nyquist[reply]
  • Delete Vanity indeed. -- BMIComp (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "popular site" that keeps this from being a speedy under the new vanity criterion has an Alexa rank of 2,157,585. —Cryptic (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I didn't realize that vote had passed! We can speedy delete clear vanity articles now? That's a step in the right direction. Rhobite 05:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete NN Vanity until he's finished "waiting for his break" to come. I wish him good luck. Hamster Sandwich 06:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since apparently it can't be speedied? I'm not sure I'd consider having a website an assertion of notability, but that's just me. Friday 06:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear vanity. Tobycat 06:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. Good luck in Hollywood. --Etacar11 00:34, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Sutton[edit]

This is a vanity page about my uncle. However, neither he nor I wrote it. I found this on accident and he had no idea as to its existence. There is also inaccurate information the article. For example, he didn't co-found those magazines. And neither is he married as the article states at the end. He isn't that well-known Chris 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe a different Michael Sutton? Not related perhaps? Hamster Sandwich 06:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, there are accurate things in this article. Definitely him. --Chris 06:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If neither you nor Michael Sutton himself (nor anyone else in the family) wrote it, it's not really a vanity article. Do any of the accurate things in the article establish his notability? If you could correct the inaccuracies first, then Wikipedians could better decide whether they think he's notable enough for an article. It's also possible someone has conflated two Michael Suttons, finding some things out about your uncle and other things about the other guy, and thought they were the same person. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I won't bother with fixing the inaccuracies. I'm really not interested in doing so even if I had the correct information; it was my uncle who said the stuff was inaccurate so he's in a better position than I am to fix it. It's funny you mention the two Michael Suttons thing because that is how the whole thing started in the first place. I was demonstrating to my grandmother (she is not familiar with computers) that there are multiple Michael Suttons on the internet via Google. And we were shocked when this page showed up. I've been on Wikipedia for a while and never saw this page (well it was created last month). But yeah, all this is very strange. --Chris 08:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you say he's nonnotable, I'll take you're word for it. Delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hopefully notable in the future. ;-) --Chris 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I am sure he is a good researcher on rock music especially Pinoy music, it would appear that he is not notable enough to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 07:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable. Hamster Sandwich 07:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax or mixup as per the guy's nephew. Dcarrano 12:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dcarrano. Binadot 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page might have been made to slander him. Almafeta 02:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amy richardson[edit]

A vanity article about a high schooler. Tobycat 06:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. —Cryptic (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy No real claim of notability other than being a high school student in the northern beaches of Sydney. Capitalistroadster 07:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Save it for the year book, kids. Hamster Sandwich 07:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Heh! Silly ninth grader! "Amy and James have developed a strong relationship, and this will continue to grow as they mature into young adults." Hah!
  • Speedy delete. It's horrible. Frightening even. Should be counted as nonsense, and speedied as a result. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, of course, although the original text might have been BJAODN-worthy. Binadot 21:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L.Scott[edit]

Improperly spaced. Notability not claimed. No inbound links. Wikipedia ≠ geneology site. a clear and present vanity TM — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia may not be a genealogy site, but Wikitree is. Just for reference. DS 14:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, vanity article. Keep watch on the VfD notice, I had to revert an edit that removed it. Tobycat 07:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, what is thy name? I am always surprised that everybody is not well known and famous. Aren't you? Hamster Sandwich 07:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious persecution by Muslims[edit]

Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article. Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) User:-Ril-[reply]

This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added a discussion[7]. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC [8] complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the ones who sponsor the VfD (like Ril and Axon) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. --Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this user User:-Ril- actively pushes for a RfC for me. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the above statement is mildly inaccurate. I co-signed an RFC that was also co-signed by a large number of other users disturbed by Germen's editing behaviour. For those that are interested, the RFC is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Germen ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that one of the accusations in aforementioned RfC is the spurious creation of articles, as manifest by the frequent VfD votes on them. These VfD votes originate from users with a known pro-Islam bias, e.g. Irishpunktom, which propably mobilize supporters in order to win the vote. So the VfD accusation can be seen as an example of blaming the victim in the totalitarian tradition. --Germen 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think if you change the word "By" (in the title and some of the sub-sections) to the word "OF" this article makes alot more sense. The author seems to be writing in terms of persecution OF Muslims. I read the article and much of its information seems to be covered in the blue links I followed. Perhaps some of this material should be Re-Directed or Merged with the existing material. I think an edit would help this page. A historical record of the persecution of any population certainly warrants notable topic status, and the tone of this one seems largely historical rather than an opinion piece. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is already a Persecution of Muslims article, this page is yet another opportunity for Germen to spread his anti-muslim propaganda (he's already created numerous pester pages that have all been deleted through lengthy VfD). I see no reason not to cover the same subject matter in the Islam article. Also I'm not sure that religious persecution can be used in this sense: when I hear the term I generally think of people being persecuted for their religion, not people being persecuted because of religion. Axon 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Persecution OF muslims is completely different of persecution BY Muslims. Failing to see this difference is symptomatic for user:Axon. I did cite verifiable sources, so what I wrote cannot be classified as biased anti-Muslim propaganda. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to Hamster Sandwich's remarks. Your continued attempts to contradict votes and harrass voters here and on other VfDs are not welcommed. If nothing else but for the sake of your own arguments, please desist. Axon 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Legitimate comments on factual inaccurate statements cannot be classified as harassment. Your continued argumentum ad hominem attacks and logical inaccuracies are not welcomed. --Germen 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).[reply]
          • You haven't actually highlighted any "factual inaccuracies" other than mis-reading my remarks. Your continued attempts to shout down opposing votes is not doing you any favors or making people more inclined to vote in your favor. Axon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, responding to remarks is a valid discussion practice and cannot be considered harassment. Thus your remarks are logically inacurate. Note that your continued attempts to shout down opposing voices are not doing you any favours of making people motre inclined to vote in your favour, for as far that matters. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so arguments are more important than votes. --Germen 13:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Persecution of Muslims is not the same as Religious persecution by Muslims. In fact, it is totally different, making yours a moot point. I don't see how you can miss this (or expect anyone to fall for it). Furthermore, I would think that more people were persecuted for not being of a certain religion, than for being of a certain religion, which in my opinion makes this article more relevant than Persecution of Muslims. I am not sure what you're trying to pull here, but I don't like it. --Dv 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Huh? Axon 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please come up with a better response? If not, I will have to assume that you have some sort of agenda which beyond simply making a valid contribution to wikipedia. TIA. --Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote pending result of VFD on Religious Persecution by Jews - This article was created first by Germen, and I, apparently very unwisely, that a "Religious Persecution by..." series to be a good idea. I had planned on including every major World Religion and Atheists (Communists, and perhaps French Revolutionaries, etc). However all in-all out, and if the jewish one goes I'll nominate Religious persecution by Christians too.

--Irishpunktom\talk 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Finally I agree with Irishpunktom on something. The idea of "persecutions by the followers of religion XXX" is unwise. Don't mix fanaticism, ideology, politics, greed, etc. with religion (one's relationship with god). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork by problem user. Dcarrano 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also "problem users" can suggest useful articles. Also, it is not proven I am a problem user. A decision on deletion should be taken by checking the article on its merits (or lack thereof), not by judging by person. --Germen 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Main problem with the precursor of this article was its title. The title has been changed to the more accurate "Religious persecution by Muslims", which is a valid entity. --Germen 12:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Argumentum ad hominem. This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. I am not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added a discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all viruses of the mind must persecute other viruses in their struggle for existence (unfortunately). Dunc|☺ 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the only virus of the mind is the one that dismisses all other metaphysical belief systems as viral, and rather arrogantly claims a monopoly on truth. christians, muslims, jews, hindus, and atheists have all proven themselves prone to this virus from time to time. Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason I supported keeping the Religious persecution by Jews, by Christians, by atheists, and other articles in what could have been a great series. Unfortunately, the "How dare you speak ill of my people?!" brigades in each community will never let these articles survive. Too bad. Wikipedia can still be a good resource for noncontroversial topics. It's just not mature of enough for sensitive ones. Babajobu 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see why this should not be documented. Dv 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Note, this user has less than 50 edits to his name[9]. Axon 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And? Dv 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • See WP:SOCK. Axon 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have and I am thus far still missing your point. Please elaborate. Dv 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • For the purposes of voting, editors with less than 100/500 (can't remember which) or so edits can be considered sock puppets. This should be referenced in the sock puppets page. Axon 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Axon, I have checked Dv's edits and he does not seem a sock puppet to me, but rather a new user which has contributed to several useful articles, e.g. about programming languages. It is Wikiquette not to bite newcomers. --Germen 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • And whose sock-puppet am I? Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • Axon, agressive attacks on other users will not favour your case. (sic) --Germen 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayjg, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? Also: persecution BY muslims does not qualify as a fork of persecution OF Muslims, it is a completely different subject. --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, and I dare someone to claim that there isn't pertinent information for this article's expansion. Shem(talk) 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. But it would be nice if the creators of these articles covered that pertinent information from the start. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Valid topic but poorly written and obviously incomplete. It covers too little and takes too long to cover it. On the other hand it is well organized and opens the door to better. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have amended my vote as noted above in response to the edits by Hamster Sandwich. The article is now much more focussed and useful. It still needs a lot more research and work. However, it is easier for that to be done when the aritcle is present than when it is not. Also, I for one would like to see Religious persecution by Jews done properly and in keep-able fashion (as is not currently the case, even with my own edits). A page such as this may help to inspire and guide those who can do a good job with that one. --EMS | Talk 01:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge in Persecution_of_non-Muslims. Also keep other articles in this series. the wub "?/!" 15:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with the reservation that we should take a decision that the persecution by... articles should either all stay or all go. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (user has less than 50 edits) Keep Unlike ceratin other articles created by IrishPunkTom as a smokescreen for religious bigotry, this article started out well researched and well sourced, and shows real potential to be a proper and NPOV article dealing with the religious persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim lands and Muslim religious doctrines.Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the constant Personal Abuse toward me? I've only seen your name on the two VFD's before. Why is Religious persecution by Jews considered "religious bigotry", yet Religious persecution by Muslims "a proper and NPOV article". If you know so much about the history of the Jews, can't you help NPOV of the Jewish one? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not involved in any "personal abuse" towards you. I do however, after reading the versions of the other two articles which you created and after reviewing your talk page and your edit history, feel that you have a strong enough bias and that you are not behaving within Wikipedia policy. The two pages you have created are violations of NPOV and WP:POINT as referenced by Jayjg, while this article deals with something that is a very REAL phenomenon today as well as in the past. Existentializer 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I absolutely reject the logic behind this vote. I worked on this article much more than I did on the other "Persecution by..." articles, but there is absolutely no way you can support keeping this one and dismiss the others as "religious bigotry". Either you accept the general concept of articles covering persecution committed by particular religious groups, or you don't. To accept one such article and reject others is, ironically, a pretty clearcut case of "religious bigotry". Babajobu 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a feeling that if we delete one and we keep another it will mess up the whole point of the religious persecution series.Heraclius 17:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I don't really see any true persecution in the article, other than the bit on Iraq in the 1940's. Needs better organization. --Bayyoc 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic POV magnet. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • SlimVirgin, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There is religious persecution by people from all walks of life. I initially wanted to vote keep, but it's highly unnecessary, IMO. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but only the Koran is replete with verses like 5:51 in the mix. Religious persecution under Islam is a matter of state policy, which begs a significant distinction and is worthy if note and NPOV study.Existentializer 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but this article is begging for controversy and vandalism. If there were a way to possibly clean this up to deter as much controversy as possible... I change my vote to abstain. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To say that ONLY the Koran makes statements like 5:51 is a generalization and is not accurate. What did Jesus mean when he said "If you are not with me, then you are against me"? Have you read of the Israelite's campaigns against their neighbors? Making statements like "only the Koran" suggest that you have some beef against Muslems, thus diluting the arguement to keep the article, which I support as long as it is historically accurate.--Bayyoc 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, the wonderful mistranslation and taking out of context. Try this link with regard to that verse; the Vulgate version is even better but you have to be able to read Latin. And just FYI, the translation of that verse is HEAVILY debated since the same verse in Mark reads the other way: "For whoever is not against us is on our side." On the other hand, the Koran verse stands without question in its own context.Existentializer 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely my point! This article is a lightning rod for controversy. If it is to be kept, there surely has to be some way to reduce this factor to avoid silly squabbling like this. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine. I admit I was too lazy to look the verse up, but my paraphrase isn't that far off and the context seems the same. The point of both 5:51 and Jesus' statement is that there is only one way to salvation and, frankly, I don't see the problem with 5:51 in that it reserves the punishment of sinners to Allah. Not one of the three religions is innocent of bloodshed and if you have articles about Christian and Jewish attrocities, then you are obligated to examine Islam as well. If there ever were Christian, Jewish, or Muslem attrocities against other religions (and there certainly were), you are obligated to to examine them. The "Persecution by..." series seems legitimate. If the content of the articles needs cleaned up, then clean them up, but I don't see how you can justify deleting them just because someone might get offended by them.--Bayyoc 19:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons as I gave, for deleting "Religious persecution by Jews." I will jus copypast those reasons here: "The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: "Religious persecution in Israel" could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: "Religious persecution under king David's reign" or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: "Religious persecution under Judaism." While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; "Religious persecution under Islam." This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: "Religious persecutions by Muslims," or even more direct: "Religious persecution by Arabs" (I'm making the comparison, because being a "Jew," is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: "Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes." It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure." Fadix (My Talk) 20:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote: Keep, but change the name of the article: This article is much more worked around than the other, and a name like: "Religious persecution under Islamic rules" would rightly fit the content of the article. Fadix (My Talk) 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say: One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization, but you suggest that Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes would be a valid title, which is inconsistent because the latter title is also a generalisation. You fail to give a reason why such generalisations should be avoided. Obviously, the article with a title like Religious persecution by Muslims does not imply that all muslims persecute all the time, merely that at some point in time group(s) was(were) persecuted by Muslims in a manner which warrants an encyclopedic article. Quite frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make I suspect that there is none. -Dv 20:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I changed my vote, as for your argument, I think I was clear enough in my answer in the other articles vote for deletion. Fadix (My Talk) 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please Yuckfoo 17:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP I just applied an edit to the article. I hope it provides some clarity and more concise thought than the original. I was initially confused by the title (I thought the article was dealing with issues concerning the persection OF Muslims) but after reading it several times and also the comments here I applied an extensive edit to it. It lacks some information concerning internacine persecution of various Muslim factions. I only hope it might be helpful in deciding the issue. And to illustrate that constructive critisism is usually helpful in expanding the Wikipedia, whereas derision and obfuscation of the issue almost never is. Hamster Sandwich 00:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Volunteers welcomed. --Germen 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep per my vote in Persecution by Jews. Together with DJ Clayworth, I agree that these should all stay or all go. Until policy is sorted out, I default to keeping all articles in this series. Xoloz 03:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Revolución 04:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Revolucion has voted "delete" on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews; on the other hand, he has eagerly promised to expand the Religious persecution by Christians article. I agree that the latter could have been a great article and should have been expanded, but I question the motivation of a bourgeois playtime "revolutionary" who thinks only one religious group can commit religious persecution. I would discount this vote as bad faith. Babajobu 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: YOU MAY NOT DISCOUNT A VOTE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE WHAT YOU THINK THE VOTERS REASONS TO BE. ~~~~ 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A vote without a stated reason is not valid as per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Germen 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 16:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 16:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not just have the article religious intolerance than religious persecution by X. Note that this article is the most extensive of the series, the series being created to allow this article's existence, and to go "oh, look, its the muslims who are the worst", by having the islamic-related article the largest. ~~~~ 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that should be the final solution. Just one article with an overview section (dedicated to general forms of intolerance: the "how's") and then specialised historical sections on "intolerance by whom, where and when". However this requires putting together historical knowledge from widely different fields. So the practical idea is perhaps first to develop the articles separately and then (when some balance is reached) to merge them: --Mario

21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable and encyclopedic topic. See also Jizya. Klonimus 23:25, 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) 00:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. VFD votes are usually based on the article's potential, not its current state. -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with you, but I don't think this article (or the other 2) has much potential, as the title alone assumes Muslims (or Jews or Christians) are monolithic in their (mis)behavior. Much of the persecutions that have happened are not even necessarily related to religion, nor to all adherents of the religion en masse. I also believe much of the content in all three of these articles is already addressed (or should be addressed) elsewhere in Wikipedia in more specific and balanced contexts. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:10, 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 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How can historical fact be POV? -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • The historical fact itself is not POV, it's the way it's framed. Articles titled "religious persecution *of* (fill in group here)" are okay, but "religious persecution *by* (fill in group here)" carries an implicit implication that Muslims, Jews, or Christians as a whole are responsible for persecution (as opposed to individuals who may also happen to be Muslims, Jews, or Christians), or that there is something systemic in the religions that leads to them persecuting others. That's implicitly promoting a POV against all three religions. Kaibabsquirrel 23:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almafeta 02:53, 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
  • Delete crazyeddie 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Incognito 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletethis and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article can be written EdwinHJ | Talk 17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • #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) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable POV magnet. - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...together with Religious persecution by Christians 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 23:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the "Persecution by" series gets deleted, so should the "Persecution of" series. The first series is the necessary counterbalance to the second. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic because it provides an opportunity to address issues specific to persecution by muslims. amazing how ad hominem wikipedians get in their vfd's. there should be a rule. Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is becoming ridiculous. LokiCT 22:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LokiCT (talk · contribs)'s 14th edit, made 36 minutes after his/her first edit. Voted "Keep" on VfD for Religious persecution by Jews. HKT talk 23:02, 22 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 02:17, 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 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *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 02:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we must concentrate on the reasons of persecution. If this reasons are religious, so is the persecution. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
German, how do we know whether the reasons are religious? How would you define the examples above? In one case it was a group of Christians slaughtering Jews for the crime of being Jews, but it was not explicitly religiously motivated. In the next case, it was a lone crazy Jew who killed Muslims because of their religion, but did not represent a wider religious group. In the final case, Islamists were attacking others for religious reasons, but it is not clear whether the attack was persecution or not. The issue is that these articles seem destined to turn into a dumping ground for a list of everything that anyone of that religious affiliation has ever done wrong. Until someone defines the article series better, and what religious persecution is (as opposed to nationalist persecution, etc.), I would strongly urge to delete. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GoodOldPolonius, I think it is not so difficult to find that out. If the perpetrators of persecution cite religious sources and religious reasons and those reasons are supported by theological evidence, we safely can assume it is religious persecution. Exactly because of that reason I added a section "Theological justification for/against persecution" in order to make this clear. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question - lots of people appeal to religious motives, others do not cite religious reasons, but their actions are clearly religiously motivated. And what "religious persection" is remains anyone's guess. A good way to start would be for you to catagorize the three examples I gave as religious persecution or not. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult indeed, Goodoldpolonius. Because people consider a religion to be their supreme frame of reference, it would be more logical for someone to attribute non-religious violence to religion than the opposite (unless it is all part of a propaganda war, in which it would be opposite in order to prevent defamation of the own religion). It is quite impossible to look into the perpetrators brain, so we have just their words and actions available as a reference. And the validity of the religious motives they gave.
As per your three examples-
              • Christians killing a Jew for being a Jew per se are not acting per religious reasons, as there are no reasons in the Bible to kill Jews, except for the supposed responsability of the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. This, however, contradicts the Christian dogma that Jesus died for all sins, including the sins of the Jewish perpetrators and the fact that according to the canonical Gospels Jesus asked for forgiveness for the ones who persecuted him. It can be cited as a (misguided) religious motivation, however.
              • The lone Jew who kills Muslims because of their religion can act because of religious reasons or not, I do not know enough about Talmud and other contemporary Jewish writings. The Tenach does not mention Islam, so cannot be used as a source for anti-Muslim violence. Only when Muslims are considered to be enemies of the people of Israel (as some right-wing Zionist groups do) there exists a religious reason for killing them as far as I understand Judaism.
              • The Sharm el-Sheikh attacks are partially motivated by religious reasons because of the suicide bomber element. A secular terrorist will attribute more value to hios life and will not expect a reward by God for his act (thus will choose another method of terrorism, like remote-control), while a religiously miotivated terrorist will and therefore prefers suicide as a sure means for achieving Paradise. There are some theories, however, that the harsh treatment by the Mukhabarat of Sinai Bedouins has motivated the killers. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have me truly baffled (leaving aside the Jews killed Jesus bit which seems to be in your first response). Christian persecutions of a group is not religious persecutions unless the source documents of Christianity demand that that group be persecuted? So attacks on witches are religious persecution because of the commandment against witches, but the Spanish Inquisition and blood libels are not, because there is no commandment to persecute Jews? I am not even sure what your definition is, but it seems to require at the very least knowing the motivation of the persecution (which is often unclear) and a universal interpretation of each religion (which is not possible). Motivations for persecutions against other religions are usually multicausal, so how would you decide what is religiously motivated and what is not? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you summarize it well. Note, however, that everything which violates the Highest Commandment as per Jesus, is in violation of Christian teachings. So persecuting witches is wrong, but Christianity commands them to be banned from a church or other religious group of Christians. However, agreed to some extent: religiously motivated persecution can still be a violation of the teachings of that religion. The persecution then results from a twisted interpretation of the religion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re Witches, the First Synod of Patrick pronounced excommunication on any who would persecute a Witch (they also declared witches harmless) see Celtic Christianity --ClemMcGann 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this I didn't know. Thanks! --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
German - so I can get this right: the Spanish Inquisition, burnings for false Host desecration charges, and Blood libel are not religious persections by Christians? This definitely seems like a Catch-22, if Christians persecute anyone then they are not behaving like Christians, and therefore there is no Christian persection. What would qualify in your point of view? And how do you privellage one interpretation or another? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The persecutions of Jews because of the host libel are indeed persecutions and they were committed by Roman-Catholic Christians. It seems like a kind of cooked-up story to motivate antisemitism. It can be mentioned in the Persecution by Christians article I guess. The blood libel is I think old plain antisemitism. This myth surfaces at many places, most recently in Saudi Arabia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or merge this isn't about religious persecution by Muslims as about Muslim attitudes to other groups. See my comments in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. --jnothman talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so. I described Muhammad's actions towards non-Muslims because they are the theological basis vor Islam's attitude towards non-Muslims, hence essential for u8nderstanding religious persecution by Muslims.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But then, as you say, the purpose for giving this information is to explore their attitude, and not their persecution as such. This whole collection of articles should be exploring the attitudes of x to non-x's, and only looking at their acts of persecution in this context, because the acts of persecution cannot fairly be ascribed to the religious (or anti-religious) movement as a whole! But their attitudes can be discussed fairly. --jnothman talk 04:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • JNothman, note that the title of this page is "religious persecution by Muslims". So it is confined as per this title to clearly religiously motivated persecution, all other persecution is excluded. Exactly for the reasons you stated :) --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:15, 24 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 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per MPerel and Mustafaa, along with the rest of the ill-advised series.Palmiro 19:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, controversial, but important series Salsb 00:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is an important part of a coherent series of articles on religious persecution. --Zeno of Elea 14:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - we all have an 'edit button'--ClemMcGann 08:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Mu'tazilites, or by early Hanafis or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said it's a POV magnet and there is no persecution by Muslims as a whole entity, but different groups and schools of thought have persecuted different things, there is no doubt in that. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Muslim groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable because at that level this can be dealt with in a way that is sane and not blanketing saying Qur'an quotes for and against persecution. Because, it is obvious that different groups have interpretted those verses differently. gren 16:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gren, according to what you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion between Muslims themselves whether persecution is allowed or not and which incarnations of persecution are allowed or recommended. So, exposing the reasons why Muslims persecute others and what is the textual evidence which allows or contradicts persecution seems to be of encyclopedic interest. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no Islamic ruling on persecution different Muslims have interpretted it in different ways. Also it is impossible to tell teh difference between political / power / and religious motivations. While I have no problem reporting what motivations can be cited for a Muslim group's persecution of another I think that what you want is exactly why this article should not stand as it does now. There is no answer that will give you the magical key to why some Muslims do what they do. And citing the Qur'an without references because an editor feels they justify persecution is original research... and that is precisely what is to be avoided. gren 16:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gren, exacty for that reason I have added the Theological reasons section, in ortderr to differentiate. OK, if you think sources are lacking, then sources should be added. There are many articles which lack sources. Do you think all those articles should go? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article is created for anti-Islam agenda. --Vsion 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not. (Dv)
    • Then how come, the article is not listed as POV? Persecution of Muslims can be claimed likewise to promote a pro-Islam agenda, but has been retained anyhow. I think this two articles will counterbalance each other and provide Muslims and non-Muslims alike with reliable information, thus reducing misunderstandings. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For proof of anti-Islam agenda, see [10]. You have confessed to it yourself. There's really nothing more to say. -- Vsion 09:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't prove that this article has an anti-Islam agenda. It proves that it is his opinion that the world would be better off without Islam. There's no rule that one has to be indifferent to the issue as long as one is NPOV. Indeed, how would Nazism have been written if that were true? (Dv)
      • At the same article you can read why I believe a NPOV is sufficient to state my point, because I have objective reasons for this belief. If you think the Religious Persecution by Muslims article is biased, feel free to remove the bias and correct factual inaccuracies, but cite your sources. Censorship of free speech and preferring "respect" above facts is not a desired encyclopedic approach. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha... aren't you now giving yourself away for using sock puppets for double voting? :D --Vsion 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You better not be implying that I'm a sock-puppet or I shall be very angry
            • Dv, are you saying you are not a sock-puppet of Germen? -- Vsion 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hello Vsion and welcome to en.wikipedia where a basic proficiency with the English language is assumed. Reasoning skills are optional, and often frowned upon, however.
              • I don't know what Dv means but I am a different person (i.e. physical human entity, so clear?) than he is. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not a clone of user:Dv but a separate user, if that is your point. It is not necessary to employ this kind of tactics to prove my point. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm amused by your "tactics", and the attempt of "minor insult" through a proxy (which is pathetic, btw) :D Vsion 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • How would you like this proxy to punch you in the face? Btw I'm glad you quit using bold to add dramatic effect to your comments.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 revised version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia[edit]

Accuracy and validaity of claim is disputed (see original talk page.) Not enough evidence to justify speedy. Manning 08:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Sounds very much like false pretender (of Alexis Brimeyer variety) but not notable as such (possibly just starting). Not to mention that the talk page effectively claims that all royal families have "serbian ancestry", meaning it is possibly serbian-nationalist propaganda. Dubious at best - Skysmith 08:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough for me. Nationalist cruft (and the fact that Brimeyer claimed to be king of Yugoslavia) aroused my suspicions. No vote - Skysmith 09:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a real person [11] who is a real prince of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a monarchy in the first part of the 20th century and the descendents of the royal family have kept their titles. Nothing to dispute here. He's not claiming to be the real king or anything. The "NONSENS" in the talk page referred to Dimitri being the son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, which he isn't (he is the son of another Alexander). He is, I believe, the crown prince's second cousin third cousin. I don't know why there is a rant about ancient Serbian kings in the discussion page. --Cam 15:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Added links and removed the nationalist cruft. --Cam 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Move the link to "External link" section, add category if possible. Pavel Vozenilek 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked up the royal lineage of the Kings of Yugoslavia in Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe by Jìŕí Louda and Michael Maclagan, and this information is there. I noticed that the link cited by User:Cam above also makes its claim based on the second edition of the same work. John Barleycorn 23:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. don´t see why this article should be deleted... Antares911 16:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In this revision, it could stay and it is correct, in spite of content of discussion page. So, keep it. --Ninam 01:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link moved to External Links section as suggested above. --Cam 03:33, 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. FCYTravis 07:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ideas[edit]

This article is about an untitled piece of music that is not widely known as "Big Ideas", even to the band who performs it. 69.34.210.49 08:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable concept. JamesBurns 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable song. Dcarrano 12:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge if there's an appropriate place to do so. Doesn't deserve its own article. Flowerparty 17:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: it doesn't even have any links from the main article space. Flowerparty 17:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Rostrum Campus[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anderhage Incentive. A secret society, so secret that all the google hits refer to Wikipedia or mirrors. Unverifiable, probably hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too secret -Harmil 11:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 13:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure why it couldn't be speedied, as it's a virtual duplicate of the already-deleted Anderhage Incentive. Joyous (talk) 14:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A brilliant failure of the google test =). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn/unverified. If it's secret, we don't wanna know about it. ;) --Etacar11 00:41, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Jacobs[edit]

I started working on this page to remove the heavy POV, but after searching came to the conclusion that the subject is just not very notable. The page itself is a vanity page that reads like it was copied from his personal press. But, the situation is just unclear enough to qualify for VfD instead of speedy delete. Delete as not sufficiently notable. --Diderot 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I think he will have to wait to find a place here.--Bhadani 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "executive-track trader". I've worked on trading floors before, and I can tell you that these folks are non-notable. It's not that they're not bright (the tests you have to pass are actually quite daunting) and if he's an up-and-commer perhaps he'll be notable someday, but not today. We don't even list most high-profile mutual fund portfolio managers yet, so traders are right out. -Harmil 11:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable but perhaps later if he continues to enjoy success in his business career. Capitalistroadster 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even a very successful trader is not notable unless he writes a book, gets news coverage, etc. Dcarrano 13:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another trader. History will not remember him by his current accomplishments as Harmil said. If he does something further on, perhaps, but we can't know that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete, Debating the notability of Mr. Jacob's accomplishments is a futile and jejune enterprise. They extend far beyond the realm of trading. We should allow the article to be updated with his more pertinent achievements. --Boomtime 13:08, July 20, 2005 (CST)
  • "More pertinent achievements"? This guy is 21 years old, recently out of college, and working in a non-notable position. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Edgardo Donovan[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan poppins[edit]

Unencyclopedic tone, Google suggest non-notability. Mysid (talk) 10:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no claim to notability. Mysid, what do you mean by "unencyclopedic tone"? Would that be the "sex god" or "pimp" comment? ;) -Harmil 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither. "Smart mofo". –Mysid (talk) 11:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, "unremarkable person" per new policy. Dcarrano 13:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy per Dcarrano. We have a new policy, these don't need to come to VfD any more. -Splash 21:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HALLELUJAH! Speedy delete under new policy! Woo-hoo! - Lucky 6.9 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Messenger Program[edit]

It fails google test for significance (or even existence), original site is dead, not enough info for an article, non-verifible. akaDruid 10:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 06:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zenslap[edit]

Non-notable made-up nonsense. - Nat Krause 10:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge with University of Maryland Baltimore County. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Baltimore County Drainage Tunnels[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion but I moved it over here to VFD so I can get a second opinion on whether these drainage tunnels are actually notable, should be moved to BJAODN, or deleted completely (sorry, it's very late where I am right now). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I did some grunt work on this, but frankly, it shouldn't exist. Kill it. -Howardjp 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable content added. -- Visviva 12:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would take the verifiability as read since photos are provided. If Visviva doubts their existence, I suggest he goes there. -- RHaworth 13:13, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Merge into University_of_Maryland_Baltimore_County#Notable_Buildings! Not really notable in their own right. -- RHaworth 13:13, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Merge per RHaworth. Many US universities have a tunnel system that is infamous on campus, but, they're all insignificant to anyone outside of that particular university. Dcarrano 13:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per RHaworth. — RJH 15:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) I don't think Wikipedia is the place to detail every facet of campus life for a University (2) It is not a building (3) Even if it were considered a building, it isn't a notable one (4) The main article University of Maryland Baltimore County is relatively small, merging this would make a disproportionate amount of space devoted to trivial matters (5) The article itself even states this is unknown to most of the student body --jiy 17:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge with University of Maryland Baltimore County. Since a knoll is not a building, it will need another section, I'll see what I caqn do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Baltimore County Grassy Knoll[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion but I moved it over here to VFD so I can get a second opinion on whether this grassy knoll is actually a notable landmark, should be moved to BJAODN, or deleted completely (sorry, it's very late where I am right now). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I did some grunt work on this, but frankly, it shouldn't exist. Kill it. -Howardjp 12:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable content added. No trace on Google. -- Visviva 12:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into University_of_Maryland_Baltimore_County#Notable_Buildings! Not notable in its own right. -- RHaworth 13:15, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
    • Comment/Question: How is a knoll a building? John Barleycorn 23:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per RHaworth. Dcarrano 13:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per RHaworth. — RJH 15:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for similar reasons as University of Maryland Baltimore County Drainage Tunnels (1) I don't think Wikipedia is the place to detail every facet of campus life for a University (2) It is not a building (3) Even if it were considered a building, it isn't a notable one (4) The main article University of Maryland Baltimore County is relatively small, merging this would make a disproportionate amount of space devoted to trivial matters (5) The article itself even states it is hidden, leading me to believe it is unknown to most of the student body, like the drainage tunnels --jiy 17:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Katz[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion for vanity, but under the new policy to deal with vanity articles I am posting it here on VFD for a second opinion. The article claims that she is an actress and "has created quite a following in the vagina monologues". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable content added. No trace of this following on Google. -- Visviva 12:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no results for "Talia Katz" Vagina search see [12] Capitalistroadster 13:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable aspiring actress. Dcarrano 13:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ^ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, see the examples give on the talk page for the new policy. VfD is free from the chains of this kind of stuff now!-Splash 21:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNU/C3[edit]

Incoherent and context-free article about what I assume is a non-notable university computing centre. Delete. jni 11:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The above reasons are applicable, as is I think the fact that the web site actually has nothing to say. It's bizzare. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's part of the United Nations University, and can probably be merged/redirected to that page. — RJH 15:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically, as I interpret it, these are the IT guys who keep a (campus-less) university's network running. That's not notable. Dcarrano 18:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Dimensions Theory[edit]

Original research. smoddy 11:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to get rid of original research, we would have to rid ourselves of hundreds of thousands of pages, and no progress would ever be made. The article is extremeley well refernced, citing many famous theories and quoting many famous physicists, from Einstein, to Wheeler, to Hawking, to Penrose, to Peter Lynds. Perhaps the article could add more links to these other sources. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.163.65.45 12:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:No original research. smoddy 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you get rid of the Moving Dimensions Theory article, then you will have to get rid of hundreds of other pages including:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_theory

Why would an Expansion Theory article be accpeted and the Moving Dimensions article deleted?
Also, there is no proof for String Theory nor M-theory, both of which constitute original research, so we'd have to start deleting those articles.
You seem to misunderstand what "original research" is. In Wikipedia terms, it means a theory or other such text that has not been extensively peer-reviewed. I am not wholly up to speed with what Expansion theory is, and it may not be peer-reviewed. However, there does seem to be a large amount of publicity around this, so it is notable in that regard. Wikipedia is not the place to initiate a scientific theory. We only document them, whether or not they are true. Cheers, smoddy 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Another version of this as a forum posting at [13] has been up since "06-02-05" and no-one has shown any interest in it. -- RHaworth 13:35, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Delete unless either:
  • A publication history in mainstream peer-reviewed physics journals can be produced, and then only if rewritten in clearer form.
  • It has at least one non-Internet publication behind it, it can be written up as clearly as Expansion theory, and it includes and links to real criticisms of its claims, and then should be categorised under Pseudophysics.
All I see when I do a search for Moving Dimensions Theory is postings to USENET (and responses that involve the word "crank") and web fora operated by the theory's supporters. The claims are difficult to parse and intermixed with a lot of bitching about the "physics bureaucracy", and I see at least one fallacy of definition. I'm not a physicist (although I sometimes play one on TV) but I see very little that qualifes as an explanation, just a lot of ergos and thuses. Basic rule: Science is what scientists can get published in a decent peer-reviewed journal. Popper is probably spinning in his grave at that assertion (thereby proving action at a distance), but for better or worse, that's the only real policy you'll see widely applied in the definition of science, and it's the one Wikipedia should stick to.
If, however, the author is trying to get the theory categorised as a crank hypothesis, I'm willing to run with it, if and only if it has a print publication record - not just websites and USENET posts - and if the article is clear and accurately reflects mainstream physics' opinion of it. Having a paper publication record is enough of a sign of commitment on the part of the theory's supporters that the theory may be worthy of a place as "notable pseudoscience".
Wikipedia has to have minimum standards. I think those standards are reasonable. --Diderot 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No references for even provoking an answer by scholars of physics. Not relevant enough to keep as crank theory. Delete. --Pjacobi 14:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's be clear: the "no original research" policy does not preclude someone putting up an article about their own theory. It has to do with using either the scientific community's standards for notability or a general standard of newswortiness. This avoids WP being used as a tool to circumvent the standards of scientific research that are already in place. If you want to contribute to the debate about the problems with peer review on WP, that's fine, but you don't argue your point by violating WP:NOR. -Harmil 14:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOR, as literature on "Moving Dimensions Theory" appears to be non-existant. — Asbestos | Talk 15:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It seems that the main reason for deleting the Moving Dimensions Theory entry has nothing to do with the scientific integrity of the theory, but only with the notion that it has not yet been accepted by the postmodern science community which prefers mythologies such as String Theory--a theory that lacks postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations.

MDT is brand new. It is an original theory. Laughter and vilification are to be expected, along with ad-hominen attacks.

MDT is being submitted to journals. But that could take years for publication.

MDT will open new opportunities for young physicists with its simple postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

It should be noted that Albert Einstein said, "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science."

Thus MDT offers an important advance.

Moving Dimensions Theory is an affront to postmodern sensibilities because it asks big questions--questions which have long ago been abandonded by the regimented, bureaucratized academy, which is funded not by innovation but by conformity. Moving Dimensions Theory provides a simple postulate that answers the following questions: Why is the speed of light constant in all frames? Why are light and energy quantized? How can matter display both wave and particle properties? Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? Why does time stop at the speed of light? How come a photon does not age? Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing? Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction? Why are mass and energy equivalent? Why does time’s arrow point in the direction it points in? Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at the velocity c? Why is there a minus sign in the following metric? x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2 What deeper reality underlies Einstein’s postulates of relativity? What deeper reality underlies Newton’s laws? What underlies the laws of Inertia? Why entropy? What is the geometry of motion--the prime mover of all motion? Why have Einstein, Godel, Wheller, Penrose, Hawking, and Barbour all stated that we need a new approach to time, and what might that approach be?

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." --Albert Einstein

Dr. Elliot McGucken is a trained physicist who has won several awards, both for research and teaching. He studied with John Archibald Wheeler at Princeton University where he graduated cum laude. He went on to receive a Ph.D. in physics. But Moving Dimensions Theory does not need Dr. McGucken--it stands on its own two feet, upon the shoulders of giants, bolstered by logic, reason, and physics.

If anyone wishes to argue against Moving Dimensions Theory with ad-hominem attacks, neither Dr. McGucken nor Moving Dimensions Theory will take it personally. But the theory is real physics--not pseudo physics nor "crank physics." It is new, but that does not make it wrong. If you refute it, or argue against it, do it with logic and reason, not with angst, vituperation, slander, ad-homimen attacks, name-calling, nor hearsay. Please--we must always maintain the highest level of cordiality and respect for fellow scientists and philosophers, so as to foster the advancement of knowledge.

"And if everybody says that you are wrong, then you are one step ahead. But there is one situation which is better still, when everyone begins to laugh about you, then you know you are two steps ahead." --Albert Szent-Gyorgi--Winner of the Nobel Prize

The fate of Moving Dimensions Theory is in the hands of the jury. The jury sentenced Socrates to death and abandoned Jesus to the cross.

But the ideas of both, based in logic and reason, withstood the test of time, and both are enshrined in the Princeton Chapel in stained glass--the chapel Einstein walked by every day on his way to Palmer Hall--the Princeton that accepted him and his theories when they were reviled, impugned, and denied by professors in Germany--the Germany that was back then considered to be the world's leader of scientific innovation. Einstein was called a crank and worse.

Though at first rejected, castigated, and impugned, the Truth has a way of winning over time.

So shall it be with Moving Dimensions Theory.

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." --Max Planck

If you will forgive me for saying so, Wikipedia is not a jury. We are, by our very nature, reactive, not proactive. If a topic becomes widely accepted (or even known), we will write about it. And that's write about it, not write it. We would write about the history of the theory, its context, and its effect on the scientific community, as well as how it interacts with other theories. WP:NOR basically requires citing. If you can cite a reliable source, we can publish it. If you can't, we don't. That's policy. There is no point fighting it. It is set in stone. Full stop. Period. Finito. Don't bother arguing. smoddy
  • I have to agree with the other users on this on, we are an encyclopedia after all, not a medium for promoting unpublished theories. However, I wish you good luck in getting this out there so that we may one day be included in Wikipedia among others. Please note we are not rejecting your theory or downcalling it, it is just unencyclopedic as of now. Thanks for your intrest though but I shall vote delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • While theories are in fact, theories, something that people believe and sometimes prove. We're not arguing about the accuracy of the article, we're talking that it is just too unknown. We need a "paper trail," if you want to call it that, because we want to become an encyclopedia, something that others can refer to. In order to become a reference, we need to verify our facts and prove that we're not making stuff out of thin air. If you get that paper trail, the article will deserve a place here. Good luck, but until then, I have to vote delete. --Titoxd 21:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no scientific theory can ever be proven.

Moving Dimensions Theory is a new theory. The general rules of wikipedia are appreciated, and this discussion demonstrates how thoroughly revolutionary MDT is. May it serve as one more record.

Slow down there, no scientific theory can ever be proven? Have you read Newton's laws of motion and all the other scientific laws? Again, we cannot put just anything in an encyclopedia, we have to make sure its encyclopdic. It's irrelavent how revolutionary this theory is, the fact remains it has YET to be published and ergo yet to achieve noteworthiness see WP:N. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding "proof" and scientific laws, see: Thomas Kuhn. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but the point that these are not absolutely proved is neither novel, nor worth disputing really. Epistemological arguments give almost everybody headaches. Xoloz 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't rush science. This theory is currently way too new to go on Wikipedia. Perhaps after it's built up some publicity and debate, but right now, there exists little if any third-party material on the subject. Ergo, Delete. Binadot 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Carnildo 23:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research until it's in the journals. Patience. --Etacar11 00:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research; the more he states his case, the more obvious this is. Xoloz 03:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Defense was insultingly formulaic, and failed to address the original research issue. The fact is that your arguments (including the flat-out wrong Schopenhauer defense) have been used by many hermit scientists throughout history, and none of them were right either. Your theories are worthless until reviewed by those in the field. After that, they may be vindicated (Konrad Wegener was), they may be ridiculed or ignored (as many more were), but at least they will be on record and thus sufficiently notable for encyclopedia conclusion. Meantime, lose the persecution complex and learn to play the science game -- the rules exist for a reason, and that reason is not to crush creativity and novelty. Haikupoet 04:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per smoddy et al. --Bambaiah 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NOR. Radiant_>|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xoloz. Dcarrano 18:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The depression party[edit]

Not notable. ~100 google hits-- BMIComp (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VCELP[edit]

Orphan article with no significant content. The title appears to be a mis-spelling of VSELP, which already has an article. Reccomend delete or merge with VSELP.

  • Keep It is hard to tell what this is. There's the possibility that it's a mis-spelling of VSELP, but I see a few references to it around the Web that indicate that it might be another (valid) name for VSELP or a pre-cursor. I hate to delete it, so instead I'm just going to note the point of confusion in the article and hope (in my eventualist way) that someone with more info will happen by. -Harmil 14:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I searched for VCELP on Google, nine of the top ten hits were simply copies of the wikipedia article, and the other one gave a different definition (Variable Code Excited Linear Prediction). The current article is confusing and probably inaccurate, and I see no point in having an article that says "We don't know what this is." 209.195.140.107 19:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage on web to warrant article (yet). --PhilipO 21:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles.mikka (t) 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Askey[edit]

No mention of noteworthiness, no links, and the web provides no coverage that I've been able to find. Delete as non-noteworthy. --Diderot 12:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete On the basis of intentional vandalism. Appears to be a troll. Note creation of W.T.I. (which should be included) after the VfD was started. WTI is a nonsense / vandalism page. Admins please take note and consider banning. -Harmil 13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, we have a new policy over at WP:CSD, remember: no assertion of notability was one of the few things that passed. These do not need to come to VfD any more. -Splash 21:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 23:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pacem in terris (with Philip Hacket and Pacem in terris (by itself[edit]

I want this to be a speedy, but it isn't. I'm not quite sure exactly what it is, but it certainly doesn't seem encyclopedic. smoddy 13:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed, a selection of poems are not encyclopedic. Thue | talk 13:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that's what it is... smoddy 13:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know the feeling :). Thue | talk 13:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it might also be a copyright violation. Koffieyahoo 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly, not that it matters if it gets deleted through vfd. Thue | talk 13:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a collection of translated poems. Neither the poems nor the translator show up via google (though that's not shocking). If cited, sourced and cleaned up it might be a candidate for transwiking to wikibooks, but otherwise it's non-encyclopedic so nuke it. -Harmil 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A speedy would be fine with me. -R. fiend 14:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio/non-encyclopedic. --Ragib 02:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:06, 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 redirect to Magnetic levitation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic suspension[edit]

Original resaerch. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 13:01, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

  • Delete article as written describes a device which has not yet even been demonstrated practical -Harmil 13:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a crystal ball blah blah blah. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for good reasons given by nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 20:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Carnildo's sugestion would be fine too. Pavel Vozenilek 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete, Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Water Variety[edit]

Probably not notable. Has not release their first record. 29 google hits. Thue | talk 13:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC per article, "Hot Water Variety is currently working on recording and producing their debut EP" -Harmil 13:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads as advertising, and doesn't meet the music requirements as Harmil said. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 19:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:08, 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 (no consensus). For those interested in the vote count I find 17 delete votes and 15 or 16 keep votes depending on whether or not the anonymous vote near the start of the debate is counted. Otherwise moving this page to some other title has been suggested, such discussions should go on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of purported cults[edit]

First note that there is a previous VfD from July 2004 which didn't reach consensus.

This new VfD is for an unrelated reason, as I judge the List of purported cults to be original research and as such violating the WP:NOR. This list tries to avoid the POV problems and endless struggles which would plague a "List of cults" (but accept a redirect from there). Only the solution found by the authors of List of purported cults has a massive Original Research problem. The authors are doing their own research which of the zillions of possible sources in mass media are ignored, or put in one three categories of varying degrees of consensus. To make matters worse the authors are also attempting own research, which word in languages other than English should be considered equivalent to "cult". (Unfortunately they ignore the question of the different meanings of "cult" itself, but this is not central to VfD).

Pjacobi 13:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is simply a list of organizations that have been cited as cults by one or more news sources. Perhaps if the article's title were changed to "List of movements and religious groups cited by one or more news sources as being cults," we would not have to consider it for deletion. (Unsigned comment by anon User:68.163.158.3)
  • Keep This is definitely not original research - such lists exist by the score in the internet (only none which is so excellently documented regarding its sources and criteria). --Irmgard 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe, if this is outstanding from all other attempts to create such a list, how is it not original research. Also please note that this is the 6th vote in response of a call for help from Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 19:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Being very active in two Wikipedias (admin in one) I don't always take the time to check systematically for every vote or article I might be interested in - so I'm really glad if other people inform me about ongoing discussions or problematic articles where I might throw in my two cents, though I never see this as obligation to participate, just as invitation - and if I respond to it, I see it as invitation to state my view on the subject or contribute my knowledge to the article, not echoing someone elses views. --Irmgard 07:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, firstly, "original research" does not mean and has never meant "the very act of doing research." One might as well ask of any Wikipedia article, "if it is not a copyvio of some existing article on a subject, how is it not 'original research'?" Second of all, why should it be noted which Wikipedians voted on this VfD in response to my letting them know the vote was going on? It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that there is something untoward in doing so, but the only policy or guideline I know which discourages such things applies to notifying non-Wikipedians of a VfD and encouraging them to come and vote. I'm not aware of anything that suggests it's a wrong thing to notify interested Wikipedians of a vote that may affect them. If you find any place where consensus has in fact determined that to be a bad thing, however, I'll get in line behind AI [14] and Zappaz [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] for my chastisement. However, such a policy (if there is one) should really be better publicized, shouldn't it? Otherwise people will not only notify other editors, they'll even [20] instruct them to alert other editors in turn. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all due respect the article is the opposite of original research. Over several months editors worked together on the talk page to develop a strict criteria for inclusion on the list - a direct description of a group as a "cult" by one or more carefully ranked sourced. There have been questions over how to translate foreign words, and it was previously agreed that "sect" is sometimes used in British english and french with the same meaning. A discussion is now underway, which Pjacobi refers to, about the german word "Sekte". But we are treating the matter carefully, seeking citations and working slowly. -Willmcw 15:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource (if they'll have it)Delete. I have no problem with a list of purported cults (although it'd be a nightmare to maintain and remain npov) but this page is original research, not an encyclopedia article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually read it? It is now easy to maintain because of the clear criteria that we have. -Willmcw 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is that very criteria that makes it original research. Where is the reference that these are widely agreed criteria among academics of what makes an organisation a purported cult? I know you have references of where other media agencies have called something a cult, but is that really NPOV? If you take that out, you're just left with the criteria at the start that may as well have been plucked from nowhere. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • One of the article in the "Cult" template is Cult checklists which covers exactly that topic. However, if we were to use one of those checklists to decide on our own if a group was a cult then that would be original research. Like any good NPOV article, we are not making assertions of our own but instead are sourcing every opinion. Should we eschew sources and make determinations on our own logic? That seems totally contrary to the normal methods of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
            • You keep pursuing the argument of "if it sourced, it is NPOV". But it is not so. A controversial subject (and don't tell me that this is not one of these...), needs to represent all sides of a controversy in a balanced manner to attain NPOV. The groups listed here does not have a recourse to present their POV in the matter. This list is a blacklist in camouflage and deserves to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
              • You're right, Jossi. For purposes of NPOV, it is important, and in fact, the guiding principles of Wikipedia specify, that both sides of the controversy should be represented. The question is, though, when both sides of a controversy about a group are covered in the most logical place -- i.e. in the group's own entry -- is it a violation of NPOV to acknowledge the fact of the controversy in any other place? Because that's what this article is about, about acknowledging these controversies. You've been telling everyone that no, this article goes farther, this article presents the "anti-cult" POV, and only the anti-cult POV, and my question for you is "where?" Where is this article presenting the dissection of doctrines with a critical eye? the testimonies of those harmed and degraded by the group? the secret documents seized by law enforcement and brought out at trials? The answer is, nowhere. The list says "This is the group; these are the sources that raise the issue; you must follow the link if you want to know the arguments on either side of the issue." The list simply does not contain the "anti-cult" POV you are arguing that it presents out of proportion to any other view -- except to the degree that that POV is acknowledged as existing in order to acknowledge the existence of a controversy. And you seem to be arguing that even that much acknowledgement of the existence of a POV that says "this group is a cult" is automatically so damaging an NPOV violation that we must burn the article with fire. How come you've never shown so much concern about, say, whether a group is called a hate group or not? Have you been as fervent in your belief there that an accusation against a group cannot be allowed to exist within a Wikipedia article, unless the opposite POV is presented right then and there, when it's not a group you approve of as the target? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term cult is a minefield if one is to judge by the numerous definitions of the term in the Cult article. In an attempt to make a list of cults NPOV, a group of editors came up with the current idea that somehow skirts the controversy around the term. Admirable as their effort may be, it is unfortunately not NPOV, it is dangerously close to being original research (in particular the taxonomy upon which the source "cohorts" was designed) and the fact that it is still used as a blacklist for many religious groups: Note that List of cults redirects to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just read the criteria established for including a group in the list, for an example of the extent to which this article resorts to original research. Highlights are mine: Groups are arranged by the "width of consensus" of the sources: sources aligned with widest consensus are first, sources aligned with decreasing consensus follow, and sources that are aligned with only a very narrow consensus in their use of the term "cult" are last. Within these "cohorts" groups are arranged alphabetically. The decision of what "width of consensus" means, the choice of certain sources and exclusion of other sources to have bearing or not on that "consensus" is 100% original research and arbitrary at most. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that all of the sources are on the list, just some are ranked higher than others- so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. I don't see what you mean by calling the use of sources "original research." It's just the opposite. -Willmcw 16:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't you see it? Why Source A is higher than source B? Why source X is included and Source Y is excluded? The ranking of these sources is indeed, original research. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • You know perfectly well- you helpd develop the criteria, disclaimer, and listing of sources. You didn't complain then. This sudden disgust with the article is surprising since you helped make it what it is. -Willmcw 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because the article is a list of purported cults. The list makes plain that it is "purported" (i.e. commonly put forward). Although I disagree that some of the entities listed are cults (for instance Mormons and JWs are, IMHO, too widespread to be cults), I accept the listing because they are often purported to be, whether or not they in fact are. --Scimitar parley 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the problem. In one breath you speak of purported cults (i.e. maybe not really a cult, just purported), and on the next one you disagree about a group being a cult by virtue of its inclusion on a list about purported cults. If you get confused by this, think of the reader! A blacklist is a blacklist is a blacklist. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's neccessary to be a cult to be included on a list of purported cults, however your last point (on blacklists) has made me reconsider my vote. Even the MILS report (a horribly biased anti-religion piece) views the term "cult" as overly perjorative, and IMHO it's unfair to list organizations with huge memberships (mormons, adventists, jws, etc) on this list. Regrettably (given the obvious effort put into the article) delete. --Scimitar parley 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The restriction on "no original research" is not a bright line. Almost every article involves the exercise of editorial judgement to some extent. When the list seems to be useful, seems to represent a reasonable consensus judgement, and where the items are either noncontroversial or where the interplay of editorial give-and-take has created a reasonably neutral point of view, I think they can be kept. If someone wanted to argue that lists should be formally declared to be held to a looser standard than articles, and should accordingly carry a warning that they represent Wikipedian consensus judgement rather than verifiable fact, I'd go along. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposed changes to WP policy should be posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not a change in policy. Observation of actual behavior with VfDs on lists shows that this is de facto policy. I agree that it would be helpful to articulate this explicitly as part of our written policy, but it is not essential. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A change in policy" would be changing the definition of "original research" so that it now includes the evaluation of sources for reliability and importance which is part of every well-written article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the title is POV. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title deals with matters about which people have strong POVs, that is true. Are you arguing, then, that it is not possible to write about people's POV in an NPOV fashion? If that were true then we'd have to give up on Wikipedia now, because it is founded on the principle that we can write about people's beliefs without endorsing them. Read WP:NPOV if you don't believe it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current title is not NPOV. The approach of determining degrees of purported cult-ness is original research - it applies a new metric, original with us. If the article is kept after all, the content could be recreated, revised, under a new article: List of controversial religious movements — appropriate portions might be merged into another new article: List of controversial new religious movements as the target (instead of a redirect). The derogatory nature of those terms, and the blacklisting abuse especially of the word, cult, ought to be described. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "purported" : POV, "cult" : POV. The contents of the article then, are POV. Userfy it and then delete it. -Splash 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have concerns over method, methodology and content, but I am convinced there is encyclopedic information in this article. It is a question of how to extract it, and that cannot be done if it is deleted. This is a close call, however, for the persuasive deletion arguments presented here do not, to my mind, outweigh the keep arguments. -Splash 03:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Text does not have to be lost if moved to userspace. Keep it there and extract whatever useful. --ZappaZ 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, then, you do not believe what WP:NPOV states, that our ideal of unbiased writing is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them"? You are instead proposing that to adhere to NPOV, we must refrain from presenting any views that anyone conflicts with? That seems to be what you're arguing, if you're saying "The article is clearly about POVs; therefore, it is clearly POV itself." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see anywhere in the article any conflicting views. Aum Shinkiryo doesn't provide cites that say it's not a cult, and I'll hazard it doesn't call itself one. To cover the conflicting views would essentially be a "List of organisation that are sometime called cults and sometimes not called cults", and then to present a battle-of-the-googles or something. Which, to me at any rate, doesn't impart much encyclopedic information. I suspect that many of these organisations appear on various countries' "restricted organisations" (or whatever) list; a collection along those lines under a relevant title might not be POV and I suspect already exists, somewhere. -Splash 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually a big chunk of the article is sourced from a French parliamentary report (all of the groups marked "FR"). -Willmcw 04:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Splash, have you really considered what you're asking? If you're saying that there are conflicting views which could be added to the article, which have not been, then you've just pointed out why the article should be kept -- because perceived lack of NPOV is not an excuse to delete. If you're arguing, on the other hand, that the charges could not be answered, and therefore it is inherently POV to acknowledge that the charge has been made... well, then, I can think of an awful lot of information on Wikipedia that would have to be thrown out. Most religions, for instance. If I disbelieve in the existence of the angel Moroni, but there is nothing I can say which could disprove his existence, then obviously it is POV for Wikipedia to acknowledge the Mormon belief in his existence -- after all, the conflicting view cannot be presented, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You raise a serious point. I will go away and think about that. -Splash 00:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV hell - even if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect - the words have so many shades of meaning that placing groups on a list would be pretty pointless --Doc (?) 00:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect" -- with all due respect, this makes me think you haven't even looked at the article. A group goes into the article because we have a firm citation that a source has indeed called it a cult or a sect, along with which source it was. An article that tries to go further than that and decide which callings are accurate, now that would have the kind of problems you describe, but again, that is not the article under discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did read it, and I'll grant you all of the above - but my point is that if a journalist has called something a cult that in itself is pretty meaningless. All users of the word mean different (derogatory) things by it - 'one man's sect is another man's denomination'. An article listing religious groups called 'cult' might list them all. It would be a bit like having an article list of purported right-wing groups each cite is just a record of some journalist’s POV --Doc (?) 10:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly sourced. This is an example of best practice, not "POV hell". —Seselwa 00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV. LDS is on this list?!?! I would be comfortable calling all Christianity a cult (although few others might agree), but placing a major denomination on this, without including the others, is an enormous error and a disservice to public discussion on the topic. Note that this is merely a symptom of a larger problem: I find LDS troubling, but others might find any entry troubling. Hence, inherently POV. Xoloz 03:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not original research. It is stretching the imagination to try and call it original research. If we delete this article because it is "original research" then we may as well delete all of Wikipedia, because there is no article on here that doesn't require exactly the same sort of "original research" -- considering the various points of view put forth by various sources, trying to decide which sources are credible, which sources are prominent even if not fully credible -- and the average article calls for editors to synthesize from those largely unspoken judgements that an accusation by CBS News needs to be reported and an accusation on an anonymous Geocities webpage does not. This article goes farther than most Wikipedia articles do to avoid any NPOV problems coming from editors' undiscussed, undisclosed decisions about which sources are worthy of mention and why by discussing it and disclosing it and putting that information into the article. To pretend we have to destroy this article to satisfy NPOV is to willfully misread WP:NPOV and what it says about not letting NPOV spill over into false balance where no judgements may be made about sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the conflicting views presented to be able to adhere to NPOV? Where are all the newspaper articles, or encyclopedias in which these groups were not labelled as "cults". And what about the blacklist from the France government? Where is the opposite view to that? Can we say than group XYZ is not considered a cult by the governments of Italy, Canda, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, etc.? It does not make sense. NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • You've never mentioned this concern on the talk page of the article before. You particpated in the discussions that developed the current criteria. If it was a problem why didn't you say so? -Willmcw 16:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extensively researched, and gives a fairly good picture of the general views of the organizations in the article. Haikupoet 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently POV and subjective. Radiant_>|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's this tuff that makes Wikipedia so interesting! (Unsigned comment by 131.247.165.35 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. Inherently defamatory and POV lists really don't belong on Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - difficult, but that's not a reason to delete - David Gerard 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The regular participants on this article have made a Herculean effort to maintain NPOV while still noting the fact that there are groups considered to be cults. The fact that they are considered to be cults is, just that -- a fact -- and as such it is NPOV. The articles supporting these groups' inclusion on this list are a way of maintaining NPOV, by noting the fact that the groups in question are considered to be cults by many different sources -- not just the POV statement of Wikipedians with an "agenda." In fact, a persistent attempt to include Judaism on the list of cults was rebuffed for precisely that reason: someone was pushing a POV. Therefore, I will support this article because it supports NPOV. --Modemac 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge citations into each group's article. Being one of the editors whose "herculean" efforts are praised above, and after heavy consideration, I have decided to vote for the deletion of the article for many of the reasons stated by my peers above. So that we do not lose the extensive work done (mainly by User:Willmcw), I propose to move the text to userspace, delete the article, and slowly and carefully merge citations into each group's article (e. g. in Aum Shinrikyo we add: "This group was refered to as a cult in The Washington Post[21], the BBC[22],] and Encarta[23]." This way we maintain NPOV, and we don't lose the extensive work done Willmcw and others. (Sorry Will...) --ZappaZ 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mind explaining how information is POV if combined in one article, but is NPOV if distributed to 50 articles? I don't see how that makes a difference. thanks Willmcw 05:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is obvious: In a group's article is good information and valid as it read within context. Readers can then make up their minds about what that group is or is not. In the list, it is a one sided POV expressed: the one of the sources we chose. The complaint about original research about our cohorts, the initial basis for this VfD, gets adressed as well. --ZappaZ 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. Early Christianity, in all its various sects, was considered a cult for centuries until its endorsement by Constantine. After the definition of Christian orthodoxy, many long established Christian viewpoints were considered heretical cults. All emerging Protestant denominations were considered heretical cults by the Roman Catholic church - and the later movements (i.e. Quakers and Puritans) by the mainline Protestant churches as well. Almost all religious movements begin as a "cult" - a movement based on the charismatic appeal of one individual. So where in history should the article start? The sources for the article are very recent and reflect modern perspectives and prejudices (which are usually based on old ideas lurking in the mist). Although an interesting, and exhausting effort, I would have to vote to delete. But incorporating the sources -- and the reasons the sources assert these movements are cults -- into existing articles could be useful. Controversial and edgy, perhaps, but useful. This would allow counterpoints and sources to be presented. WBardwin 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must point out that this article was nominated for deletion without any real attempt to improve or correct it by the nominators. It has not had a POV tag on it since May 31, 2005, when Jossifresco removed one that had been up for a day.[24] Pjacobi nominated it only four days and seven talk-page comments after he first raised a concern.[25] We have numerouos mechanisms for improving articles–none of them have been tried. I think that it is a very poor consideration of the dozens, maybe hundreds of hours of volunteer time that have gone into this article over its long history. I also note that this article was nominated when two key editors of the article, user:Hawstom (who proposed the criteria that we're using) and user:Ed Poor, are on announced wikiholidays. -Willmcw 06:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Please read my rationale for deletion just at the top of this page. I didn't nominate for POV (which not even is a valid deletion reason) but for Original Research, whis is a valid deletion reason. I also commented why thing, this is an essentially uncurable problem. --Pjacobi 17:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't know if this is possible (you may know better, Will), but we could ask the admin that assumes responsibility for this VfD, to allow for Ed Poor and Tom's votes to count even if casted after the 5 day period and to tally the votes only after receiving these two votes. --ZappaZ 12:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Zappaz, you here seem to be mistaking WP for a democracy. Please see Guide to VfD, specifically the part that starts "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves." I agree that something about the timing of this VfD seems very fishy. -- Hoary 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I regret that you are insinuating that something is "fishy", because it isn't. See Talk:List of purported cults and read User:Pjacobi's intention to VfD this article being clearly stated. Please do not start with conspiracy theories. That is not needed as it reduces the quality of this discussion. Thanks. --ZappaZ 03:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your comment puzzles me. I don't think I insinuated anything, certainly nothing about any "conspiracy". -- Hoary 04:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this dispassionately and usefully lists what are verifiably described as cults. -- Hoary 06:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Wikipedia article Cult gives sufficient reasons for a "delete" vote, I think, but Googling "cult" will bring out even more strongly that labelling any group a cult is essentially subjective — either directly, or indirectly through the choice of one specific set of criteria out of many posible sets (as in the case of the approach taken here). It's difficult, then, to see the point or usefulness of the article, but easy to see how it might mislead and offend. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Cult article strikes me as odd, with its introductory paragraph about "cult" in what is now a less-used sense, and its continuation with "Definitions of 'cult'" whose concluding paragraph reads "However, in common usage, 'cult' has a very negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group in order to criticize it." (Perhaps to criticize. Or perhaps simply to describe the unpleasant reality of the organization in a terse and immediately understandable way.) If "cult" indeed usually meant something like "locally unusual or unorthodox religious group", it would indeed be meaningless, but since it (I think) usually means a (pseudo-/quasi-) organization that has a fairly well recognized number of traits, a list seems, if not useful, then potentially useful. -- Hoary 09:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not normally going to delete an article because of its content, merely flag for a rewrite, but in this case I think we're at an inherently unencyolpedic article. I really don't think this list tells us anything encyolopedic. Its just a list against a certain criterion, that has reached a limited wikipedian consensus, but does not reflect and report the mainstream, near consensus view of the world at large, not to mention a systemic bais on American, UK, and French Journals. Perhaps I might be persuaded that a list of dangerous cults is encylcopedic, with the critereon of dangerous being on a law enforcment agency's watch list. I am afraid though that list of purported cults is likley to get us into a trap where inorder to remain NPOV, we become utterly useless and unencyclopedic.--Tznkai 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that this list is original research. On second thought I agree with Pjacobi that this may veers off into original research if we use each and every (fringe) source. So the sources have to be confined to clearly mainstream English articles, excl. among others opinion pieces by columnists. I however think that this is a list made purely by the POV of the media and sources. If this is not allowed, and may be it should not be allowed, then we should also delete several other articles and categories e.g. the List_of_people_widely_considered_eccentric Andries 20:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a fact that some organisations are branded 'cults' by others. A list of such organisations and movements is definitely needed. Many of the votes above seem to based on the validity of 'cult' as a concept. It might be a wrong concept but it still exists, and we can't pretend otherwise. The exact formatting and presentation of the information is debeatable, I think the current highly-sourced article is a vast improvement on what was there before (which was kept anyway). Morwen - Talk 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename into List of groups reported as cults Andries 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:You are ignoring all the points made as the reasons to delete this article. The problem is not with the title. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Why are you leaping to the conclusion that those points are being ignored? Instead of, say, just being found wrong-headed and inadequate? I know I, for one, don't believe that simply mentioning that a certain group has been accused of something by somebody to automatically be POV. AND NEITHER DO YOU. A bit of the good ol' "Do as I say, not as I do", eh, Jossi? A far cry from when you were fighting hard to keep that unproven accusation in an article without presenting the opposition, isn't it? Let's see who else has found unproven accusations just fine and dandy when it's not the accusation of being a cult... Ooooh, here's this little gem... "And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well." So an unproven accusation is perfectly fine to report on, as long as a "substantial point" is made of it, and the credibility of the source doesn't even matter! So clearly, the argument that List of purported cults has to be deleted because it contains carefully sourced claims is not one swallowed by this chap, who argued passionately that Hate group must, for NPOV, contain an allegation that certain critics of a certain NRM are a hate group! Oh, wait... that was User:Zappaz, who is calling for the article's deletion... You know, I take back what I said above. I don't find your "points" presented for deletion of the article to be wrong-headed and inadequate. I find them wrong-headed, inadequate and BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL. I frankly call for the admin who tallies this vote to take the extreme bad faith being blatantly displayed by some of those voting "delete" into account.-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I find your rethoric appalling and unbecoming. You are sending a very clear message to each and everyone of your fellow editors about your behavior in this project. Speaks for itself. --ZappaZ 16:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find your shifting of the topic from "what principles do we practice on Wikipedia, and are the people who claim we should delete this article because of principle X actually adhering to principle X?" to "oooh! rhetoric! bad! look at the nasty rhetoric! pay no attention to the double standard behind the curtain!" to send a "very clear message", too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I do not think that I am ignoring the problems. I thought about them and I think they have too little merit. May be we should remove the redirect from list of cults, list of purported cults, to list of groups reported as cults to get rid of, at least some, of the blacklisting idea. Frivolous classification by the media of a group as a cult will backfire on these media, I believe. Andries 08:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Backfire on the media? Yes, and pigs fly too. :) --≈ jossi ≈ 10:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
            • I personally think and I think that I am not the only one that the Chines reaction to Falun Gong and the view of the German Federal Govt. that the tiny Scientology Curch with its extremely negative public image is a threat to the German democracy that has shown great stability during the last 50 years is paranoid and ridiculous and backfires on them. Scientology and Falun Gong may harm deeply involved members but that is a different mattter. Andries 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The biggest threat to any democracy is the most dangerous cult which is not even listed on this list: Al-Qaeda. Just because the media hasn't labelled them a cult. What do you personally think about that? --AI 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, the media has called Al-Qaeda a cult.[26] Feel free to add it. -Willmcw 12:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
                • It is not true that Al-Qaeda has not been labelled a cult by the media. The Dutch Muslim broadcasting organization called Al-Qaeda a "sekte" Dutch for cult. Discussions about brainwashing, typically associated with the debates about cults, resurfaced in the debates about Al-Qaeda, rarely heard about since the great cult scare of the 1970s and the 1980s here in the Netherlands. Just yesterday 23-7-2005, the Volkskrant newspaper wrote about brainwashing related to the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on page 5. The list is work in progress. Andries 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Al-Qaeda was actually included on this list for quite a while, though it was removed from the list with this edit on April 11. --Modemac 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm somewhat disappointed, that a lot of fellow editors voting here, seem not to have read the reason for deletion at the very top (and instead start quarreling about POV). If the question which media and government labels which organization a cult (in which meaning of the word "cult", preferably) is an area of active research on scholarly base, and results of this research can be quoted, then there would be no problem with putting up a list. But in the case to be decided here, the article contributors decided to take the research in their own hands. That's the problem. --Pjacobi 16:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment (reply to Pjacobi) Some scholars have documented that there are some groups that were or are generally considered cults by the media and the public. E.g. Saul Levine M.D. in his article Life in the cults published in the 1989 book edited by the psychiatrist Marc Galanter called Cults and new religious movements, publised by the American Psychiatric Association writes
"Groups that this author has heard called cults by concerned relatives of members have included Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jewry, Born Again Christians, Bahai, IBM, est, and Gestalt to name a few. For purposes of this chapter however, we will use as examples which there appears to be considerable unanimity. That is, these four - Hare krishna, the Unification Church, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission - have probably been held in less esteem by more people than most of the other groups combined [..]"
Andries 17:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pjacobi, it sounds like what you are saying is that this article would avoid the "original research" problem you think you see if we simply included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe -- that way we'd be doing no "original research" in trying to determine which claims have any credibility or notability, which is the objection you raised. The prohibition on "original research" is just that -- a prohibition on original research. Looking at what others before you have said on the subject isn't original research, it's just research. Weighing the significance of what others have said on the subject by factors such as credibility and notability doesn't make it original research, either, just still plain research. As I've said, if we start misclassifying the sourcing of articles and the weighing of sources as "original research" there's little on Wikipedia we won't have to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Antaeus, you know that we cannot included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe, so you shouldn't assume, I'm proposing this. But it must be work outside the Wikipedia, summarizing and evaluating the vast area of all these who says what mess. To be done by academic scholars and published in a peer reviewed journal, preferably. --Pjacobi 17:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you proposed that. What I'm saying is that that is the logical outcome of what you are proposing; namely, that weighing and selecting and attributing sources, all of which are recommended practices on Wikipedia, should be reclassified as "original research" contrary to how that term has always been defined on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weighting, selecting and attributing of scholarly sources is typipal encyclopedic work. But weighting, selecting and attributing common use of language is research. --Pjacobi 19:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Pjacobi has a point, but I think that many lists and articles are based on the media whithout getting VfD'd for original research. To minimize the possible original research at least we should confine ourselves to English language mainstream media. Andries 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing useful in this article which is based on an arbitrary definition applied in a speculative manner.--Fahrenheit451 22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However badly written designed (a problem which can be corrected), this page is still vital because of the nature of the topic. Sweetfreek 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article will never be more than an exercise in namecalling, or a survey of namecalling. Do we have a List of purported cads? Why not? That's why we shouldn't have this article, either. --goethean ॐ 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be correct -- if it were true that saying something is a "cult" is "never [anything] more" than namecalling. While many people like to claim exactly that as if it were true, all it takes to prove it untrue is to look at cult checklist. These are professionals in government and in academia who are clearly using the word and the concept in an attempt to predict and to understand, not to namecall. You may not agree with their theories, and that's fine. You may have the POV that every scholar who ever entertained the notion that the theoretical construct of "cult" ever had any value has their head up their backside -- and that's a legitimate POV. But to claim that no allegation that a group is a cult can ever be more than namecalling, and to call for deletion of this article based on that opinion, is to ask Wikipedia to endorse your POV above all those others. We don't have a list of purported cads because no professional has ever tried to classify exactly what distinguishes a cad from a non-cad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The cult checklists — plural — are subjective, vague and contradictory. The cult checklists are not specific enough to objectively include some groups while excluding more mainstream ones. It is namecalling and an ideological weapon, not science.
As I've said before, you are completely entitled to your opinion that the science involved is bad. However, if you are claiming that there is no science involved, and that the word only exists so that purported experts can dress up namecalling -- would you care to explain why said purported namecallers would try to define criteria that could then be used to exclude groups from said namecalling? The intent is clearly more than namecalling. Your POV may be that that intent can never be realized, that there is something inherent in the word "cult" that prevents it from ever being used to designate a legitimate sociological concept. But don't expect that Wikipedia has to endorse your POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the list more closely, I am disgusted. Harmless groups like the Hare Krishnas, Christian Scientists, and Sathya Sai Baba are not distinguished from groups of murderers like Al Qaeda and the Manson Family. Recommend renaming article to List of religious groups that people don't like, or, even more accurately, List of religious groups disliked by people who we like. --goethean ॐ 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is what is a clear example of Guilt by association:Al-Qaeda is evil, and it is listed here, so group XYZ that is also listed must be evil', a fallacy abused by those in our society that are intolerant of non-conforming beliefs. These non-conforming beliefs are being shamelessly targeted and blacklisted. Another example of intolerance dressed as NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Some editors tried to get a separation between "deadly cults" and the rest, however other editors, including those voting in foavor of deletion, vetoed it. If you think that such a division is appropriate then you might add a note onthe article talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't. I think that the whole article is an exercise in anti-religious sentiment and witch-hunting. Seperating the vicious murderers from those who merely hold beliefs that you dislike might be a good first step towards making it less obviously so. --goethean ॐ 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dislike any of these groups. Please assume good faith. -Willmcw 21:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines, and what I see is that editors are missing the fact that this is a political ethical, and deeply personal discussion, not a POV vs. NPOV, blacklisting/namecalling, original researrch or the like. This is all about the politics of the countercult/anti-cult (a very unlikely coalition of new leftists, evangelical Christian fundamentalists, and skeptics) vs. the politics of the moderate religious, the academia, and some open minded libertarians, are at the core. These politics are unlikely to disappear precisely because of the political act's ability to polarize issues, to disguise aspects of those issues which do not serve the various poles or positions. A huge amount of intellectual energy has been spent on defining (or more correctly, attempting to define) the word "cult". This discussion being yet another one in that cacophony of voices, is not unique or any different. Then, of course, there are the no less powerful arguments fueled by a deep personal agenda: apostates vs. new religions, rightist vs. leftists, and the wide gamut of strong opinions stirring the pot of any discussion about beliefs, God, human nature, freedom, liberty, and human rights. If one is to judge the related articles on mind control, brainwashing, cults, cult apologists, and the like, one will find the same political divide as in this discussion, and the same editors at each side of the battlefield. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia and its NPOV policy can move from utopia to reality: Accepting the politics involved will be a honest first step. The outcome of debates like this one, and the dismissal or acceptance of articles like this one into the Wikipedia fold, will undoubtedly shape the future and relevance of this encyclopedia. --38.119.107.70 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case I propose that we declare "no consensus" and move on. There is often no coming to terms when there is an emotional note to the facts in a debate. Haikupoet 03:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic of general interest. The article may have to be renamed and/or reworded, but that is beside the point. Fact is, the word "cult" gets used (not by us, but demonstrably by others), and the question of who uses it to describe which organizations is inherently interesting. One may think that the article title is POV, but that only warrants a call for improvement, not deletion. There are many articles with seemingly POV titles (e.g. list of countries that are considered the greatest) and neutral, factual contents. This particular list clearly strives for accuracy and includes relevant disclaimers as well as a definition of its scope. That's more than can be said about other lists on controversial topics. --MarkSweep 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those articles you mention are useless for an encyclopedia unless you think Wikipedia is a a propaganda tool. --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We are not comparing like with like. Read list of countries that are considered the greatest - it actually deals in verifiable and notable facts. So, in a manner does this article, but the fact that some journalist once called a certain group a cult, although verifiable, is not notable. There are so many definitions of 'cult' that anything might have been meant, and different things will have been meant, on each occaasion. To gather these disparate references together to create a list - creates a meaningless list. We might as well have a 'list of organizations at one time called bizzare' --Doc (?) 21:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a cult in my opinion and I am notable. :) --AI 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list. Not inherently POV, since the list serves to explain who thinks these things and why in brief, while implicitly referring to the pages on the movements in question for details. Lord Bob 22:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Propaganda. The method for deciding on inclusion of groups in this list is original research. IMHO, use of the word purported to avoid List of cults is not good faith: Purported[27] is vague and refers to a assumptions. The assumptions used are not necessarily from experts on religion and in many cases the opinions are from the media. --AI 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was send this off to BJAODN. Take a look here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a tree falls down in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?[edit]

Non-Encyclopedic   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 13:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense JRP 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone want to count the fallacies and misuses of logic in that? I lost count, myself. -R. fiend 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I actually discovered some new types of fallacies in this article. I think I'll write an article about this article as it is now notable in fallacy research. --Dmcdevit·t 23:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, Wikipedia is nothing if not educational. -R. fiend 04:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • WTF? - I mean - Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing encyclopedic here. --Several Times 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I worry about the future of the British government... Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN I actually found the arguments quite funny. --Scimitar parley 17:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a Encyclopedia Article - NickC 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN. Original research. It seems at least as sound as some of the arguments for the existence of God that I've seen presented. Anyway: 1) Nothing is better than a good laugh. 2) This article is a good laugh. 3) Ergo, it would be better to have no article at all than to have this article. So delete it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN as a flawed concept. -- BD2412 talk 19:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJADON. --Titoxd 21:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article is dropped from Wikipedia, and no-one reads it, does it make me happy? Yes! --A D Monroe III 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LART time. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe send to BJAODN. Binadot 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This philosophical question is well-known, and it might be possible to write a reasonable article about it, however this article is just nonsense. --Buuneko 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for this steaming pile of nonsense. The fact that #8 is taken as an assumption, without any qualification, made me wretch. Xoloz 03:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJOADN. Ridiculous argument that goes everywhere and nowhere. Item 27 even purports to prove that "this argument must... be flawed". Eric119 07:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. JamesBurns 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clear case of BJAODN. -- Kaszeta 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire.DS 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This joke would have been cool, if it didn't suck so much.--Muchosucko 23:50, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of small-bust models and performers[edit]

The stupidest thing ever written for Wikipedia? Probably not, but, Christ, what are people thinking? I guess we know where alot of our bad articles are coming from, anyway. -R. fiend 14:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subjective. --Scimitar parley 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose, although I really sort of like the idea myself jamesgibbon 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But the other one is going to likely be kept along with this. The Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" value (okay, that is subjective too) is being degraded by things like this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, impossible to remain objective. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IBTC listing. — RJH 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I guess we know where alot of our bad articles are coming from, anyway From Germany or what? :-) MutterErde 16:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... before somebody creates list of perfectly-normal-sized-bust models and performers. Flowerparty 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reminds me of a similar list that is on VFD, except the women have big bust. It will be laced with POV, since some people could be insulted if they are put on the list. What I might consider small, someone thinks it's "just right," etc. Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable and too broad. 23skidoo 17:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually provided my rationale several hours before this page was even created. As per what I said on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers about this very page when it was still a redlink, Delete. Uncle G 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 18:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Win777 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Idiots. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to remain un-biased. No criteria defined for a "small-bust". See arguments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers, as this article is similar. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 20:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arrrgggghhhh. How i hate fake tits ! :-( btw: There´s no red link in it :-) Greetings MutterErde 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for same reasons as above and over at the other VfD. I suppose we have List of medium-bust models and performers too, or will that be red? -Splash 22:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:POINT. Proto t c 09:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. That's per MutterErde. Almafeta 02:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless this is a substantial porn genre as big-bust is. Dcarrano 18:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, since physical attributes are a selection criteria for casting. More refinement of the definition (like excluding males:)) would be welcome. Jamesday 12:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely subjective, and impossible to correct. "Bust size" is determined solely by opinion. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, isn't bust size objective? Delete nonetheless. DS 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Expand, but Remove POV-personal "shout-out" to small-busted women. There is a useful market definition of this out there: [28], [29]. --Jpbrenna 19:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not a personal shout-out to small-busted woman , that was a shout against plastic surgery. Again: arrrgggghhhh!!!!!. MutterErde 07:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (btw.: i´m wondering that nobody adds a name to that list except me - even Mr.Whales has no idea [30]. Are there in the big USA no more women with nice small natural boobs ?[reply]
PS: Redlinks please only with external link.Thank you MutterErde 08:03, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Rivalries[edit]

Delete. POV.
Edit. Add: So-called "rivalries" are mainly for the fans. MLB players are usually professional enough to keep their cool and just play the game, while the fans can get out of hand. There are no "official" listings of MLB rivalries. Some of the "rivalries" listed in that "article" are not even in the same division or league. The rivalries are from a fan's point of view. Much of the "rivalries" posted in Wikipedia were made by an anonymous user. The following articles dumped the rivals section that were once part of the articles:
Rivals Discussion on New York Yankees Talk Page
Rivals Discussion on Boston Red Sox Talk Page
Rivals Discussion on St. Louis Cardinals Talk Page
To further point out POV, users on the Toronto Blue Jays Talk Page and Chicago White Sox Talk Page question the rivalries.
Another user on the Tampa Bay Devil Rays Talk Page points out that one of the listed "rivalries" is "junk." Win777 14:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Doesn't seem terribly POV to me. --Scimitar parley 17:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do not see any POV at all. Plus, though MLB may not "official" sanction it, the fans are into it and sometimes, the rivialries will have an occasion fight or two. Plus, the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry is a classic, came into full force in 2004. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And don't forget 2003. -R. fiend 20:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zscout370. …Markaci 2005-07-20 T 17:57:00 Z
  • Keep User:24.171.36.233 as there is nothing wrong with the page.
  • While I think there is certainly room for a list of (and articles on) the major Major League rivalries, I can't really be too sure of everything in this article, as I'm unfamiliar with it and most of the links are red. I'm also not sure if it's best to put the long standing rivalries alongside a single series. Nor do I know what the Bill Buckner Rivalry is, or what could be in such an article that isn't already covered at Bill Buckner. So I guess this vote is a keep and cleanup. -R. fiend 20:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it should be cleaned up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Bill Buckner" rivalry is Mets/Red Sox, in reference to the '86 World Series and his famous blooper. It isn't so widely used, but it is immediately recognizable to any fan of the two teams. Xoloz 03:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nevertheless, I wouldn't classify Red Sox/Mets as a Major League rivalry, particularly as both have a common enemy in the Yankees, which seems to trump all other rivalries. -R. fiend 04:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some of the rivalries were created by the fans, some were drum up by the press. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rivalries like "Bill Buckner" exist mainly to give the sports press something to ruminate over when these two teams happen to meet. That said, many fans care deeply about the '86 WS (and similar past meetings), so the notion of a rivalry isn't inappropriate -- it is just a lesser-known rivalry. I assume "Major League" refers to the sport, Major League Baseball, and not to the magnitude of the rivalry. Xoloz 06:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the MLB article and cleanup, I'm not seeing much POV in this article, however it contains alot of information that is total BS.Gateman1997 03:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There is no POV...it's a list.Aronomy 03:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. It's a list of items based on a fan's POV. Win777 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Names aren't official, but they are widely known. Google searches can verify these easily. Xoloz 03:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a difficult time looking some of them up in Google. Win777 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am as well, I'm changing my vote above to merge with the MLB article. This list contains many "rivalries" that aren't anything more then teams playing each other. For instance the A's-Mairiners rivalry? There is no such thing.Gateman1997 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but edit so only the major, recognized rivalries are there. --Titoxd 23:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Cleanup to Major League Baseball Rivalries. Clean-up should consist of removing redlinks from the list, or at least removing all the minor rivalries (Braves-Nationals isn't on the level of Yankees-Red Sox, or even Braves-Mets) and adding several paragraphs of text explaining and analyzing MLB rivalries in general terms - things like whether they originate with the players or the fans, the role of the media in drumming them up, etc. The Literate Engineer 09:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the list is going to be kept and cleaned up, then, the BS rivalries which have articles should be deleted, too. I've looked up the names of the some of the "rivalries" by searching the name as an exact phrase on Google, and I did not find them, except the ones created on Wikipedia. [31] [32] [33] "Real rivalries," like the Subway Series, were found on Google by using their name as an exact phrase search. [34] Win777 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me about that, Win777. The Literate Engineer 19:40, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. James Two-gun[edit]

Probable hoax, as far as I know not a real Warhammer 40,000 character. Most likely an attack on a fellow gamer. the wub "?/!" 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article's talk page seems to agree on the latter of your surmises. jglc | t | c 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A character developed for a League, posted for a back story. this Character does indeed exist, though not in any "Codex". Not a hoax, an Element of a league that doesn't affect the Global Rules.

  • Delete unencyclopedic gamecruft. Friday 19:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am part of a provincial league held in Montreal, Canada called "Montreal Warhammer 40,000k League. This is a character that was created for a computer simulation that represented the lowest level opponent. The character was never intended to be detailed to this extent but it seems a hapless fan of the character has fleshed out some of his finer details. Although, it seems a little crewd, this article is part of a series of articles of the same nature although the others are not detailed nor characterized to the same extent. It is my understanding that the organizers are using wikipedia to create an easily accessible online encyclopedia for their gamers. The Anome 21:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not an official Games Workshop character then I guess it counts as fanfic, and shouldn't be kept here. However it could probably be moved to the new 40K Wikicity the wub "?/!" 08:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn gamercruft. JamesBurns 08:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fanfic. Dcarrano 18:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 11:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're off to See the Wizard[edit]

Perpetual stub about a single song (as information about it is covered on the movie page). As it stands is only an opinion and some of the most obscure trivia one could ever dream of. Created by user with habit of creating stubs for the purpose of listing useless trivia (as is on the page now), then flooding creating a flood of incoming links. --InShaneee 15:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number of piss-poor song stubs in wikipedia is truly staggering. Delete. Or maybe redirect. If someone wants to write a real article here I will probably change my vote. -R. fiend 16:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, it's been expanded, and although it's still not a great article I'll change my vote, as promised, to weak keep. Could use more, I think. -R. fiend 04:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are articles about far less notable songs, and this one is fairly iconic. Needs expansion, however. 23skidoo 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because, because, because, because, becauauauase, because we have other bits from the movie with their own article too (say it quick, and it fits the music) e.g. Yellow brick road. They are faaaaaaar more notable than any pokemon creation will ever be.-Splash 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable song. Methinks it can be expanded. CanadianCaesar 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My understanding is that the diggers at Tobruk used to sing this song but can't verify it. Nevertheless, this is a well-known song from a very well known musical and there is now a real article there. Capitalistroadster 23:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Merge applicable info (sans the unmaintainable and extraneous "References in popular culture section") into The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie), redirect the namespace. Fernando Rizo 00:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oz is sufficently famous and long-lived such that individual songs are notable, and are useful as cultural references, in their own right. Xoloz 03:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revolución 06:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article. Radiant_>|< 12:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie). The song is not really notable outside of the context of the film, likely because it's so specific to the film. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" is the only Oz song that really needs its own seperate article. That being said, if it is kept, move it to We're Off to See the Wizard --FuriousFreddy 19:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Freddy's right, it should be moved. -R. fiend 04:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems mildly arbitrary to declare that Over the Rainbow is the only Oz song of note, no? Everybody knows why you go to see the Wizard, just as everybody knows that something happens way up high (though I actually forget what, precisely). -Splash 04:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference between the songs is that "Over the Rainbow" is a famous song in its own right independent of The Wizard of Oz. It won an Academy Award, became Judy Garland's signiture song, and has been covered and used in many contexts independent of the film. "We're Off to See the Wizard", on the other hand, because it is so specific to the film itself, is only used in direct, allusional, or parodical reference to The Wizard of Oz. You'll never hear someone sing "We're Off to See the Wizard" at a talent show and expect to make an impact (unless they're staging an act or medley that includes other Oz songs). For the same purpouse, "A Whole New World" from Aladdin deserves its own article (it was a #1 pop hit, and later became a popular wedding song), but "Prince Ali" and "Arabian Nights" do not. --FuriousFreddy 14:34, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DiMENSiON[edit]

Was marked speedy, though not a true candidate. Vanity Band page, non-notable, no google hits Gblaz 15:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I originally marked it speedy, but was mistaken (pulled the trigger a little too fast), Gblaz was correct to change it to vfd. Non-notable vanity page. - Chairboy 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 15:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Apparent Vanity --Irishpunktom\talk 15:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Grpunkim 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:12, 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 Transwiki and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White on rice[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- BMIComp (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiktionary. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 08:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The link from the VfD page to this page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 18:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dcarrano 18:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (only 1 valid keep vote) -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smogon[edit]

Smells like an advertisement to me! 841 google hits, and apparently there's also a Pokemon with this name, and a good portion of the pages are in another language which i cannot read. --Phroziac (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily the most important site in online Pokémon battling other than the site of Pokémon NetBattle itself (pokemon+netbattle is 13,300 google hits, 16,300 for just netbattle), and is both the unofficial discussion forums of NetBattle (NetBattle has its own, but they are inactive so NetBattle regulars use Smogon instead) and the official strategy forums[35]. Smogon is also NetBattle's most popular server by far, and the owner has recently joined NetBattle's dev team. Lack of google hits is simply due to its relative youth, hopefully I've shown that it's far more popular than google would show. Also, why would smogon give 838 hits but smogon+netbattle give 7,380? - Jshadias 11:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pokémon NetBattle already covers the material and low Google/Alexa #601,833 indicates it doesn't merit its own article. Dcarrano 19:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, The Smogon.com community, both the web site and online forum, serves as the primary location for discussion between the most skilled online battlers from all the major and most influential competitive battling communities such as GameFAQs and Azure Heights, and between aspiring battlers for whom Smogon.com has become their primary resource concerning the metagames of all three generations. While Phroziac probably means well, if he/she were more familiar with the community/communities he/she would realize that there is no question about the significance of Smogon among competitive battlers. (There's also no real redundancy with the NetBattle article that I can see.) - MattW 70.20.22.199 21:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable website. Most websites are important to some small community, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic in a larger sense. CDC (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 144 of Seattle, WA[edit]

Not notable enough. Dead end article.-- BMIComp (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I am the author of the Troop 144 Wiki entry) It is my first one so I am open to all suggestions and assistance. The Troop 144 Wiki entry is modeled after the approved Troop 26, Tulsa, OK entry. (Unsigned comment by 128.95.53.59, 11:02, 20 July 2005)
  • Delete - I don't think that they're notable enough to deserve their own wikipedia entry, have they done anything of note? Also, could you link us to the Troop 26 article so we can have a look at that too? Thanks, -- Joolz 16:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Does not establish notability. It needs to establish more notability. If it's just a boyscout troop, i'd have to say it's not notable. If it has done something special or gotten on TV (not public access cable) or something, then add that to it and i'd vote to keep it. --Phroziac (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I am the author). Thanks for the suggestions. I have added that we were the featured group in a national publication. As requested, here is the link to the Troop 26 entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troop_26%2C_Tulsa%2C_OK

It is now under review for deletion. Oops, guess I got them in trouble. (sorry Troop 26!)

  • Delete Not notable. - Grpunkim 18:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another Boy Scout Troop. However, I wouldn't oppose a single list of all troops (assuming there aren't thousands) giving some basic info on each (year founded, location, um, that's probably about it). That much could be useful, if it isn't already here somewhere. -R. fiend 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There are thousands of Boy Scout troops: 43,984 at year end 2004 to be exact; a list of them would not make a good article. [36] --Metropolitan90 01:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Shit. Are there that many? Wow. And to think I was once in Troop 7. That's a much easier number to remember than, say, Troop 37,894. I don't even see how that would fit on the sleeve of a uniform. -R. fiend 04:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Each local council numbers its troops separately; there would have been other Troop 7's in other states and maybe even in other parts of the same state. By the way, I should have said that 43,984 troops is just the number of troops in the USA; Scouting exists in something like 160 countries. --Metropolitan90 06:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, that certainly makes sense. If I had given the matter a moment's thought (which I had never done before) I probably would have realized this. Well, I hated the scouts anyway. -R. fiend 00:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Less notable than the school they attend. -Splash 22:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete. 128.95.53.59, why not create an account? It's free, takes about ten seconds, and requires disclosure of no personal information at all, not so much as an email address. You get a user name and a "user page." This is very suitable material for your user page. Google indexes user pages so people searching for Troup 144 would find it. Sorry for the rough introduction to Wikipedia, and I hope you decide to stay anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 08:13, 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 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 26, Tulsa, OK[edit]

Not notable enough, dead end article-- BMIComp (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn - Grpunkim 18:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, probably less notable than their schools. -Splash 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn …Guy M… (soapbox) 21:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skinheadz[edit]

Insignificant skinhead/neo-Nazi website. 57,000th on Alexa.[37] "Skinheadz" gets fewer than 1k Google hits, many for unrelated uses. Their forum is very quiet [just 1600 posts to tbe busiest since 2003, none have had any traffic in weeks]. The history is unsourced, not verifiable, and potentially imaginative. Willmcw 16:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Nechayev[edit]

There was never a revolutionary under the name of Dmitri Nechayev. The author probably meant Sergey Nechayev, and there is already a big article about this person. They shouldn't be merged, because the first article lacks detail and represents a brief summary of this revolutionary's life. KNewman 16:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 08:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax/mixup. Dcarrano 19:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Create a Redirect, there are many pages that link to this article, and not to Sergey Nechayev. --Mr.Rocks 11:04, 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Two Tall

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Crablogger[edit]

References a very obscure, non-notable machine that apparently appeared in one unidentified episode of Thunderbirds (TV series). There is a merge suggestion notice in the article but IMO the article is on a subject too obscure to even warrant merging. 23skidoo 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without merge unless a fan can dig out some notability for this. Gets only 75 unique Google hits], so I doubt that is possible. -Splash 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 19:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was It has already been recreated with different, and legitimate content. I am therefore closing the debate, and no action need be taken. -Splash 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Baltimore Love Thing[edit]

Sandbox-like content. User probably didn't know that there is a place to test edits.

  • I'm hesitant to place a vote for a VFD placed anonymously, but this one is pretty cut and dried. Delete, though kinda cool in a found art sort of way. 23skidoo 17:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newbie test. I've speedied it. In the future you can put {{del|newbie test}} in the article and these will get cleaned up. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (It's actually gone to BJAODN)

Baradise[edit]

A scrupulously neutral article that seems to be about somebody's backyard. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although I have to admit I got a few chuckles out of it. Grpunkim 18:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there a place for satirical articles. Some of them are quite humorous and it would be a shame to lose them entirely. --Bayyoc 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, BJAODN, which is my vote as well. --Icelight 19:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Then i'll change my vote to BJAODN as well.--Bayyoc 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJADON. This is too good to lose forever! ^^; Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. The map is a nice touch. -- BD2412 talk 19:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles about people's back gardens don't get in yet? ☺ Uncle G 19:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we chalk that up as a keep vote, then, Uncleg? Seriously though, it actually is sort of funny (unlike alot of BJAODN stuff) though I still think overuse of BJAODN encourages this sort of behavior. I won't oppose its presence there, but obviously it needs to be deleted from the article space. -R. fiend 20:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • BJOADN is not paper!!! (although I do see your point). -- BD2412 talk 22:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Stop Drinking BJAODN. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those polls are closed, now... -Splash 22:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it "features a swimming pool, lawn chairs, and many shrubs and trees." which means its nearly the same as a school.Delete for the above excellent reasons. -Splash 22:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN --Carnildo 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN (and how can this article not specify the surface area?) DS 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Lovely. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:17, 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. Spam spam spam spam spam. Wonderful spam! Sorry. Woohookitty 06:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hagberg Group[edit]

Spam. Uppland 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - Grpunkim 18:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability -Harmil 18:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Google gives less than 30 hits when filtering out Wikipedia and mirrors. Note that ENews.tk, that is listed as part of the group and has its own advertisment article, probably ought to go the same way. / Alarm 23:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – ABCD✉ 18:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BarterBee.com - Trade DVDs, CDs, and Video Games for $1.00[edit]

Non-notable advertising Gblaz 18:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Worse...it's a copyvio. I've tagged and bagged it. - Lucky 6.9 18:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a copyright violation, and has advertising. - NickC 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I'd have thought. --High(Hopes) 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame. Delete. --Genocide2st 16:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vary Quick - The Time Killer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – ABCD✉ 18:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy james[edit]

Vanity Grpunkim 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. TheCoffee 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please. - Lucky 6.9 18:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought I'd take the new criteria out for a test drive...damn, that felt good. Meelar (talk) 18:24, July 20, 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 11:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Defenders of Darkness[edit]

Vanity Improv 18:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity - Grpunkim 18:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability. -Harmil 18:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QA/QC[edit]

WP:WINAD. This is just a dicdef of an acronym. As such, it has no potential for growth and should be deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 18:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I would have said "redirect to Quality control", but I can't see the QA/QC name being valuable in finding quality control, and QA and QC are already fine disambiguation pages. -Harmil 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per [User:Harmil|Harmil]]. -Splash 22:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ink, Incorporated[edit]

It has no information that is not provided in the Extreme Dodgeball page, no background information, in all a totally useless page. Completely unorganized, and it just lists the members of the team. Matjlav 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as a very short article with little or no context. I would have had no clue about looking in Dodgeball - how did you know to do that?! -Splash 22:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a link to the page in the ED page. I looked at it, and found nothing but that. --Matjlav 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn team vanity. JamesBurns 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete as there is little or no info about them. 05:30, 28 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 deleted. – ABCD✉ 18:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Topp[edit]

Delete Spam Grpunkim 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen M. Forrest[edit]

"Visiting instructor" and postdoctoral student (albeit Ivy League). No publications or achievements. The biography contains original research, apparently written by an appreciative student of his. This subject is currently much less notable than the average full professor. Willmcw 18:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Appears to fail Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Further, can find no curriculum vitae for him. Is he even published? He is ABD..all but doctorate; he's NOT a PhD just yet. Almost, but he's not there yet. He may be worth including here in a few years, but not yet. --Durin 20:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, even if he had a PhD. Needs to be more notable than your average college professor, adn they've all got PhDs. -Splash 22:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, no notability asserted. --Etacar11 01:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:19, 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 23:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Jar-Jar Binks[edit]

This article is ridiculous, completely unencyclodpedic, and poorly written. However, there could possibly be some way to illustrate the discontent amongst Star Wars fans with this character. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Icelight 19:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteMerge is not necessary as the NPOV info is already included in Jar-Jar Binks.--Bayyoc 19:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Bayyoc. —PrologFan {Talk} 19:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 19:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Bayyoc. -- Karada 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, topic already covered in the character article. 23skidoo 20:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, main article covers problems. CanadianCaesar 23:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just for reminding me of Jar-Jar --Doc (?) 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Doc! --Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say delete. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, information about criticism of Jar-Jar Binks' role in the movie is already included in Jar-Jar Binks and Star Wars Episode I. Revolución 06:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 08:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete, the regular article does a better job of skewering Jar-Jar. Flammifer 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to me to be superfluous to that which has already been said about the character, biased and ill-written. 7Munkys 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alove For Enemies[edit]

Delete. Does not quite meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. While they have released two albums, neither of these were on "a major label or one of the more important indie labels." If they should happen to break out, the article can be re-created at a later date, and only one sentence will be lost. Icelight 18:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Clean-up. Google returns a good number of results, including for well-known lyrics websites. It's terribly written, though. If anyone can find out anything worth noting, put it in there and fix this thing. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:21, 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 DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Lending , Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company/advertising Gblaz 19:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. – ABCD✉ 18:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic High Council for England and Wales[edit]

This smacks of being a breakaway group, not part of mainstream masonry. -- RHaworth 19:18, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry I didn't understand the reason for this being sent to vfd. Is it becuase they claim to be mainstream while they're not? I don't think that's grounds for deletion, instead, that should be explictly mentioned in the text. Abstain drini ☎ 19:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sent it to VfD to help advertise it to the ugly (UGLE) masons. But I think they know about - see edit wars in Regular Masonic jurisdictions. Let us sit back and watch them fight it out - but keep clear of Queen Street. -- RHaworth 19:59, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:22, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Walther[edit]

Not notable. Does not seem to meet standards set in WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only has one album and no other claim to fame, thus fails WP:MUSIC which suggests at least two albums. Has no mention on allmusic.com, and "Ben Walther" "Where I Want To Be" only gets 7 Googles. -Splash 22:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:23, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Brown[edit]

Non-notable. --Ngb 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 20:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity; student officer of an undergraduate student association. If the article remains, it must be copyedited. --Durin 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm not convinced (see Template talk:Durham college) whether JCR presidents even deserve mention on the college's page; they certainly don't need pages of their own. TSP 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - isn't this now speedyable? Lupin 12:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Probably yes according to the new vanity policy. Regardless, the vote is currently 6-0 to delete. I don't think we have to worry about this article hanging around for much longer :) --Durin 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's speedyable if you don't consider that being President of a JCR (i.e. head of a body with about 1,000 members) is a "remotely plausible" claim to notability. Actually I think it probably exceeds that bar; it's just not sufficient to get past VfD. TSP 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Networks[edit]

Advertising, spam, press release 66.216.68.28 20:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Good Robots Go Bad[edit]

Please kill this page, it is in violation of [38].(nominated by 144.118.196.165 whose only edit is this vote.)

  • Don't delete. In no way promotional. Have been on tour in a large/medium-sized country. (unsigned comment by Dumplinberry whose only edits are votes in two VfD's for local bands.)
  • Do not delete. Informative. (unsigned comment by 12.207.25.92 whose only edit is this vote.)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Al 13:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No entry at allmusic. There is a page at artistdirect, but it's blank. 136 unique Google hits, and they're not all for this band. 205 unique Yahoo hits, and not all are for this band. Zoe 21:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. Not promotional.

  • Sockpuppets: When Good AfD Processes Go Bad -- delete per Zoe. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? Begone --ElvisThePrince 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banish to the pit of eternal non-noteworthyness --Outlander 15:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity. (Couldn't find anything on their label using google either.) --Quasipalm 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Joelito 18:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, found a web page on the band (obviously written by one of the members), but nada about the label. -- llywrch 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Copter[edit]

Band vanity. Will record the first album any day now. Joyous (talk) 20:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SmartCOP[edit]

Delete: based on Wikipedia:No original research. --Durin 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do NOT Delete: This is an article about wikis and their enterance into the defense community. I believe it gives more power to wikipedia since it shows the power of wikis and the new levels they are reaching. --Mike 19:46 July 25, 2005 (UTC) user's only logged in contribution was to Talk:SmartCOP; this edit actually done by 157.127.124.134 (talk · contribs) and 157.127.124.141 (talk · contribs)
  • Please sign your edits. --Durin 02:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durin. Ken 20:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I work for the Navy and use wikipedia for research. The military now sees the use of wikis as a valuable asset for future command and control systems. SmartCOP will be an important element of future systems and recommend you keep this section. User:Monroe, SPAWAR Systems 10:01, 25 July 2005 no such user "Monroe"; effectively an unsigned edit by 138.163.0.42 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete looks liek spam, not particularly encyclopaedic anyway jamesgibbon 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, plus it's larger than any one page has a right to be. --Several Times 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It isn't spam. It's a direct cut/paste from [39] that cleared copyvio status (see Talk:SmartCOP). --Durin 21:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StephanieDeardenMCP[edit]

vanity page, non-wikified, incorrect title, personal resume Vamp:Willow 20:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball--Porturology 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep. Liberal Democrat candidates for British parliament are encyclopedic, even if they have slightly naughty-sounding consistituency names (Tooting, since you asked). But this is terribly formatted and barely coherent. Tag for cleanup--I'll work on it myself if it gets kept. Meelar (talk) 21:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really, seeing as she lost along with several thousand others. Anyone can lose at an election without becoming notable. -Splash 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but what pushed me over the line to keep was that she was from a semi-major party. Only a few people can manage that. Meelar (talk) 13:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • In fairness, some 640 people managed it, one for each Constituency. In the Lib Dems' case, about 580 of them then lost. This is unverifiable owing to my anonymity, but I have stood for election for the same party (to a local council) and lost; they just rang me up and said "we're short of a candidate in this seat which we're gonna lose anyway, but want people to be able to vote for us. Fancy doing nothing at all, apart from signing on the dotted line?". So I did. And I lost, and remain non-notable. Parliament's not the same as a local council, but the selection process isn't quite as rigorous as it might be, epsecially in the unwinnable seats. -Splash 17:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, wasn't elected and has no other claim to notability. This is just a resume. -Splash 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Losing candidates for political office are not notable unless known for other things. On the basis of this, Ms Dearden isn't. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup. A candidate from a major party for a national legislature, even if otherwise nn probably deserves at least a stub (though not a resume). --Pyroclastic 01:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bahleet Delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable per Splash. Even were the article to be kept, currently it is a resume which is unacceptable. Quale 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Caribbean[edit]

I think this page should be deleted because it has, nor will ever have any prominent use. It's simply a page linking to sites where you can find out more and shop for ways to tour the Caribbean. Enclyopedias are not vacation planners nor advertising sites (for the sites that are being linked to. I see no way this could be expaned either, not to mention that the title is grammatically incorrect. alfrin 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I'd say it's equivalent to spam. --Several Times 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, although it has multiple external links, this amounts to just a single external link and is a CSD. -Splash 22:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not for the reasons listed. An article on the tourism business and why certain sites are popular with visitors can certainly be encyclopedic. See Tourism in France, Tourism in Mexico, and Tourism in England, for example. But this page is currently devoid of value. — RJH 15:40, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Employee Leasing and PEO Companies[edit]

Pure advertising, all from material found on the company's site. Several Times 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 into Diablo II and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rathma[edit]

gamecruft Kertrats 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nothing wrong with it, needs to be expanded and formatted. If it can't be expanded then it should go alfrin 20:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Diablo 2 or Character classes in Diablo 2 or somesuch. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I suppose. My characters a necro, though, and I didn't know what the article said, so for once I've learnt something from some gamecruft. Now, I must go and write my Wikipedia article about my character. -Splash 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Gamecruft is tolerable as long as the title does not conflict with a non-fictional subject or otherwise create confusion. If Rathma meant something outside of Diablo then I'd be more skeptical of this article, but that does not seem to be the case. -Buuneko 00:44, 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 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Krebs[edit]

speedied Fawcett5 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC) vanity Bayyoc 20:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity. --Several Times 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, we have a new WP:CSD allowing deletion of articles which make no assertion of the subject's notability. These don't need to come to VfD any more. -Splash 22:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:grazingshipIV[edit]

This was not put in the log by the original nominator. --Dmcdevit·t 21:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Normally I don't care about user pages but this appears to be a personal attack directed against another user as well as offensive - Damicatz 23:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone, it's in user space and isn't directed at anyone in particular. WP:NOT censored for anyone, and though this would have to go if it were in article space, it's not. -Splash 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Splash... sorta nonsense, but under 100 characters. Xoloz 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we delete it on the grounds that all of the edits associated with the name are vandalism, and that no edits have been made from that editor since January? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Angr. Radiant_>|< 12:38, 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 07:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas Tryfonos[edit]

Not a Juventus player, just a fool! (I have even looked for him, but he does not appear anywhere in association with the team) Angelo.romano 21:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under the new policy: it makes no assertion of notability. See WP:CSD as updated. -Splash 22:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I disagree with Splash to a degree - being a Juventus player is a certainly legitimate claim of notability. Becoming a member of one of the most famous football teams in Europe certainly means having achieved considerable success. However, I can find no evidence of this being true, either on Google News, Google Web or Juventus pages. Manning 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:27, 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 KEEP: 5k, 1d, 1m. I will tag it as a stub. -Splash 01:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loveseat[edit]

dicdef, not encyclopedic Bayyoc 21:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and move to wikitionary. See WP:NOT. drini ☎ 21:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--furniture is encyclopedic. Tag for expansion. Meelar (talk) 21:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, and clean-up. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 01:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spread the love! -- BD2412 talk 03:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly an encyclopedic topic. It should have a history, discussion of designs and where such furniture can be found, and some illustrations, all of which are things that you wouldn't expect to be included in a dictionary. CalJW 21:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to couch. A loveseat is a type of couch.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucs[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang guide, as official policy in WP:WIN states. drini ☎ 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a totally non-notable neologism. How's that for alliteration, hmm? - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delucs. Neologism. -- BD2412 talk 03:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:29, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rory smith[edit]

vanity, poor writing skills, and evidence of mental deficiency Bayyoc 21:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yobo[edit]

Uh, nonsense, right? jengod 21:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under a combination of criteria G7 and U3, with a smattering of G2 thrown in for good measure. The original anonymous author tagged the page with {{test}} (G2) and then nominated it for deletion (G7). Apart from a well-intentioned removal of the tags, all subsequent edits were from another anonymous author with a related IP address tagging the page further. There are no messages or history here worth keeping, and what messages are here don't appear to be relevant to 204.96.191.50 (talk · contribs) (U3). Uncle G 02:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted user talk page(204.96.191.50)[edit]

  • delete: unwanted talk page
  • Delete: unneeded alfrin 22:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy per CSD, User page #3. --Dmcdevit·t 23:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete (no valid keep votes) -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annee Pai Gaee[edit]

I tried multiple variant spellings, but Google turned up nothing. Hoax? DS 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn foreign phrase. JamesBurns 08:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So is "ciao". It is understandable that discussions of colloquial niceties of small communities are not found in research papers on the web. 19:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And "éminence grise" as well. Anyway, I can think of lots of fragments of useful knowledge which can not be found by search engines. That does not mean that they should not be part of a body of knowledge, especially one such as an encyclopedia, which should err on the side of inclusiveness instead of the other way around.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sashanan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hilarious XD. And TRUE TOO! o_o Sashanan touched me once. ;-; I tried to tell CJayC, but he acted like it was MY fault!!! :runs away crying:
  • Delete-the entire purpose of this entry was to insult a GameFAQs mod. Not only does this have absolutely no basis in fact, but it is also made by some very disgruntled people. This should be deleted.
  • The only thing Google brings up when you search for "Sashanan" is the GF mod and sites were he has been a member - Delete this useless entry
  • Basically a joke insult page about a well-known Gamefaqs poster. No value whatsoever.204.60.63.109 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally without any basis in fact. Just a joke entry designed to be very mean.
  • As funny as it is, it's indeed a joke page that's made up.
  • I propose we preserve this page as a example of "How to design well-made joke articles."
  • I propose that, although there may very well be a "famous" GameFAQs user (if such thing exists) who is aware of the myth, that a definition of such a myth is not inherently "insulting" to anyone who uses this, online. The name is also used (derived from the original Dutch mythology) in Quest for Glory 2, which presumably explains the provenance of the name on such a site. It is hardly appropriate if, for example, someone who uses "Mr Punch" as a username online should complain to Wikipedia about the appalling level of violence associated with such a name, on this site. The value of this article, too, is to educate those who have no idea of such a folklore figure, which seems to number in the threes.
  • I agree with the sentiment that the article should be preserved to educate those who don't know the Dutch mythology. Just because it's some "famous GameFAQs user" took the name Sashanan doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. For instance, "Cthulhu" is a mythological god that many users on message boards take for a username. Cthulhu isn't necessarily a favorable god since he has been rumored to be a "devourer of souls." If someone complained from another internet message board saying that the article on Cthulhu should be removed because it portrays them in a negative light, I highly doubt the artcle would be removed. This is because, just like Sashanan, Cthulhu is a character rooted in mythology and perhaps the user that chose that name should have thought more into it before doing so. In conclusion, I believe that this article should remain on Wikipedia, regardless of whether some "GameFAQs" user took the name without knowing its full meaning. Thank you.
  • Delete- No value as an article. No sources are cited, and the latter paragraphs make it apparent it's a joke.Toffile
  • Delete - There is no such mythological figure, dutch or otherwise. Those arguments would be fantastic if there were actually any root in reality of the entry. Instead, it is a well-written but completely fallacious article. None of the statements about Dutch mythology have any basis in history. They are just handily written to be a malicious jab at an individual.
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a myth is not well-known ("no such mythological figure") doesn't seem like a very good reason to erase it from Wikipedia. Surely the purpose of such a site as this is to educate and inform, even about even mythic figures? Even those who exist through fairy-tales, passed down by word of mouth ("have any basis in history"). It seems unfortunate that such oral history and culture should be erased from existence, merely because it isn't "written down".
  • Oral history and culture are important to be sure. However, this particular "legend" is not oral history or culture in the traditional sense. It is not old. It hasn't been passed down through generations. It is merely a product of a clever mind and its desemination is a disservice to the users of the site and a black mark on the idea of wiki journalism. The fact that without any substantiation or documentation purely fanciful and incorrect information is allowed to be posted without review is a serious cause for concern for the idea of a wiki fact site. Just because something isn't written down doesn't mean that there is no substantiation. Other oral histories, myths and fairy tales are documented through cultural studies - not necessarily written down by those continuing the oral tradition. Just because you claim that something has basis in historic mythology doesn't mean that it actually has it.
  • Why don't you sign your comments so that we can see who you are? It doesn't lend your arguments much credibility if you refuse to make yourselves known as the source. CNash 22:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, guys, changing someone's personal comments after they've written them is puerile and pathetic. CNash 21:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dutch, and I've never heard of anything like this before. In fact, even the image is just a photoshopped picture of the mod. If there really is a mythological figure called Sashanan, then it's nothing like the description says.
  • It may not be as widely known, or as photographed (it is considered impossible to capture his image using conventional photography) as the Loch Ness monster ("It is not old. It hasn't been passed down through generations") or such myths which have a more factual basis, but raising awareness of such myths seems to be of value to our culture, rather than something which is worthy of censure. The Yeti, Sasquatch etc are not considered worthy of Wiki-deletion, merely because they may, or may not, resemble many users of the internet. ("In fact, even the image is just a photoshopped picture of the mod") Without being able to compare the two, has it ever occurred to you that the person in question may have knowingly named himself after the legendary beast; perhaps because he was aware of any similarities between himself and the creature? Complaining that myths have a fantastic, almost mythic quality (!) seems as silly as complaining about use of photoshop when handling photos. Sashanan
  • Delete and consider censuring the original poster not only for an elaborate hoax, but for the most appalling display of sockpuppetry ever foisted on Wikipedia. This is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 16:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("an elaborate hoax") Aren't Bigfoot et al considered in precisely such a way? These myths are not considered worthy of deletion, merely because many people are aware of the myth. It seems a pity to delete less widely-known myths, simply because they are not quite so well known. Hopefully, Wikipedia exists to inform people about things which may not necessarily be part of common currency? ("appalling display of sockpuppetry") If mentioning Punch and Judy is now worthy of censure, it should be of concern to all Wikipedians. Sashanan 17:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Googled the name "Sashanan." Know what I got? Nothing, and I mean nothing but hits referring back to the GameFAQs user. Same results Googling "Sashanan myth." No mythological info whatsoever. However, I'm keeping an open mind. If you can point me to a legitimate website stating that Sashanan is indeed part of Dutch mythology, I will gladly and immediately change my vote and offer my sincerest apologies for accusing you of a hoax. You're right about one thing: This site does exist to inform of things that are not widely known yet remain notable. A mythological creature with a long history is more than worthy of inclusion, even though it may be nearly unknown outside its area of origin. - Lucky 6.9 19:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only does there have to be an actual "Sashanan" in Dutch mythology for this to be an appropriate entry, there needs to be a correlation between the description listed in the entry and a scholarly definition. As this description is tailored exactly to the individual user on GameFAQs, I highly doubt that such a correlation exists. At the very least this is a highly inaccurate description and at the worst, it is libelous. Certainly the link to the "blog" contains libelous material including a despicable phone conversation between a member of "LUELinks" and the father of the GameFAQs user Sashanan. I don't know what forms of censure are available on wikipedia but I feel that the author of this article should be subject to the most severe possible. Not only is this article likely false, but it is written in such a way that because of its excellent construction and brave exposition of "facts" it manages to fool some people and maintain a false guise of legitimacy. 132.239.153.57 20:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("If you can point me to a legitimate website stating that Sashanan is indeed part of Dutch mythology") Is Wikipedia not a legitimate site? It's a pity that to be considered legitimate for certain Wikipedians, something must be universally known. These clear, demonstrable facts are clearly what makes such figures as Bigfoot so worthy of their entries. ("At the very least this is a highly inaccurate description and at the worst, it is libelous") It would be diffiicult to libel a mythic figure. It is probably causing the supreme court nightmares, with the potential claims from Bigfoot, Yeti, the Loch Ness monster ("I've been defamed in this Scottish lake for years! I don't even like haggis!") etc in the works. ("brave exposition of "facts") The entry contains few, if any facts. It deals with mythology, the perception of truth, which has little primacy - merely accounts from those who (perhaps) claim that their version of the myth is more correct. If someone uses their imagination to overcome child abuse, which is what these stories most likely are, then who are we to deny them such mythic crutches? ("I Googled the name Sashanan") It would be interesting if you disputed the accuracy for the Wikipedia entry for "God", on grounds that nobody has been able to contact, or has seen, him directly, and that his website and email address are not available through search engines such as google. Sashanan
  • ("Is Wikipedia not a legitimate site?") That is riduculous. You can't assert that your entry is real by referring to your entry for corroboration. You can't pick yourself up in a bucket by pulling on the handles. Further, you state at one point that there are "clear, demonstrable facts" yet later mention that the entry contains "few if any facts." Which is it? 24.165.29.82 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all interested parties: the name "Sashanan" was created by Sierra, Inc., a computer software company, in the early 1990s. The character Sashanan first appeared in one of the sequels to the "Quest for Glory" video game series. This is the origin of the name, not any mythology. Feel free to contact Sierra, or any current holder of Sierra's intellectual properties, for all the corraboration you might need. 68.47.80.157 05:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("by referring to your entry for corroboration") The poster concerned asked for a "legitimate" site where Sashanan was defined. Is this not such a site? I have no idea whether this is corroborative, or not. But I have many sources available which will lend some, small credence to this myth. If you accept that this is even possible to do? ("This is the origin of the name") I am uncertain whether such companies will admit to hijacking such myths. But it seems as if you accept that this myth has currency outside of a GameFAQs user, which seems to be the central complaint in this thread. ("you state at one point that there are "clear, demonstrable facts") If you look at the entry, you will be able to see that I refer (in an entirely non-ironic way) to the "clear, demonstrable facts" surrounding such myths as Bigfoot, the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster. Doubtless you'd agree that such non-existent facts are what make them worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Some entries on Wikipedia have no basis in any actual, demonstrable reality. Yet they still exist. It seems curious that you'd seek to deny this entry its existence, based on its supposed fantasticness. Sashanan 16:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("If you look at the entry, you will be able to see that I refer (in an entirely non-ironic way) to the "clear, demonstrable facts" surrounding such myths as Bigfoot, the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster") Your entry also implied that there are similar "clear, demonstrable facts" available for the "Sashanan myth." I assert that there are none other than the ones you or your cronies invent. 24.165.29.82 21:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("Your entry also implied that there are similar "clear, demonstrable facts" available for the Sashanan myth") My entries have never mentioned any such thing, and have always maintained that there are few demonstrable truths in the make-up of made-up, mythic beasts, it is one reason why they have such a name. As far as having "cronies" goes, this is something you've produced from your own imagination. I am writing a book about the mythology "Lesser known fables - Aesop to Ziethor" of less well known folk figures, such as the Sashanan, and many of my sources will be available to view; once I receive permission, and approval of the translations etc. I hope these will be enough to corroborate what I believe to be an interesting myth, which has already seen quite some interest - judging from the responses to this thread. And that Wikipedians will allow some, small licence to explore areas of the human experience outside of the mainstream, since most of the things that happen on the fringes are quite fascinating in their own way. Few would seek to deny the entries on such subjects as UFOs, merely because they are mentioned in quite so many computer game sites and such. Sashanan 11:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will kindly ask that you drop this charade. You know as well as I do that there is no such myth. The fact is: Sashanan is the name used by a GameFAQs moderator, who happens to be Dutch. This "myth" is simply part of a series of attacks on him that started on the GameFAQs boards approximately one month ago, and has clearly extended beyond them. The characteristics of the so-called "mythological figure" stem from some particularly nasty rumors that were a part of these attacks. Thus, this article has no basis in reality. Thank you.

The above is that user's first edit...and I find myself in total agreement. Let's end this ASAP. "Fudge-packing" and "pedophilia" scream that this is an attack page. - Lucky 6.9 20:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ("The fact is:") This entry has no connection to anything except the myth concerned. Far from being connected to some anonymous user of some other, anonymous website, it seems that the myth has enough currency outside of itself to have been used as a pseudonym. It seems that you have already had a confession that the name was derived from a software company - who, in turn, derived the name from the myth honestly outlined here. Why you'd think that someone naming their account after a mythic figure is so difficult to believe would require quite an explanation. It would be impossible to connect someone, for example, who chooses to use the username "God" to any actual deity of this name. Although it would be an equally impressive to hear of such an individual attempting to delete the entry for "God" on Wikipedia, by claiming that he'd been insulted by such a comparison. Which he first made himself, by naming something as substantial as a pseudononymous account after a mythic figure. The purpose of Wikipedia is presumably to help educate people still? I can only apologise if my paltry words are not up to such a task. Sashanan 22:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make the assertion that the software company took the name from the "myth" without any basis. Your arguments are wasting the time of people and your stated cause to have this remain is mendacious. The difference between "God" and "Sashanan" is that there are actually other people who have heard of god in the context of a deity whereas "Sashanan" is solely the creation of a game company and subsequently the name taken by the user of a website. Not a myth. 132.239.153.57 23:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("the software company took the name from the "myth" without any basis") You accept, then, that the individual you mention was not the originator of the name? I agree with you, though, that the name is widely know - and in the public domain. This is purely because of the mythic connections, which seem to be well known to those who have invested some time in researching such myths, at least. ("your stated cause to have this remain is mendacious") My aim is to educate those who have yet to hear of such a myth, which is hopefully something that Wikipedia still encourages. Particularly since (as this thread demonstrates) there are still some people who have yet to hear about the origins of such myths. It is a pity that you seek to deny everyone on this site the chance to educate themselves about something which you confess isn't very widely known. ("there are actually other people who have heard of god") Well, I can't complain that the provenance of god is so widespread. It is a pity that Wikipedia, via you, seeks to deny anyone the means to educate themselves about the origins of the Sashanan. Just because something is not widely appreciated, like such realistic figures as Santa Claus, does not make it any less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps I have more faith that topics which appear on the fringes are equally worthy of attention, but it would not be a great surprise to find that such pages are considered a waste of Wikipedia space. It's a pity, so far as the breadth of human understanding is concerned, however. Perhaps when Microsoft own this site, the generic entries will make everyone far more happy. Sashanan
  • Strong Delete This is vandalism. Unfortunately, it's subtle vandalism which makes it a pain to deal with. Sashanan, please consider contributing to Wikipedia in a positive way. Friday 15:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, this is just total video game jibberish. Voice of All(MTG) 05:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to discover what has been "vandalised" precisely? The original entry ("A pivotal figure in Dutch mythology, known also as the "goblin van de nacht", or "goblin of the night". Typical folk stories involving him featured him tempting children with sweets and making them his slaves, and they were often used to scare children into not misbehaving.") has been left largely unchanged. The additions have expanded the original entry, providing readers with more substance and some background about the origins and developments to the myth. I can only hope that providing information is still considered as a "positive" contribution to Wikipedia, even if the myth is not yet widespread enough to be readily accepted by everyone? Sashanan 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're only fooling yourself now. The "blog" link contained in the article is certainly a clear indicator as to the article's true purpose, and it destroys your story's credibility entirely. Realize that Wikipedia is not a place for carrying on such childish vendettas. 64.252.230.207 07:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend: Delete. Utter nonsense relating to a series of personal attacks on GameFAQs moderator Sashanan (unrelated to the Wikipedia user of the same name) that occured earlier this month. CNash 11:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("a clear indicator as to the article's true purpose") The article's true purpose is to provide some information about a mythic figure. ("Utter nonsense") It seems of slightly questionable merit to complain that mythic figures do not tally exactly with your own, earnest outlook on life. These myths are rarely meant to be cosy tales. The stories seem designed both to challenge our values and act as a warning to children. In this respect, the Sashanan seems to fulfil the needs which such myths are founded on. ("on GameFAQs moderator Sashanan") Although there have been complaints that someone has used the name on a computer games site, they seem almost arbitrary ones. It is hardly Wikipedia's concern, whether users of external sites use such usernames, even more fantastic that there are any complaints about the myths that are the basis of such names. ("Let's end this ASAP. "Fudge-packing" and "pedophilia" scream that this is an attack") Similarly, complaining that confectionary (Hansel and Gretel) or paedophilia (Red Riding Hood) should dare to be mentioned in relation to yet another mythic figure seems like a unique grievance. The myth existed long before the internet was invented and will hopefully last until Microsoft's internet XP is released. In the meantime, I have provided a typical account of a confrontation with the Sashanan on the discussion page, and am prepared to use similar quotes from my book (as sources) once it is published. Sashanan 19:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you dodged my point about the "blog" entirely. 64.252.220.159 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I have now checked the history of this article and have a couple more points. For one, earlier versions of the article referenced GameFAQs directly.
Second, and more important, I looked up the creator of the original article. They were only identified by an IP address, however, a look at the IP's talk page informs us that the IP is registered to a UK internet provider. Meanwhile, the personal attacks on GameFAQs moderator Sashanan mentioned earlier were perpetrated by a group of GameFAQs users from the UK.
This needs to end now. 64.252.222.72 22:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this is disgusting, I was extremely afraid of Sashanan as a child, and I certainly don't want to be scared as an adult.
  • Recommended: keep. A user on an external site using the name of this mythic beast pseudononymously seems like one of the most incredible reasons to delete an article that has ever been produced. Fortunately for my delicate sensibilities, it doesn't offend me to be linked with my own research. ("the IP is registered to a UK internet provider") It seems like a sensible precaution to prohibit anyone who dares to exist in the UK from contributing to this site. It ensures that well-researched, and "well-written" articles have little chance of appearing on these pages. It will be a pity, although exacting and appropriate, to have entries for such insignificant persons as Shakespeare, TE Lawrence and Churchill deleted. ("I notice that you dodged my point about the "blog"") It's fortunate for us, that few facts escape your attention. Luckily, the blog makes up part of the developing mythology, and has already been put into context by the article. Most, and perhaps all, myths which exist to frighten us will eventually, and perhaps always have been, a source of this kind of questionable, black humour; as earlier references to Punch and Judy make clear. It seems as if (even for no other reason) that these blogs are a way to reiterate and expand the mythology, since it is little known, outside (and seemingly inside) the Netherlands. Although it is yet another source which exists to expand on the ancient myth - and put it into a modern context. I prefer to think of it as being a modern variant of the oral tradition which such myths are founded on; or the way these myths are developed, in part, because of gossip. A pity, so far as I am concerned at least, that this is considered so worthy of censorship. It would be interesting to have your opinion on the bare-faced, wholly factual truth contained in such pages as Bigfoot, Yeti and Loch ness monster, however? ("This needs to end now") Education needs to end now? This is likely to be Dubya's next campaign slogan. Sashanan
  • You aren't fooling anyone anymore, you know. I, for one, am tired of my intelligence being insulted. Oh, and keep the anti-Bush rhetoric to yourself. It isn't the least bit funny. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it rather amusing that you continue to simply dance around all the points brought up. It is quite clear that you are only trying to mislead. To make things perfectly clear, the "blog" page not only contains links to the LiveJournal site of the GameFAQs user Sashanan, but down near the bottom are multiple entries about being a GameFAQs moderator. It is quite foolish to claim that it is anything other than a series of insults.
  • ("to simply dance around all the points brought up") I have attempted to address each and every concern which has been raised in connection to the mythology surrounding the Sashanan. Most of these concerns seem to be centred around an anonymous user of a computer games site, who named himself after the mythic beast. It is unfortunate that so many people feel that he has somehow insulted himself, by linking to the mythic creature so explicitly. There has already been a confession that this user was not the originator of the name and that it appears in many other sources. I have simply tried to expand on the actual origins of such myths. It's a pity that my attempts to educate people about such subjects is met with the resistance shown here. Why do you find it so difficult to open your mind to something outside of the everyday and the black and white? ("To make things perfectly clear, the "blog" page not only contains links to the LiveJournal site of the GameFAQs user Sashanan") There have been no links made to any blogs produced by a user named Sashanan whatsoever, by myself. Since I have not been able to find such a blog, online. I have, however, received explicit permission to link to the blog used in the entry. Can you explain why you'd have a problem with expanding the myth, and putting it into a modern context for internet users - which is the point of such links? ("Oh, and keep the anti-Bush rhetoric to yourself") Wikipedia makes it clear that you might find "terse, gruff, and abrupt" language and "that it is about the article, not about you" in discussions about deleted entries. It's nothing personal, you understand. Unless you happen to be the President concerned? Insofar as your own abusive efforts go, I would refer you here: "I, for one, am tired of my intelligence being insulted" I hope that you will see that it is intelligent users who should appreciate such entries, and be delighted that Wikipedia still welcomes those open-minded enough to encourage the development of such imaginative myths. Sashanan 16:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you have proven my point completely. Anyone who visits the supposed "blog" will see the links to GF user Sashanan's LiveJournal, in plain view, at the top of the page. Furthermore, you neglect to explain the direct references to GameFAQs in the entries near the bottom of the page, in addition to the URL itself. (CJayC is the founder of GameFAQs.) There is no concern at all with any "mythology" at all, simply an attack. It has been shown quite clearly throughout the course of this discussion that there is no Sashanan myth, yet you continue to defend this collection of lies and personal attacks with convoluted replies that give no real information.
  • This should make things a little clearer. "Sashanan", unless you can give a vaild link to a reputable source outside of Wikipedia that comments on "the Sashanan" (known web page, ISBN or title for a book, etc.), then I may assert that this page falls under the category of Original Research and is thus disallowed by Wikipedia policy. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability. CNash 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("will see the links to GF user Sashanan's LiveJournal") No such link exists, so far as I am aware. ("Furthermore, you neglect to explain the direct references to GameFAQs in the entries near the bottom of the page") No such references exist in the current entry, so far as I am aware. ("There is no concern at all with any "mythology" at all") There is a great deal of concern with the mythology of such a figure, since this is what the article is all about. ("unless you can give a valid link to a reputable source outside of Wikipedia") I have given a number of published sources, if you accept that a blog can be cited as such. Ditto to the videogame. If these are not acceptable, then my own research will be published soon - and it doesn't seem too presumptuous to give Wikipedians the chance to stay ahead of the traditional print media. I've always considered that the number of news stories which appear on the front pages of this site demonstrate that Wikipedia is more than the dry, dusty encyclopedia that some users would prefer it to be. ("ISBN or title for a book, etc") CNash, you've already stated that the name appears in "the pages of European Mythological Gods and Goddesses" and that "this is in fact a true mythological figure", which sounds like you've already verified for yourself that the myth exists. And in what sounds like an authoritative tome, too. Sashanan 08:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming to have not seen the links or the references mentioned indicates that you either have not even read the "blog" page, or are simply lying. Meanwhile, you also appear to have ignored the links posted by CNash. The "blog" is not a reputable source of information, and more importantly, it makes no assertions regarding a "mythological figure" whatsoever. Referencing the videogame is also pointless, as you cannot prove that its creators derived the name Sashanan from your supposed "myth." And even if you are writing a book on the subject that has yet to be published, this still falls under the category of Original Research as CNash has stated. Even if your stated intention is to "give Wikipedians the chance to stay ahead of the traditional print media," the article is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
And regarding your last point, I see no statement by CNash on this page stating verification of your myth. Nice try. 64.252.221.212 09:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("indicates that you either have not even read the "blog" page") I have the blog open in another browser tab. Perhaps you can direct me to where the supposed link to this other blog exists? Doubtless you have made an honest mistake? ("Meanwhile, you also appear to have ignored the links posted by CNash") Au contraire: ("I see no statement by CNash on this page stating verification of your myth. Nice try") Naturally, I don't have your kind of bare-faced honesty or those finely-honed observational skills. Perhaps can apply them, by pointing your brain here: Nice, as they say, try. Sashanan 19:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have mentioned before, changing someone's personal comments after they've written them is puerile and pathetic. This argument is going nowhere; you're a common troll, and continuing to argue the point is futile. The vote tally is against you; I suggest that we wait for arbitration. CNash 21:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work editing the "blog" page to include an entry on your "mythology." Directly below all of the blatant GameFAQs references you claim you can not see. Also, nice work removing the most obvious link to Sashanan's LJ. This work only serves to show that it is worthless as an information source. Let's do as CNash suggests, and simply wait. 64.252.220.25 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("This argument is going nowhere") It seems as if the argument, if not the silly, sock puppet tally, is going against you. Your main concern seems to be the feelings of some anonymous user of some computer games site, who has named themselves after the myth I have been careless enough to have outlined. Why this should be cause for censorship is a mystery to me. I was delighted to have discovered, after seeing the original entry, that someone else had heard about the Sashanan myth and I have merely tried to expand on the entry - and provide some further background information. These efforts to make Wikipedia a more exhaustive source of information have been deemed not good enough, seemingly because they go some small way in confirming the existence of the myth. Which is deemed "puerile" and "well-written" amongst other things. ("As I have mentioned before, changing someone's personal comments after they've written them is puerile and pathetic") All of the editing that I've done should be obvious, not least from my unique linguistic style. I can only assume that you have changed your mind since you originally posted your comments, for reasons best explained by yourself, to yourself. I have remained consistent in trying to preserve an interesting myth, and I have not changed the comments of anyone whatsoever. ("Also, nice work removing the most obvious link to Sashanan's LJ") As far as I am aware, no such link exists on the blog. Or has ever existed. I can vaguely recall there being a few links to some other blank pages a while ago, but they seem to have disappeared - possibly because of their irrelevance? You would be better off asking the person who maintains the blog, who might be able to provide you with some other facts about the mythology? But feel free to provide a link to this other non-mythic blog, you mentioned, if you believe it is relevant in any way? Sashanan 17:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tally of signed votes[edit]

For DELETION: 11

Against DELETION: 1

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 by request from the creator. Thue | talk 21:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sellars[edit]

Blanked vanity --PhilipO 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 4 History[edit]

Not an encyclopædia entry, just points to a website (it's supposed to be about radio programmes). Orphaned. Not worth merging IMO, there's more info already on BBC Radio 4 and its list of programming. Joe D (t) 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary. Flowerparty 23:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 08:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brief article about a very useful resource. If it's orphaned, this can be remedied by linking to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into BBC Radio 4 - The Time Killer

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rovergate[edit]

Neologism. 90 google, 0 google news.-- BMIComp (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Plame affair. Redirects are cheap after all. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the scandal expands to include a dog. CDC (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think anyone's looking for "Rovergate". This is the first I've heard of that neologism. Rovegate, maybe. Fernando Rizo 02:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've heard "Rovegate" on talk radio, but not this one, so it must go. -- BD2412 talk 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's just a place for a POV rant. If it catches on (unlikely), add it back. --rob 21:55, 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 keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peg_Kerr[edit]

This is a vanity page written by one livejournal user for another, as evidenced by reading this blog posting about it. I could easily write myself up as equally sensitive and ambitious. Alterego 22:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete proof that vanity doesn't absolutely always have to be written by the article subject. Good catch, Alt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  • Keep - I thought it'd be crap too, until I saw that she's published two novels, one of which was nominated for a Mythopoeic Award, pushes her above the line of notability. DS 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having two novels published is a claim to notability especially when one was nominated for a reasonably significant award. Article is now in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Appears to be notable. JamesBurns 08:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may have been started by a friend but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have a reason to be on here. Certainly, it is in need of expansion, but not deletion. Tinderblast 17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it was started by a fan of the author - but surely that's to be expected? Agree with DS that PK is notable enough to deserve an entry. Zhasper 00:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memethics[edit]

Neologism for new philosophy. Google brings up only 19 unique hits for it, none of them including the names of the philosophers who supposedly inspired it. [40]. Willmcw 22:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) PS The article on Nathan Braun, an activist/writer/philosopher/theologian/ethicist in his mid-20s, was written by the same editor. It says, "He founded memethics, the art and science of analyzing ethical and moral ideas, though it is not an academically-regonized discipline." [sic] If even the editor/subject(?) admits that it is un-"regonized", who are we to change that? -Willmcw 23:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is nothing notable or exceptionable about someone inventing a word. The topic itself goes back to Plato. KSchutte 02:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suggest not delete, but limit access to the page. the field will eventually spawn something. might as well keep it in to allow for documentation of the fields growth. (this writer suggest memethics could encompass fields such as racism and other "isms"/humor/hate/love/anthropology/social dynamics/information exchange/...ect)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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; either hoax or Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam ozery[edit]

No relevant Google hits. 2600 children? I smell a hoax. smoddy 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or an attack page. Is this a speedy under the new policy? - Lucky 6.9 22:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under Article ss. 6&7? I don't really think so. It pushes the margin, but it asserts notability and it isn't that short. smoddy 22:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, plain and simple, it would be googleable for something like that alfrin 22:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traitorgate[edit]

Dicdef, and POV-inherent. smoddy 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could always redirect it to Traitor's Gate, if such an article exists (or to Tower of London if it doesn't). Grutness...wha? 01:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV neologism manufacture. It can be rewritten if it catches on, but it's not Wikipedia's job to help it do so. -- BD2412 talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When used in Valerie Plame article, it's redudant, along with Rovegate and Nadagate. If the articles aren't gotten rid of quickly, there's going to be even more duplication of Plame affair and Valerie Plame articles, which is where the stuff belongs. --rob 19:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article that labels someone that hasn't even been indicted yet in the title is certainly POV. -- OldRight 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is definitely POV and redundant. -- Mister Man 20:21, 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 delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism (disambiguation)[edit]

del as wrong usage of the technical page. Merge the text wherever suitable. This is no way a disambig page, by the definition of the notion: wikipedia:disambiguation. The closest possible destination is the section Socialism#Branches of socialism. mikka (t) 22:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. JamesBurns 08:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is useless, and its content is already present in the article on socialism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the other pages are about something called socialism and some are completely unrelated. magicOgre 19:22, 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear summer[edit]

Non-existent term; basically nonsense. On 2005-06-12 01:26:36 Fawcett5 stopped it being a speedy with Doesn't fit the definition of patent nonense... she may be right; but its close. The term doesn't really exist (google seems to hit only web design). The scientific content is nonsense (loss of ozone is a net negative radiative forcing and would lead to cooling not warming). William M. Connolley 22:57:16, 2005-07-20 (UTC)

  • delete Keep - William M. Connolley 23:01:07, 2005-07-20 (UTC). Switching vote on the basis of the link RJH found, which now provides different (and this time valid) science. Am I allowed to withdraw this VFD now? William M. Connolley 19:27:38, 2005-07-21 (UTC).
  • keep - Without taking a position on the ultimate validity of the theory, it does look like it is a recognized term in academic circles. It took two seconds to find reference to the term in at least one scholarly work [41], [42] by an emeritus professor of military history [43], and it is simply not true that Google turns up only web design hits, I find many (e.g. [44],[45], [46], [47],[48]). Also, the theory described on the page says only that solar radiations would sterilize the earth's surface, and nothing whatsoever about actual warming. Fawcett5 03:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I admit the link you found exists. The problem is that the science is pretty dubious The high temperatures of the nuclear fireballs could destroy the ozone gas of the middle stratosphere. doesn't seem likely, and none of the refs you've found support it. ([49] just mentions the phrase - no more; [50] says nuclear winter was really nuclear summer and no more - what does this mean? There seems to be no substance behind it at all. William M. Connolley 12:04:50, 2005-07-21 (UTC).
  • Delete per nominator. --Bambaiah 08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I found only two references to nuclear summer: [51], [52]. This suggests that it is a small subject, but could be an altternative or a later stage of nuclear winter scenarios. In the light of this material, I come to roughly the same conclusion as the remaining people, except that I think the scenario does not yet have sufficient backing evidence or paper trail to stand as an independent encyclopedia entry. Therefore I suggest merge and redirect to nuclear winter. Another reason for my vote is that most of the references, such as those given by Fawcett5, actually show that there is somewhat of a controversy over nuclear winter/summer. So the nuclear winter article needs to have a para describing nuclear summer. But if that is done, then there is not much more left to say in the article on nuclear summer. Of course, if there is sufficient new information, then I would revise my stand (once more). --Bambaiah 12:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand. I've heard of this as an opposite viewpoint to nuclear winter. If the ultimate decision is to delete, then merge this as a subsection of the nuclear winter article. To delete because the science is considered dubious is POV - as long as the article remains NPOV and addresses both supporters and detractors, then it should be OK. 23skidoo 14:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I added some more, but it could stand to be further enhanced. Thanks. — RJH 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of the link you've found, which seems to me to provide valid (or at least plausible) science, I now think it should be kept. William M. Connolley 19:27:38, 2005-07-21 (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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Puttymen & Image:Putty.6.gif and Image:PR2-KZW3.GIF[edit]

8 hits in google, looks like a prank. Also the images if VfD:d Feydey 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:37, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Monarchy[edit]

I have merged United Monarchy with Kingdom of Israel, making the former obsolete - Nik42 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bad move. If anything, the United Monarchy is the logical precursor to the Kingdom of Judah since Solomon's son ruled Judah and the capital was maintained as Jerusalem. Still, I think the United Monarchy needs its own article and should not be merged. User:Cypherx 12:51pm, 6 June 2005

  • Keep and unmerge! FunkyChicken! 06:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as its own article. This is a distinct concept. Binadot 16:49, 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 KEEP: 7k, 2d. -Splash 02:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Farnworth[edit]

Less notable, not encyclopedic yet. Results 1 - 10 of about 17 for "lee farnworth" Algonquin College. (0.34 seconds). There were around 250 for "lee farnworth", but a good portion were not the same person. --Phroziac (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professor and active in local politics. No good reason to delete - David Gerard 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the point of going through the articles hoovering up and deleting ones like this. Let's keep VfD for trash. --23:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: She may be encyclopedic soon. She is the Liberal candidate for the next federal election in a riding presently held by the Liberals. 39th Canadian federal election (candidates): Ontario#Ottawa. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Professor with some notability. JamesBurns 08:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. Legitimate article, not a mere vanity page. Peter Grey 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. CJCurrie 19:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Farnworth was fairly prominent in local news a few years ago; she had been seen as the natural successor to the retiring MPP in Ottawa West-Nepean but was defeated by Jim Watson in what some allege was an ugly campaign. -Joshuapaquin 11:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 16:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, even if I discard redusers. -Splash 02:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Gundam: Double-Fake[edit]

  • i don't see why anyone in their right mind would care about this crap. i vote to delete it. --joeschmo99 20:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You may not "care about this crap," but it's entirely encyclopedic/real/informative. Keep. Thorns Among Our Leaves 02:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Okay, not entirely informative. But it's still encyclopedic. Thorns Among Our Leaves 02:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick Google search shows that it's real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't be so insulting in the future. — RJH 15:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! cuz the quality of this article is OK, so don't remove it. User : Titanz 19:33, 23/07/2005 GMT+7

Keep it I don't see any problem with this article.L-Zwei 18:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncollapsing theorem[edit]

  • del. nonnotable fantasy. original research. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
  • del. the cited research itself is poorly referenced. independent google references found on uncollapsing or noncollapsing seem to discuss a different concept. Waveguy 2 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
  • [[{{{1}}}]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind. This article should be merged with the aforementioned link. "Uncollapsing theorem" is sufficiently equivalent to "quantum decoherence in the brain" and although the latter is the subject of great contention, it merits retention. Fosterremy 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsubstantiated garbage. KSchutte 4 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
  • keep: I'd keep it or merge it with another article if possible, as it is a concept, while pure fantasy, that many scientists and authors have proposed in the past (eg: the Quarantine link). Additionally, it has been proposed by some as a possible mechanism behind 'magical' phenomena. While to my knowledge there is no evidence for the theorem, as long as it is clearly labelled as such, I don't see the harm.--Peter bertok 4 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cataloguing each of the billions of wacky ideas that people come up with is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is neither notable nor proven. — 131.230.133.185 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
  • delete --Pjacobi 07:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nonnotable probably original research. Salsb 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, non-notable. --Bambaiah 08:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep with caveats I believe that substantial but odd ideas need to be documented. My first caveat is that this is labelled as possibly pseudoscience/possibly protoscience and should be read as an idea, not fact. My second caveat is that related ideas should be included. Peter Bertok has suggested that there are similar ideas around - (Quarantine) - ideally we need some more substance. See http://www.360d.com/alpha for the source, as you can see, we really need something a bit more substantial from other sources to keep the article. See Wikipedia policy on theories - this is an "unstable neologism" without other supporting ideas.
  • Delete. Non-notable crackpottery, original research. Quale 16:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with caveats Since the topic of Consciousness is on the frontline of research any idea, however crazy it is, once it is spelt out should be kept for other's scrutiny. By deleting it totally we are prejudging posterity's capabilities. --Profvk 12:03, 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 KEEP. No votes discounted, since pseudosigned user has been around a while, made a few edits and has focussed strongly on Tolkien-related things. -Splash 02:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umbar[edit]

Delete. Fancruft Project2501a 23:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why delete? The content is accurate .. J.R.R Tolkiens fiction has generated world-wide interest for decades: this entry is giving more detail on part of that fiction.

No Delete. Herumor Stormraven

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and redirect to USS Liberty incident -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS LIBERTY[edit]

keep it (unsigned vote, possibly by 70.104.132.28 considering this is his/her only contribution and it was done so anonymously) ETA: Yup, definitely was that IP address. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it! The attack on USS Liberty deserves an article which it has got (USS Liberty incident), but right now it's this is only a collection of quotes. Really, really substandard and redundant.--itpastorn 20:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Clearly partisan as well as redundant. Bozoid 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Why does wikipedia need to have case sensitive titles? What is gained by this? jucifer 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. – ABCD✉ 18:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Missionary Training[edit]

This is just lifted from Redcliffe College Site, possibly with their approval. As such it is an article about Redcliffe College, but not with NPOV. (preceding unsigned comment by 194.60.106.5 15:50, June 21, 2005 UTC)

  • Possibly with approval, or possibly not, thus a possible copyvio. I think a decent article could be written here, but this is not a good start. --Doc (?) 00:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:41, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baboon Balls[edit]

wikipedia is not a rumour-mill, source must be shown Jamster 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. All keep votes are from very new users. CDC (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hamumu[edit]

An internet game website alexa ranked 445,076. It was created almost entirely by one IP and reads like advertising. Especially obvious is that the article incessantly links to the website at every mention of "Hamumu." Delete as advertising and non-notable. --Dmcdevit·t 23:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. vanity. Elfguy 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity. Marcika 00:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It didn't originally have constant links to the Hamumu site; read the first few versions. After all, it is a newer article. It was also very recently vandalized. Drgamer 00:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's sixth edit (others were in the article itself). Dmcdevit·t 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • What? You look at select few parts of my edits? I tell you, I havn't posted all my edits in that article... Drgamer 20:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the other was to ask a question about about that article on the help desk. It's plainly there for everyone to see. Dmcdevit·t 20:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • None of those reasons speak to the merit, or notability, of subject itself. --Dmcdevit·t 21:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I apologise in advance for the moderately long message, but I really don't understand why this is even up for deletion. I see three reasons stated: advertising, vanity, and "non-notability." Advertising I find listed on the WP:NOT page, and I quote: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." Looking over the article, I can not find anything that is not written in such an unbiased and objective style. I only find the word "fun" occurring in two places, one referring to the "Fun Pack" addon and the other as quoted: "Gamelets are too small to charge for, but still offer up some fun," which does not really break the objective style, and no other "promotional" language is found anywhere. As for the constant linking, that was added in unasked-for by someone other than the original author and has since been removed. On these grounds, I challenge the accusations of advertising. Vanity I find on the Wikipedia:Vanity_page page. I quote from near the beginning: "Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their school teachers. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity page, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company..." The original author of this article, drgamer (unless I am extremely mistaken) is none of these, and benefits nothing from having this article. The only other place I see where it can even be misconstrued as "vanity" is in the staff section, which I think is, in fact, pertinent. On these grounds, I challenge the accusations of vanity. And finally "non-notability," by which I assume you mean non-importance. Importance is discussed on the Wikipedia:Importance page, and I quote: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject..." There are currently over 500 users signed up at the Hamumu forums. Considering that Mike Hommel makes a living from making his games and hasn't starved yet, I conclude that his business far outstrips a mere 500 customers. Thus I would conclude that this article fulfills Wikipedia's official policy regarding importance. Sorry again for the long post. Frogdude 10:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not the author of the article, but I am the owner of the website. That alone pretty much makes it not vanity! I'm a well-known developer in the indie community, and I see no reason why my company should not be referenced on the Wikipedia as should any others well-known in that large space. My game SPISPOPD has had a Wikipedia page for a long time (note: I also didn't make that page, though I made some edits), and it would make sense to have a page for the developer of it as well, given the linky nature of the wikipedia. I think this is of benefit to people who are using Wikipedia for what it is - an encyclopedia of information. If anyone has a desire to see it sounding less like advertising (it sounds unbiased to me!), they are certainly welcome to make edits. I wouldn't have any problem with chopping the Staff section down - talking about the cats sounds like vanity, but certainly no reason to toss the page. 63.16.208.227 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edit. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean up the spammy parts and then it's as valid as any other article on a business. Geoff Howland 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's second edit. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: All of the keep voters look like sockpuppets, or at least users who seem to catch on really quickly and make vfd votes as their first edits. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I sincerely hope you are not implying that the fact that it is being supported by people who have little to no other Wikipedia activity yet somehow negates the value of the arguments presented. Especially considering that all the "delete" votes other than the first are single-worded and offer no explanation, whereas all the "keep" so far offer at least something. Frogdude 18:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see the discussion was going fine: delete, delete, delete, keep (by the author, it's customary), delete, and then on the same day, within four hours of each other three keeps from accounts which were just created and then all happen to make their first edits voting on VFD, with remarkably similar arguments. I'll try to assume good faith that you are not all sockpuppets, but remember, "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted." I would close the discussion and delete it right now if I wasn't already the nominator. --Dmcdevit·t 19:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • I see how that would be suspicious, but I merely ask that the arguments presented not be discarded without being even momentarily considered. I don't see any good argument for deletion, and I see plenty against it. Frogdude 19:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't see a single good argument? Well I haven't seen any good claims to notability. Try to defend the Alexa ranking (445,076), if you can. And see if you can fit it into the guidelines and Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Dmcdevit·t 20:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
            • I apologize, I had never seen the guidelines page before. So that makes one good argument. Although I recommend you look at what Mike Hommel said again, including: "I'm a well-known developer in the indie community, and I see no reason why my company should not be referenced on the Wikipedia as should any others well-known in that large space." Frogdude 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm pretty sure you are Mike Hommel. All four of you, including the creator of the article. Or else how did you happen upon an article about your company here when you appear to be an amateur here in the exact weeklong period that the article is up for deletion. Don't play dumb. Also, where do you get off saying Mike Hommel "makes a living" from this game and "hasn't starved," and that "there are currently over 500 users" if you are not him? How are you in a position to speak intelligently of such things if you are only some dipassionate Wikipedian voting on an article, and not the same person as the rest of the keep voters? And still all of your contributions have been only to this page. How can I conclude otherwise? --Dmcdevit·t 22:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete as one of the votes was conditional, and no indication has been provided on whether the new edit meets that condition -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skopactel[edit]

Advertisement/vanity from a small web-design/marketing firm that IMO is not notable. Delete. -- Marcika 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reads like an ad. Major rewrite required, or if not done, delete. Note that they do have several real Google results (see: [53]) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • mild keep. They seem to do quite a bit of business in a niche sector. I've added some more information culled from Consumed Crustacean's google search, and wikified a bit. Probably a valid stub now. seglea 00:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stuycom.net[edit]

  • Disclaimer: I go to Stuy. But stuycom has an Alexa ranking in the 225,000s and is used by virtually no one other than current Stuy students. By the Wikipedia:Websites policy it's not notable. Delete.Pyroclastic 23:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the original post. This only effect students of this place, it has no notability to the outside world. At least none is established at all in the article, and I doubt it can be. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. drini ☎ 01:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website. JamesBurns 08:44, 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 speedy delete.

Dylan Durrance[edit]

This article seems just to be some guy's ego page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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_20&oldid=1081092138"