Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

refresh

August 13[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. JamesTeterenko 06:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lemmon[edit]

Seems non-notable, but not quite a speedy. Makes clains of notability, but they seem implausible. Does have a number of google hits, but the first few look like advertising. Delete unless evidence to teh contrary is prsented. DES (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • He does seem to be married to Asia Carrera, FWIW. Redirect there, if nothing else. tregoweth 00:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment http://imdb.com/name/nm0006562/bio states that she is married to him Tonywalton
  • Keep. Call me an inclusionist, but this guy's got over 13000 hits on google, all related to him and his profession. Themindset 01:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the Google test. --Titoxd 01:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Wikify. It reads like an ad, not an encyclopedia. JDoorjam 01:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I saw this earlier today and did some Googling and decided it was worth keeping. Zoe 05:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)All right, DavidConrad convinced me to vote delete. Zoe 18:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete—Wrote some books, markets his own diet supplements, and married a porn star; it's not curing cancer, but it's good enough to be Wikified. I'm convinced by the comments below. --Tysto 05:52, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable published author is the only thing keeping him from being a redirect to Asia Carrera, IMHO, but as it stands he merits his own article. Needs a good tone cleanup and a fact-check, though. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asia Carrera in light of R. fiend's research. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete What evidence is there that he is a notable published author? The article states that his books are self-published. Markets supplements? Lots of hits? Try this: in the first ten Google results, planetofthegods.com is registered to the same person as donlemmon.com and donlemmonknowhow.com, and donlemmonproductions.com, donlemmonsoil.com, and secretstoaperfectbody.com are all registered to Don himself. Only trulyhuge.com, bodybuilding.com, and martingroupdesign.com are independent of him, and the last one doesn't actually make any mention of him. The only thing I can see him being notable for is being a ruthless self-promoter. OK, well, he already has at least half a dozen web sites devoted to his cult of personality, why does WP need to promote him, too? The only thing remotely notable about him is Asia Carrera, and he's already mentioned in her article. Delete without so much as a redirect. --DavidConrad 08:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Google test can be rather distorted by self-propagandists, and I'm sure there are plenty of peddlers of dubious diet suplements (diet supplements don't work, so they're all dubious). 13,000 google hits aren't impressive if they're all crap. Average Earthman 10:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not a Redirect to Ms Carrera? --Marcus22 14:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, assuming he is self-published. I found one book on amazon with a sales rank of over 650,000. -R. fiend 16:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem to be notable. --KFP 16:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity backed by vanity press. -Splash 17:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One sentence on Asia Carrera is enough. Flowerparty talk 18:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem very important. GregAsche 22:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per David's points. Dottore So 22:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DavidConrad. -- DS1953 20:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per DavidConrad. Usrnme h8er 11:00, 18 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lynne Covington[edit]

Cousin and best friend of Britney Spears; seems non-notable on her own. tregoweth 00:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, but maybe mention briefly in Britney Spears if not already there. -Hmib 00:49, 13 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Horn[edit]

Child singer and actor. No IMDb page; 638 Google hits, but a lot of those are unrelated to the article subject. Non-notable. tregoweth 00:34, August 13, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toggled[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Erwin Walsh

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (and merge or redirect). Eugene van der Pijll 02:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERLASIK[edit]

The original version of this article was outright spam [1] and I cut a few corners and speedied it. It should have been nominated for VfD instead. A later version by the same anon author was substantially shorter, much more to the point, and not really spammy. It was nevertheless speedied by another admin on the grounds that it was a recreation of a previously speedied article. Since the original speedy wasn't strictly justified, I have restored it and am nominating it for VfD. -- Curps 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NeutralChanged vote, see below. Google shows hits for this term... I am not sure if it is a widely used term and a widely used procedure or just one surgeon's procedure and trademark. -- Curps 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had regular LASIK surgery. Good stuff. This, on the other hand, is advertising spam. If it can withstand a POV-ectomy, I'm for keep. As it is, I vote delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to LASIK or the list of procedures in eye surgery Tonywalton 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to LASIK. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Changed vote, see below Dpbsmith (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Jaxl | talk 01:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. Changing to merge. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Weird: googling on SuperLASIK without language restrictions yields 1,430 hits, and the first pageful, at least, are mostly in non-Latin-character alphabets: Russian and some Asian pictographic language I can't identify. Restricting the language to English yields only 48 hits (of which Google shows only 9 because "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 9 already displayed.") It suggests searching on "Super LASIK," with a space, which, when searched in quotes for exact phrase, displays a similar phenomenon. It yields 598 hits in all languages and only 145 in English. I don't really know that that means but I don't recall seeing anything like that before and it seems odd. I suggest that if the article is made a redirect to LASIK, Super LASIK should also redirect to LASIK. If the article is not made into a redirect, it should be moved to Super LASIK. I think. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A search in "Proquest Research Library," which indexes 2000 journals including Science, Nature, Archives of Ophthalmology, etc. yields 475 articles on "LASIK", none on "SuperLASIK", none on exact phrase "Super LASIK", none on "EpiLASIK," and none on exact phrase "Epi LASIK". Search is case-insensitive BTW, so it's not that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes there are a lot of hits for "SuperLasik" or "Super Lasik" or whatever. But is there actually such a thing as a "super lasik" procedure distinct from the regular Lasik procedure, or are these just trademarked names used by individual surgeons for their own regular-Lasik services? Is the Russian "super lasik" the same thing as the Austrian "super lasik"? Does SuperLASIK really stand for "superficial Lasik"? According to the Austrian guy [2], it stands for "Laser in situ Keratomileusis"... but our LASIK article says that's what ordinary LASIK stands for. So it seems that "SuperLASIK" is just a fancy trade name for LASIK, as far as I can tell. -- Curps 01:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Something is definitely odd here. I did some Google site searches on the site http://www.lasikinstitute.org/ which is the big promotional educational resource on LASIK sponsored by surgeons who perform it. Or something like that. Searches on "SuperLASIK", exact phrase "Super LASIK", "EpiLASIK", and exact phrase "Epi LASIK" yield no hits on this site. Not only should SUPERLASIK and Super LASIK redirect to LASIK, but we ought to be very damn careful what we actually say about "SuperLASIK" in the LASIK article because something about this just doesn't feel right to me. I am not convinced it is a recognized term in U. S. eye surgery. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Dpbsmith that something's wrong here. Given unverifiability of just what exactly it is, this should not be here. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LASIK, no merge until/unless someone comes up with better evidence that "SUPERLASIK" or "Super LASIK" is an established, accepted term for a form of eye surgery in English-speaking countries. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LASIK, no merge until/unless verified (as per above). - Mike Rosoft 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no merge. -- Curps 13:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dpbsmith's findings -- Presnell 18:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and even the redirect seems questionable if it cannot be determined if this is a real medical term. --DavidConrad 23:47, 13 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accident (Definition of an)[edit]

Delete exposition of 'tagline' of nn band. Band name (Mancino, apparently) gets about 3 useful Googles when combined with "accident" and has no presence on allmusic.com. We don't have an article on the band to which to merge this and are unlikely to acquire one for the reasons I just mentioned. -Splash 01:19, 13 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Titles[edit]

Delete Dictionary definition with vanity PhilipO 01:40, 13 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 already speedied. AlbertR 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of California State forests[edit]

blank duplicate page UniReb 02:02, 13 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expert worship[edit]

POV essay, and the term gets just 148 Google hits even before the Wikipedia-and-mirrors hits are discounted. After that, it gets just 69, and a substantial number of those are just coincidental use of those two words in that order, like "he is an expert worship leader", "What god or gods does this expert worship?" and, ahem, "Pay attention to this video for $FOO's expert worship of $BAR's $QUUX."

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 02:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D.E. Unrau[edit]

No evidence of notability. Denni☯ 02:45, 2005 August 13 (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!) 07:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GoHC[edit]

Delete nn clancruft with 12 Googles and no Alexa rank at all. -Splash 02:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Morle[edit]

This guy is even less notable than the CEO of Sharman Networks, who is herself being VfD'd right now. JDoorjam 02:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as the Chief Technical Officer of Sharman Networks, he has played a large role in developing Kazaa, the world's most downloaded software program. Nikki Hemming, the CEO of Sharman Networks is notable IMO and this guy has some claims see [3]

and [4].

Capitalistroadster 06:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar enough with the people or companies referenced to vote on this, but nice job by Capitalistroadster expanding the article from a stub. --DavidConrad 00:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), slight majority to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Courts[edit]

Delete. Individual housing areas are not notable. This particular one gets about 550 Googles, for "Imperial Courts" "Los Angeles", a large number of which are irrelevant. -Splash 03:03, 13 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 no consensus. Woohookitty 06:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs[edit]

  • Delete most of these I have never heard in my life, and it seems people are making them up or using obscure ones. --Revolución (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Remove the obscure and/or madeup ones and it should be OK. Moving the top content into a separate article on the subject wouldn't hurt as well. AlbertR 03:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. As per Albert R. Additionally this kind of glossary is IMHO legitimate content - the content of language and the variation between dialects of English is fascinating. Cspalletta, 16 August 2005
  • Delete—Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. What use could this possibly be to anyone? Notable terms have their own articles. Non-notable terms are not encyclopedic. --Tysto 05:29, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've never heard of most of these, and I'm not exactly sheltered. I'm inclined to move the content to the talk page and advise the editors that they need to cite the usage of these slurs in print or else they're not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; comprehensive but inappropriate. Erwin Walsh
  • No encyclopedic content, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of sex-related slang. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recognize problems with this page. The principal problem is a lack of citations resulting in a mass of unverified information. It also acts as trollbait. However I don't see this as a problem best solved by deletion. Compare with List of ethnic slurs. I'd favour a fairly radical cleanup. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: rather unencyclopedic and magnet for trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure how to keep this from becoming Urbandictionary. Rkevins82 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vozenilek. MicahMN | Talk 21:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The scope of the list is very unclear and a very obvious troll 'n' vandal heaven. / Peter Isotalo 00:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. --ZappaZ 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If WP has a list of racial slurs which has been put up for deletion but for which the consensus is that it should be kept, surely this is in the same category? -- Ledow 16:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are problems with a list of unverified information. But deletion of information is never justified. However, I think a cleanup is in order. user:Aronomy 17:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ridiculous. Deletion of some information is certainly justified. That's what this forum is about. Vanity, advertising, ephemera, slang definitions, and unverifiable junk should all be deleted, true or not. --Tysto 03:27, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very unclear as to criteria for inclusion. This seems to be more a list of sexual slang than sexual slurs. I agree that there is plenty of opportunity here to insert made-up terms since the list as a whole is virtually impossible to verify. And if someone wants to insert words they just made up or are directed at a particular orientation or race, it creates work for others to delete them. At the very least I think this is perhaps more appropriate for Wiktionary. 23skidoo 02:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:06
  • Strong Keep. This is just another example of the prigs that want to make Wikipedia "politically correct". User:WehrWolf 2005 August 15
  • Delete. Most lists are suspect anyway, especially one of as little value as this. Lists without any context or background are pointless. Some of these words might be deserving of their own articles, which could explore their history and background and usage, but most of them belong in a dictionary of some sort, not in an encyclopedia. Peyna 17:13:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced, and full of dubious neologisms. A number of our lists have these same problems. -Willmcw 18:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Isn't it time we quit being a bunch of sensitive Sallys? (and more like insensitive Harrys?) User:Can'tStandYa 22:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.  Grue  07:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very Interesting. User:CaptainJackWill 08:45, 16 Aug 05 (UTC)
  • Comment. IMO, User:CaptainJackWill, User:Can'tStandYa, and User:WehrWolf are all sock puppets of user:155.84.57.253 (who, not incidentally, contributed a large part of this article as well as other similar lists). -Willmcw 20:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Counter Comment. Willmcw has since removed his block after this user explained that several other users share a networked cable connection in their workplace with hundreds of other people, and therefore have the same IP address. Can'tStandYa 08:24, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
      • No, I removed the IP block because that is standard protocol when blocking sock puppet accounts. The similarities extend far beyond a shared IP address. I don't know where you sent your explanation, but I've never seen it. -Willmcw 20:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you need to update your email address in your profile. Here is a condensed version of the email: "Dear Sir or Madam, My Wiki club has asked me to contact you about removing the block. Our club has several registered and a few unregistered members. We all work for a large federal agency and share a networked cable connection with hundreds of other people, and therefore have the same IP address. We frequently meet for lunch and discuss wiki topics. Thank you in advance, Can'tStandYa" The similarities you say you observed may result from lunch conversations and common interests (we are all geek/engineer types). Additionally, user:155.84.57.253 is not a single person but a composite of several unregistered users - I'm trying to get them all to register to close down user:155.84.57.253 Entries as 155.84.57.253 also occur when registered users lose their log-in in the middle of a session, and when registered users forget to log-in. Can'tStandYa 2005 August 18
  • Keep. I think the page is indeed useful. There is a page entitled List of Racial Slurs. This page could obviously do with a clean up. However, I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant for someone perhaps researching homophobia or misogyny to garner some insight into the terms of abuse that are used towards gays, women, an other minorities. - ExRat 03:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with user ExRat. Shran 04:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impossible to maintain as none are sourced. If we only accept sourced ones the list would be sorely incomplete. Glad someone finally VfDed this, even if it does survive. --fvw* 04:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and add citations. Saswann 19:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems fine 2 me -TonyTheTerrier 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it gives a valuable insight into the evolution and sociology of language.
  • Keep, It is very informative on words in the english language and teaches us how they came to be.
  • Keep, wow I just found out about [[Ladyboy]s / Kathoey only because of this list - I would never have read about their social problems in Thailand without this List of sexual slurs. Keep, keep, keep.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 2 "keep" votes to 4 "delete" opinions (including my own). I am going to call this as a "no consensus" decision but will implement it by replacing the article with the soft-redirect,Template:Wi. Rossami (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Card-carrying-members[edit]

Seems to be a dicdef. Delete. AlbertR 03:20, 13 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 Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Ardinger[edit]

NN. He's support staff for a morning show which is itself probably not notable. JDoorjam 04:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about his hilarity as JOE MOS? or his ~rather unhilarious~ bits running the best of?

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Vacuum c 23:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don 'Magic' Juan[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iriya Yoshiaki[edit]

Yoshiaki Iriya, who is supposedly a Japanese author, appears to be extremely non-notable. delete. Tokek 04:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep stub. Fg2 08:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There may be all kind of transcription issues here, but I find no relevant hits in the LoC or BL catalogues. The Japanese form of the name gives only one Google hit, and googling for the Latin alphabet form seems only to find Wikipedia mirrors. I am abstaining until someone with knowledge of Japanese language and literature can look into this. Uppland 10:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I realized that Tokek does know Japanese. Delete, unless somebody else can demonstrate this writers notability (or even existence). Uppland 10:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added titles of works, and a link to the Aozora Bunko article. He gets Google hits in Japanese, though not a whole lot (Google reports 475, but about the first 40 seem to be for him). So yes, he exists... Fg2 10:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

His works are extremely non-notable. Google Japan searche counts for his works:

  • {"入谷芳彰" "三つのエチュード"} returns 5 hits (3 sites)
  • {"入谷芳彰" "大伽藍"} returns 5 hits (3 sites)
  • {"入谷芳彰" "センティメンタル"} returns 5 hits (3 sites)

The 3 sites are either Aozora Bunko [5] or a copy of the Aozora Bunko listing. Links to his works are all offline. He is less than 50 years old. I don't know what kind of quality control Aozora Bunko has against self promotion. —Tokek 15:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Radiant_>|< 14:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation[edit]

Page is just more needless instruction creep 152.163.100.71 04:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Might be useful, might not. Since it's in Wikipedia space, let it sink or float on its own merits. It just needs a "proposed" tag or whatever so no one refers to it as official until it gains community support, if it does at all. android79 04:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I'd agree with you if there hadn't already been discussions in many different places about this issue. This instruction creep is all about ed forcing Wikiprojects and other Infobox users to all use the gray color scheme and not allow each group to come up with reasonable artistic variations. 152.163.100.71 04:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, I'll be opposing any guideline that would enforce boring colors, as I am currently developing a rather colorful infobox myself. We get rid of bad articles by deleting them; we get rid of bad policy by not supporting it. android79 04:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Although I am in fact, not in favor of the effort to "standardize" infoboxes. Since when is instruction creep an accepted criteria for deletion of articles? VFD seems to be motivated by a disagreement that standardization is good. In this case, bring it to the talk page and any surveys, votes, etc, that might be called on the matter. At least let the supposed merits of the standardization be discussed. There would be no risk of instruction creep, unless a consensus had actually formed that the standardization was worth it and proposed guidelines were approved. --Mysidia 04:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. How about WP:POINT since that is the whole reason for this page - so ed can make his point and force it on everyone. 152.163.100.71
    No, because ed isn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is the whole basis of WP:POINT. He's taking this to a wider community to get views, and - hopefully - if he's voted down, then he'll abide by the consensus decision. In fact, it's arguable that by nominating this for VfD, you're trying to make a point. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 06:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Unfortunately he's not taking it to the right parts of the community. WP:TOL has worked hard to create the taxobox and its formatting, but ed has repeatedly tried to force his ultra-conformist infobox onto us without seeking concensus or opening any dialogue with us reaching a concensus to change the format. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, now that he's put up the policy proposal, it's out in the open and there's a forum for all sides to come to the table and trash it out. You can't say he's not opening a dialogue now, and perhaps this will settle things. Regardless, that's a separate issue - Ed's own stubborness aside, the issue here is whether this VfD is appropriate, and I don't think it is. Note that I opposed the VfD of Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection for the same reasons, even though I believed that the policy was stupid and voted it down anyway. Vote it down on the policy page, not on VfD. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 07:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I've backed off my statement a bit... Ed has made some small attempts to engage WP:TOL, but he has failed to reach a concensus or even a majrity view that the taxobox should be forced to conform. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I specifically asked Ed to try and get community consensus around this issue. It's good to discuss the issue in one specific place. Please don't delete. -- hike395 05:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I disagree.... there are various Wikiprojects where infoboxes have been designed with much work. Having a dialoge outside of those communities is not helpful. See my comment above. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep -- Instruction creep is not a criterion for deletion. Policy proposals rise or fall on their own merits and are voted according to those on their page, not by summary judgment unless it specifically fits one of the criteria for deletion. Which, as pointed out, this does not. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 06:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, even though I'm not in favor of ed's ultra-conformist views. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)Move to a less definitive title. Wikipedia:Shall infoboxes be standardized? would suffice. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know that the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide an internet encyclopaedia, but if Wikipedia were ever reproduced in printed form, it would be laughed at for the stylistic to-ing and fro-ing in use of infoboxes from article to article. Ed's dogmatism really put my back up in my early days here, but now I find that I'm 100% for a drive to standardisation. I think the process will fail – because, as Uther says, there are so many Wikiprojects that have forged concensus in their own communities – but that's no reason not to try. Noisy | Talk 08:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. VFD is the wrong way to handle this. Maurreen (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: VfD is not the place to discuss such matters, nor to vote down instruction creep. Physchim62 11:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NOOB VfD has no control over Wikipedia namespace. — Xiong熊talk* 23:08, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • VFD is precisely the process to deal with unwanted pages in Wikipedia namespace, and people who think otherwise need to read up on deletion policy. Nevertheless this particular page doesn't need to be deleted, so *keep. Radiant_>|< 00:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • VfD is not empowered to control Wikipedia-space pages. No amount of petty amendment can alter this. Wikipedia-space contains policy itself. VfD is not the sole channel by which policy may be established, nor does it have veto power over proposals. To so enable VfD would be to alter the fundamental character of the Project. — Xiong熊talk* 05:31, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
      • You are wrong. Please read up on our deletion policy. Wikipedia space contains a lot of things that aren't policy, and any junk in Wikipedia space is subject to deletion. Radiant_>|< 12:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am neither right nor wrong. VfD is not the root control of policy. At present, by definition, the Wikipedia namespace contains discussions of the Project and Community itself; therefore all touch on policy. If such a page did not, in any way, then it would belong in another namespace, and any user (registered, not new) could move it there. Junk in Wikipedia-space is subject to deletion -- on sight, by the first admin who sees it. VfD is neither the place to strangle proposed policies, nor is it the way to delete patent nonsense. You don't like instruction creep? Me neither; and I detest scope creep. — Xiong熊talk* 06:05, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
      • Well, this is an interesting discussion. However, Wikipedia namespace contains quite a lot of pages that aren't related to policy - e.g. indices, WikiProjects, humor pages, chess games and other stuff. Most of that isn't speedily deletable by WP:CSD. My point is that 1) not everything in Wikipedia namespace is by default immune to VFD; 2) nominating a serious policy/guideline/proposal for deletion is in violation of WP:POINT and whoever does so should be slapped with a trout; 3) however, something silly or ludicrous that is tagged as a policy proposal is not a serious proposal and is therefore deletable. Borderline case-in-point is Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection (which at the time of nomination was really ludicrous). Radiant_>|< 13:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you cite an example of VfD strangling proposed policies? VfD - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should bring up your concerns on the ongoing discussion to reform VfD or create a policy proposal for it. This is not the place for this discussion about a future change. The fact for now is that VfD does have the power to control policies. And it has proven a good place to reach a wide audience. We now have a firm basis for standardizing infoboxes. The policy to not standardize infoboxes would never have reached such a wide audience just by being in the proposal category. --Fenice 13:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ongoing, non-disruptive discussions. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete ever. If this page where meant to be a place to discuss (as some people have stated above without explaining how they ever got that idea) whether infoboxes should be standardized, this would be reflected in the title (For example, for a POV title, move the page to: Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?). While pretending to be a discussion, it should be obvious to anybody that this is not a place for discussion whether there should be further instruction creep or not. It plainly states that there is going to be further instruction bullying on infoboxes now. What amazes me most, is that all people above on this very page do vote to have infobox standardization by this rationale, without even realizing it. What amazes me even more is that most of these people are smart enough however to realize that standardization of anything is the textbook example for instruction creep and state in their comments that they are actually against it.
Also, most people here maintain that instruction creep is not a criterion for deletion. I have never seen such a policy. On the contrary, instruction creep should be deleted by all means. --Fenice 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you, however, point to a policy that says that instruction creep is a criterion for deletion? The merits of the proposal aside, my vote on this VfD stands - this is simply not the way to do things. Also, I see no need to move the article, since it boils down to the same thing: a proposal for policy. If the policy passes, then the article name is correct. If it doesn't pass, it is marked accordingly. To shift the page to what you suggest is counterproductive, since if it passes, the page will have to be renamed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is not a proposal, read the page. As khaosworks says, the name is only correct if the policy passes.
This sentence here: To shift the page to what you suggest is counterproductive, since if it passes, the page will have to be renamed is logically contradictory. We have a page here that describes a policy (a highly controversial one as even this page shows). A user has created it without ever trying to get any consensus - which is easily explainable: if Ed had tried to get consensus to establish a policy for standardization of infoboxes, it would have failed miserably as this page shows - the majority of people on this page does not want these boxes standardized, they voted keep because they want a policy change on VfD, not a standardization of boxes. So Ed decided to leave the nasty consensus-getting out, and by naming the page he created Infobox standardisation he established the fact that there will be standardization of boxes. Your statement: ...if it passes, the page will have to be renamed is contradictory - the opposite is true.--Fenice 09:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. There are policy proposal pages who retain definitive names but are marked as failed policies - the latest is Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection. Just because it's named that way doesn't mean it's policy. However, if you name it in the form of a question, then you need to move it if it passes, something you do not need to do - pass or fail = if the page name stays the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
According to your logic there also needs to be a proposal Wikipedia:No infobox standardization. --Fenice 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there is a proposal to suggest that there not be standardization. This is a proposal for standardization. I'm not going to suggest that your page should be deleted, although it is plainly WP:POINT, but merely going to point out that voting down the standardization proposal does not, ipso facto, mean that no standardization becomes the policy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Khaosworks, there is a proposal to suggest that there not be standardization: Wikipedia:No infobox standardization.--Fenice 12:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was referring to when I said "your page." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Again, Khaosworks. This is the second time you are giving a completely contradictory answer. You think that Wikipedia:No infobox standardization needs to exist, but you also think it needs to be deleted. Fine. Anyway, you have made your point that you want further instructions. So let's leave it at that. --Fenice 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misread me. Let me repeat what I said again, "I'm not going to suggest that your page should be deleted, although it is plainly WP:POINT." I never said that Wikipedia:No infobox standardization needs to be deleted, I merely point out that it is, ultimately a manifestation of WP:POINT. How my noting that is the same thing is quite beyond me, since I am not the one creating new policy proposals just to make a point. Neither did I suggest that I wanted more instructions. I do believe that Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation is instruction creep. I simply assert that it is not appropriate for VfD, but should be instead discussed and voted down. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Then, Khaosworks, since you absolutely want the obvious answer to your point-attack: to save you from having to look up WP:POINT - here is what that page says: This guideline proposes that discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. Policy proposals are just the right place to have that discussion. You could not think of any real arguments so you resorted to quote a policy you vaguely know. But that policy even encourages policy proposals to be discussed. --Fenice 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And where do I ever say that policy proposals should not be discussed? And let me quote the second half of that paragraph, which places the first in context: This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work, and that system administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse. Isn't Wikipedia:No infobox standardization a means to suggest that people should try to VfD it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No. I did realize that there is a discussion on the VfD-process. I am not involved in that, I did not read that, I don't know what is wrong with VfD. I have no opinion on the VfD-process and rarely participate it it. But I do strongly oppose most standardization attempts. To not standardize info boxes is the only way I think Wikipedia will work smoothly. I seriously believe that Wikipedia needs this policy I suggested.--Fenice 14:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about the "broken" VfD process. We're talking about whether or not VfD is appropriate for policy pages. So since you've voted to keep Wikipedia:No infobox standardization, are you now saying that Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation should also not be deleted but discussed? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, this is not the place to discuss whether policies or their proposals for that matter should be deleted. So I will not participate in that discussion here. This is the place to vote for or against the deletion of Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation.--Fenice 14:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But surely by voting for Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation's deletion you are saying that VfD is appropriate for deciding if policies should be deleted, right? So how does this gel with your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Again, Khaosworks. I am not making a statement about what should be listed on VfD. I vote keep for what I think should be kept and delete for what I think should be deleted, as I said above.--Fenice 15:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the distinction between your reasoning for keeping Wikipedia:No infobox standardization and your reasoning for deleting Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation? You say in the former that The right way for user:Radiant! is to express his concerns about the new proposals on the talk page of the policy proposal. In general, articles should not be put on VfD just to make the point that a user thinks they are POV. In the latter, here, you say: Also, most people here maintain that instruction creep is not a criterion for deletion. I have never seen such a policy. On the contrary, instruction creep should be deleted by all means.
So is Wikipedia:No infobox standardization instruction creep and should be deleted, or shouldn't it because "concerns about... new proposals [should be] on the talk page of the policy proposal... not be put on VfD"? How are these two positions consistent? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
My distinction for keeping Wikipedia:No infobox standardization and your reasoning for deleting Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation? I don't understand your question or what you are getting at. Why would anyone vote for both policies? --Fenice 15:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We're not voting for the policies. We're voting whether to keep the policy pages for discussion, aren't we? You're voting keep for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization because, you say, "concerns about... new proposals [should be] on the talk page of the policy proposal... not be put on VfD". So if that's your position, why are you voting to delete Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation rather than discussing your concerns on its talk page? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Khaosworks, I am the one who wrote Wikipedia:No infobox standardization - it's obvious I am not going to vote for an article I wrote to be deleted. The position you quoted is the position of the people (thirty or so) that I quoted, linking to two other VfDs. --Fenice 16:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's no answer, though. If you're voting keep there and using the position of the "thirty or so" people in support of the keep vote, does that mean you agree with that position? If so, how is that position consistent with your delete vote here? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
It is an argument for fairness. If other entries are kept because of their content but because of their being a policy proposal, then mine should be treated the same way. I am asking to be treated fairly. Don't you think it is fair to defend your own article with all available arguments on VfD? It is a little like a courtroom here. My own position is, as I have stated somewhere above, that I think policies should be deletable. --Fenice 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, if policies should be debatable, are you going to change your vote here to keep and let Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation be debated? Fair is fair, after all. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
For a while I was thinking you were actually occupying my time here in good faith. This is really sad. And serious, Khaosworks, maybe if you have a good day think about this: you are voting for a proposal which is going to hinder Wikipedia forever. Numerous users will be busy putting through rules that serve no purpose whatsoever. Numerous users will leave Wikipedia due to the edit wars that you are laying the basis for with the proposal you support. The proposal you are signing includes grave plans to disrupt the work of innocent human beings for an indefinite period of time. The time spent on this stupid debate could go into creating the article that the standardization attempts illustrate ridiculously well: Over-bureaucratization is still a red link to this day, even though this problem has been prevalent for a while. --Fenice 20:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you're not answering the question, which is simple enough. So you admit that your position is inconsistent? You see, what all the preceding goes to is this: I don't believe that your writing of Wikipedia:No infobox standardization was in good faith, and your dithering and inconsistency only goes to prove it. You created it entirely as a snide aside to go, well, if we're going to debate this policy, then we might as well debate that one - and in doing so you're boxing yourself up in an inconsistent position. That is counterproductive, and the true waste of everyone's time. You - and everyone - can see how hard it was to try to pin you down for ultimately what was a very simple yes or no answer; which you still didn't answer. This VfD is the waste of time, not discussion of policy. And which proposal am I supposed to be supporting which leads to these dire consequences you are doomsaying, precisely? For the record, I never said I was supporting standardization; in fact, I imply the opposite. What I am opposing is attempts like these to stifle discussion by VfD instead of talking it out on the policy proposal pages.
If you want a good faith reason for all the to-and-fro-ing, it was simply for me to understand how you could vote one way in one VfD and the other in the other VfD and still maintain your integrity in one or either of the votes. Your inability to answer that question satisfactorily suggests to me that you can't. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
What else can you expect from a standardization supporter but edit-warring. Khaosworks, what do you think you are doing here?? Every child in kindergarden would understand it is quite logical to vote for a proposal you support: no standardization, and to vote against a proposal you don't support: this one. I have said that numerous times on this page and that you are now trying to find anything to accuse me of (huh?) is really disgusting. I have spent an enormous time to answer your questions. I will also answer your last one now: no, Khaoswork, obyiously I am not going to change my vote to support this proposal, are you kidding? Read the explanantions I wrote above. I do not support standardiaztion of infoboxes, so why on earth would I want to vote for it, are you out of your mind? What is so hard to understand about that? If your scheme here was just an attempt to get me over to your side and pinme down whether I want to change my vote, why did you not say so earlier? Aren't you embarrassed for having wasted so much of my time? --Fenice 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is so hard to understand about the fact that VfD is not a vote in support or against the policy, but simply whether the proposal page should remain to be discussed? By voting delete, you are not voting a policy down - you are refusing to discuss the policy in the first place. If you are not in favour of standardization, say so on the proposal page, but keep the page to allow yourself, and others, to weigh in on it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
My intention was not to convince you one way or the other, but merely to get you to at least come clean - to admit that wanting to keep one policy proposal page for discussion at Wikipedia:No infobox standardization on the one hand but wanting to delete another policy proposal page for discussion at Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation on the other are mutually inconsistent positions. You seem to have severe diffculty in grasping the distinction between supporting a policy and supporting the discussion of the policy. One does not equate the other. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that by asking me to change my vote you were not trying to ask me to change my vote. I mean, I do need someone to tell me - there is no way I could have guessed that on my own. You seem to have severe difficulty to grasp the concept that is blatant and basic beyond discription: Every child in kindergarden would understand it is quite logical to vote for a proposal you support: no standardization, and to vote against a proposal you don't support: this one. Sorry. I will not discuss here any longer, I want sane discussion partners.--Fenice 05:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - VFD isn't for deciding if infobox standardisation is good or bad, VFD is not the place to decide on policy proposals/guidelines/other proposals/ideas in the Wikipedia: namespace. -- Joolz 16:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's sad that VfD sinks once again to these depths, but I suppose I should make it clear that I oppose the moving of this page as well as its deletion. There's a whole talk page to discuss the pros and cons of this idea—for #UnspecifiedDeity's sake, use it! Physchim62 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how VfD is sinking to any depths. An anon made a nomination of questionable appropriateness, and the consensus is overwhelmingly to reject it. I see the system working. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this nomination was "of questionable appropriateness". Although the consensus has been keep - which is the consensus on many VFD issues - it has also been interesting that the underlying proposal has found no fans amongst the voters. It seems the only thing questionable about it was that it was proposed by an anon. 64.12.116.71 11:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "of questionable appropriateness" to mean that the article should be kept, not that it was nominated out of order. My feelings are "Keep," not "Speedy Keep." - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:25, 16 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 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 KEEP. Vacuum c 23:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Investigations (Voyager episode)[edit]

It seems to me that this article is much too short to deserve a full Wiki article. It is basically the same information as presented in the list of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. I would refit it myself if I owned Voyager on DVD myself, but unfortunately I do not. It seems to me that there are two choices for this article: deletion or a refitting by someone with access to the episode. Crisco 1492 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch and subpages (ie Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive)[edit]

This page seems to promote factionalism and strife among users, so I'm going to be bold and VFD it. NO VOTE. AlbertR 04:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. IMHO the page does not "promote factionalism and strife among users". Any disagreement exists with or without this page, which is just a tool that draws attention to a nomination. What is wrong with making people aware of a proposed deletion that they may have an interest in voting on one way or the other? DS1953 05:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It does indeed promote factionalism. Before Schoolwatch was started, VfDs of schools were fairly normal affairs, not much different from other VfD discussions. Since then, school VfDs have become very acrmonious, with at least two editors advocating the murder of those who nominate schools for VfD. --Carnildo 06:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid as all other watch pages, that it can lead to some factionalism is not a good reason to delete. There was a discussion over GRider's schoolwatch, many wanting it moved out into the main Wikipedia namespace. This page will be more neutral in the Wikipedia namespace than in the user namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an uncalled for and disgusting subversion of the wiki process, contrary to all wikiquette ever conceived. Dunc|☺ 11:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Kappa 13:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Kappa, you should just put "keep" into your signature, it'd save some time. If this project can de-stubify or at least merge nn schools into the towns/cities they are in(to me, all towns and cities are notable), then it's worth it. If it's just an excuse for inclusionists to advocate against VfDs where they're needed, I'll change my vote, but until then I say Keep. Karmafist 14:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't promote factionalism and strife. I don't know why it would be any more useful for inclusionists than it is for deletionists. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:04, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate project of Wikipedians who choose to participate, and an effective vessel for the expansion/improvement of school articles that are brought under its auspices. -- BD2412 talk 18:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this as it tries to keep Wikipedia pruned. Rkevins82 18:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--We can't delete it just for being a controversial project. --Tysto 19:58, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Merge with GRider schoolwatch, then move to a subpage of Wikiproject Schools. Well duh, obviously this page is the cause of some disruption, but removing it won't remove the disruption. Radiant_>|< 00:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if and only if the crusade against the inclusion of schools ends. Otherwise, bicycle as usual.Philip Arthur 07:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a lot easier to keep something like this neutral if it's in the Wikipedia: namespace instead of a user namespace. JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please so many school articles have been made better because of this watch page Yuckfoo 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page seems pretty infomative rather then overtly factional. Promotes discussion about school pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerberj (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 August 2005
  • Keep, obviously. This nomination seems to promote factionalism and strife among users. —RaD Man (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Metal genres[edit]

This article is merely a short list of sub-genres of "black metal" with links to external websites as examples. Any useful information in it could be incorporated into black metal, but there isn't any. The article itself admits repeatedly that "Black Metal subgenres really depends on who you ask." Tysto 04:47, 2005 August 13 (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 It was redirected and is now listed at RfD. Redwolf24 23:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

River journey[edit]

Article content is identical to Itrw. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 04:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've redirected it to the identical page as it's the English spelling for it. It probably needs merging elsewhere anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering the generic article name, is redirection appropriate? Zoe 19:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • I actually thought about that. The answer I came up with was the same as yours, otherwise I'd have probably redirected it.
  • Delete. Same story as with the other articles by the same author, they are obviously made to prove some point, and are not suitable for Wikipedia. -- Egil 23:04, 19 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 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. Woohookitty 06:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21,000 royal cubits and 100 Royal cubits[edit]

Article content is identical to Itrw. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 04:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a second article, also identical to Itrw. DS1953 06:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind. I didn't look at that article because of the title difference. The editor currently making major modifications in the weights and measures articles hasn't, until now, been adding multiple identical articles, so I didn't think to look at this one. I agree that it should be deleted too... Ken talk|contribs 12:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a number, not an article, Don't redirect. -- DS1953 06:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, an article on Royal cubits may be useful, but this is a useless copy of Itrw with not-often-searched name. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful. -- Egil 10:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only the opening sentence relates to the article's titles. -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Gene Nygaard 02:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultimate leagues[edit]

Nothing but a list of external links. Zoe 05:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: This article and list was created as an offshoot of some of the reorganization of Ultimate (sport). It provides a concise list without cluttering the main article and other wikispace.
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 552,000 English pages for "ultimate frisbee". (0.50 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 81,000 English pages for "ultimate frisbee" leagues. (0.26 seconds)
Notable and provides organization. In the interest of full disclosure, I am the original creator of the article (splitting it out from the main page). Wikibofh 05:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikibofh. It could clearly be merged with Ultimate (sport) but that article is already very long. -- DS1953 06:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Zoe 18:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • That section also says "There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Personally, I find the items on this list to be relevant and not excessive with respect to the article that underlies the list. The key for me, however, is that this article looks and feels more like a list, and not just a list of external links. If someone created a list of all the Senators and Congressmen from a particular state but also added the official website for each individual on the list, is that article now a "repository of links"? In my opinion, the policy is fine and this article does not violate the policy. -- DS1953 22:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • At the time that this was listed for VfD, there was NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING here but external links and descriptions of them. This was, therefore, not a list of links illustrating an article, but merely a list of links. Zoe 23:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to List of Ultimate Frisbee leagues. The sport is known by both terms and this one is more easily understood by outsiders. Radiant_>|< 00:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC) Delete, but copy the national leagues to the main Ultimate (sport) article. Radiant_>|< 20:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, it already redirects that to here. I think someone moved it from that to where it is now. Wikibofh 01:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ultimate Frisbee may be a more recognizable name to outsiders, but Frisbee is a trademark and Ultimate is the more correct name. Bcordes 01:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having the page will encourage new pages to be written about the organizations. Ultimate Players Association already exists, for example. Part of encouraging new pages might be to change the links on the "List of" page to wikilinks, perhaps followed by external links. Bcordes 01:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Will the people who are voting keep please edit WP:NOT to say that we encourage articles which contain nothing but external links? Zoe 19:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Come on Zoe, I recognize what your're saying, and I think your right about the criteria. I think this list saves us a lot of hassle in the main article and I think it could be expanded to internal links so I'd prefer it wasn't deleted. That's all. It's not like we're being rabid about this. Wikibofh 20:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • By voting keep, you are voting to go against official policy. Either delete this page or change the policy. Zoe 23:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. The article has no actual content. --TheKoG 19:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. The article has no actual content. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it stands. Those are entirely external links. The only reason it isn't speediable is because there is more than one of them. However, if this were either rewritten or recreated as a list of internal links that would be a different matter. -Splash 19:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed two of them to have the internal links. I recognize that 2 out of this number is not particularly significant, but they were articles that already existed. Wikibofh 20:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Starblind. —Cryptic (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cybertlc[edit]

nn and advert. possibly vanity. besides the fact that a star was once a member, no attempt at notability is put forth. site is here. that said, Delete. -- Bubbachuck 04:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This entry should be deleted. CyberTLC has enough drama without some crackhead making up stories about our members and our webmaster. I vote for this garbage to be deleted.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 11:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A-Spire[edit]

This is an interview not a Wikipedia article!--Angrydruid 05:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Cuisine Comics[edit]

Not notable comic. The creator is still in high school it seems. Google hits too many Italian places to see if its cjb.net site shows up. Kushboy 05:56, August 13, 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!) 07:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Nim[edit]

Vanity: a game invented at a math camp in 2004 has surely not become notable, all the more so because it is an absurd game that you cannot lose except on purpose. See also Color or Country and Rock Scissors in the same vein. -- Curps 05:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Football: Series By Series History[edit]

The article is not encyclopedic. Of course there is and should be a MNF article, but I think that lists of sports statistics would be more appropriate to an almanac, or NFL.com, or Wikisource, than an encyclopedia. Consider that such raw data is endless. How will you feel one day when clicking Random article typically brings up an "article" like this? DavidConrad 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I can appreciate the work that went into this, but I don't think it is encylopedic enough. Zoop 06:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We list every single episode on literally dozens of TV shows and many even have separate articles for each episode. This seems more useful than many other TV related articles that appear on Wikipedia. DS1953 06:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper. We can always hope that one day, someone will summarize the 1977 Browns-Patriots game. Kappa 12:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is unlikely but, as ever, I enjoy being proved wrong on such matters. I say Delete unless significantly cleaned up. I've hardly ever seen as many sections of just one line in one article. --Celestianpower hab 13:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-Just end the discussion and keep it now, BTW 65.43.145.185

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. There was some acceptance of a rename, but no viable rename offered or supported. I shall nevertheless move this to its correct capitalisation (and from my personal knowledge of chess theory, and Batsford et. al this name is fine anyway). -Splash 02:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Opening Theory Table[edit]

Original research. In all my years of playing chess, I've never heard of a "Chess Opening Theory Table" as such, and a search for those words in google in a string reveals only one google hit (and that's just because the words 'table-tenis' happened to follow 'chess opening theory'. If you do not know chess, you should at least recognize that chess is a highly internetized game, and that any known chess term would produce many hits through google. Delete. Themindset 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they were common, I'd expected far more than just one google hit. Delete unless sourced. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition to the numerous opening books that use this format, a simple search discovered that Opening Theory tables are discussed (and capitalized) here, here, here, here, here, and here.
  • Keep, this is a standard way of showing moves in chess -- much like algebraic notation. This is certainly not original research. This type of table is common in all chess opening books. An example of this type of table in a copyrighted book is available on page 6 of Modern Chess Openings (MCO) (viewable online) for the King's Gambit -- this should answer Mgm's request for a source. Furthermore, I'd like to link to this wikipedia entry to explain the notation I/we intend to use in Opening Theory. While the description of the table notation is not complete, this is how opening lines are decomposed and explained in a small space. I would be happy to consider a different title though, as I have always heard these table referred to simply as "Theory Tables" -- which is a bit generic without the addition of "Chess Opening." Finally, I have added additional content to the article that I think provides a clearer idea of the concept. More to follow! ThreeE
    • COMMENT - My issue with this is that sure, tables have been used for chess opening theory... but tables have been used for everything. From car pollution, to long-distance rates, to lawnmower efficiency. There is nothing to indicate that a "Chess Opening Theory Table" is anything more than one of the many tables created in the world for an almost infinite amount of subjects; and, as such, is not deserving of its own article. (Please note that there is no consistent methodology for writing such tables, and the one's in the article and the references are all formatted differently.) Themindset 18:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there is a consistent methodology -- the way that moves are presented and lines are expanded off of previous lines. This is quite similar to describing chess moves in other standard ways that are presented in articles on wikipedia -- like the PGN standard and the like. Pretty much every chess opening book dedicates a page or two to explaining this type of table, and for most part, the approach is the same. In fact, both the Nunn book and the MCO book use the same format. Any reader not familiar with the format will require an explanation and an article would be appropriate. In addition, there is some very interesting history on how these tables have evolved over the centuries. These facts and the "when in doubt, don't delete" philosophy should justify this article. For gosh sake, we have an articles on tables of contents, and on tables themselves -- will you delete them too? They are certainly no more wiki-worthy... ThreeE 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If any of this was true, there would be at least one hit for "Chess theory table" or "Chess opening theory table" on google. Unfortunately, aside from the one coincidental hit listed above, there are zero hits. Themindset 19:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Explain to me why the number of hits on a search engine is a criterion for deletion? I am perfectly willing to entertain a name change to the article, but explaining how this notation works is directly analogous to, say, explaining how the notation in the periodic table represents elements. The fact that it is a table is really not important. What is important is explaining to the lay-reader how these diagrams represent chess opening theory -- and more importantly how these diagrams evolve. Diagrams like this have been used by Grandmasters for centuries. I think the demonstrable benefits outweigh the chance that we have a topic "not deserving" of an article. ThreeE 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • But that's just the thing: the periodic table IS important because it's a table. That particular way of laying out the elements, in that chart, completely changed the way we think about atoms, and even helped predict the properties of atoms that had not yet been discovered. Did putting Chess Opening Theory into a table do that for Chess Opening Theory? If you can make a compelling argument for it, I will gladly change my vote. JDoorjam 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • These tables are the basis of how chess opening theory is communicated. No doubt the periodic table is of greater significance -- chess is, after all, just a game. But the principle is the same. For many players, these tables represent a standard way of laying out the lines of play, and when chess players move from being a beginner to being an amateur, they discover this type of depiction. That discovery changes the way they think about the opening. Often, they make the mistake of thinking they have to memorize these tables -- and then they figure out that no one, not even a GM could do that. This leads to the idea of a plan in the opening -- the real discovery. Each opening has a set of properties -- themes if you will -- that these tables can lead you to. So I say yes, these tables do the same thing for chess that the periodic table does for, the much more important topic, of science.
                • If it was so important, why wouldn't there be even one hit on google? This is a misrepresentation of fact. These are just tables, like any other, of no significance, importance, or effect on the game of chess. If they did have any importance, there would be google hits. And to answer your earlier question, google hits are considered a measure of notability on wikipedia - especially when it concerns a subject that is popular on the internet (read: chess). Themindset 18:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My last comment on the google issue -- this question has been asked and answered above. These tables are all over the internet, and are referred to as they are in the article: Opening Theory Tables. Links, found using google, are provided above. Furthermore, the number of google hits is one way to establish notability -- there are others. ThreeE 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful way to organize links to different openings. Kappa 12:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC) No vote at the moment Kappa 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A table is simply a method of organizing data. A table is itself notable as an organizational method; however, its use for a particular set of data is not notable unless it completely shifts the paradigms surrounding such data, such as the periodic table. (And it should be pointed out that a no vote from Kappa is like a vehemently strong delete from most VfDers... ;) ) JDoorjam 19:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is a very common way of showing chess moves. It is in MCO and all forms of Chessbase software, and I think Bookup as well. Wikipedia would do well to have an article explaining the format. --malathion talk 20:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another victory for idioctic googlersing if this gets deleted based on the lack of many hits for the literal string "chess opening theory tables". Nice way of using redunant (in the context of a chess page) prefix, and plural form of the object to cut out relevant hits and present a nice concise statistic for deletionist apologism. Come up with proper arguments for deleting articles on specialist subjects, rather than lazily conducting a skewed popularity contest. --zippedmartin 22:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'd gone really, really far in this discussion without attacking one another, or accusing anyone of intentionally trying to misrepresent the facts. I would ask that you do not turn this into ad hominem sniping. Clearly there are people who are passionately in favor of keeping this. Here are the questions that still linger for me:
      • Is there a reason why the "Chess Opening Theory Table" (COTT) should not simply be a part of "Chess Opening Theory" (COT)?
        • It would make the already long COT page too long. It seems wise to me to separate the theory from the way the theory is recorded. I do not, however, have a problem with this. I suspect the COT article authors would however. It would be simpler to put the opening tables on the COT page and link to COTT page for interpretation instructions. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do COTTs have a developmental history to them, separate from COT?
        • Yes. Before COTTs, games were studied one by one. COTTs came along as COT matured. COTTs are now generated on the fly by huge chess databases that are updated weekly. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have COTTs changed the way we think about COT?
        • Yes. GMs use COTT and other tools to find and research novelties -- sometimes right before and even between games at tournaments. I'm not saying COTTs are the only tool, but it is how the huge amount of data in these chess databases are distilled for the human brain to work with. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not laying these out as definitive criteria, I'm just personally curious about them. Again, obviously people are passionate about this; I'm just struggling to understand why, exactly. JDoorjam 22:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My passion (scary as it may be) is that I would love for there to be a wiki version of the opening books (like Nunn's book). This would allow kibitzing to go on for each point in the opening tree. Some sites exist out there to do this for games (like chessgames), but none allow this for the opening. Chess Opening Theory would allow this, on an open platform, but it also needs to provide a description of the format -- which is more appropriately put on wikipedia. If this forum decides it is not "notable," I guess I'll just move it there. I wish someone would explain the passion people have for deleting what seems to be a reasonable article. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly reworded, as it's the habit that needs fixin', not the person. You might want to clarify your line above though if that keep means you've changed your mind, your comment on kappa kinda looks like a vote. --zippedmartin 00:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that quotation, meant in jest, has already been taken and used out of context as a means of assault on a different page. Anyway, see revised. JDoorjam 03:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Though this is a little short on votes, there is no dissent apart from the nominator. The turnout is low, however, so if there were a renomination sooner than usual, I don't think it should simply be disregarded. -Splash 02:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boards.ie[edit]

Is there any reason why a page is needed for this relatively minor irish centric bulletin board? It has it's own wiki for it's history and I dont see why it needs an entry in an encyclopedia Bastion 06:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just thought that even though there's no limit on the amount of articles on wikipedia, that having an article for a site, that no-one who doesnt use the site would be interested in - is pointless. After all, it's called "Wikipedia, the free encylopedia" not "Wikipedia, pages for the top XX,000 sites". --Bastion 09:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep boards.ie are a national institution, albeit in a low key way. They are a vital part of the understanding of the development of an Internet culture in Ireland.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, joke vandalism. Andre (talk) 17:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mr Scally[edit]

  • Article about a comic that doesn't appear to exist. No Google hits for "Mr Scally" + comic, the links on the page are dead, etc. Delete. Andre (talk) 08:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've seen the Mr Scally cartoons, and they're first rate - although it does seem that the links are dead - perhaps someone should look at this? --84.9.72.12 11:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think those cartoons were deleted a while ago, but this page should remain as a historical tribute. Besides, it will exist to amuse both chav haters and Mr Stabby fans alike, being an amusing parody of the Mr Stabby series of cartoons.--80.47.172.91 11:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've created an account especially to register my vote here, as I've been informed about this on the official Mr Scally website - so I'm sure more will come. --Potatomancer 11:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a simple pastiche of the Mr Stabby article. Witness the original authors' names changed to "goths" and "geggars", the domain name in the external hyperlinks changed to that of the "chavscum" web site, and the image changed to the image from chav. There is no evidence that there is, or ever was, an actual cartoon here. No rewrite candidates present themselves. Speedy delete as joke vandalism. Uncle G 12:40:56, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Agree with UncleG - Delete as joke Vandalism. --Celestianpower hab 13:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be nonexistent - all but one link in the article are broken (the remaining one doesn't seem to contain any cartoons). Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as hoax/vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Marcus22 14:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd like to get rid of Mr Stabby too, what sort of notability is there? They just seem like 2nd rate newgrounds level flash, are they massively popular? - Hahnchen 15:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the Mr Stabby cartoons are immensely popular, most people I've met have heard of them and I even know of the existence of a Mr Stabby fan club. Personally I feel there is no good reason for deleting the Mr Stabby article, especially when a few dedicated fans have put some time and effort into refining the said article. I certainly can see to harm in its existence, all that deleting it will acheive would be to disappoint anyone who should look it up for information, only to find that there is none.--80.47.182.1 15:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tricky one this. Whilst it is fairly obvious that this page was intended as a joke, I think we should leave it running as a "parody tribute" to the original Mr Stabby cartoons.Keep--Stabby 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as joke vandalism. Andre (talk) 17:27, August 13, 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 Avada Kedavra. (That is, delete.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Hogwarts[edit]

Neologism for a particular book scene, never called this way in the book, all info is already in chapter summaries or character pages. - Laur 08:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 14:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper holmberg[edit]

Seems like a non-notable person. A google search yields some hits, but these seem to be forum postings etc. Punkmorten 08:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grudges in the Pokemon anime[edit]

Good grief. While I am involved in the subject of Pokémon, I think that this article is definitely far too specialized for Wikipedia. Those who know about its subject won't need to read it, and those who don't will never care to. Sinistro 09:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Could the resolving editor please Userfy this into a subpage of my user page (and then delete the redirect), if the consensus is to delete? I think a little bit of this, if very heavily edited and rewritten, could stand to be merged into some preexisting articles, and the terms of the GFDL require that the page history be preserved somewhere. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will also put the content of this article as a sub-page in my user page.

CoolKatt number 99999

No, because die-hard fans know all of this. --Celestianpower hab 16:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scrumpy Jack[edit]

Spam. No NPV - not 'encyclopedic' Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pami[edit]

Appears to be a fictitious entry. Erwin Walsh

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 06:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi beta chi[edit]

Some non-notable student club. "Chi Beta Chi is a social club at Freed-Hardeman University. Freed-Hardeman University is a private college that does not have fraternities and sororities, but instead "Social Clubs."" Rl 10:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Freed-Hardeman page, specifically a subsection on the social club aspect of student life. Hooper_X

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, not notable. Thue | talk 20:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Chao[edit]

Vanity Page Jackliddle 11:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --malathion talk 20:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor (Father, husband, friend, website designer Living in NJ, )[edit]

Vanity article about a non notable holder of the popular name "David Taylor".

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Defense of Internment[edit]

POV page that states explicitly that it exists to forward a political agenda. --AStanhope 00:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded and NPOVed. Do you mean "POV page"? In any case, there is very little content beyond what was copied from the book. Part of that minimal content calls Malkin a "counter-terrorism expert". Huh? -Willmcw 00:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a book in case you have not noticed. The page is a stub that will get expanded. You VFD has no merit.--CltFn 03:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not your place to delete the VFD tag from the original article once the VFD process has been initiated by another editor. I have replaced the tag. Please do not remove it again. Thank you. --AStanhope 12:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published book. Kappa 12:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep - whilst being a pulished book does not in itself make it notable, 20k googles does. --Doc (?) 13:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - real book and lots of googles. I resent VFD being used as cleanup. --Celestianpower hab 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A book might be POVed, but the wikipedia article commenting it can be NPOV. It is especially interesting to have wikipedia articles on controversial issues or works. --fnielsen 14:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Astanhope, I suspect your personal opinions about this awful book would not be very much different than mine. However, I strongly disagree with your action to list this page on VfD. Please read WP:DEL closely. Candidates for VfD include pages which violate WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:N/WP:V, WP:VAIN, hoax pages, vandalism, and patent nonsense. A page that is about an encyclopedic subject (and despite the nonsense Malkin believes, the book is worthy of an article on WP, see WP:V), but does not adhere to NPOV is not a candidate for deletion. It should be discussed on the Talk page, a POV tag can be slapped on the article page in the meantime, etc. The point being that it should be worked on to bring it to NPOV. Not deleted because it is currently POV. You're right that User:CltFn shouldn't have removed the VfD tag; however, you can, and I'm hoping you will close this and work with him on the talk page.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ14:50:18, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
    • I'd like to believe that my personal opinions have nothing to do with this request. Using the justifications cited here to "keep" the book, any book publisher could write software that cranks through their database to (A) create a new Wikipedia article for a every title, (B) populate it with the standard marketing description and table of contents and (C) add a "stub" tag - so the article can "be expanded later." We used to call this "spamming." --AStanhope 18:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is true that some unscrupulous publishers may theoretically take advantage of Wikipedia's openess to market their products. I do not think that we as editors thereby have a justification to interpret VfD policy to mean more than it does. The WP:DEL page is pretty clear about what articles should not be in VfD, and this is very probably one of them. I agree that the "article" on the book is awful, and the version that you came across [6] particularly so, but equally, it is reasonably clear that User:CltFn is not a piece of software; indeed, a visit to his Talk page discloses that he has had long-standing problems with articles on books, and appears not to understand how to write one. That this is so is good reason to try and correct the POV problems of the page (or attaching tags to indicate the NPOV problem and the need for attention/cleanup), but it is not a reason to VfD the page. Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 19:58:01, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
In Defence of CltFn. With all due respect folks I started this page as a stub. No sooner had I done so an editor nominated it for deletion. I hardly had a chance to develop the article. I have started a number of book pages and have immediately encountered heavy blanking out and redirecting by POV warrior who object to the topics of the books. I have often added an author's quote to the pages because it is the only thing that seems to survive the shredding of unhappy POV warriors. I do my best to add content to the pages, but it is difficult to do so in the teeth of the editors who continually revert what I insert. I present The Sword of the Prophet Page History as a case in point.--CltFn 00:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP ALL 7. -Splash 02:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interlocking puzzle[edit]

(Likewise: Lock puzzle, Sliding puzzle, Stick puzzle, Dissection puzzle, String puzzle, Tiling puzzle -- Curps 13:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm just VFD'ing this to prevent speedy deletion. User:-Ril- thinks it should be speedied as: "undeletion of VFD'd content - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games - the now deceased category referred to in that VFD also exists as a list at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games/list}}". I find this hard to understand. Kappa 12:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This will be a bit long-winded, please bear with me.

    User Karl Scherer created a number of spam pages for puzzle games produced by his company, Zillions of Games, and a Vfd was created to delete them. This Vfd explicitly named only pages such as Cleanup (Zillions game), Spaghetti (Zillions game) and a few dozen others in the same vein, however a mandate was claimed to delete a total of 200 pages (basically, every page ever created or edited by Karl Scherer), including seemingly generic terms with numerous Google hits such as interlocking puzzle, which did not contain any spam links, and lock puzzle, which had numerous contributions from other editors.

    After this was done, the VfD proposer (User:-Ril-) noticed that he had missed Burr puzzle and proposed it for deletion separately. However Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Burr puzzle turned out to be a keep: after a few rapid-fire delete votes, some research was done and it was verified that this was a generic and legitimate mathematical topic, and the tide turned and the vote was to keep.

    Arguably, a number of generic terms such as interlocking puzzle were unjustifiably deleted in the original VfD ("throwing the baby out with the bathwater") and should be restored. These were not in fact explicitly named in that VfD page, but could only be known about by clicking to a separate page, where they were buried among a large listing of obvious spam pages. No doubt Burr puzzle would have suffered the same fate, but for the accidental circumstance that the VfD proposer missed it the first time around.

    To prevent this from happening in the first place, the original VfD should have been split into more than one VfD, to distinguish between the no-brainer deletions such as Spaghetti (Zillions game) and legitimate generic terms such as interlocking puzzle and a handful of others. Arguably, every single page that is being proposed for deletion needs to be individually listed on the VfD page, in order for that page's deletion to be validly decided. The wholesale nomination of 200 pages (with some pages requiring careful consideration mixed in among a large number of no-brainers, on a separate page that many voters didn't look at) is a bit too much, and it's easy for mistakes to be made.

    It seems to be -Ril-'s position that the mere existence of an interlocking puzzle page constitutes advertising (or "original research spam") for Karl Scherer; perhaps he believes that this is a term coined or used only by Karl Scherer rather than a generic term. However, I believe that Google shows it is in fairly widespread use. Another user has claimed (in an entirely separate context) that -Ril- sometimes uses an overbroad definition of "advertising" in recommending deletion of articles.

    Even if an article on a topic was originally created or edited by a spammer, that's not the topic's fault. There is no reason why we can't have a non-spammy article on that topic. After all, we wouldn't delete mystery novel just because some spammer created My Stupid Book (mystery novel), would we? -- Curps 13:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atur[edit]

Another in the series of pages with content effectively identical to Itrw. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 13:00, August 13, 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!) 11:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WJU's Own Tom[edit]

Delete - student folklore of little significance to an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raistolo (talk • contribs) 2005-08-13 11:54:03 UTC

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3ht, st3t, Egyptian fields[edit]

Both pages are identical to Khet. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 13:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: added Egyptian fields. Ken talk|contribs 13:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

No. In discussion of Egyptian fields as they regard standards of measure

A kht is the measured side of an 3ht measuring 100 cubits. A st3t is a kht of 100 royal cubits. Some 3ht were measured in mh t3 or land cubits, some were measured in royal cubits, some were measured in hayt or rods. Egyptian fields is focused on the system of crop rotation that left one field fallow and one in hay for the plow animal that caused there to be a measure of 300 royal cubits as the side of the set of three crop rotated fields.

The kht page will focus on its definition as length width and area in the same manner as the English perch and show how it was used to convert the area of a circle to the area of a square in the rhind papyrus.

"Gillings shows how a number of math problems in the rhind papyrus were calculated using the khet as a length, area and volume knowledgable mensurationists are aware that Mesopotamian measures would be sexigesimal and Egyptian measures septenary

The Egyptians calculated in unit fractions so to represent a number like Pi, rather than use 22/7 they might have represented it as 3 '8 '16 ... The khet seems to be in a relation to other Egyptian units such that it facilitates calculating the area of a circular field." Rktect 15:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The 3ht page will focus on different types of land discussed in Gardiner and the relation of land type to the different standards of measure used to report them in the Wilbur papyrus. "Land tenure in the Ramesside period: Kahaty

The st3t page will focus on area measure for fields with sides defined as a chain of 100 cubits in Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt and Persia and compare land measures like the atur or hour of march to the river journey or itrw. Both atur and itrw were a unit of 7 stadia of 300 royal cubits equal to 21,000 royal cubits or 1/10 geographical degree.

The atur page will focus on references to the atur in the 18th dynasty campaigns against kadesh and the itrw page will focus on Herodotus Book II comparisons of Egyptian, Greek and Persian measures and those used by Eratoshethes, Archimedes and Ptolomy.

Rktect 8/13/05 Their first sentence is identical because they are cross referenced. Additional information of a graphical nature might make for a good read but if you can't wait for me to finish something before you find it necessary to mark it for deletion, then I guess you won't get to see that.

There is an internet convention for citing Hieroglphic Egyptian. [manuel de codage]

The "3" represnts A. In hieroglyphic Egyptian the word for field is written in Manuel de codage as 3ht.

[new manuel de codage]

  • This is the English Wikipedia, not the hieroglyphic Egyptian Wikipedia. Such conventions are confusing and should not be in article titles. There's also no need to keep recreating the same information in multiple articles. I would normally have voted to merge and redirect, but the ideosyncratic spelling causes me to vote delete. Zoe 19:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rktect 8/13/05 English is an amalgamated language. Many English words and phrases such as Ibis, 3kr (acre) Thank you (ank shu), mht3 (meter or land measure) and water (w3dwr) actually have Egyptian roots. You can say the same thing for 5000 other languages. Lugal for example is the root of both legal and regal. Of the 500,000 plus words in the English language, a significant number are jargon which means they are of great use to a small subset of people and much less use to most people.

It might be of interest to some people who actually have an interest to know the root of the word and to have some facts about it available in Wikipedia.

Again, you're going to have to do more than make bald statements without support. "Regal", for example, comes from an ancient Indo-European root word which existed at least concurrently with, and possibly earlier than, Egyptian. These words did not bloom full-formed in the English language, nor is there any evidence that the words you keep trying to claim are Egyptian in fact are. "thank you" is two words, by the way, both from Germanic roots. Zoe 22:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that there is a limit to how much you can put on one page. The kht needs its own page because its discussing standards of measure used as short hand aids to calculation with examples from the rhind papyrus and the Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll (EMLR). The st3t needs its own page to focus on area measure for fields with sides defined as a chain of 100 cubits in Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt and Persia and compare land measures like the atur or hour of march to the river journey or itrw. Both atur and itrw were a unit of 7 stadia of 300 royal cubits equal to 21,000 royal cubits or 1/10 geographical degree. The 3ht needs its own page to focus on different types of land discussed in Gardiner and the relation of land type to the different standards of measure used to report them in the Wilbur papyrus. "Land tenure in the Ramesside period: Kahaty

If I try and put all that on an existing page it will be very difficult for someone to find quickly and expeditiously exactly the set of facts they are looking for. I would also like to add some graphics to the page so that's another reason to break it up a little, you can only put one or two pictures on a page at any decent resolution before it becomes hard to load.Rktect 10:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Quick survey and list of other Vfd entries at [9] and [10]. -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But stubbify. -Splash 02:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nedumpoil[edit]

Possibly fictitious. No context. Erwin Walsh

Having said this, the two other locations appear to be genuine, see Mananthavady. Regardless, little known and too obscure for this project. Erwin Walsh
  • Keep and expand. This town seems to exist. Martg76 14:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ignore this troll, he has VFD a whole slew of material that should not be. Most being stubs that people were editing at the time

Walsh is currently reported for this behavior after refusing to stop. He just sits on new articles and VFDs them without any consideration.

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to copyvio. The copyvio decision takes precedence here. If/when a non-copyvio version is created, that version may be reevaluated for deletion if appropriate. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Little[edit]

Advertisement, copyvio of [11], unencylopedic. Re-write? Erwin Walsh

Walsh has been reported for this behavior--Gorgonzilla 16:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please explain how reporting copyright violations is actionable? And where did you report him? Zoe 19:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • COpyvio, as already pointed out. Tagged it and bagged it. -Splash 17:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh has reported a large number of pages for deletion minutes after they have been created using a wide number of pretexts, about quarter of the nominations are clearly bogus. That is the behavior he was reported for, plus violating the 3RR etc. etc. Seems to be a new form of troll. Wiki certainly should have a page on Tony Little, even if it is only a stub.--Gorgonzilla 21:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social pornography[edit]

Definition of a slang term. There's no real way to turn it into an article about the history of the thing the term refers to, both because its definition is not very well agreed on and because its usage appears to always be derogatory (so that contruing anything as part of the history of "social pornography" would violate NPOV).

Entail 14:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with no bias against re-creation. arj 15:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic content. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV and dictionary-at-best. Rkevins82 19:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was going to be "with bias against re-creation", but looking at how many Google hits the term gets even after the Wikipedia mirrors are discounted changed my mind. As Entail points out, however, it's not like there's a single agreed-on meaning of the term; it seems to range from "sexual pornography of a very social kind" to "fantasies of particular social orders being sated in a fashion not unlike pornographic fantasies" to "curiosity about particular social conditions being sated in a manner whose explicitness is reminiscent of pornography" -- and probably more I haven't come across yet. It's perhaps a relief that this particular article is just a POV essay with no attempt to cite or reference, because I think sooner or later there needs to be a real article on the term, in all its senses, by all the people who have given it formal definitions that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. God bless and God help the editor who tackles it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social pornography is not a slang term. It is a common term in the field of media research. It belongs in Wikipedia. However, the current article needs to go. in this case it's best to start over, and redlinks encourage making of new articles. Punkmorten 23:21, 13 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 Speedied by Longhair. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Miles Smith[edit]

Delete: the formula is patent nonsense, 0 google hits, and evidently a joke. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but evidently a VfD is needed... Raistlin 15:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Possible vanity/OR, even? Grayum 15:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Although I commented, I did not vote so I have no conflict of interest. The vote is practically unanimous in any case. -Splash 02:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roanoke_Bible_College[edit]

Not notable Grayum 15:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But tag and list for expansion. -Splash 02:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loyce Biira Bwambale[edit]

This article was nominated for VfD last night, but I have no idea why. I say keep. Aecis 15:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It appears the author added first the speedy tag, later the VfD, after being told by User:Scimitar that it was pointless to create these articles with so little information and better just let them remain on a list until more information was available. Although I would partly agree that a deluge of substubs is not necessarily a good thing, I think we should keep the articles once they are created, as these are obviously notable politicians and we have a severe lack of information on African topics. There is more biographical info on Loyce Biira Bwambale here and here where anyone interested can actually find a lot more on other Ugandan politicians as well. Uppland 16:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — notable, but needs expansion. — RJH 17:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Members of Parliament are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if someone wants to drop a "needs work" template on these substubs or create a template for ugandan or african politicians it would be pretty good... Usrnme h8er 12:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus just not seeing the consensus that this is a dicdef. Very corny AfD though guys! In lieu of a third AfD people might consider a merge to Human penis size. But again, I'm not seeing consensus to delete outright. W.marsh 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size queen[edit]

Size queen was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-13. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Size queen/2005-08-13.
Size queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A dictionary definition, followed by some original research, followed by a list of examples, the few of which I have seen do not actually use this term. Even the original statement of the term, in the lead, lacks a source. Guy 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 KEEP. -Splash 03:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen_Sharples[edit]

I've filled this out a bit myself for the sake of it. However, I'm not sure if she counts as notable - any advice? Grayum 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --malathion talk 20:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay mets[edit]

I'm fairly sure this falls under one of our deletion categories... note that the appropriately-named author appears to have existed solely to add this article. Shimgray 15:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsd[edit]

Neologism. …Markaci 2005-08-13 T 15:58:58 Z

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 06:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gestir[edit]

This apprently was previously nominated, but someone removed the tag and deleted the VfD page, which seems quite improper. The original article was speedied as a substub with hardly any info. It was on VfU, not fairing too well, when someone wrote the current article, which is certainly not speedy material. As for this band, they have no recordings, but it's been put forth that they pass WP:MUSIC criterion #2. This is somewhat suspect, as playing a few gigs outside of the island you live on is hardly a substantial tour. For example, they played a festival in Copenhagen ("festival" meaning they were just one of many bands). Their best claim to notability is winning a Faroe Islands contest, and as of now I can't tell how great of an accomplishment that is (the Faroe Islands having a population less than that of Eau Claire, Wisconsin). But I'd say it's their only real shot at articleworthiness. gestir band faroe got me 29 google hits.-R. fiend 16:10, 13 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 --Tony SidawayTalk 19:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lords Council[edit]

Get a life. No place in a serious encyclopedia. Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZoneHacks[edit]

Vanity, non-notable--InShaneee 16:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics surrounding the British and Irish Lions[edit]

The "politics" are a figment of the imagination of a tiny minority. I have consulted all relevent published material on The Lions and can find nothing which confirms that there are issues as outlined here. It is possible, of course, to fabricate a political dimension to anything but for Wikipedia I do not believe that it is appropritae to try and recognise this minority obsession in this case. Perhaps those who think otherwise could cite some authoritiative sources of material on The Lions and Politics. I have been unable to find such sources eiter on line or in print. PaddyBriggs 16:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please don't merge this in with the main article. The main article is about the sports team, this is politics. The main article largely serves to redirect people to subpages in any case.GordyB 16:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Teaching Company[edit]

Advertisement 80.109.210.239 16:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't think this is an ad, they usually have far more repulsive language than this does. "The Teaching Company" gets 78,500 Googles and their website's Alexa ranks is 28,800. That rank is low, but surprisingly high if the company is to be non-notable. It also does not appear to be a copyvio and, on the presumption that the claims made in the article and on their website are true, I'd say they're notable enough. -Splash 18:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've bought much of their Philosophy series (for someone else!) and it's good at an introductory level. They're a reputable company. Dlyons493 20:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Second "keep" ever, so you better believe it. Probably just a misunderstanding of our policies. They have tons of material on various subjects and hire fairly notable scholars for their lecture series. I've listened to several of them and the history series can be quite advanced. / Peter Isotalo 02:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Clearly not an advertisement. Osomec 11:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article does not resemble an ad at all. The content is unbiased and does a very good job at keeping to the facts. zcid 23:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Malathion 20:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mera[edit]

Some kind of fancruft. Twotwofourone 17:01, 13 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. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Wedge[edit]

Not notable, so Delete. At best, Merge with Slime_Volleyball, though that should probably go too. Grayum 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of Japanese Fascism[edit]

Overtly an original research piece/list by an anonymous contributor. Not even any citations; see also Additional comments of Japanese fascism. --TJive 17:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Como mi amigo,el el Peruano-Japones,que escribio este articulo no esta presente,lo defendere yo.por lo visto,los atacantes,sigen la saga,aun continuan en sus mismas practicas,les fascina agredir a los indefensos.espero que sean justos y no sanguinarios como la vez anterior,aunque la idea de democracia y justicia es tan variada y colorida dependiendo de cada quien...

yo el hispano hablante(see leer en ingles y escribo algo de este idioma,y comprendo los ataques que se le hicieron a mi conocido,el estimado autor),fui colaborador de el durante cierto tiempo,cuando enviaba sus escritos. el sintio molestia por la incomprension o molestia de algunos y decidio no componer mas. despues por motivos de trabajo se fue de viaje y yo segui colocando algunos articulos y comentarios que el me habia pedido enviar. y observe en sus concejos de eliminacion/borrado,en las opiniones de votacion como abundaban(y aun estan ahi) los diversos agresores,de todo tipo,color, formas,tamaños y pelajes.algunos lo hacian de manera digamos,planificada y analitica,otros lo hacian por puro gusto y otros ,simplemente no se y algunos(tal vez los comprendo mejor,se sentian ofendidos) compatriotas,les causo cierta molestia,pero se comprende mejor,en fin habian criticas para todos los gustos... incluso he observado cierto sarcasmo o cinismo como este: It's fascism! it's Japanese! it's Japanese fascism! y yo entiendo muy bien el sarcasmo y la burla aunque este en ingles,lastima que el autor no este por aqui! aunque no tengo las armas adecuadas(exelente ingles y buena gramatica inglesa),decidi apoyarle,expresando mi opinion en mi idioma natal el español,pude haber utilizado mi limitado ingles,pero he preferido hacerlo de esta forma. como es comun ver en todos los grandes grupos,nunca faltaran las gentes no que sugieran criticas constructivas,sino destructivas y agresivas o sea de todo hay en la viña del señor!

si nadie te defiende,estimado amigo,yo lo hare por ti!
Hasta pronto amigo!
Sr.Pedro Joaquin Gonzales
un filo-japones convencido en Latinoamerica.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 -- Longhair | Talk 04:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi moon base[edit]

Original research -Satori 17:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I don't think so. Delete-- Deskana 17:55, 13 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 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. Woohookitty 07:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Entertainment Centre[edit]

Appears to be about some guy's front room. Zero informative hits on Google. --Dtcdthingy 17:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even Stupider Nim[edit]

This should be Deleted for the same reason Stupid Nim should be deleted, only more so. JDoorjam 18:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep as redirect. Rossami (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post Post (EP)[edit]

This is not and never was a real release by Daphne Loves Derby. After the release of their debut EP "Closing Down The Pattern Department" in 2003, they uploaded a demo song to their PureVolume profile which was there listed under the category "Post EP" (as in "songs recorded after the EP"). When they began demoing for their 2005 full-length, they put up three new demo songs under "Post Post EP" (as in "songs recorded after 'Post EP'"). Neither "Post EP" nor "Post Post EP" were actual CD releases by the band. Hence, all the information given in the Post Post (EP) article is totally incorrect and it shouldn't even have a seperate article page anyway, but should be on DLD's article page, just like the band's other demos. HarryCane 18:32, August 13, 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. Rossami (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The toeriffics[edit]

Delete. Band vanity, zero googles. Flowerparty talk 18:09, 13 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. Rossami (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Mollinedo Bastar[edit]

Minor non-notable Mexico City government official, any controversy about him is already discussed at Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also, the page was created as part of a vandalism spree by 200.79.133.1. Unlikely to ever grow into anything interesting enough to warrant a separate article. JZ 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 08:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Janus[edit]

Delete Darthcruft. -Splash 18:52, 13 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/Fecalcore}}

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Rossami (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Kids Klub[edit]

Non prolific, not worthy of inclusion. What point does this article serve? Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Erwin Walsh

why should its initials make it get deleted? all that should matter is that it's notable. potatoeman57

well, if there are so many of them, and they're all different, i change my vote to delete. potatoeman57

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necarem[edit]

Non prolific. 600 hits on google. A band should at least have a record contract to justify inclusion. Erwin Walsh

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Paul August ☎ 21:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

West Country Talk[edit]

Almost looks like a valid article on some British dialect. It's pretty long, but almost entirely content free. Sample: "It should be mentioned that this Park and Ride is little use to anybody coming from the northern side of Salisbury, who to avoid paying parking charges actually need to cross the entire cathedral city and park somewhere to take the bus, only to take the bus BACK to the original spot and return to their cars and cross the city again." Also, someone on that IP address seems obsessed with making questionable edits related to all kinds of languages. It's a hoax. Rl 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also call by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/West Country Talk II and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Somerset talk -Splash 23:20, 15 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. Redwolf24 23:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse (band)[edit]

Non-notable band vanity. JDoorjam 19:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Erwin Walsh
You explain why this user should be banned. Hopefully you can get the words out before you yourself are banned. (That's a helluva talk page you got going there, Erwin!) JDoorjam 21:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manic opera[edit]

NN band vanity. JDoorjam 19:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue (group)[edit]

NN Band vanity. JDoorjam 19:46, 13 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 by someone else who didn't bother to close the VfD >:(. Redwolf24 00:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DBGT: Transformation[edit]

While the subject may or may not deserve an article, the current one is a paste of an ad. Thue | talk 19:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, rewritten. Thue | talk 18:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Red, Red Rose[edit]

A source text. Since the author, Robert Burns, is long dead, it is in the public domain, but it still doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Transwiki to Wikisource or delete. Thue | talk 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC) KEEP after the rewrite, of course! :). Thue | talk 18:36, 15 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. Rick Block (talk) 00:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Pirates of the Great Lakes"[edit]

Unverifiable: no info in Google or Yahoo about the movie or the studio DDerby 20:04, 13 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. Redwolf24 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Salnikov hoax[edit]

Vandalism: The user who created this page also made edits to other eXile pages which were designed to vilify the newspaper or its contributors rather than give information; Strange POV; Factually incorrect: how is it a "hoax" if there is no evidence that Salnikov is a pseudonym? There is evidence that this entry and others by user 199.107.55.222 are part of a campaign by Little Green Footballs readers who vowed revenge on the eXile following the recent posting of an article by Gary Brecher, who also came under attack by 199.107.55.222.

  • Weird POV rant. Previously tagged for speedy but it doesn't seem to qualify as one. --malathion talk 20:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it does, malathion. Try A6 of the CSD. My vote is delete, and speedy delete if you agree on A6. Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:31:25, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Keep. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The eXile for further details (that was a strawman argument, see my comments below). --MarkSweep 00:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT: Hi Mark. I'm sorry but I don't quite understand. The eXILE VfD was initiated by User:199.107.55.222 [16]. This was a very strongly worded VfD against an article on the eXILE magazine, and seems to have been motivated by reasons other than a concern for WP policy. When VfD editors started disagreeing with User:199.107.55.222's take on the article, he actually reworded his VfD even more harshly. [17]. The article proposed by malathion for deletion is a piece on one Denis Salnikov. It was written by User:199.107.55.222 [18]. From start to end, this article appears to be an unrelenting personal attack of Mr. Salnikov, and as malathion points out, there is no modifying view to counter the strident POV by the author. For some reason User:199.107.55.222 does not seem very fond of either eXILE or its employees. Anyway, I voted to delete this as it looks like a transparent attack piece. There is some question over whether it qualifies as a speedy; I think it just might under A6, which states that short articles that exist simply to disparage their subjects are candidates for speedy (the shortness of short is not defined). I don't think malathion agrees with that route, but there I agree with him about delete. Have I missed something about the article that convinced you it should stay? Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:08:50, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify: I think this is a worthwhile topic, that should be included in Wikipedia. Clearly the current version of the article is far from the standard set by the most brilliant prose on Wikipedia, but that means it should be improved, rather than deleted. I don't care whether the article is merged, renamed, etc. I'm merely stating my opinion that the "Denis Salnikov" affair is a topic that's, uhm, keep-worthy. --MarkSweep 01:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mark, we are in fundamental agreement. The only reason my vote (delete) differs from yours (keep) is that I'm looking at this from the closer's POV, in which he has to decide whether the page at "Denis Whatsisname hoax" has to be deleted, or kept. Because we all agree the title is itself biased, it should be deleted (or as you say, "renamed"). A redirect is unsuitable for the same reason, and unnecessary if the new title contains his name anyway. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to anyone writing an article now or in the future with a suitable title ("Denis Whatsis") and dealing with it with the NPOV. The reason I didn't vote "merge" is that there is nothing in the article that needs to be merged, there is no other article at present to merge to, and currently the article is itself an unrelenting personal attack from start to end, such that it really should be deleted on sight. WP should have as many good articles as possible and as few poor ones; but it should have zero personal attacks. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  16:31:05, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Rename to Denis Salnikov or Merge into the eXile, (edited see below). we should give an NPOV account of how it has been suggested that this is a fictional/satirical character, explain how his club review style etc. relates to eXile's style, and how he relates to the novi ruskii phenomenon. this personage is notable, even if he doesn't deserve its own article Dsol 16:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dsol, the reason I urged delete is that the title seems to me irretrivably one sided. If the title page was just "David Whatsisname", it would be fine to simply edit the article to introduce the NPOV. In fact that would be the best solution. But this title should to be deleted. If an editor is interested in starting an article on David after that, he is entirely free to do so.—Encephalon | ζ  22:02:00, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Rename to Denis Salnikov or Merge into the eXile, but absolutely do not delete as per Dsol abakharev 04:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK, unless I've misunderstood something, there seems to be a disconnect here. Every one of the above voters is saying the same thing, but is using different words to vote. We agree: David Whatsis is notable, a good article on him is suitable for WP, the current article is a personal attack, the current title is too biased to be maintained even if a perfectly NPOV article on David is written in that title space. What this implies, I think, is a delete vote for the closer. When one says "rename", one is saying "delete the page and start a new one with a new name," because in effect that is what has to be done (if my understanding of the technical process is wrong I hope an admin will correct this statement). Do any one of the above voters have an objection to the following sequence of actions:

  1. Delete the page titled "Denis Salnikov hoax."
  2. Open a new page titled "Denis Salnikov."
  3. Write an NPOV article in that title space on David Salnikov.
  4. Alternatively, instead of 2 and 3, write an NPOV accont of Denis Salnikov in the eXILE article.

If you agree with the above, your vote is delete. If you disagree, it is keep, keep/redirect, or something else that requires maintenance of the page "Denis Salnikov hoax." Regards—Encephalon | ζ  16:47:45, 2005-08-18 (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 08:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Superman and Spider-Man[edit]

Original research. Apostrophe 20:19, 13 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. Redwolf24 00:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Leshaun Fossette Show[edit]

This article is crap. Unsure if it should have been speedy deleted or no, so I went with the VFD. GeeCee 20:21, 13 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 REDIRECT to List of countries by GDP (nominal). -Splash 03:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richest countries in the world[edit]

Ambiguous title, already List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) so no value. Erwin Walsh

I might have recommended that, however the title is too ambiguous as "rich" has many different interpretations. Erwin Walsh
Well, I think anyone doing such a search will be looking for GDP, or at least won't be disappointed to find it. I doubt they'll be trying to find out who makes the fudgiest brownies, for example. -R. fiend 20:54, 13 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 COPYVIO, and no alternative article has been offered. -Splash 03:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_H._Pritchard[edit]

VfD refreshed: POV promotional page, originally at Belzebuub. Moved by main author while earlier VfD in progress. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Belzebuub Tearlach 20:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to copyvio (see discussion below) Tearlach 19:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as NN, or at the very very least, clean with a fire hose as right now it says that Mark has psychic powers. JDoorjam 21:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Pritchard is a widely known individual and possibly a psychic. Who is anyone to say that someone can't have psychic powers? Is it just a "matter of fact" that nobody has such powers?
  • Keep, since his book "reached the position of best-selling Astral Projection book on Amazon.com" making him notable within his field. Vfd is not cleanup or hosedown. Kappa 22:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However this article goes, would the closing sysop please include the votes already cast at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Belzebuub? Zoe 22:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. JDoorjam is a one-man cleanup and hosedown. I've done as much as I can to correct NPOV issues on this page which, if they stick, should make this whole thing less controversial. With that said, to throw another log on the fire, has anyone checked out the copyright status on that headshot? I would but don't know how to do it with photos.... JDoorjam 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: even if it's rewritten, the promotional origin makes it important to subject even the more mundane claims to scrutiny. For instance, Amazon best-seller status is not necessarily what it sounds: see writersweekly on the subject. And then there are the study centers, which sound like they have dedicated premises, yes? But a closer look finds that these venues are public rental rooms like the Indooroopilly Senior Citizens Centre, Brisbane, the Grattan Gardens Community Centre, Melbourne, and The Cedar Room, Wollongong Town Hall and Community Centre.
BTW, which takes precedence: VfD or copyvio? Easiest solution would be to slap a copyvio tag on it; it looks pretty clear-cut. Tearlach 11:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, copyvio definitely takes precedence, since if the VfD were to keep it would have to be deleted anyway as a copyvio. If you find where it was copied from, please list it on Copyright problems. Zoe 19:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, no claim of notability. Thue | talk 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlfredG[edit]

Vanity. Erwin Walsh

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp Nipples[edit]

I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC --Doc (?) 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made this page, just cuz I wanted to add some info about the band, delete if u wish I know its not very informative I dont know enough to write a detailed description. Plus I didnt read the posting rules sorry... i thought ithe idea was you put a bit in and other people filled in more till it grew... :-/ I dont see how its nonsense. It might not me notable or varifyable though, I cant find a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.18.3 (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-18 14:15:38.
Hi there, User:82.69.18.3. You're absolutely right, it's not nonsense. That's why none of us calls it that. And you're also right about a basic WP mechanism, everyone is welcomed to contribute their bit to improve what is a great human endeavour — to make important information as freely available as possible. While we're doing this, however, we need to follow certain rules so that we can be reasonably sure that the information it provides is true. One of those rules is to source things that we write. Another is that we write about things that are notable, because no encyclopedia can (or should) be riddled with every bit of available information simply because it is information. (That can be the goal of another kind of project, but that project will not be an encyclopedia). Those are the reasons this article is up for deletion. Please understand none of us have anything at all against you or this band, and we'd love to have your contributions about to WP. And don't worry about writing, too much. If it is acceptable stuff, WP is designed to keep it, even when it is highly tentative. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  15:22:30, 2005-08-18 (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 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fecalcore[edit]

This page is smartly laid out and ostensibly supplies references, but it's a joke page at best. The music subgenre described is a non-notable neologism (3 unique Google hits that have nothing to do with the topic) and the references never use the term "fecalcore" at any point. Original research, general nonsense, not encyclopedic, etc. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:33, 13 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. Redwolf24 00:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrosox[edit]

May be for real, but seems to be entirely unverifiable. Full text: "Rooted in 1990's Northern Virginia pre-Grundge scene, this nondescript two-piece outfit paved the way for artists like the Black Stripes, who mimicked their lineup." Rl 21:03, 13 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. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The prior deletion discussion can be found here. It was closed on procedural grounds as a "no consensus" vote.

The Illustrated Diary of Struan R. Sutherland[edit]

Delete nn webcomic set up a few months ago. Domain name has no Alexa traffic info, and Google gives 20 useful hits. Note this is a renomination from this VfD. There were no votes other than my deletion nomination, and the VfD was closed as no consensus. The closing admin suggested I renominate and so I have. -Splash 21:33, 13 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 21:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

National postcode lottery[edit]

Non-encyclopedic, and looks like an ad to me. Fbergo 21:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, not particularly notable no, and badly written as it stands, but it's genuine [19] and perhaps has a home here if the article is improved. UkPaolo 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aren't these things often used in scams? I'm sure we can undelete it when it becomes notable. / Peter Isotalo 03:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Keep. There is some precedent for articles about lotteries on the EnWiki, however they are filled with trivia at best. California Lottery is a gruesome stub, and Florida Lottery is an unencyclopedic list of games offered by the commission. I would argue that the most notable aspect of government-run lotteries is the winners themselves, but even they lack notability by virtue of the fact that there's a new winner almost every single week. I don't think there's a great deal of encyclopedic things to say about lotteries. I propose that the few existing lottery articles be merged into new, more appropriate blanket articles such as List of lotteries in Great Britain or List of lotteries in the United States. If there's anything encyclopedic and verifiable to be said about these individual lotteries, let it be said with a blurb under its entry on the list (good example of concept: List of Star Wars races). I would love to hear more opinions on this matter. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a novel idea although I have doubts about whether it will work, but it is encyclopaedic. David | Talk 08:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but what exactly is encyclopedic about an individual lottery? I'm really asking for your opinion here, as my own thinking would benefit from some outside input. Are not all lotteries essentially the same? Fernando Rizo T/C 08:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The novelty in this one is the way the winner is decided. Individual lotteries are given articles if they are significant eg National Lottery (UK), Euromillions, and most US state lotteries. David | Talk 08:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, fair enough. But is that unique enough for its own article? Couldn't it be covered in a sentence or two in an article such as the one I proposed in my vote above? Fernando Rizo T/C 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair enough but as the UK only has two lotteries this would be a very small and unhelpful article. The National Lottery and the National PostCode Lottery work in very different ways and have very different aims, so it makes sense for them to have separate articles. Norbutt2001 | Talk 09:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks for the enlightening argument. I change my vote to keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The spread of this type of lottery is actually quite an important innovation. If the lottery succeeds it will have a major effect on the UK National lottery and on the way that lotteries are run in many other countries. It is a significant departure from the scratchcard or match 5 numbers models used to date.
  • Delete This is not an official UK lottery. It may be genuine, it may be a 419-class scam. If its genuine, then lets see some press in the national papers and media before an independent article is written. In the UK, Postcode lottery usually refers to the fact that quality of medical service varies by region: the real national postcode lottery is the national health service.
There has been much press and media coverage, however as this is based in the North-East the coverage is pretty much confined to the North-East and tends to appear in local papers (Northern Echo, Evening Chronicle, The Journel, Sunderland Echo, Herald and Post, Shields Gazette, North East Telegraph), Radio (TFM, Metro Radio, Magic 1152, BBC Radio Newcastle) and TV (BBC North East and Cumbria, Tyne Tees TV). So the reasons given above are not really valid. Besides since the last lottery licence was awarded Camelot was stripped of a monopoly to comply with EU regulations and therefore any lottery licenced by the Gaming Board of Great Britian is therefore offical, as of this date there are only two such lotteries, Camalot (Lotto, Thunderball etc..) and the National Postcode Lottery. Given these facts the reason given for delete is weak at best. But if you need press and media coverage please see the following 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Hopefully this should be enougth to keep your fears of a scam at bay.Norbutt2001 | Talk 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—This is an ad for a regional charity lottery that has almost no Web presence and hasn't even given away a prize yet. --Tysto 22:48, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
I do not work for the lottery nor have I any connection with it but I belive that this does have a place here, this type of lottery and its developments are extremly important in the here UK as it is the first challenger to the dominant Camelot lottery. This is of importance to people liveing in the UK, ok so at the moment restricted to the North East.Norbutt2001 | Talk 09:15, 15 August 2005 (BST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 21:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Samara[edit]

questionable notability- 2,270 hits on google, only half of the first ten related to this particular Tony Samara. vanity page- only edits by 82.154.202.158/82.154.136.200/Tsamara, presumed to be the same user, who is affiliated with the samara foundation and has contributed almost solely linkspam related to Tony Samara. Heah (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The behaviour of the editor in question is dubious as pointed out by the nominator and does smell of vanity. However, if he's done the stuff that his website [20] says he has, then he might just get above the notability bar. Maybe. -Splash 01:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Okay, he's journeyed through the jungles of South America to study under shamans. But what has he done to impact the world that makes him worthy of an encyclopedic entry? According to his website (but not the article) he gives lectures, but so do tens of thousands of other non-notable people. If Mr. Samara is so noteworthy, let's see a reference to an article or book written about him by a notable third party (the New York Times, the Village Voice, etc). If something like that materializes, I'll gladly change my vote, otherwise this article seems little more than an advert for the Samara Foundation. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article Wikipedia cannot refer only to American references if it is to be a world encyclopedia. Here is a press article from the reference newspaper in Portugal: DNA - Diário de Notícias on Tony Samara see also Diário de Notícias' main page - Various articles have been written about him in Visão magazine (Portugal's equivalent of Time magazine). He also appeared recently on Croatian television (Good Morning Croatia). There are many articles on people in Wikipedia that don't have any impact whatsoever on the world such as fashion models that appeared twice on a magazine cover. What is written about Tony Samara is correct and his invaluable work is being documented in books that are to be released by third parties at the end of this year. Wikipedia is for free information, we can criticize everything and find faults in everything but what makes it special is that it has cutting edge information of things that are hard to find elsewhere and not just news that is reported in The New York Times in the U.S. User:Tsamara
A search for "Tony Samara" on Diario de Noticias' website yields zero hits. That leaves you only the subject's own website which, as R. fiend already pointed out, cannot be taken as a neutral, objective information source for the subject. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article in Visão where you can find out about Tony Samara's work (in portuguese) - Visão article about fasting. The Diário de Notícias article was published in a special supplement that doesn't have an online version, they do have it in their archives if you wish to call or write them. I'll look up for more since Tony's work is primarily - but not only - focused in Portugal, Slovenia and Croatia. User:Tsamara
I would breifly like to point out that a google search for "tony samara" will bring up hits from every language and corner of the world, not just in english, from the united states.--Heah (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Seems to be vanity. Definitely not NPOV. At the very least, needs some credible references other than the link to Samara's own website. If the article could be improved to be NPOV and to have some third-party references, I would vote to keep. Colin M. 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Weak Keep. I still think this page is not NPOV, and is therefore in need of fixing (particularly, it needs more references to third-party sites), but the subject is at least marginally notable and the fact that the article needs fix-up doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted forthright. Colin M. 00:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article This is a significant humanitarian organization here in Europe, which happpens to be driven by Tony Samara. His website was written objectively by someone who observed his work over an extensive period, therefore 'self promotion' and 'vanity' are not relevant here. If people are lauded greatly by those who come into contact with them, there is a reason why, and if the article is allowed to remain where it is, more people will have an opportunity to find out what that reason is.LifeisRound.com
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The consensus of this discussion was fairly clear that the current office-holder does not meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. The Camilo Agasim-Pereira is further complicated as it is an autobiography with all the challenges and risks those articles entail. (Note to the subject: We strongly discourage the creation of autobiographies. It is impossible to stay neutral in the discussion. If you are famous enough to deserve an article in a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, be patient and let someone else write it. In the meantime, feel free to create a user account. We allow quite a bit more latitude in the user space to write about yourself.)

The consensus was also quite clear that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database and that a great deal of these articles constitute genealogical data.

The decision was a closer call on whether a neutral discussion of the Baronies themselves might be encyclopedic. I note that one is explicitly described as being a mere 40 acres. Wikipedia is widely inconsistent about the inclusion standards for places. If kept, this would stand at the small end of the spectrum.

Noting that, the current contents of the two "Baron" articles have only a little content about the respective Baronies. If converted into discussions of the Barony, most of the content would probably be removed and the title would have to be changed.

I am going to call Camilo Agasim-Pereira as a straight delete decision.

I am going to exercise my discretion here and call the other two as "no consensus" decisions for now. If they are not substantially improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may be appropriate to renominate them for deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Fulwood, Baron of Dirleton, Camilo Agasim-Pereira[edit]

Please note - this is a VfD for three separate articles (although all related to the same person, still potentially covers three separate subjects). Please make it clear which articles you think ought to be Deleted, Kept etc.

This appears to be someone who just bought two titles (in the Scots Peerage, the lowest rank is Lord and not Baron; a Baron is merely the person who owns a particular patch of land). Lots of stories about the people who previously held the title but the current holder appears not to be notable, and I would also argue that Scots Baronies are not actually notable in themselves. The last named article is a total mess as someone appears to have edited it to criticise the subject. All three appear largely to be autobiographical. David | Talk 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and curse those magazine ads where you get to buy the title for Christmas. This particular flavour of Barony doesn't get the protection from deletion of being a Peer, or anything either. -Splash 01:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one cannot "buy" a title, and is not made notable by the attempt. Avalon 04:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact you can buy a Scottish barony, for about 100,000 pounds. Until recently you did this by buying the associated land under "feudal tenure", but the Scottish Parliament abolished feudal tenure so now you do not even need to buy the land. But indeed owning this title does not make you part of the peerage, or notable in a Wikipedia sense. The question for me is whether Camilo Agasim-Pereira is notable in himself. If he is then his somewhat colourful life needs to be noted, whether he is sensitive about it or not. Scottish Feudal Baronies is another of his articles. The old version was not a mess. --Facethefacts 07:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I mean the Camilo Agasim-Pereira one. However the fact remain the if we like it or not baronies and barons are legal title in the Noblesse of Scotland and were titles created in the peerage of Scotland, late the barons themselves gave-up the right to attend Parliament voluntary due to the burden of doing so.

As recent as 2000 the Scottish Parliament re-affirmed those titles in §63(1) of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) ACT 2000 provides that "Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin)", therefore forever enshrined in law the dignity of the baronage of Scotland, the whole issue of sit in Parliament is dead one as neither Scottish Barons or Hereditary Peers can sit in Parliament any longer. Whether or not someone buy a title those title can only be used with a warrant from Lord Lyon’s Court on behalf of the Queen, I check in the Baron of Fulwood’s site he does hold a Warrant for Letter Patent, and also appear from the disposition that his title was not bought but bequeathed to him by the previous baron. --L Morgan 17:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Sole edits of L Morgan are here --Henrygb 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Gentleman, I hate to see an argument over something as innocent as the history of our Baronies.

You are all assuming erroneously that I paid for my title that is not so, even if there is nothing wrong in law to do so in Scotland.

Being a Scottish Baron today is about helping your local community, scholarships, charity and the promotion of the well-being of your barony, we certainly have done our fair share of those acts in our communities and in support of many cultural institutions in the UK and overseas. It is true that I have experienced some set backs in my life however I think that the Courts decisions in those matters speaks for themselves, they were fabricated and false allegations.

I do hold a Warrant from the Crown confirming my title and I have not bought my titles. All these comments are so unnecessary, as to the autobiography issue, I believe that there are 7 lines in the articles dealing with me and my family as the present holders of Baronies of Fulwood and Dirleton that have been in existence for over 600 years, hardly an autobiography, the rehearsal of old defamatory statements by Facethefacts in a new and incorrect article is the issue in hand not a historical piece on the Baronies of Fulwood and Dirleton, that certainly has its historical value.

To say the Scottish Baronies are not notable, is an insult to the History of Scotland to say the least. It clearly show a lack of knowledge of Scottish History, by the way not a “province” of a England but a equal partner, with its very unique monarchy, government and judicial system, please bear in mind the of System of the Nobility of Scotland are not English, but very Scottish. The importance of Scottish Baronage is demonstrated in the fact that even The Prince of Wales as Heir to the Scottish Throne hold the Scottish Feudal Title of “ Baron of Renfrew” among his official title. It's true most of us holders of Scottish baron titles are not notable, but the title and the history clearly is so. Here are a few quote that could maybe improve the lack of knowledge of the importance the Scottish Baronies held in the history of Scotland:


1- That the Baronage of Scotland is an 'order', 'estate' (of the Scots' Realm) and a 'Rank': See Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, "The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland," (27th Oct 1945) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 79, pp. 111 at 113, 116, fn. 1, 146, 150

2- Statement in Lyon Court documents that minor barons are officially the 'equivalent to the chiefs of Baronial Houses on the Continent of Europe': See Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, "The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland," (27th Oct 1945) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 79, pp. 111 at p. 143, fn. 3, 155. See Wauchop of Niddrie, Lyon Register, Vol XXXV, p. 31, 19th April 1945; Matriculation of Chisholm of Chisholm, Lyon Register 33/12: 30th March 1944; Matriculation of Borthwick of Borthwick, Lyon Register 35/14;

3- Statement in Lyon Court documents that minor barons constitute a 'titled nobility' and that the estate of the Baronage are of the ancient feudal nobility of Scotland: See See 26th February 1943, Register of Genealogies, Vol IV, p 26; Thomas Innes of Learney, "The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland," Proc. of Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland, (27th October 1945) Vol 79, P. 111 at p. 143, fn. 3, 154. See Petition of Sir Hugh Vere Huntly Duff Munro-Lucas-Tooth, 1965 S.L.T. (Lyon Ct.) 2 at p. 13;

4- The Lyon Court has issued a official pronouncement that the feudal or minor Baronage of Scotland constitute a ‘titled nobility’, as Sir Thomas declares in “The Robes of the Baronage of Scotland”, ibid., p. 143 in fn. 3, as follows:

“Edinburgh, 26th February 1943. The Lord Lyon King of Arms having considered the foregoing (in a birthbrief, the preparation whereof was then duly ‘authorised’, being the Signature for such writ ). ‘Further, with regard to the words ‘untitled nobility’ employed in certain recent birthbrieves in relation to the Minor Baronage of Scotland, Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have been both in this nobiliary Court and in the Court of Session recognised as a “titled nobility” and that the estait of the Baronage (i.e. Barones Minores) are of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland’ (Reg. Of Gen., vol. IV. P. 26).” (Emphasis supplied.) [Hugh Peskett whois a great genealogist and researcher wrote the following article concerning Scottish Baronage http://www.hughpeskett.co.uk/008BARONY/BARONY.HTM --The Baron of Fulwood 18:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Baron of Dirlton - This is an interesting history of the Barony (and therefore notable to me!) - the holder himself is not the primary subject of the article, and I don't have any problem that the current title holder added or edited the article himself. I don't believe the article is primarily genealogical either. I don't think Wikipedia shouldn't have a POV over whether the title can be bought or sold, either - they are still notable in Scottish history. Note there is a category, too. Stephenb 09:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scots Baronies do not belong in that Category as I read it. They are fundamentally different to Baronies in the English and Irish Peerages because the latter are Peerages whereas the former are not. There is no POV over whether Scots Baronies are capable of being bought and sold: they are so capable, as a matter of fact and not opinion. David | Talk 09:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected over the category! The POV is not whether they can be bought or sold, but whether Wikipedia should treat that as a reason for exclusion from the encyclopedia. Just because some people don't like the fact that a title can be bought or sold should not mean that that POV should govern whether the title is an entry in Wikipedia - such titles are provably historical and therefore notable and worthy of entry. Stephenb 13:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Historical" means "written down in the past". That is not enough to make something notable. This was merely a form of land ownership which is no longer associated with land. Should every Manor in England and its holders also be recorded in Wikipedia? --Henrygb 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, well, maybe we should remove all historical articles :-) Flippancy aside (though there is a point in there), these Baronies obviously has notable influence on the establishment of their times and the surrounding communitites. Yes, I believe notable Manors should be included, too. If we can include what I regard as trivia (characters in computer games, for instance) I can't see why significant land ownership/influence in history should not be included Stephenb 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Camilo Agasim-Pereira - not notable Stephenb 09:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but clean up) Baron of Fulwood, to the same level as the other Barony Stephenb 09:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The user David is failing to notice one thing, every title in the Uk was somehow acquired, in one way or another, only a simple mind would think otherwise, nothing is for free in life. Scottish barony were (or are as per some scholars) peerages.It is a fact, however, that the feudal earls and barons were the original peers of the realm in the proper feudal sense of the word. It is also a fact, as stated above, that feudal barons continued to have the right to sit as part of the nobility in the Scottish Parliament up to the time of the Act of Union. Since they had as much right to sit as part of the nobility in the Scottish Parliament as did 'lords of parliament' they were, at that time, just as much peers as those 'lords of parliament'. Lord Bankton, one of the great institutional writers (i.e. someone who is accepted as authoritative in courts of law), states in his 'Institute of the Laws of Scotland' (II, III, para 83) that 'Baronies and Regalities come next to be considered … This leads me to the distinction of fees Noble and Ignoble … Noble fees, are those which conferred nobility to persons vested in them; these were baronies and regalities; and anciently all nobility, in the modern states proceeded from such fees; thus the title of Baron included Duke, Marquis and Earl, as well as that of Lord. All barons were equally entitled, as lords of parliament, to sit and vote in it'. This makes it quite clear that anyone who had the right to sit in Parliament as a baron was a lord of parliament and therefore, if there was any doubt in the matter, also a peer. In addition, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney refers ('The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland', P.S.A.S, Vol. LXXIX, p. 144) to the case of Sundry Barons v. Lord Lyon (1672) ('Brown's Supplement', Vol. III, p. 6) where those sundry barons 'successfully maintained, in claiming their supporters, that they were as good Barons after that Act (1587) as before'. On this basis, Scottish feudal barons were 'peers of Scotland' for the purposes of sections 22 and 23 of the Act of Union which made all 'peers of Scotland' into 'peers of Great Britain' (they remained 'peers of Scotland' but became part of a greater peerage of Great Britain). Since Scottish feudal barons became 'peers of Great Britain' in 1707 they have continued to be so ever since and all of them became entitled to sit in the House of Lords under the Peerage Act of 1963 (The Act states that 'The holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland shall have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House as the holder of a peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom; and the enactments relating to the election of Scottish representative peers shall cease to have effect.') Since their peerages are not 'hereditary' under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999 but are 'in commercio' (they can be bought and sold), they were not deprived of their right to sit in the House of Lords by that Act. Approached from the other direction the question is simply 'If feudal barons were originally peers of Scotland, exactly when and how did they cease to be peers of Scotland?' The answer is they didn't, certainly not in 1428 or 1587 (because they continued to have the right to attend Parliament as nobles) and certainly not in 1707. He may want to come up with a better argument in law for his point against the historical value of Scottish Baronies, what is cleaner buying a hereditary title legally, or donating a few thousand pounds under the table to the government of the day and getting one that will only last you the course of your lifetime. If a man can not write the history of his own Barony, I guess Churchill History of the World War should be discarded too, as he was one of the major player in the event.--The Baron of Fulwood 15:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is so much nonsense in that that paragraph that it is difficult to know where to start. Please find any example of a holder of a Scottish Barony (who was not in one of the other categories) as a recorded member of the British House of Lords from 1963 to 1999. Even better, turn up yourself now and make enough of a speech to get "Baron of Fulwood" published as a speaker in the House of Lords Hansard. You cannot because what you say is not true. --Henrygb 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Henrygb is absolutely correct. Scots Baronies are not Peerages. They are simply the Scots equivalent of the English Lord of the Manor title, with the exception that it seems they do apparently give precedence (below the lowest Baronet). I believe holders of Baronetcies have been found not to be necessarily notable. David | Talk 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that - I also agree that holders are not notable. But surely the titles themselves are (2 of the 3 articles)? Stephenb 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Scots barons can sit in Parliament - they're commoners! Just need to get elected... Regarding precedence, Whitaker's doesn't show any for Barons in the Scottish order of precedence - it does have a firmly worded entry that Scottish barons are not peers, and that Lords of Parliament should never be styled Baron, though. Shimgray 04:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles? Stephenb 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, I can't work out if you just hate Scottish Baron or the Scotland in general, until 9 months ago (November 28, 2000) Scottish Baron had magisterial power and were feudal superior all over Scotland, the power all such and so out of place in the 21st century that the Scottish Parliament so fitted to abolish the Feudalism and Magisterial power of the Barons. Now come you in you with your “learned legal mind” and compare and stated that a Scottish barony are the same as a Lordship of the Manor in England, your sense of History and Law is so appalling that makes one want to laugh at your knowledge and bias. What is you could no acquire one therefore you just hate them all, Freud explain those feeling the question is can you understand his explanation?--The Baron of Fulwood 16:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • Ho hum. It's best to avoid personal attacks on other Wikipedians and policy is to delete them, but I think it best to leave this one alone and pass over the personal aspect without comment - save to say that I am not one of 'learned in the law'. I nominated the three articles for deletion because I do not think they cover subjects which are appropriate for an encyclopaedia, in that the subjects are not notable. This does not apply to Scottish Feudal Baronies and I would vote keep if anyone nominated that for deletion, but individual Scots Baronies are different. This is not due to a bias against the nobility, but to considerations of what benefits Wikipedia. As a Alec Douglas-Home (14th Earl of Home in the Peerage of Scotland) remarked of Harold Wilson, he was in a sense the 14th Mr Wilson. We don't let people write their family histories and put them on Wikipedia, nor should we allow the collective history of people who happen to have held a particular feudal Scots title: it's simply too coincidental to be put together. If individual holders are notable then write articles about them, and by all means point out that they held the title and passed it to someone else, but the Barony is not in itself significant enough - in my judgment - to warrant an article. David | Talk 10:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, Thanks for clarifying your position. It was never my intent to write our family history for that purpose we have our website. I Think that what Lord Home was saying was that he was the 14th Mr. Home and not Mr Wilson, however with all due respect to Lord Home, who disclaimed his Title in 23 of October 1963and then was created a life Peer in 1975(as baron Home of Hirsel), he was wrong Mr is a title, like Earl is a title, if however he made that statement between 1963 and 1975 he was correct he was just plain Mr. Douglas-Home and not Mr Home as his name was a double barreled one. I might be wrong but I think that Lord Home actually was born in the Barony of Fulwood. I'm sorry if I offended you. I should not have done so. I apologize once again for my outspoken manner. The whole intent was to publish the History of the Barony not of ourselves. I don't have a problem if you remove my name, however that would be a mutilation of the history of the barony. Surely once I'm gone the new Baron, my son could add my name to the history, among the only good things about a heriditary title is it's immortality. --The Baron of Fulwood 00:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Famous quote from the '64 election - Wilson kept remarking that the 14th Earl of Home could hardly be a man of the people (he had disclaimed then, but it's not like people had forgotten where he was a year before), and Douglas-Home remarked "As far as the 14th Earl is concerned, I suppose that Mr. Wilson, when you come to think of it, is the 14th Mr. Wilson". Not a desperately meaningful statement, but a nice rejoinder. Shimgray 04:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and a vote - delete all three. Individual Scots baronies nonnotable (...says the Laird of A Small Patch Of Dirt Near The A720, I suppose), and looking at the personal article it looks doomed to either be a) a one-sided puff piece or b) a godawful uninformative mess, neither of which are usefully encylopedic. Shimgray 05:11, 18 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 Merge. Redwolf24 00:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caress Me Down[edit]

Non-notable song from a short-lived California band with only one major label album. Several other of their songs also have articles that bear consideration. Tysto 21:43, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Addendum to put this in context: How are these songs notable? Has any music critic written an article analyzing them? Would you even expect to find a regular web page devoted to each one of them at a fan site? I have no problem with the band (altho I probably underestimated their notability), and some songs are famous and notable in themselves (many Beatles songs deserve their own entries, old standards, folk songs, etc.); they have a history and cultural importance, but not these songs. --Tysto 14:32, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
  • keep or merge, song by a notable band, no need to deny wikipedia users access to this information. Kappa 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable band, notable song. A "short-lived" California band? Seems to me that they meet several of the criteria here.--Myles Long/cDc 02:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is just about the songs. The band is notable enough to warrant an article, and for that matter their album, just not each individual song.--Tysto 20:27, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Merge into Sublime (album). Sublime is, unfortunately, a notable band. android79 03:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Sublime (album) Agree with Android79, despite his apparent lack of musical taste. ;) There's little potential for this article to ever grow any larger than it is now, and it's a perfectly good redirect. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In small doses, I'm sure Sublime is great, but their extreme popularity at my college meant everyone was listening to them... all the time, including the really weird guy next door with the really loud stereo. Same goes for Dave Matthews Band. :-) android79 15:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, I guess. I wouldn't be sad if it were deleted though. -R. fiend 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While "only one major label album" is generally enough to show notability for the band or for the album, an article on an individual song has to be more notable still. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an observation (that is largely irrelvant to this VfD, admittedly), but "only one major label album" is a bit misleading. Sublime only had one (studio) album that was originally released on a major label. However, their two earlier albums had already been picked up and re-released by a major label before their "major label debut." They've also had various and sundry greatest hits/live/rarities/whatnot albums since its release, also put out on a major label. --Myles Long/cDc 22:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand, I was just starting to enjoy it when the information ran out. Alf 10:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 04:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ey Tximist[edit]

Pointless poem made up on the spot. ThomasWinwood 21:48, August 13, 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 USERFY

Dr.d.karthikeyan[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE

Master Yoda as a leader of nonviolent resistance[edit]

  • I rather resent the name calling, so I'm changing my origional vote to *double-keep* for the record that means I now out vote you 2:1, unless of course you want to change your vote to double-keep as well, in which case I'll be forced to change mine to a triple-keep, so it seems, you've lost--172.166.227.71 21:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 04:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max Forrest[edit]

NN vanity. Madchester 22:32, August 13, 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

Typodyslexia[edit]

Delete, non-notable neologism --IByte 23:10, 13 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

Masturbitching[edit]

No Google matches at all, and the article's about a made-up word that is, apparently, used by a rather small group of people online. I don't feel this is speedy material, though, so I put it up here. Solver 23:27, 13 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. Redwolf24 00:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starseeds (Sailor Moon)[edit]

Oh, and what does "nn" stand for? "No name"?  Denelson83  02:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Not notable". (Which isn't that long of a phrase. Why abbreviate it?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Sailor Galaxia, maybe. This is worth a mention in the article about the series in which it appears. Only. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sailor Moon.--Matteh (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must disagree with the description as not-notable fancruft; it's a major plot element of the final series/arc of Sailor Moon. As such I'd say it's more notable than many of the articles we have on fictional characters who appeared during a single plot arc of their respective shows but were not important to the plot throughout, as the plot element of starseeds was. If we had a separate article for the "Sailorstars" series/arc of Sailor Moon, I'd call for it to be merged there. Since we don't, merge with Sailor Galaxia, the major villain of the arc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If some sm fan wants to salvage a few sentences for a new home in an existing article before that, so be it. --zippedmartin 22:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess it's a little weird for the person who created the page to vote here, but I'd like to make my voice heard. IIRC, there was an empty link, so I made it with what I know of SM. Whatever direction the vote goes is fine with me. Danny Lilithborne 05:05, 16 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. Rossami (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millersville University Police Department[edit]

I'm nominating this article because I believe it is non-notable. A quick search through Google reveals that this university police department is no different than any other, and it has not been involved in any notable acts. -D. Wu 23:39, 13 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 ambiguous.

I count 5 "delete" votes to 4 "keep" votes. In this case, I am forced to remember that, despite the name, "votes for deletion" is not about "voting" at all. We seek consensus and strive to base our decisions on evidence, logic, policy and precedent. In this case, I find myself most compelled by User:D. Wu's observation that all the encyclopedic content is a copy from the University of Washington article. (I can not convince myself that the list of police chiefs meets our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.)

I further note that similar VfD decisions on university police departments have been decided as "delete" decisions. While every article is unique and must be judged on its own merits, we should consider precedent. The argument that "any police department is automatically notable" is not one that has been supported by the community previously.

Given that the content is still discussed in another article (and that the other article appears to be the parent, therefore there is no requirement to preserve attribution history in order to comply with GFDL), I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Police Department[edit]

In the same vein, I am also nominating this article because of non-notability. Any information contained here (with exception of the list of police chiefs) is already duplicated in the University of Washington article under the History section. -D. Wu 23:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 23:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean Holy Motherfucking Keep --SPUI (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YTMND[edit]

This website was deleted in a previous vote, on grounds of lack of notability. However, since that deletion, its popularity has skyrocketed and its Alexa rank, er, groundrocketed? Anyway, WP:VFU decided the situation had changed substantially. This VFD nomination is procedural after its undeletion.

KEEP!!!

Lord Patrick 05:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as a major contributor to this article and small-time wikipedia contributor in general I'm shocked to see that it was deleted. I was responsible for jump starting it's existence and while the article has grown a bit out of control I think that it's an important article. While you may not see it on the surface, YTMND is really a major cultural phenomenon that extends way beyond the internet and the members of it's website. In and of itself it represents a new movement in ironic comedy and cultural attitudes. I seriously believe that it would be a disservice to the world to not include this article in the wikipedia body of information. Celerityfm 14:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. Discombobulator 17:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBrendantheJedi
  • KeepSysys 21:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepGordonfan 21:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This was deleted? Sheesh, internet culture gets no respect :-S --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ariamaki The Wiki-Wise Contains a lot of good information about a popular site- I also vote that the deletion notice be removed now, as it has been nearly a week with no down-votes. 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DJ John 08:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think articles like this should be kept. Storage space is starting to be an non-issue with the decrease of cost, and even if something is a fad, it will just enhance the future historical value of the Wikipedia - imagine how useful something like this could be in 100 years time to someone studying the beginnings of the Internet and it's shifting culture. Ppinheiro 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep It's funny. Could be a tiny bit shorter, but certainly shouldn't be deleted. zachol 02:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Was a good article. Most likely some up-tight biased asshole of an admin is going to delete it anyways, as usual on wiki --Tykell 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found this informative --Gearspring 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was wondering about the origins of YTMND. This page was helpful. T-mccool 03:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup See above. Very notable site, but the article itself needs some cleaning up. Zig 04:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; honestly, this site is well-known and well-visited. Eszett 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP....CAPTAIN JEAUN-LUC PICARD OF THE U.S.S ENTERPRISE: It has current significant value on the internet as a result of it's noticable memes and is a good front for people who expertise in Photoshop alteration, one example being the marevlous works of art portrayed by the TIGER Handheld LCD game variants of the sites' most popular commodities.
  • Keep This is quite possibly the greatest interenet meme ever. And I state that not as a mere personal opinion. In other terms YTMND might very well be the most notorious of the internet memes and is indeed for starting (or at least spreading) other memes as well and responsible for 'their' notoriety. User:24.9.10.235
  • Keep... popular meme, no need for deletion. User: SDiablo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Turkish Foreign Policy[edit]

Reprint of NPOV Turkish gov't report 66.27.199.211 00:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: what's the copyright status of Turkish Government works? -Splash 01:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is source material, not an encyclopedia article. It is not acceptable to start a long article with lengthy piece of non-neutral material, as it gives a massive advantage to the proponents of one point of view. Osomec 11:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name deserves an entry but the content doesn't. Simply posting government pronouncements is a bad precedent here. Marskell 12:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then re-create as Redirect to Foreign relations of Turkey - This entry is source material, whereas Foreign relations of covers a very similar field and at the very least is Wiki material rather than something copied off the Turkish Foreign Ministry's website. Work in this subject should go into developing Foreign relations of Turkey. mikedaventry 09:34, 16 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

Showare[edit]

This page is blatent commercial advertising. As such, it violates wikipedia policy. jmd 00:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirected. Radiant_>|< 09:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gilles Verland[edit]

Wrong spelling: must have been Verlant instead of Verland Chris 02:10, 14 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 a deletion review). 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_August_13&oldid=1081091566"