From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 16 July 18 >

July 17

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 00:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ignored Tsunami warning

First person account of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Appears to be original research. If not, it's more suitable for wikibooks than wikipedia. Pburka 00:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident. – Rich Farmbrough 17:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Hainan Island incident

Article exists as U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident. Monkeyman 00:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect. You don't need a VfD for that -- be WP:BOLD. Pburka 00:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If Monkeyman closes the VFD, I can go ahead and merge and redirect for him. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Removed VfD. Merge/Redirect pending per Zscout370. Thanks. Monkeyman 14:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
It has been merged. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous (talk) 00:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

General purpose registers

General purpose registers are adequately described (described better, in fact) in the Proccesor Register article. P0per 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect to Processor register. No VfD is required. Be WP:BOLD. Pburka 00:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- It is likely that people might search for this phrase in an encyclopedia. If the Processor Register article does not describe General Purpose Registers and their conventions thoroughly, then the topic would merit its own article. I believe the description in the Processor Register article is not as informative as the current article on the topic. Otherwise, make it a redirect, but not without merging the information into the other article. -- Mysidia 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, the information in the article is incorrect and misleading. The Processor register article is more accurate. Pburka 01:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The article on Processor registers misses a point that such registers may be used freely, i.e. the programmer can store data there. The distinction that makes a register general purpose or not is not specifically that it can store both values and addresses. If there is an inaccuracy, then it should be fixed, but having errors does not merit deletion. -- Mysidia 01:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • This is not an accurate definition of GPRs either, I don't believe: firstly, it is not the GPRs only that can be used "freely", secondly, the distinction between the kinds of registers as listed in Processor register (GPR vs FPR vs IR, etc.) truly is as described. Processor register is used as a general term referring to all kinds of registers so it seems that a more elaborate description of GPRs (e.g. of a size of this article) belongs in Processor register. I would agree that as a term, General purpose register (GPR) in some systems and in modern architectures is used more generically. As GPRs receive wider usage, the GPR topic may evolve. But then, it could be "sub-articled" later, right? So at this point I vote Merge and redirect to Processor register. -- Introvert talk 02:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect only to Processor register. If someone searches, someone finds, but someone finds better information. Geogre 03:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect; agree with Geogre jamesgibbon 12:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: if there is more to say it can fit in in Processor register, but the current article doesn't add anything that needs keeping. Hv 12:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 10:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Gloria Carter Spann

Sister of Jimmy Carter. Not notable in her own right. TheCoffee 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Immediate family of a U.S. President is borderline notability it its own right. Pburka 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, we keep first ladies, I mean all they did was be married to the president, no? Not to mention we keep the Kennedy and Bush political families... Redwolf24 01:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Revolución 02:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Family of presidents are not necessarily candidates for biographies. Let's see what's in this one. Hmmm, avoided getting in the news. Let's see...used to be a Hell's Angel? Really? You'd think someone would have said something about that during his presidency. Interesting that they didn't, isn't it? Had big parties for Hell's Angels? Wow. Another case of the press being too stupid to do a hatchet job, I guess. No citations, no verification? Isn't that fascinating? No indication that there is anything worth a bio, here. Geogre 03:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Seems to be borderline, but I think she's notable enough for inclusion. — Bcat ( talk | email) 03:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Redwolf24. --  BD2412 talk 04:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I learned that everybody in the Carter family (maybe not everybody but a lot of people) have died from pancreatic cancer. Thus, may we speculate President Carter will die from pancreatic cancer. Very encyclopedic. 24.1.97.187 04:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, direct family of (former) world leaders are either all notable enough or they should all be on a collective page. Lomedae 12:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, immediate family of Presidents have a very easy time becoming famous, but it doesn't automatically happen. Dcarrano 18:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough to warrant inclusion, however could be expanded.-- Irishpunktom\ talk 19:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable enough. JamesBurns 03:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Presidential families are notable and encyclopedic, pretty much by definition. Microtonal (Put your head on my shoulder) 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. First ladys are inherently notable not only because of their relation to the President, but for other initiatives. Virtually every first lady has been in the spotlight, for fundraising, socializing, or their own career. Not so with sisters who "shunned the spotlight". -- Scimitar parley 16:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Mrs. Spann was very much active in both campaign/elections for her brother, making numerous phone calls and mailings that she should be noted. Spann was also noted for her high standards of religion as was the standard of many other members of the Carter family. She also was a leading biker-girl for Harley Davidson riders and easily climbed the ranks long before her brother became president of the United States, so in a way, she actually was a popular person years before her brother was involved in public office. I think the article on Mrs. Spann should definitely be kept. I also noticed that much of the information in the article came from Carter's An Hour Before Daylight, which should be incorporated in a citation. Being the last sibling of the former president is also notable enough. There was an incident back in 1978 when Gloria was arrested for playing a harmonica in a cafe down in Plains, Ga, while brother Billy was having is own problems at or around the same time. Although it is said that Gloria Carter Spann shunned the spotlight, she was in a way actually forced to be in the spotlight. 11:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable within her own right, not borderline at all. Hall Monitor 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lillian Gordy Carter

Mother of Jimmy Carter. Not notable in her own right. TheCoffee 00:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Immediate family of a U.S. President is borderline notability it its own right. Pburka 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. Denni ☯ 01:25, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep, we keep first ladies, I mean all they did was be married to the president, no? Not to mention we keep the Kennedy and Bush political families... Redwolf24 01:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep My memory of the Carter years (confirmed by Google) is that Lillian Carter had significant notability and was used by the Carter administration on a number of diplomatic missions particularly to India.-- Porturology 01:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Memorable as mother of Jimmy Carter and is of some note both for her membership of the Peace Corps in Indiaat age 68 and her role as a nurse. A nursing school at Emory University is named after her. I will expand this article after lunch. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Revolución 02:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Send to clean up: There is no article here. This has birth and death dates and an indication that she was Jimmy Carter's mother. There is nothing in this article that couldn't be gotten by a redirect to Jimmy Carter. Unless it actually has a biography, it performs less than zero function on Wikipedia. Geogre 03:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She was prominent at the time, future generations will need to look her up. - EDM 03:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Have expanded article with biography and references. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Important person behind important person. She has been noted by many, including at least one president of the United States. The current wording of the article is as good or better than most the same type and size. -- rob 04:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster. --  BD2412 talk 04:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I would not automatically regard all close relatives of presidents as notable, but my recollection is that she did have a significant profile during her son's time as president. PatGallacher 11:13, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. Author as well as presidential mother. Almafeta 13:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Notability is personal, doesn't rub off to relatives. R adiant _>|< 13:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and PatGallacher. Dcarrano 18:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Inherently notable -- Irishpunktom\ talk 19:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think relatives of famous people are inherently notable, but she did enough to make the cut. Gamaliel 19:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Enough notability. JamesBurns 03:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Accomplishments in addition to being a relative of the president. -- Scimitar parley 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 00:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Scott m fisher, Scott M Fisher and BIO OF SCOTT M FISHER

(there is also a link in Fisher to be deleted)

Looks like a fairly large article focusing on a subject that is not as notable as it claims -- Mysidia 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Copy-and-paste of a non-notable individual's resume. - Thatdog 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both, resume dump. Dcarrano 03:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • An impressive CV, 2besure, but the Queen would still not salute him. Delete. Denni ☯ 03:58, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and on principle because of lack conformity to Wiki standards. -- RHaworth 06:32, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per RHaworth. Lomedae 12:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. IIRC, we've already deleted this article before. Almafeta 13:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Speedy Delete Vanity MicroFeet 00:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as blatant spam and vandalism. jni 07:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 00:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alaskan Fire Dragon (sex move)

Prank or non-notable neologism. No relevant hits for "Alaskan Fire Dragon" "icy hot", and the small number of hits for just "Alaskan Fire Dragon" (48 displayed, some of which are other uses, such as user IDs) have a couple different definitions. Niteowlneils 20:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I have heard of this practice and wonder at the significance of a lack of relevant hits on search engines. The dubious definitions found on Google are most notable for being ridiculous and impossible; it seems likely the stub is valid even if it's not well known.
  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 03:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Not verifiable on Google, but I've heard of it. The article is informative and correct. July 17, 2005
  • Delete: Vandalism/prank/hoax. Anonymous Cowards should stop writing comments. Go enjoy some coitus and stock up on the Icy Hot, but let this go. Unverified, slang, ideolect. Geogre 03:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. --  BD2412 talk 03:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Severe verifiability problems with this one. After all, anything to do with sex tends to get quite a lot of Google hits and a sexual practice that is not well known may also not be notable, apparent popularity with sock puppets notwithstanding. Capitalistroadster 03:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unverifiable and likely hoax. Sock-puppet tested, anonymous coward approved. Postdlf 10:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Postdlf Lomedae 12:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not to be confused with the far sexier Fuolornis Fire Dragon -- the wub "?/!" 14:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 00:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dinsdale 5th Avenue

Advert for non-notable company. Only claims to be 10 years old and privately held, and most of the other info isn't independently verifiable as "Dinsdale 5th Avenue" only gets 4 displayed hits, none of which provide any actual info about the company. Dinsdale "Advanced White Prescription" (the latter being one of their product names on their website) gets zero hits. Also may be self-promotion from the listing below. Niteowlneils 01:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This was previously speedied and has been recreated. Presumably the content is different this time, or it wouldn't have been speedied the first time. It seems mighty odd to me that a company with turnover in the millions gets only 4 Google hits...that would make it at best unverifiable, but $10m ought to be verifiable! - Splash 01:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax. Pburka 02:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as recreation of spam. This time it comes with a hoax to hide the spam. I nowiki'd the link (something we should do if there's even a suspicion of advertising). Geogre 03:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Nandesuka 17:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unverified/ad. -- Etacar11 23:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 00:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Samuel francis

Alledged non-notable CEO of non-notable Dinsdale 5th Avenue, above. Google can't verify the connection, but if his company isn't notable, and that's his biggest claim to fame, the he's not notable. Also may be self-promotion ( User:Samueldfrancis might want to take portions of the article(s) to his User page). Niteowlneils 01:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Hoax CEO of hoax company. Pburka 01:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Apparently a "web entrepeneur," if you know what I mean. No biography is warranted. Even if his company were spectacularly successful, there would be no indication that his biography is. Geogre 03:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I disagree with that statement, and so does Jeff Bezos. Founders of spectacularly successful companies are notable. But this individual is the founder of an unsuccesful nonexistent company. Pburka 14:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If all Bezos did was found the company, he'd not deserve a biography. However, he has done quite a lot. He has been one of the leading e-commerce cheerleaders, has innovated, has pioneered on-demand, etc. He deserves a biography because his biography is interesting and because he is referred to as a person by other sources. On the other hand, a man who hides in the shadows and runs things and just appears in trade magazines is famous only for the company, and only in the context of the company, and therefore would have his bio-article redirect to the company. Geogre 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with above comment. -- Msoos 11:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete under the same logic as deleting the Dinsdale 5th Avenue item. Nandesuka 17:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn vanity, plus unverified. -- Etacar11 00:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Samuel Francis, no opinion on deletion. Gazpacho 01:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 01:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Boobsquish

Neologism. Denni ☯ 01:22, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

  • That was a hilarious article. I've preserved it here. ‡ Jarlaxle 01:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bizzarity. - Splash 01:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete stupidity. Revolución 02:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Computer age version of (please tell me this link is red) Come in Tokyo. Geogre 03:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (no reason given, as user is speechless). --  BD2412 talk 04:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I nominated for speedy since I figured noone could conceivably vote to keep this content, with its own article no less, since it's obviously too important a term to even be added to something as common as internet slang even if it were to be kept. Funny nonetheless though. -- TheMidnighters 04:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that no sensible person could agree to keep this, but not everyone here is sensible. If you think this article should be a candidate for speedy deletion (it currently isn't), you may want to cast a vote in favor of some new speedy deletion proposals. Denni ☯ 04:40, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 04:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, bad dic def. - Mgm| (talk) 08:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Almafeta 13:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with WP:BJAODN. ~~~~ 14:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect mammogram. Delete. Niteowlneils 16:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I feel stupider just having read that. Nandesuka 17:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- had I been younger, I would have tried it. -- Bhadani 18:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nonsense. jni 07:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, cruft that will never become a dicdef. Garrett Talk 10:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 15:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 01:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Barrett

Delete? Simple paste from IMDB. Copyvio too? PhilipO 02:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Obvious copyvio, look at the history too, hes the writer! Redwolf24 02:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Copyvio, vanity, non-notable trifecta. Good find! - Thatdog 02:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete confirmed copyvio. I added a notice to the page. Tobycat 06:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • When doing so, be sure to complete the process: the text should be blanked (otherwise its still in violation) and the page needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I've just done both things. - Splash 07:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing!-- Peterloud 13:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 01:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

IVDiffusion

Band vanity. Google [3] never heard of them. Delete. -- Marcika 21:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Good advice: take that unique sound to a record label, get a little more exposure, then come back. Until that happens- delete-- Scimitar 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria at all. Tobycat 06:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)\ reply
  • Delete Gutsy but misguided. Lomedae 12:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Friday 20:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn band vanity. -- Etacar11 00:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 03:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 10:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ian St. John (historian)

Vanity page. — 12.207.151.144 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Keep: a valid page about an interesting author, who shows much promise. Setokaiba 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Keep: an encyclopedic page with information on a valid author and historian Newmhost 11:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteAbstain temporarily. The book the article claims he coauthored is here, only he didn't coauthor it according to Amazon. Thus no claim to notability. High school teachers are not inherently notable (even if their school apparently always must be), and the list of unpublished things doesn't count. The journal publications fail the professor test, too and are likely just those he got as part of his PhD. - Splash 07:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Amazon have updated their listing, although I wonder why his name is not on the cover. User talk:Newmhost contains a message saying that his name does appear on the title page of the book however.
  • Delete per Splash. -- KFP 08:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete I was going to vote to keep on the grounds that he wrote a biography of Kinnock, an important figure, but it looks as if he didn't. PatGallacher 11:22, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

I have looked at new information put forward, and the Amazon site, I see him on UK Amazon but can't find this book on US Amazon. I still sense something fishy about this, at most he played a secondary role helping Westlake, who is an established writer of books on recent British and European politics, outside his normal field of 19th century British politics. Not very notable, still delete. PatGallacher 08:43, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like CV embellishment indeed. With verified contribution to the biography it migth be different. As it is, non-notable fraud. Lomedae 12:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have heard of him. Its unlikely to be him creating the article. Delete The one I have heard of is Ian St. John ~~~~ 20:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete questionable notability/verifiability. -- Etacar11 00:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Ok, Amazon now lists him as co-author of the book, but I still don't think he's notable enough. -- Etacar11 17:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I'm struggling a bit here too. He's listed as a co-author, but not on the cover of the book. What did he do? And Amazon aren't the only ones who make the authorship mistake, either, which could just be a publisher's error I suppose. - Splash 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable, possible vanity hoax. JamesBurns 03:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable. Elfguy 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Renata3 08:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Complex plane. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Imaginary plane

Finishing this old nomination, no vote. -- Dmcdevit· t 02:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this should be amended as it seems to be a defination of an imaginary point and not a plane. It also dosen't explain what imaginary numbers are, so placing the defination in context. (preceding unsigned comment by Tarazis 18:01, June 21, 2005 UTC)

  • It's a ... er ... real term used in both relativity and fractals, albeit that these are somewhat of an abuse given that apparently it is either the complex plane or the imaginary axis that is in fact meant when "imaginary plane" is used. This article doesn't describe any of this, though, describing as it does an imaginary part instead. Unless this sort of imaginary plane is worth writing about (What could one say that would be verifiable?), a redirect to complex number seems to be the most edifying. Uncle G 04:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Having looked at those references, in the first article, the term "imaginary plane" is being used to refer to a plane that is just a thought-experiment; one for the sake of the argument. The second article uses loose mathematical langauge, but the full quote from the article is "real and imaginary plane" which is a viable (if odd) way to refer to the complex plane (this is occasionally called the real-imaginary plane), and so does not really refer to the "imaginary plane" of this article. The Google hits all seem to be non-existent planes rather than mathematical terminologies, too, from their summaries. - Splash 04:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Imaginary number (or to complex number, if mathemeticians think that the better option). --  BD2412 talk 04:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, in mathematics at least, there is no such thing as "the imaginary plane"; it's just some teenager misunderstanding a maths lesson, I think. The content that is here does not need merging, it held already in the various article earlier voters have cited. - Splash 04:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to complex plane. "Imaginary plane" is a conflation of "complex plane" and "imaginary number". I can see that someone else might make the same mistake. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Complex plane. JamesBurns 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. This was an advance fee fraud letter (sample contents: "My name is Mrs. Fizah Hassani Ibrahim from Iraq." "I will issue you a letter of authority that will empower you as the original-beneficiary of this fund.") masquerading as an article, with no history. I've deleted it under CSD criterion G3. Although, strictly, this stretches the criterion somewhat, I suspect that the community will not object. Uncle G 03:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Indian Muslim Association

Delete This looks like an email scam, copy-pasted onto a page. -- Icelight 17:56, July 11, 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: speedied. Dmcdevit· t 05:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Information site

Finishing this old nomination that was never put in the log. -- Dmcdevit· t 02:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Article has no content and appears to be a query

  • Speedy, content is "I want to search about Samarians houses" -- the wub (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. And added it to BJAODN. Woohookitty 07:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Hornery

Delete!! Absolute rubbish. Enochlau 03:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Tom Cruise Blog

Delete. WP is not a web directory. Gamaliel 03:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It has a rather substantial hitcount on Google. No less significant than an article on Natalee Holloway. The Peacemaker 03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We've got plenty of blogs already on Wiki; one more won't hurt. Jeus
  • Delete. 120 google hits [4] for a blog seems quite low. Pburka 03:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I don't care how many blogs there are on Wikipedia. The proliferation of evil is no mediation of it, nor can anyone (and I'm getting tired of this) extrapolate from an instance to a class. Some blogs are leaders, forerunners, innovators, and some are just the weekly mass-forwarded e-mail ha-ha. This one is of the latter class, and we know this a number of ways. The first is that the article's text has irregular line forms indicating a paste from some other source. The second is that it's already out of date. Wikipedia is not Giggles 'n Grins for the AOL set. Geogre 03:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am normally reasonably inclusionist on blogs. However, a Google search [6] indicates that the blog has not achieved a wide degree of fame despite being about one of the most famous people in the world. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, being a blog about someone famous doesn't make you famous. It clearly hasn't, either, given the Google hits. - Splash 05:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. tregoweth 06:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to go with Delete on this one. The blog, apparently, is not as famous as the name. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 07:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. — Lowellian ( talk) 10:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Lomedae 12:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, surely adequately notable jamesgibbon 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable blog. Dcarrano 17:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Jeus mentions, there are many other blogs on Wikipedia. With time, this blog's notoriety will grow. -- Judson 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We've got blogs on Drudge, Rosie, and a host of other celebs. I say let it stay. Besides that, it's actually pretty funny. Avivle 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN. The article doesn't even include any claim to notability. -- A D Monroe III 00:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable blog. JamesBurns 07:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable. Xoloz 17:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable. Elfguy 17:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Real
blogs are seldom notable, I don't see why a parody would be any better. Ephemeral to boot. I mean, what happens next month when Tom and Katie break up? -
R. fiend 20:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
  • Keep. Next month you just make the article past tense. HTH. Grace Note 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Indrian 16:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nominator -- Neigel von Teighen 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Few blogs are notable. This isn't one. - Willmcw 23:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

International economic law

Advertisement for a university course. Delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 03:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect to international law (which is largely economic anyway). --  BD2412 talk 04:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I strongly disagree with BD2412, as international law comes not even close to being "largely" economic. I feel this warrants a separate article. But not the badly written & formatted advert it is now. -- Lomedae 12:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but let the redlinks stand. Article is blatant advertising. I have no objection to a proper article being written later on with the same title. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 10:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Investools

Finishing an old nom. -- Dmcdevit· t 03:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 10:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

List of songs about politicians

Unmaintainable list of questionable value. It has potential to attract large numbers of songs created before elections from all over the world or propaganda songs from communist countries. These are interesting as phenomenon, not individually. Pavel Vozenilek 03:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I like the concept, it fits in with the rest of the songs lists, will be of value to anyone trying to look up a song relating to some politician that they're writing a report or presentation on, or a song that they simply liked. CanadianCaesar 04:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and perhaps rename it List of notable songs about contemporary politicians to address nominator Pavel Vozenilek's concerns). ~~~~ 06:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting phenomenon. Kappa 11:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, legitimate article. Are there all that many songs written about politicians, or were there many in the Soviet bloc countries? PatGallacher 11:26, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the concept. Lomedae 12:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. Most lists of songs aren't encyclo but this one has a point. R adiant _>|< 13:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting phenomenon and its targets deserve it. -- Shaddack 15:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, social commentary is an important part of rock music history. Dcarrano 17:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 21:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep most lists. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I've split this into categories. So, now suppose this list goes out of control (although I doubt it will): What's stopping us from having break-out articles? Wikipedia is not paper. CanadianCaesar 20:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - very interesting ! I'm sorry , that this site is offline , where they have presented 50 songs praising Joseph Stalin ;-) MutterErde 07:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sure, its value is questionable, but it really isn't too bad. While I hate the "one bad article justifies another" argument, we do have much worse lists here. I do think time spent on lists like this could better be spent elsewhere, but who am I to tell people what to work on? - R. fiend 17:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 07:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The nerd who ate st.louis

A web search gives 12 results, seems to be another non-notable band. -- Mysidia 04:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete bandcruft. Friday 04:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn bandthing. Gets 12 Google hits and nothing on allmusic.com - Splash 05:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's two on my street... -- Wetman 05:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable band. Entry looks to be written by a 12-year old. Lomedae 12:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. Plus its just one long run-on sentence. -- Etacar11 00:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; brilliant name. Pity its bandcruft. Fernando Rizo 01:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 07:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 00:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Youhei Shimizu

Not encyclopedic, non-notable. A google search turns up lyrics from a song apparently by Youhei Shimizu. No other notable information. P0per 04:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete -- the article as-is is not nearly sufficient in content to explain what is meant by the title of the article, let-alone its significance. -- Mysidia 04:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, I have no idea what that is supposed to be, but whatever it is, it has vanishingly little context so could almost be speedied as a new user test or something. - Splash 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Cleanup if he's a game-music producer. Else, delete. -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, notable game-music producer. Kappa 11:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Cleanup Just because Bemani is unknown to many people (inluding me BTW) doesn't neccesarily mean it's unnotable or should be deleted. Case of trigger-happy vfd-scouts :) Apparently the guy in question is famous in the genre. It does need some cleanup and pehaps information why he got his own page instead of being just a mention on List of Bemani musicians. Lomedae 12:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep jamesgibbon 15:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Cleanup. Obscure does not mean not noteworthy, and he does have published works. But the article itself needs a lot of work. Nandesuka 17:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article doesn't even explain who he is. Why is this a biography? Why isn't this just a name mentioned in the context of an article on the music? Then note that the people who vote keep on all game music still can't be bothered to improve any articles, and we have a situation where even the fans don't want to lift a finger to help out, so it's highly unlikely that this incomprehensible mess will ever get better. Vote on the article, not the topic. Geogre 20:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 22:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Exactly, and that is why this is a clear delete. Of course, if fans believed in it, they could try to keep it from being such a patent deletion guideline violator. Apparently, though, they're not interested in that. They're only interested in keeping weak stuff, so long as it satisfies their own hobbies. Some of us save articles that should otherwise be deleted. Others just insist that the process not go forward. Geogre 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • If an article satifies someone's own hobbies, it obviously has some value, and should be kept and left for the wiki process to improve. Unfortunately some people use Vfd to try to force improvement from those who have no special knowledge or interest in the topic, but are doing their best to preserve wikipedia's value against those who would remove almost everything that makes it a useful resource. Kappa 10:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, the fact that it satisfies someone's hobby makes it perfect for Everything2.com, but not an encyclopedia. This is particularly true when we start insisting that not only should the favorite tune be covered, but that the author get a "biography" that consists of...the tunes! Then that there be an article about a variation, then another about the co-writer, then the company, etc. All spiralling out because it is the hobbyist's hobby to collect trivia. Hobbies are private entertainments, while encyclopedias are public references. Some people mistake the "anyone can edit" for "centered around You." The fact that anyone can edit doesn't mean that all possible desires and interests are equally appropriate. Geogre 16:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • The article wasn't created by me, but it informs me more about who creates music for music games, a topic which I happen to be interested in. So I can't really understand the "private entertainment" concept. If wikipedia isn't here to satisfy people's interests and desires for information, what is it for exactly? Kappa 21:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 07:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep This "article" is very sub-par, but 1600 Google hits suggests some notability. Xoloz 17:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable and encyclopedic. Google has plenty of hits!!!-- GrandCru 03:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. VfD is not cleanup. Instead of listing this, why not make a stub about the guy? Grace Note 03:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 11:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Repertoire

Just a dicdef. Already one more rigorous at Wiktionary. Denni ☯ 04:47, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

  • Abstain We're to vote on dictionary definitions? -- Wetman 05:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete dicdef and not expandable to some other form. Already done by Wiktionary. - Splash 07:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Kappa 11:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per User:Splash -- malathion talk 14:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, agree with Splash jamesgibbon 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Splash. Dcarrano 17:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yep, just a dicdef. Friday 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 07:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Iris oliver

A non-notable Republican and Midwesterner. Joyous (talk) 01:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete everything with an amateur picture of the subject AND a lowercase surname. And delete the image too. - Splash 05:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as per Splash. Lomedae 12:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Clear vanity page. Nandesuka 17:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • For the record, I did not vote speedy delete since vanity is not a candidate under the current rules. - Splash 19:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn rampant vanity. Yes, Splash, the picture is always telling... -- Etacar11 00:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 try to edit it. Woohookitty 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Anglo-saxon hunting

Please either help me edit this piece or delete it. I wrote this, it is original research. CelineDionFan82 04:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • CommentThis is a lie, check the edit history. CelineDionFan82 is a probable sock puppet of Musachachado, a persistant vandal. See WP:VIP Casito⇝ Talk 05:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Actually, Casito is slightly wrong here. The persistent vandal Musachachado/CelineDionFan82/SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem etc. did in fact upload this text as an anon (you can tell because the IP also engages in Musachachado-style vandalism of Swiss cheese). This makes this highly suspicious article a very likely copyvio or original research.-- Pharos 05:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment4.174.3.171 is a Dial-up connection from orlando1.level3.net, the ISP that this troll uses, so I agree that it is probably an anon connection from him. That being said, speedy delete per author's request dosn't apply to articles created by a sockpuppet, so I think he is still being deceitful in his request. - Casito⇝ Talk 18:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Are you so dense that you cannot possibly fathom a world where people are not pure vandals or pure angels? Just because I had some fun when I was new to this system doesn't mean that I'm utterly incapable of stringing more than two words together for non-spoof purposes. I'm sure by now you've read my rational and helpful contributions to Hearsay and the Best Evidence Rule, for instance. If you've been stewing at home analysing my modus operandi for as long as it seems you have, I am sure you can tell that this article in controversy is written in the same tone as many of the edits you have denounced. I posted this as a test and need it either 'wikified' or otherwise edited, or if not, then deleted. --Oh, by the way, I just hit the "swiss cheese" article again, for old time's sake. SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 06:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Look, the great majority of your edits have been have been vandalistic, and you have misrepresented yourself a number of times (through sockpuppets etc.). But I've looked over the article again and agree you likely did write it; it is certainly in your style. However, if you wish to make valid contributions to Wikipedia, you must abandon vandalism entirely; otherwise everything you do will be suspect. I hope you can come over your vandalism penchant, and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia.-- Pharos 18:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Article history says otherwise. Abstain drini ☎ 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment By god! A speedy delete tag, VfD tag, neutrality dispute, factual accuracy dispute, Wikisource request, cleanup request, and a Wikify request all in one article! This may be a new record. I'm not judging the article because I haven't read it, but for one article that's a lot of unfortunate tags. CanadianCaesar 06:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I got rid of the speedy tag, because it is plainly not a candidate. I'm not sure how to vote though. Is this info already elsewhere? If not, we should keep it, but it needs proper referencing to make sure it isn't an essay. - Splash 07:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Actually, I think it's quite a good and interesting article, although maybe it could do with wikification. I see no attempt to justify the NPOV and accuracy flags on the talk page. PatGallacher 11:31, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup although article isn't in that bad shape at the moment but needs verification. I don't have any concern about NPOV with this. Capitalistroadster 13:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 14:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be shown that the article isn't original research. Alleged original author indicates that it is. Pburka 15:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to drini, yes I am the author of this piece. I posted this article when I was brand-new to wikipedia, and didn't have a user name yet. I put it on here more as practice than anything. The problem is, I realised that it is not wikified, etc...and my source list got wiped out. I do remember most of the primary sources I used however. (see this article's talk page if you will). It is "orginal research" in that I worked with primary sources and wrote my own article, but not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense in that I am not propounding any radical or non-traditonal view of the subject. All assertions herein are based in primary source material within a framework of knowledge gleaned from peer-reviewed secondary sources and education. This might be a good article, but I need your guys' help in editing it and making it more "wiki" friendly. As it is now, I am no longer sure it has a place here. thanks. CelineDionFan82 16:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's original research, alright. It's also highly POV and based on ghosts of information. Take it from the author, the article really doesn't belong. It shows signs of being in service of some other agenda, or at least being ready for one, and it would be pretty easy to punch holes in it from a historical point of view. I hope I don't need to do that here to be believed that the holes exist, that the article is not encyclopedic. If you don't believe me, ask any other medievalist. Geogre 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. CelineDionFan82 ( talk · contribs) = Musachachado ( talk · contribs) = 4.174.3.171 ( talk · contribs). As far as I can see, they are all the same troll, feigning ignorance and trying to create trouble. The clear contrast between this article and the other contributions leads me to believe this is probably a copyvio, and hardly trustworthy in any case.-- Pharos 21:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Simply clean the article up and edit it into sections. -- Judson 22:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — it's notable and of some historical interest. — RJH 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. This article is the only significant text contribution of a persistent vandal who has been banned; the text is very likely a copyvio or original research.-- Pharos 04:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Comment'. This is not a copyright violation. I wrote this article; it is part of a series I did contrasting Roman Law, Feudal Law, and Germanic Tribal Law for my Baccalaureate Degree. I nominated it for deletion since it didn't fit the wikipedia format; but with all the help its getting, it is looking very nice. Thanks for all 4.171.117.135 04:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: This is coming from a banned user, a troll and a vandal that must post anonymously. I would not believe anything this person says.-- Pharos 05:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Follow up: I find it very unfortunate that you have to resort to such name-calling simply out of your jealousy at my superior intellect. I have a MA in medieval history from Boston College (which is actually the foremost institution in America to study early medieval history) and a JD (Law Degree) from NYU. I have made several significant contributions to legal articles here under the username CelineDionFan82. Look them up. Furthermore, does this article look like vandalism or a spoof? Just for the record, I was blocked for "sock puppetry," for which I have apologised, and NOT for any "vandalism" or "trolling." SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
          • WP:Civility. Also, please note that accusations of sock-puppetry are well warranted in this context, given that you have used multiple user names on this page itself. Xoloz 07:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if sourced. It's a well written article given the controversial nature of its origins but possibly still worthy for an encyclopedia. JamesBurns 08:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Cleanup notable topic with potential for expansion. Xoloz 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless sourced. Worthwhile topic, but this version is unsourced. Is this a term paper? - Willmcw 23:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Early Muslim medicine. – AB C D ✉ 17:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Islamic medicine

Listing this nom that was never put in the logs. No vote. -- Dmcdevit· t 05:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments only - no vote: Is the writer trying to say something about Unani medicine"? -- Bhadani 18:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Redirec to Early Muslim medicine.-- Irishpunktom\ talk 19:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Notable historical relevance. — RJH 23:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand: notable historical relevance, but the intent of the article on Early Muslim medicine seems to be different from the two examples that the author gives. These seem to be more in line with the contents of this article from NIH. The first article is about scripture based medical systems, the second about the beginnings of scientific medicine. They are both historically notable, but distinct. Bambaiah 10:24, July 18, 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 'redirect to Hamas. Will do so. Woohookitty 19:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Islamic state in Palestine

I have put this article up for deletion because it seems very redundant. There are already too many articles about Palestine and one about an "Islamic state in Palestine" can just be included somewhere else. Heraclius 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

  • Keep Not really. The more detail the better. Agreed, it needs to be organised, but this seems like a good enough topic, if maybe needing a little merging or renaming (but actually this seems to be a good place for the topic) - also add it as a subsection (probably big enough not to warrant merger, I think) as Proposals for a Palestinian state.... -- Natalinasmpf 06:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Hamas - it is their slogan and have this as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hamas, anything legitimate can be dealt with there. PatGallacher 11:37, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hamas Heraclius 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as per PatGallacher. Lomedae 12:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hamas. Dcarrano 18:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hamas, nothing to merge. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 19:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - reduce Mideast conflict-cruft. - Mustafaa 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article should mention Amin al-Husayni and many others (not only HAMAS-related) who dreamed and still dreams to create Islamic state in Palestine. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 09:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
So you've changed your mind from your comment on the talk page then? Heraclius 14:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Thanks for reminding me about my naïvete, Heraclius. Yes, I did change my mind after learning about the danger and the history. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 07:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. I agree with Natalinasmpf and Humus sapiens on this one. Tomer TALK 01:35, July 19, 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. – AB C D ✉ 17:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The dreads

Google search for them turns up nothing. No substance in article to be notable P0per 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • delete drini ☎ 06:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Band vanity. -- Marcika 11:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Contender for making the most errors in a one-sentence article? Non-notable. Lomedae 12:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Friday 16:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Adun 22:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. And gratuitous non-use of the shift key. -- Etacar11 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete all. – AB C D ✉ 17:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Hesitant, Hasanist, Hasanity, Hesitancy

All four pages are (or were) remarkably similar and created by the same editor. Hoax and a non-notable neologism. At best, blatant (and needless) repetition in all four pages and already covered in weak atheism. Motive being vanity, perhaps. Some were, at this moment just redirected to the last one, hesitancy, which the editor blanked. Delete all four. -- Natalinasmpf 05:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 01:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Islamic Term

This is not needed as a more comprehensive list of Islamic Terms can be found at the wikipage List of Islamic terms in Arabic. freestylefrappe 05:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not precise enough to warrant a redirect. And the real list seems dic-deffy anyway, though the many editors of such a long page will probably not like my saying so. -- Dmcdevit· t 05:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Islamic terms in Arabic, why not. Dcarrano 18:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Guys, the point of this article is not to list all terms, rather to show that some terms also have a literla meaning. that aspect of the article would be lost if it would be merged in the bigger one. Is there any way to keep that aspect and make it more encyclopedic?

what if whe rename it to "Islamic Terms with dual meaning" ?

-- Striver 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Or maybe Words denoting both a literal meaning and a Islamic Term ?

Suggestions? How do whe make a article name that illuminates that subject?

-- Striver 22:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I think all of the article's points about double meaning (technical vs. everyday) can (and even should) be mentioned in List of Islamic terms in Arabic; why duplicate effort? Merge and Redirect. - Mustafaa 23:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Alright, if that aspect is explained in the begining of the article, im all for merging!

-- Striver 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete a list of dicdefs, as per Dmcdevit. JamesBurns 08:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no standard for why these terms are included and other are not. There is an Arabic language page. Useless page. Amicuspublilius 23:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see the vfd for * List of Arabic phrases freestylefrappe 22:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

No vote -- but, make sure to move it to Islamic term if it gets a keep. gren 04:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete It should be merged with the "List of Islamic terms in Arabic." The "List of Islamic terms in Arabic" is needed as a quick reference, and this other list is eating away at the other list. Those terms are already in the master list, so this entry "Islamic Term" should be merged/redirected to the master list. -- JuanMuslim 05:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 01:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Piblic Physics 3.14, The Public Physics, The Public Physics, Too?

Triple boxed set by non-notable band. Also, see VFD for the actual band Math Blaster. Madchester 05:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 19:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Jackpot (private club)

Nominator seems to have put their reason for deletion on the talk page, not here, so I've copied it to the VfD subpage. -- Dmcdevit· t 05:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Blatant advertising? Does it really belong in an enclyclopaedia? There are lots of pubs and clubs near me too, but I don't think it's particular relevant to give them Wiki pages. -- user:Matt.whitby

  • Delete this advertising, especially if they can't even spell Raleigh. -- Dmcdevit· t 05:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a very private bar, if it's listed on Wikipedia. -- Madchester 05:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why this should be listed is beyond me. Lomedae 12:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advet Billhpike 16:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3  talk 19:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Grívf

No assertion of notability under WP:MUSIC and I could not find anything useful after a quick googling. And its very rare for an upstart band to get sudden notability. Delete. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 05:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no verifiable material, and no presence at allmusic.com so non-notable too. - Splash 07:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Marcika 12:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete <sigh> Why do they even try? Non-notable. Lomedae 12:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. And what is funeral doom? -- Etacar11 00:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

James Clement Jr

Nominator never listed this in the logs (which explains the baffled comment below); I'm doing so now. -- Dmcdevit· t 05:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete short (2 line) vanity page, untouched for months, not linked to from anywhere about a non-notable person. Josh Parris ✉ 04:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
And so obscure that in two weeks no-one else has supported or opposed the deletion. Josh Parris ✉ 00:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete . -- AI 29 June 2005 00:01 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is listed in 10 categories. More than the pope I guess. Vanity. Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
  • Delete As per above. In category "Knob ends"? How immature can you get? Lomedae 12:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nominator. I have not moved the page as suggested in some votes since 1) there is no consensus to do so, and it only requires someone to be bold in future anyway and 2)it already has a merge tag on it. - Splash 20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Japanese imperialism

This was never listed here. -- Dmcdevit· t 05:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

What he meant is the VfD proposal was not properly done (tagged on July 8) and he is just listing it here for discussion. SYSS Mouse 22:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Why delete? The deletion seems politically motivated. Japan was formerly an empire, and has annexed foreign territory through out its history. Why is this not significant? There is a similar list for US, British and other European imperialism. Should Wikipedia have double standards????
Keep Nationalism is a different concept than imperialism. I don't think nationalism shold be a catch all for everyting.
  • Keep'; terrible article but no reason to delete. -- Taku 21:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Exactly, "why delete"? Not even a reason given with this, I say it should be kept but expanded heavily to be useful. 84.137.0.178 07:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect until someone decides to actually write an article about the concept of imperialism by Japan....listing countries having experienced it won't do. -- Natalinasmpf 06:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand/clean-up. Needs significant work but Japanese imperialism is different from Empire of Japan as there are some imperialists still active in the far right in Japan. It is consistent with treatment of imperialism in other countries. Having said this, Empire of Japan is the most logical merge proposal. Capitalistroadster 07:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The type of person who'd advocate removal of this article is the same who'd rather suppress images of Nazi Germany, or Japanese internment camps in the US for that matter. There's no benefit to concealing the mistakes of the past, regardless of your native country's involvement.
  • Keep legitimate article athough it could be improved. Exactly what we mean by Imperialism is of course controversial, but I think a lot of people would accept that it means more than just nationalism, or the ruler assuming the title of emperor. Actually, I would say Japan is the one non-white imperialist power, which is POV, but as this is a significant school of thought it deserves mention. Whether Japanese imperialism has some specific features not found in European or US imperialism could make an interesting article. PatGallacher 11:46, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and rename to history of Japanese imperalism, per Lowellian and PatGallacher. Dcarrano 17:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and rename to history of Japanese imperalism. Jeltz talk 20:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To clarify, the VfD tag was added 8 May by User:Amerinese, who also tagged Chinese imperialism on the same day; and hasn't subsequently contributed. Frivolous nomination, really. Charles Matthews 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Amerinese has long since been blocked for deceptive sockpuppetry. The VfD tag was probably part of whatever crusade he was on at the time. -- MarkSweep 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, cleanup and rename to history of Japanese imperalism. Ravedave 21:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep of course. Gee, you'd think this might have had an impact on Asia. Could be renamed history of Japanese imperalism. 142.66.50.69 22:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup - important topic, but a list is not adequate. - Mustafaa 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep encyclopedic and notable topic. JamesBurns 08:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Very encyclopedic; there's plenty of useful information here!-- GrandCru 03:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Cleanup. SYSS Mouse 22:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/source. Important topic, appears to be "internally sourced" from other Wikipedia articles.- Willmcw 23:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Gamaliel 06:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Eric_Powley

Vanity, nn. Fallstorm 06:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete speedy -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 05:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete joke. drini ☎ 06:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Joyous (talk) 01:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Toonarific Cartoon Archive

Very likely to be Vanity. Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 05:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Agree. Delete drini ☎ 06:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Fallstorm 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • "The largest animation reference on the internet" has Alexa #188,361? I'm sure it's a fun site, but delete. Dcarrano 18:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • More MascotGuy sub-trivia. Delete. tregoweth 22:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 08:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Zemsky's Corporation

Vanity, nn, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zemsky's Corporation/1 for the previous VfD on the exact same article. Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 05:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Speedy for recreation of a deleted article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted and replaced with a proper page move -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Wrangler Jeans

Author cut-and-pasted article from Wrangler (Jeans) and made the old page redirect. Not necessary for this article; don't think it qualifies for speedy. Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notable brand of jeans and this is a better name for them. Capitalistroadster 07:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep one and delete the other Doesn't really matter which one to keep, but one of them should be. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 07:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep under this better title, make the other a redirect to it, as we can not delete it without destroying the original edit history (which must be preserved under the GFDL). --  BD2412 talk 14:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with BD, Keep this one and redirect Wrangler (Jeans) to Wrangler Jeans. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 17:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete->Move->Restore->Merge. This is the better title. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I always speedy these clones on sight (which I've done). I agree that the page is currently poorly named and this is a better name. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 07:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Jay Naylor

Vanity-- BMIComp (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic, vanity. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete drini ☎ 06:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Jay Naylor is a notable artist, but this is only covering his work as a webcomic artist; we gain nothing by keeping these two sentences. Almafeta 13:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 08:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, the article had just been vandalized. - Splash 20:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Adam Beck

Vanity article, created by the same person who did Memoirs of Walter Bruce, which is also up for deletion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete vanity. drini ☎ 06:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Keep now it's fixed. Friday 06:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vanity, bordering on spamvert. Lomedae 12:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oy, delete. Oy, don't delete. -- Calton | Talk 13:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article had simply been vandalized! I have reverted it to the good version, so this VFD is completely unnecessary now. Adam Bishop 14:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep the reverted version. Always check history before nominating an article for deletion! Pburka 15:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I see it now, sorry about that folks. Speedy keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Agree - withdraw the VfD. - Willmcw 23:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Joyous (talk) 01:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Published research supporting or dismissing iridology

Delete. All the information on the page was long ago merged with iridology. Edwardian 06:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.. Joyous (talk) 01:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Red-Lite (Afterhour)

This is a non-notable business in Laval, Quebec. I suppose it would be a useful article if one wanted to know where to go use illegal drugs in Laval. Seriously though, this is far far from encyclopedic. Tobycat 06:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

FYI, Red-Lite redirects to the above article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 06:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete (author of the article) Alright, delete it. I changed my mind. -- Hort Azeglio --
  • Keep notable club on the DJ circuit (judging by google - Armand Van Helden just played there), and looks like it may now be the top club in Montreal. Other clubs like Ministry of Sound have pages. -- Simon.Pole 08:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or put in Wikitravel. R adiant _>|< 13:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable music venue. Capitalistroadster 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no assertion of notability. We've got plenty of bars here that known people have played at, this does not automatically extend notability to the bar. For those asserting notability, how about putting some evidence of that in the article? Friday 16:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. non notable, encourages illegal behaviour. Elfguy 17:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE or merge into the Laval, Quebec article. 132.205.3.20 18:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. -- Death phoenix 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 there some rewriting and cleanup may be in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

List of chancellors and other leaders of US universities

This is one of those useless, neverending lists. There are thousands of colleges in the US. Each of these colleges has its president/chancellor in its own article. Anyone remember List of all cities in the United States or List of every mayor in the World? GoCardinal 06:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Maybe it would be better made into a category? -- Dmcdevit· t 07:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The point of the list, associating chancellors with their colleges, doesn't seem possible in a category. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:31, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
      • It's a good point, and why I asked, and didn't vote. Hmm... Can't make up my mind on this one. -- Dmcdevit· t 06:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Dmcdevit. Inasmuch as some of these guys have articles, Categorize. CanadianCaesar 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As the original creator of this article, lemme explain: there once was an article called List of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors which had started as a badly-titled list of British chancellors & vice-chancellors, and had grown by the addition of various assorted additions from around the world. I cleaned it up and rationalized it, a major part of which was spinning off national pages. The other countries' lists, I think you'll find, are fairly well-formed; obviously the US one was grossly inadequate. But I was just cleaning up; I didn't want to delete people's work peremptorially. Now that it comes down to it, is this article is just bad, needing improvement; or hopeless, needing deleting? I dunno right now; I gotta get some sleep. Abstain. Doops | talk 07:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unmaintainable. R adiant _>|< 13:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but if and only if the following is done:
    1. sub-divide into separate articles by state or by region;
    2. change from "chancellors and other leaders" to "highest ranking officials", as most U.S. universities are headed by a president or a dean;
    3. change "US" to "U.S.", as it is not an acronym.
  • Keep Contains useful links and bound to improve over time (and I mean years; it bemuses me when people say an article must make giant strides during the eyeblink of a vfd debate or we should give up on it). CalJW 15:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: useless list. A category would be appropriate. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Abstain. I don't know what to do with this article. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unmaintainable and would work better as a category. Kaibabsquirrel 00:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I can't think of a remotely plausible reason to delete this article. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 06:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with move to List of American university leaders (currently a redirect to this page). A category, as noted, wouldn't cut it. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:38, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Important Notice to all who suggest that this page would work better as a category: please explain how. It is not intuitively clear how a two-dimensional list could be represented by a category. That is to say, a one-dimensional list of universities could easily be replaced by a category; but this list is really a table insofar as it associates insitutions with people. How could a category do that? Thank you very much. Doops | talk 03:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jay S. Stroud

Delete. Non notable - already got this information in Tabor Academy. Spaully 10:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable school administrator. Dcarrano 18:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, unnecessary if it's in the school article. -- Etacar11 00:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable administrator. JamesBurns 08:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP., even if I discount the anon IP votes. Tagged for expansion. - Splash 20:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Mercury outboard motors

Simply advertising a company - maclean25 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The same could be said of many acceptable entries, including The Ford Motor company. The fact remains that this is a company with an interesting history and substantial long-term impact upon the boating and fishing industries. While the article is short and could be a good deal more complete, I don't think it fair to delete it so hastily as mere advertising. We're not talking about an internet casino here.

  • Keep and expand. Notable company with reasonable history. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Notable company. -- KFP 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Cleanup. Why does no one vote Cleanup anymore? The company is quite notable, but the current article does not meet Wikipedia standards. Niteowlneils 16:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. At least where I'm from, Mercs are very common. P0per 19:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to parent company Brunswick Corporation until there's enough to merit a separate article. - Willmcw 00:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Considering there are no articles for "outdrive" or "stern drive" let alone on any of Mercury or MercCruiser's competitors, what little information exists on the category of marine propulsion in Wikipedia would be poorly served by deleting this article.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

M-Team

Delete this band does not assert any qualification in WP:MUSIC or other notability. Friday 06:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per Friday. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 17:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Friday. Dcarrano 18:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed. I found this while speedying Latino Muslim as a broken redirect to Latino Muslims. The only inbound link is from here. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The M-Team listing can be found at List of Muslims at The Various Arts -> Entertainers. Most well-known, accomplished Muslims are simply not listed, because they aren't very vocal, crazy - you know they haven't made the evening news. And as for those who are included in the List of Muslims, you simply cannot judge by your own standards because most Muslims who are listed are unrecognized by non-Muslims. It is unfortunate that any popular Christian, Jewish, or Muslim music group could be deleted easily. -- JuanMuslim 20:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment Very few religious music groups would fit into the qualifications put forth on the link you provided. However, many religious music groups of all faiths do continue to maintain a presence on Wikipedia. M-Team is the first Latino Muslim hip hop group. They are pioneers in the Muslim hip hop genre. -- JuanMuslim 12:39, July 18, 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. Joyous (talk) 01:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Tourist Engineer

An article created by the webmaster of the Tourist Engineer wiki site. It's an orphaned article, and the wiki itself has had 2 changes made to it in the past month. -- Longhair | Talk 07:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete -- Not notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair | Talk 07:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable web site. Dcarrano 18:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Openguides might be worth an article, but not this - Pseudomonas 14:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffery Prather

This was never listed in the log, doing so now. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. It could be a legitimate article, and then it could be nonsense... or vanity and/or spam. I like the opinion of some more experienced and/or knowledgeable users... If I thought I could make a call on this, I would have speedied it. -- Chanting Fox 20:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • I found this article while researching Masaaki Hatsumi's schools outside of Japan after encountering students of Mr. Prather's Yamaneko Dojo in Tucson, Arizona. The text of the article is similar in nature to the school's brochure and in my opinion, was most likely written by one of his schools on his behalf. Although I am not an editor, my expectation of a wikipedia article is to provide only the established facts, most notably career, awards, and affiliations. This article meets that requirement, but also contains information better suited to an external link to his personal or professional webpage. In conclusion, I would recommend keeping the article as it documents Mr. Prather's role as an official shihan. Jjoganic 23:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • As a follow-up, I read through the content rules for biographic information, and would suggest the following item as a vote for keeping the entry.
      • The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.
    • Within the scope of Japanese martial arts tradition, if Mr. Prather is in fact 15th dan and studied under Hatsumi in Japan, then he is directly relevent. The only evidence that I have for this is the brochure that I received from students of the Yamaneko Dojo this afternoon. A scanned image of the [ brochure] and a higher resolution image of what is apparently [ Mr. Prather and Mr. Hatsumi] is included and will remain online for at least a week or so. Note: I have no affiliation with the school, students, or individual in question. I was quite literally having lunch with my wife in a park when I asked one of the students about their dojo. From an editorial viewpoint, the text of the article could (and should) be made to read less like a vanity page or advertisement for his school. Moreover, [ his website] and the brochure state that Mr. Prather is in fact 13th dan (very high) where the article states 15th. Some further research is necessary in any event. Unfortunately, the most important research would probably need to be conducted in Japanese as the english google has very little to say about "Jeffery Prather" that links him to Hatsumi even indirectly. Credentials aside, it is unlikely that this article is a hoax. All in all, I'm of a mind to edit the article myself, but I have no connection with the information aside from a chance meeting and a mutual interest in martial arts. Jjoganic 01:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
      • On a probably final note, there is apparently some confusion over the spelling of Mr. Prather's first name. Googling for "Jeffrey Prather" returns ten pages of hits. Googling for "Jeffery Prather" returns two. The article should probably be renamed and the incorrect spelling and link from Masaaki Hatsumi changed as well. Jjoganic 01:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: advert. Text of article is copied from a couple of web sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as advertising. Xoloz 17:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jehu nnaji

Never listed in the log, doing so now. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of facts about a person for whom no notability is ascribed. Scimitar 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • ERADICATE from the face of the universe, if only because of the all caps. (And 0 Google hits is not an easy task to accomplish.) -- Dmcdevit· t 07:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable, vanity. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 07:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn. -- KFP 08:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Maddox. Just joking, Delete. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 23:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • speedy delete. non sense. Elfguy 17:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jelly donut

Finishing someone else's nomination. Although, if I may say so, this looks like a hoax; the original version had the word "fictional". A deletion is probably in order, but I haven't researched (would not like that Google search if it is), so no vote. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - a Google search for Jelly Donut [8] does not show that this neologism has caught on as the early pages of the search show no reference to it. This obviously shows verifiability problems and the practices described in it are not very credible. The Google hits show more currency to an urban myth that President Kennedy's famous statement "Ich bin ein Berliner" means "I am a jelly donut." [9] Capitalistroadster 07:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just another misogynist trying to be creative. Re: Kennedy, it's funny, my German teacher told me that same yarn. Postdlf 10:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unfunniest crap I've seen in a while. Lomedae 13:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then make into a redirect to doughnut. --  BD2412 talk 14:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but: the real tragedy here is that there is no article about jelly donuts, the high-calorie american pastry. I'd support rewriting this article to focus on that instead. Nandesuka 17:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Ick. Delete and redirect to doughnut per BD2412. Dcarrano 18:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gross, but not much more so than Dirty Sanchez and cleveland steamer, etc.. which have articles. A similar definition is present in UrbanDictionary. I think the artcle should be moved and Jelly Donut should redirect to doughnut so someone doesn't stumble upon this by accident. P0per 19:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Ich bin ein Berliner. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 06:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.  Grue  19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Darth Nihilus

Too unbacked and speculative. -- 138.130.213.165 07:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Encyclopedic. Also, Nihilus is a major character in the game and arguably, a notable figure in fictional Star Wars universe. -- Kross 08:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The person who started this vfd's IP is strangely similar to that of the IPs that I listed on vandalism in progress, who repeatedly ressurected the Kae article after several deletes, among other things. And, as we can see from this person's edit history, they've messed with the archived vfd for Darth Traya several times. This is, simply put, a case of someone continuing to be a nuisance. -- Nufy8 14:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. 'Unbacked and speculative'? Bull. -- Maru 03:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Discussion formerly contained here moved to talk page
  • Comment. Star Wars characters are notable, but that doesn't tell us whether it should be described in detail or just merged elsewhere. The article doesn't help because it reads like an article from a fictional encyclopedia about a real subject rather than an article from a real encyclopedia about a fictional subject. Yeah, it says it's a fictional character up front but then it immediately ignores that context. Where and how was all the detailed information about this character revealed? In game dialogue? In a text-scroll prologue before play starts? In a little printed insert included with the game cartridge? Does this character only exist in this game, or has he been used in other media? If he only exists as a figure in the game with some expository details thrown in here and there, the character really should be merged into the game article because he has no independent existence. Considering how the game article just makes a reference to him under the header "Other characters met along the way," he can't even be all that important to the game no matter how many details the game creators decided to flesh him out with. I'm struggling to see why we should give it such in-depth coverage. -- Postdlf 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Cruft. Less notable than a wookie onscreen for 45 frames of the last movie. -- SchmuckyTheCat 19:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If a major character in a piece of Star Wars media that nearly wipes out something as important to the Star Wars universe as Jedi is non notable, then we have a boatload of articles that need deleting. -- Nufy8 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Darth Traya was actually the one who wanted the jedi destroyed and aided this assult the most. Nihilus hardly ever appears in the game, and when he does, it is rather briefly. And also, he was never actually against the 'jedi' so to speak. He hated everything and anything that had life.
    • And in hating all life, he managed to nearly destroy every Jedi. Traya may have wanted to destroy the Jedi as well, which serves her own notability, but Nihilus was more instrumental in taking action against them. Nufy8 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. This 'Darth Nihilus' seems to be rather unimportant in the story, and should be deleted. He is not that important in the storyline, and plays about in total maybe 7 minutes in the game. That is why i vote for strong delete.Both this unsigned vote and above comment were made by User:138.130.213.165
  • Absent further showing that this character is more important, trim down the content to the essentials, merge content to both the article on the game and also List of minor Sith characters, and then redirect to the latter. That list article already includes other characters only found in this game or others; why not this one too? Postdlf 03:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Unprovoked Attack on User 138.130.213.165. I would just like to say to 'Nufy8' that although i did in fact want the Master Kae article to stay, and did not realize there was a deletion policy in place which stopped repeated votes for deletion, i would like everyone who visits this page to hear this. I categorically deny that this is an act of vandalism. How dare you critisize me! This is a legitimate vote for deletion, so don't assume i am causing trouble. you are the one doing that! and your preliminary assumptions are unwarranted and do not justify your saying 'strong keep'!. you only say that (according to wikipedia policy) if you want to keep something! Now i would like this page to continue with genuine people posting their opinions, like i did just above. not personal degradation.
    • Personal attacks: [10], [11]. POV nonsense: [12]. Blanking vandalism: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Other nonsense: [18], [19], [20]. And please, don't tell me you didn't know deletion policy after it was deleted twice and you decided to start it up again under a slightly different name. Nufy8 16:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable! -- Neigel von Teighen 16:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Nufy8 is a LIAR. An interesting list you have accumulated nufy. I may have made some of those mistakes, taking the dark road of vandalism. but now you hold against me past actions which i am trying to forget! i know low, but not your level! now, instead of picking on the newbie, why don't you mind your own business when i make legitimate votes for deletion. stop being a nosy, lowlife, with-holding, decrepit fool! shut your mouth and stop being a pessimistic dictator! i mean it.
    • As he vandalizes my user page thirty minutes later. Brilliant. Nufy8 14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Darth Sion. Being "too unbacked and speculative" is at most a reason for rewriting the article, but not for deletion. - Sikon 10:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep If this article is wrong then Darth Sion's article is wrong. -- Psi edit redid signature because I didnt log in the first time
  • Strong Keep Major player in the universe, even though he doesn't appear in the game too much. He did come kind of close to annihilating life in the SW galaxy. Oh, and 138.130.213.165, if you consider the vandalism to be behind you, what is with making unsigned votes and comments on a VfD page you started? Seems pretty underhanded to me. Superiority 13:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I think you're judging importance by the wrong standards here. A fictional subject is not important simply because he's depicted doing important or dramatic things within the fiction. If a book merely happens to mention that within its story, that the President is William Smith, that doesn't make William Smith an important character by encyclopedic standards even though that's an important role within the fictional world. On the other hand, if numerous films and books all portray the same janitor with whom the protagonist has hearty conversations every day he leaves from work, that character may be important for our considerations even though he isn't important except as an acquaintance within the fictional world itself. Here we're talking about a character that "doesn't appear...too much" in the only game in which he is portrayed. That all Star Wars characters have some minimal level of notability due to the fanbase and pervasiveness of the media is why all reference to the character shouldn't just be outright deleted. But that the character only appears in one work (one video game, at that, not a major motion picture), and doesn't even sound very central to that work, is a strong argument for summary treatment rather than a lengthy, independent article. Postdlf 01:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Point taken. However, within the game, although Nihilus himself does not feature so much, his actions are quite important, he did almost destroy the planet that the Exile (player character) was on at the time, and so is rather important in that respect. My main point was basically the "Comment If a major character" posted by Nufy8 above. He is central to the plot though, though it does not revolve around him, and he is mentioned in the very title of the game. I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect though. -- Superiority 09:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Just to Clarify. If you think that was an act of vandalsism it wasn't. I realise, as you do, that there is a system which displays the fact that i wrote a post. That is why i don't think it is vandalsim. you know when i am writing, so there is no deception! i have a right to post comments as well. and i only entered one strong delete because i get to express my opionion once as well. and even though it wont be counted, at least i got to write what was on my mind.
    • I would imagine people would think more highly of you if you put for reasons for putting it on VfD at the top, rather than making such unsigned comments. And I didn't say it was vandalism, I jsut said it seemed rather underhanded. It's not too hard to sign it, just add ~~~~ at the end, or press the signature button at the top (alt text is "Your signature with timestamp"). -- Superiority 09:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Why should this article be deleted? Because some fool has a grudge against charcters not from the movie. You people who claim he has a limited amount of time on screen in the game are totally correct, but so did boba fett in the trilogy, so why isn't he being considered for deletion? Nihilus is an interesting figure, who deserves to be kept. Deleting him isn't going to solve the problem, because avid fans will just rewrite the article again. This is a free informational website, if people want to come here and read an article about Darth Nihilus, that is their privilege, and that is what makes this website so great. So to make a long story short, who the hell do you people who vote for delete think you are, you are not the gods of computer-land, don't ruin good things for everyone else, because you have hairs accross your asses about something as harmless as a character from a popular game. I mean honestly, why do you care, let the Damn article stay in place. I vote STRONG KEEP.

  • Despite a short amount of screen time and little dialogue in the original trilogy, Boba Fett obviously became an extremely well known and popular character (even well outside the bounds of the dedicated Star Wars canon followers), as is reflected in the numerous non-Star Wars references to the character in other media (some of which are described in the article). His action figure was one of the most popular, he has been substantially portrayed in other Star Wars media outside the movies, and Lucas gave him and his father a very prominent role in the second prequel. There's simply no comparison to the obscurity of Nihilus. The Boba Fett article is actually pretty good, btw, because it sources character information to specific works of fiction and describes it in terms of those. Postdlf 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Just as a point of curiosity, why hasn't Darth Traya been nominated for deletion while Nihilus and Sion have? - Jon Hart
    • I agree why hasnt it? It was marked for deletion earlier but for a different reason.
  • Strong Keep Although Darth Nihilus may not appear in KOTOR 2:The Sith Lords until closer to the end, the player (it is a RPG!!!) is consumed with the impending meeting throughout gameplay. Nihilus is a major character in the Expanded Universe and as such, deserves a unique entry. Exile 1138
  • Keep. There needs to be an article about Darth Nihilus. Though I believe some of the content needs to be updated to provide a better round out description and happenings of this character, but to delete this article would be foolish. Someone would create another one and go through the whole process again. I say keep this article and perform the necessary changes as needed. - LifeStar
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Adam bryant beck

Was marked as a speedy but for vanity, so it isn't a candidate. I abstain from voting. CanadianCaesar 07:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. His comic strip has four installments, his first film is not yet produced; in short: vanity. -- Marcika 12:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no imdb entry. Dunc| ☺ 12:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, suggestion to merge. Joyous (talk) 01:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

A Whisper

Was marked for a speedy but for non notability, so I don't think it's a candidate. I abstain from voting. CanadianCaesar 07:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Changing my vote to a Keep Lots of Google hits CanadianCaesar 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Unless it can be greatly expanded, merge and redirect to A Rush of Blood to the Head.-- Kross 08:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to A Rush of Blood to the Head. It wasn't a hit single or a particularly notable track albeit off a very notable album. Capitalistroadster
  • Redirect. to A Rush Of Blood To The Head. Most of those Google hits are simply redundant song lyrics or its place in the album's track listing. It's a non-single track, so you can't expand to add cover artwork, release date, charting position, music video details, etc. -- Madchester 16:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Song info should go in album articles until there is enough information for a breakout article. Gamaliel 16:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to A Rush Of Blood To The Head, non-notable album track. Dcarrano 18:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable album track. JamesBurns 08:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 15:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Warning Sign

Was marked for a speedy but for non notability, so not a candidate. I abstain from voting. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 01:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Venard

Finishing this old nom that was never listed. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC, see related vanity/spam links on today's VfD page. -- Tabor 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I can't find a single google reference to him. Pburka 15:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 18:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 19:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable rapper vanity. JamesBurns 08:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sketch Up

What we have here is a one-night revue put on by one college of a university. This may well stretch the idea of notable to breaking point. This (and several other connected articles) should at the very best be merged with Halifax College, if not deleted outright. Grutness... wha? 08:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Probably the rest of their student event articles should be deleted as well. The college hasn't been around long enough to have established annual traditions yet. (Too many university events end up having a four or five year lifespan.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 17:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, utterly non-notable. Dcarrano 18:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable student promo. JamesBurns 08:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Sparano

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Hartup

This looks like a vanity page. Delete unless notability demonstrated. -- Karada 08:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No references on IMDB or the media as far as I can see. Pburka 15:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Friday 20:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Playhard

appears to be self-promotion, with a twist: the author reveals no meaningful information about himself (see link to Bob Bobbert Bobson in article. Delete. -- Joel7687 08:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 01:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Bobbert Bobson

total nonsense. Delete. -- Joel7687 08:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. -- nothing salvagable here. - Longhair | Talk 11:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is another one of those vanity pages that thinks it's ever so funny. Aha ha ha, it says the word 'bob' several times, hurdy ho. What do they feed these people? -- Stevefarrell 11:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, maybe even Speedily. Trails off into nonsense at the end. Pburka 15:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete even more importantly, WHY do they feed these people? Friday 20:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense. -- Etacar11 00:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG STRONG STRONG KEEP! It is critical that wikipedia chronicle Bob Bobbert Bobson. DO NOT DELETE. (Unsigned vote by 66.103.246.198 ( talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Sikon 10:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

John Stockwell

Delete Well known once in a very small arena long time ago. Now he's just a retired computer support manager who wishes to paddle the rivers of Texas in peace. He'd have me remove all internet references to him if I could but you know my chances on that. I'd simply like to place the del tag in the article and let the Wikiadmins take a look at it. Stockwell - (the reqestor) 07:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - He was an influential and well-known person who has over 8000 Google hits for "John Stockwell + CIA" (All seem to reference him), and was the highest-ranking member of the CIA to publicly resign his post. We wouldn't remove George W. Bush from an encyclopaedia if he asked, imho we shouldn't remove others. - Sherurcij 08:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, sufficiently notable. We shouldn't invade his privacy by publishing his current address (and we're not), but anything else that's readily available on the internet or in public libraries already, and which is true, is fair to put in the article.- gadfium 09:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Gadfium. -- Marcika 12:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Bollocks to the stockwells they peeked through my garbage!
    • Unsigned "comment" by 210.84.153.81. [22]
  • Keep I'm afraid it isn't relevant whether someone wants to be in Wikipedia or not, only whether they should be. CalJW 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears notable, and the subject's desire to be documented is ( thankfully) irrelevant. Postdlf 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable author of several books on CIA operations (In Search of Enemies, The Praetorean Guard etc) Kaibabsquirrel 01:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

M. F. Mughal

Delete simply holding the views that Mughal holds does not make him very notable, I'm afraid. Neither does him having a website, or being an ex-Muslim. All the google hits seem to be to his page, or various forums where he promotes his views. Sam Vimes 09:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Based on his views, I'm sure I'd love the guy if I met him, but, alas, delete as non-notable vanity. I'm more than willing to buy him a drink to make it up to him next time he's in the States. Postdlf 10:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 18:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 20:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (6 delete, 7 keep, 2 merge, 1 abstain). Eugene van der Pijll 15:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab

Delete-The Shia "view" necessitates deletion. The Shia are a 10-15% sect in the Islamic world. Their theological and historical views deserve as much they represent: 10-15%. A good encyclopedia does not allow theological partisanship to dominate its pages. The entries for Jesus and Christianity do not contain "refutations" by Muslims, nor criticisms of the majority by minority sects such as the Monophysites of old Catholicism. Why then should the Shia view be held in such high regard? The vast majority of the Islamic community views the history of Umar in diametrical opposition to the Shia. That is to state, the Sufis, Sunnis, Salafis, Ibadis, and Kharwarij.


Another of Striver's attempts to use Wikipedia as a Shi'a soapbox. The Shi'a view of Umar is well-represented in the current version of the Umar article. The only material missing from the Umar article, but present in this one, are the cut-and-pasted hadith, or oral traditions, lifted from other websites. Hadith are often of dubious historical value and should not presented as "true" without further qualification. Zora 10:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply


  • Coment Smear campaign - Everything in that article is not represented in the Umar article. The Umar article contains a mere stup of what and why shia belive as they do.
  • Delete without looking at the relevant articles in a lot of detail, the approach adopted by this author presents all sorts of problems. Ultimately, with every controversial figure, we could end up having seperate pages for supporters' views and detractors' views. Anything useful should be moved to the main article on Umar. PatGallacher 11:51, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
    Comment Oh, aint that a great argument: "lets delet the shia pov, otherwise, it might spread"
  • Not delet I dont get you folks. First we had a Shia version of him on the main page, but that could not be tolerated, so we moved it to its own article. Now you want to delet it to? -- Striver 15:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Its a good article showing what the Shia's think of Umar, what is wrong with that? -- Ya Ali 19:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It does seem that Zora, having tried to keep most of the Shia material from the main article, is now trying to delete the separate article that was created in response. The current Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab is, however, bloated, and in serious need of attention. At the moment it virtually reproduces the main article, and adds the relevant material. It should be cut down to what it says: the Shia view. Biographical information can be found in the main article. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't want to keep Shi'a views out of the Umar article -- I want to keep them from dominating the Umar article. I think all of Striver's accusations against Umar are listed there at the end -- all that's gone are the endless hadith dumps he keeps inserting in articles. That is a pietistic mode of argument and not very encyclopedic. Striver cites hadith that he thinks prove his point; a Sunni would cite different hadith; then general mayhem ensues, as the Shi'a and the Sunni try to blacken the names and veracity of the various transmitters of the oral traditions. Meanwhile, academic historians watch from the sidelines and say, "Well, hadith are extremely dubious historical material, to be handled with caution." I think that part of the problem is that Striver does not really know how to make an argument to a non-Muslim. He presents a hadith with a "so-there" attitude, and the reader is supposed to divine from the hadith exactly what it is trying to prove, and contra whom. I have sometimes been able to replace or supplement Striver's hadith with more discursive explanations -- with which he often agrees -- based on outside reading. But if you don't know what he's trying to prove, or the context of the argument, his hadith are completely opaque. Zora 23:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge whatever isn't copied back into the original Umar article. After comparing the pages, it seems redundant. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 17:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Coment I agree with you 100%. Problem is, Zora does not. She does not want stuff that shia and Sunni agree that Umar did on the main ppage, simply because it ruins her prose or since it "does not fitt the general sunni view of Umar". So i have no other chooise than reetell his biography, with the part she refuses to have on the main page. If she wants to add those episodes on the main page, i whold be delighted...

  • Keep. "I disagree with the religious viewpoint described by this article" ain't enough for deletion, and the topic is certainly one on which there is ample non-original research. Nandesuka 18:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PatGallacher; the Umar article is the place to present varying views about Umar. If you can't agree on how to do that fairly, the solution is to find a compromise, not to create a new article. Dcarrano 18:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge next year. ~~~~ 20:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • POV fork; Shia views are already mentioned in Umar, while a hadith-by-hadith summary of Shia arguments (or indeed Sunni ones) is unencyclopedic. Delete (see below). - Mustafaa 23:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

coment I could agree to not quote all hadith, but i want all events to be fully described, not just present what Shia think of him, but WHY and WHICH events is the source for our belife.-- Striver 23:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment If Christian views of slavery is legit, why is Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab not legit`?

Self evident ?

This findings just increased my anger towards Zora. -- Striver 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Hmm, interesting point. I'd personally be inclined to delete all of the above, but that does set a precedent for "X views on...", which is my biggest objection. Abstain. - Mustafaa 23:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment That is why i respekt you , my dear Sunni brother - you have integrity.

-- Striver 00:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

coment what is the diffrens between Christian views of Jesus and Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab? -- Striver 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • No delete. If the Shi'a viewpoint cannot be represented fairly and independently, then the Sunni viewpoint should also not be represented. "Soapbox"es should not be descriminatory.-- Zereshk 22:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Sigh. "Representing the Shi'a POV" doesn't mean Shi'a can do whatever they want, without copyediting or criticism. The problem is Striver, not the Shi'a POV. Bring us an editor like Reza Aslan! Zora 00:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Sister, you dont get it, do you? Its not only me, im backed by all Shias that know what im doing. I have never ever been corrected by a Shia, in any way, regarding facts or pov.

-- Striver 00:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Like Ya Ali said, the following articles should be deleted first:

Jewish view of Jesus

Christian views of Jesus & etc. and its not like the article is misguiding people or the information in the article is wrong. If Shia's can not show their views in the main article then they should be allowed to do it on a seperate article. -- Khalid! 15:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Umar, POV forks considered harmful. Gazpacho 01:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Create Sunni view of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Create pages for any other group that has a view. It's only our Westocentrism that allows us to feel Jewish views of Jesus is any more or less acceptable. Agree with Mel Etitis that the article should not look so much like a POV fork. Also feel that Zora should be admonished to remember to step back from eir personal religious beliefs and allow the Umar article to be edited in an NPOV fashion. We'd ideally like something that both ey and Striver are happy with, however impossible that seems. Grace Note 03:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is so obviously a smear campaign it's not funny. It should be deleted. -- Hugh
No. It reports the Shia view. Its true that Shia have a "smeary" view on Umar. But thats it. The article does not "campaing" the "smear", it only reports that Shia belive it. And by the way, Umar was "smeary". In my view. No offence.

Comments

--- Did any one takes the time to go true the shia argument? its nothing but personal insults on Umar. Nothing objective is to be found there, the conclusion people get about Umar from the article is 100% negative, its propaganda. I think its time you reallies that an Iranian shia cannot be objective about an Arab like Umar ibn al-khatab who was the masterminder behind the conquest of Iran. let Jesus for Christians and Umar for Sunnis and Ali for shias thats what i think and dont let people who have historical enmity to write about there enemies. Delete Ayubi1187


-- Isn't the porpoise of this website to give complete historical fact about People. The shia article don't give any valuable information about Umar only propaganda. Sens shia don't have broad information about Umar and only narrow information that he was usurper,lier, hypocrite and so on this view cannot be considerate as complete information to be listed as separate article. The main article give complete biographical story of Umar something you don't find in the shia view of Umar only backbiting. Its very clear from the article that shia don't have complete history about Umar's life to contribute beside the negative story's. It should be enough with the main article of Umar and in the bottom it should be written that "shia view Umar as evil man and sens they don't have complete biography about him beside he was evil there view will be not listed in separate article" or something similar. I think thats very reasonable if the objective of wikipedia is to give broad picture about different personalty's and not narrow. Ayubi1187

comment There you have a good proposal: "since Shia dont like Umar, it should'nt be reported in detail" -- Striver 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment: This article should be deleted, for three reasons. + - First, the purpose of any encyclopaedia is to present facts impartially and without prejudice, sticking as closely as possible to the viewpoint that is generally agreed upon among competent scholars. The "Shia View of 'Umar" fails miserably along these lines: the goal of the article is obviously to tell people negative things about 'Umar. + - Second, allowing articles with such titles as "The X's View of Y" is merely an invitation to people to use this encyclopaedia as a forum for their propaganda. They should ALL be deleted. If we want to allow such articles, what will prevent their being an article called "The Sunni View of Shias", explaining that Sunnis regard the Shias obsessive-compulsive liars, cowards, bigots, and troublemakers with nothing of value to contribute to Islamic civilization? Do the Shias really want articles which explain exactly what the majority of Muslims think about them? + - Third, the Shia view of 'Umar is so devoid of any sound historical basis that it belongs in the same category as "The Ku Klux Klan's View of Blacks" or the "Flat Earth Society's Views of the Roundness of the Earth". It would surely be ridiculous for any respectable encyclopaedia to contain entries such as these, and the same goes for the "Shia View of 'Umar". [Omar Mirza]

comment

  • First: That is what "Shia View of 'Umar" does, reports accuratly how Shias view Umar.
  • Second: So go delet all the elder articles, why are you objection now and not before? As for "The Sunni View of Shias", i eagerly await it, it whould be nice to show everybody what Sunnis blive of Shias. Dont forget to include the al ahzar fatwa that made us the fifth madhab.
  • Third: Is Bukhari and Muslim "devoid of any sound historical basis" ? Cool, i didnt know that...

Execpt for Nahj al-Balagha, it only quotes Sunni sites. As for being devoided of historical basis: Its totaly irrelevant, its reports the Shia view, nothing more.

-- Striver 23:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Fifth madhab please!! Why douse it take one thousand year before a state appointed mufti come along and say somthing in fovaor of shia, is that the best recognition you have so far after 1000year? Nothing from a real scholar?-- Ayubi1187

Give me the name of a Islamic University more prestigious that al ahzar. -- Striver 14:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
You like to talk don't you. It was not fatwa by al-azhar as institution but the personal opinion of state appointed mufti Shaltoot other wise they would teach jafari madhab in al-azhar. Number two if you consider al-azhar the most prestige why did they never recognize this fifth madhab before? Ayubi1187


Thank you for the personal comment, much appreciated. If you make some reaserch, you will find that fatwa was the fruit of a decade long mutual research between shia and sunni representatives, aiming on unity, not some random fatwa given by some bribed nobody. It didnt came before since for a long time it was customary among sunnis to kill shias on sight.

-- Striver 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I maintain this article should be deleted. I have explained my reasons above. Here I elaborate upon them. Capitals below are for emphasis: I'm not shouting.

  • First: The "Shia View of 'Umar" does NOT report accurately how the Shias view 'Umar. There are many important aspects of the Shia view of 'Umar that it leaves out. It does not tell us anything about the time-honoured practice of RITUALLY CURSING 'Umar, which is considered a religiously meritorious action by the Twelver Shia. It does not tell us about the "Supplication of the Two Idols of the Quraysh", that the Shia scholars have accepted as a good supplication, and which is used to curse 'Umar. It does not tell us anything about the fanatical desire of the Shia to have the grave of 'Umar removed from its position near the grave of the Prophet of Islam(s). It does not tell us anything about the CONFUSIONS that the Shias have concerning 'Umar (many of the Shias have long accepted the reports in their own sources whch admit that 'Umar was married to the daughter of 'Ali, while modern apologists find it more convenient to deny this fact.) It also does not tell us anything about Shia RACISM towards 'Umar, as in the poetry that Shias have composed making fun of his dark skin ('Umar was a quarter Ethiopian by ancestry). It does not tell us about the bizarre rituals of burning effigies of 'Umar that are popular in Shia countries. The article basically leaves out all the more paranoid and obsessive aspects of the Shia view of 'Umar, knowing about which would be important in a scholarly account. The article is a piece of propaganda, not an objective description.
  • Second: When an article is being used as a front for propaganda, it should be deleted. This is the case here.
  • Third: The fact that the article cites only Nahj ul-Balagha and Sunni sources (as noted by Striver) shows clearly that THIS ARTICLE IS PROPAGANDA. Anybody with any experience of Shia missionaries knows that they make a big deal about proving their points from Sunni sources. If the article was a scholarly account of the Shia view of 'Umar, then it would cite only hadiths from their main sources, such as "Usul al-Kafi", NOT Sunni sources. Why does the article not mention any of the hadiths in the four main Shia collections? What is the point of citing Sunni sources in an article whose alleged purpose is to give the *Shia view*? Isn't the *Shia view* best expressed in SHIA SOURCES? Shia INTERPRETATIONS of Sunni sources are devoid of historical basis. So the article would be better if it stuck to a description of what is said in the Shia sources.

The fact that the author cites Sunni sources so much shows that the article is designed to convince Sunnis of the Shia point of view. This is just a piece of propaganda, and should be deleted.

[Omar Mirza]

  • First: Well, then add it. I forgot about it, i dont ritualy curse him, but i do get a few lols when i read about him, and i do get angry when i see people blatantly ignoring his deeds. But you are right, go ahead and add those practises to the article, it belongs ther. Add also a link to the duas.
  • Second: Not true. It should be NPOVed.
  • Third: No, it only means that the only one contributing to it only have read that. But you are absolutly correct! It fills me with great joy to be enlightened to the fact that i can for once use Shia sources to expose him!

-- Striver 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Another reason to delete this article: In addition to the obviously propagandistic nature of this article, the scholarly quality is VERY poor (this is common in Shia attacks on 'Umar). The Sunni sources it cites are from bad translations (e.g. the online "Sahih Bukhari".) It is obviously useful for a POLEMICIST to provide online links, whether these are bad translations or not. But in an encyclopaeida, the article-writers should be held to a higher standard. [Omar Mirza]

IF you belive it to be POV, then NPOV it. You only want the article deleted since you love Umar and cant stand to see a article reporting negative things about him. If you disagree with the translations or links or any other material for that matter, then fix it, that does not constitute a excuse to delet the article. 

TO THE MODERATOR: MOST VOTES TO DELET THIS ARTICLE ARE POLITICALY BASED AND NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH. 
ALSO REMEBER THAT SUNNIS OUTNUMBER SHIAS BY FIVE TO ONE.

-- Striver 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • This article is filled with inaccuracies. As you would expect from a polemic with little schol;arly value. For example, the author claims, against all evidence, that 'Umar was "not a valiant man", yet the great scholar Suyuti reports that
  • Ali said: I don't know of anyone who didn't emigrate in secret except for 'Umar ibn al-Khattab; because when he wanted to emigrate he strapped on his sword, put his bow over his shoulder, carried his arrows in his hand, and came to the Ka'bah where the nobles of Quraysh were in the courtyard. He performed seven circuits, and then prayed two raka'at at the Station (of Ibrahim). Then he approached their circle one step at a time and said, "What ugly faces! Whoever wishes to bereave his mother, orphan his children and widow his wife then let him meet me behind this valley." Not one of them followed him.

Sounds pretty valiant to me, frankly. The argument that he didn't answer Amr's challenge is also weak, since it is not known that he was even present at that part of the ditch: for all we know, he may have been stationed by the Prophet(s) elsewhere along the Ditch (which was very long).

Coment Or, he had protection from his tribe, while the Banu Hashim did not. The hadith you mentined, if authentic, does give a valiant impresion. Or, it could just show his usual spite for anyone he disagreed with, includint Muhammad (as), like in hudaybia or at his death bed. Do you have any report of Umar hurting or being hurt by a Mushrik? I have found none. Only him running away or implying Muhammad (as) was dead and discouringing people from entering battle.

As for the ditch, it might be true, or it might not, its conjecture. Even if he was on some other part, he hade plenty of time to be summoned, Amr breaching the treanch was not a minor event, i can not grasp Umar failing to notice that, or not being reported that. Again, its just conjecture.

-- Striver 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply


Shia dud why are you distorting other peoples statements and insert your own words in the middle of Omars statement? Is that what answering-ansar teach you to distort the truth if you cannot refute? Ayubi1187

Where is he cited in a injustly whay? -- Striver 13:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Eugene van der Pijll 15:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Changes to the Sunnah made by the Rashidun

Striver created this article as part of his new strategy -- instead of facing community criticism of his changes to the "established" Islamic articles, he's just going to write his own Shi'a POV articles and then link them to the main articles.

This article can't be kept because even the TITLE is a Shi'a indictment of the first three caliphs -- they say that the first three caliphs made law and changed custom, whereas the community should have adhered strictly to the sunnah, or custom of the time of Muhammad. There is no way that a traditional Sunni Muslim can argue that any changes were OK -- the Sunni Muslim is going to have to deny any changes whatsoever. At which point the article just becomes a catalogue of "did" and "did not".

There is a secular, academic argument to be made about the extent of the authority ceded to the first caliphs -- best exemplified in Crone's book, God's Caliph -- but it should be made at Caliph or Sharia or possibly Ulema. Not in this abortion of an article. Zora 09:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The Sunnis believe that the words and deeds of the Prophet, who is, according to the Quran (XXX, 21), the uswah hasahah (noble paradigm), must be followed in every walk of life, as they were followed by his sahabah (companions), tabi'un (followers of the companions), and atba' al-tabi'in (followers of the followers of the companions). "It is incumbent upon you," said the Prophet, "to follow my Sunnah AND the sunnah of the righteous caliphs (al-khulafa' al-rashidun) ( ref)

Why do you think Ali did not get choosen as the second Khalif?

After such consultation, Abdur Rahman formed the impression that the majority of the people favored the election of Othman. Contacting the two candidates separately he put to them the question whether they would follow in the footsteps of the previous Caliphs. Ali said that he would do so as far as possible subject to his best judgment in the light of the Quran and Sunnah. Othman replied to the question in the affirmative without any reservation. Thereupon Abdur Rahman gave his verdict in favor of Othman who was acclaimed as the Caliph, and the people ordered the oath of allegiance to him. ( ref)

Notice the Sunni twist to it. Ali refused to Follow Umar's changes, hence Uthman was selected.

Zora, you really know how to annoy me. Why did you start a vote for deletion when you only meant to change the name of the article?

All Sunnis that are going to vote, could you also include in your vote you view on what the Sunni schol says about the issue, Did Umar change anything in the Sunnah, Are Sunnis expected to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (sa) AND the Sunnah of the four caliphs?

Do Sunnis regard triple talaq permisible, yes or no?

-- Striver 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply


  • keep -- Striver 23:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep The title does need changing but there is nothing wrong with the article.-- Ya Ali 19:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This article is ridiculous. It doesn't even explain how many of the items are related to the sunna to begin with (is it sunna to exile Marwan ibn al-Hakam, or to not exile Abu Dharr Ghifari?) It also makes incorrect claims about Sunni belief (for instance, with remarkable chutzpah, it claims that "Umar took the solitary prayer of the month of ramadhan and changed it to congretional] prayer. (Muslim, Bukhari)" when just 3 hadith down from the Muslim citation (by Abu Hurairah) is a hadith via Aisha confirming that congregational prayer was indeed practiced in Ramadan by the Prophet. I suppose it could be NPOVed, but given that the topic is scarcely encyclopedic to begin with, why bother? Delete. - Mustafaa 00:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - somewhat NPOVed now, but still unencyclopedic (and POV magnet.) Possibly it could, to some extent, be merged to sunnah. - Mustafaa 17:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If Zora thinks it is just "two shias insisting that Wikipedia be their soapbox", I challenge her to bring in any other Shia that would be fundamentally opposed to Striver and YaAli. Why is it OK for "the establishment" to say Shi'as deviated? Soapboxes should not be discriminatory. keep.-- Zereshk 22:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think someone like you should be allowed to even edit Wikipedia considering your extremely aggressive and uncivilized behavior as best exemplified in Ray, Iran article (where you aggressively disallowed another contributor's correct information into the article, and even his explanation in the discussion area wasn't enough for you) and in Talk:Afghanistan where you have behave dishonorably beyond belief. --Paul Chiu
Fortunately, that decision is not yours to make. At least Zora has the integrity not to personally attack other editors. I'm just waiting for you to make that slip and attack me with a racial insult one more time so that I can have your IP address blocked for good.-- Zereshk 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with sunnah. Zora, I feel you need to accept that articles can include religious POVs as well as "academic" ones. So long as those POVs are sourced and are not the personal opinion of contributors, there's no problem with that. Grace Note 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
It's not that I don't want to have the Shi'a view represented. I want it represented WELL, and readably. I have incurred the anger of the three Shi'a working on Wikipedia (Striver, Zereshk, and Ya Ali) by objecting to arguments that consist mainly of hadith dumps, copyvios, and misspellings. For an example of an Islamic-related article that I rewrote recently, trying to do justice to the Shi'a view, see Fatima Zahra. Zora 05:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Coment

  • To exile Marwan ibn al-Hakam is Sunnah, simply because Muhammad (as) did it. But if you dont agree, we can move it down to the shia view. And of cource, in shia view, its Sunnah to not exile Abu Dharr, Muhammad (as) called him the most truthfull man betwen heaven and earth!
  • About the solitary prayer, that is why its under Shia view and not Sunni view. We Shia belive that it is not Sunnah, and Ali dispersed those who did it during his Caliphat. As goes for Muslim, whe dont consider all of it as Authentic.

There is no pov problem, except for maybe Marwan. Ill toss down Marwan to the Shia view. Is there any more POV issues left after that?


And by the whay, POV is not solved by deleting the whole article, its solved by NPOVing or in worst case, deleting. I know that Sunni dont like to see that list. But not liking the list does not warant a deletion.

-- Striver 00:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply



Comments

What we've got here is two Shi'a insisting that Wikipedia be their soapbox, that they get to have articles devoted to their "personalistic" view of history, in which everything is reduced to piety and personality. The good pious Muslims followed Ali, and were persecuted for it; the bad worldly Muslims followed the Sunni path. Anyone who did not choose Ali was a bad person, which is to be shown by oral traditions (possibly folktales or bazaar gossip) collected hundreds of years later, showing the Sunni leaders as monsters of depravity and hatred. Really -- this is history as comic book material. It IS possible to present history from a Shi'a viewpoint without turning it all into personalities. I was quite impressed with Reza Aslan's 2005 book No God But God, which is based on extensive academic research, and shows the early Muslims as making choices based on conflicting interpretations of Islam, views of how the political process was to be managed, etc. Aslan presents a Shi'a POV without turning it into hagiography/demonology.

The insistence on stuffing this material into a frame which ASSUMES that innovation is bad is also inherently POV. This is the POV of current traditionalist Islam, of "fundamentalis", of Wahabi, Salafi, and Islamist Muslims -- but it is not the POV of non-Muslims, or of Muslim liberals and reformers. Part of the material in the article could go into the Shi'a Islam article, as describing Shi'a belief, and part of it could go into Caliph, discussing early Muslim views of the authority of the caliph.

Crone makes a good argument that current-day Muslims fail to fully understand the fluid situation in the early days of the Islamic empire, in which the caliphs believed themselves to be entitled to deliver legal judgements and set precedents just as Muhammad had -- because they were his successors, and wielded his authority. Crone also points to the tremendous challenges faced by the new Islamic empire, in dealing with situations that were completely outside anything faced by Muhammad and raised questions not easily or quickly answered. The response, as many secular, academic scholars have observed, was to grant the early caliphs a great deal of legal authority, and also to adopt customary Byzantine and Sassanid law.

Crone is not the ultimate authority, and there are many academic historians who would disagree with her, but there is a dimension of this argument of which Striver and Ya Ali seem to be unaware. The article is basically a traditionalist Shi'a indictment of the first three caliphs. It deserves to be presented in Wikipedia, but in context, and in articles where alternate POVs can be presented. Zora 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply


If you feel you it, go ahead and add all that to the article. But fact stands: Shia and Sunni agree that Umar reinstituded Triple talaq, fact stands: Shia belive he banned Nikah Mut'ah. Fact stands: That belife have the right to be represented. And since they are related, in a list.
You want to bring a socio-thoelogical-political-Crone-Zora aspect to it: Be my guest. But the list stands.
-- Striver 23:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply


coment actually, i now also oppose to change the name of the article. See Talk:Changes to the Sunnah made by the Rashidun, it proves that Umar was acting beliving that he was in charge of the Sunnah. So the name of the article is accurate.

-- Striver 02:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 15:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Machine-breaking

Nothing more than a dictdef. Not expandable, as any encyclopedic information here can go into Luddite. — Lowellian ( talk) 10:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons given above. — Lowellian ( talk) 10:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Luddite, as the term is a well established one, although as people rightly point out it is reasonably dealt with under that article. PatGallacher 11:54, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete; I don't think a redirect makes sense in this context. Transwiking to Wiktionary would make sense. Nandesuka 17:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Luddite; as far as I know, this isn't particularly an "English word" any more than "iPod-breaking" or "desk-breaking" might be, so I wouldn't bring Wiktionary into it. Dcarrano 18:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now though I suspect a separate article may be on the horizon: the machine breakers of the 1830s were a separate movement from the Luddites. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Nandesuka. JamesBurns 08:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, expandable and separate from "Luddite", as Francs2000 points out. Kappa 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Either delete or redirect to Technophobia as this is too specific.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

GHOVO

Vanity of a 16-year-old teenager. Delete. -- Marcika 11:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Joyous (talk) 01:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

WoW July 4th Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise Event

Non-notable internet forum 'event' Jasoncart 12:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 13k, 2d. No choice but to discount Dunc's vote as it has already been Transwikied, and no alternative is given. - Splash 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Christ the Lord Is Risen Today

For prior VFD discussions related to this one, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus Christ (Christ the Lord) is Risen Today and Talk:Love Divine, All Loves Excelling.

The listing is simply the name and composer/composition date of the song, along with the lyrics. This would probably be better at Wikisource, provided they except songs. It's not really an encyclopedia article, and not particularly encyclopedic. Essjay · Talk 12:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Article is a source text, not an encyclopedia article. Transwiki to Wikisource if they accept songs, if not, delete. There are other lyrics sites out there. -- Essjay · Talk 12:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC) My delete vote stands after reviewing the rewrite. The information in the article could easily be inserted in the Wikisource entry; an encyclopedia entry should do more than say who wrote it and when. -- Essjay · Talk 15:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC) Having seen the re-re-write, with the explaination of the different versions, I believe the article should now stay. It now establishes why someone might look this up in an encyclopedia: They're confused as hell about why there are twenty different versions! Keep. -- Essjay · Talk 12:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if appropriate, otherwise, Delete. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki to wikisource. Dunc| ☺ 12:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please check Wikisource before nominating things to be transwikied. Wikisource already has Christ the Lord Is Risen Today and most of the other hymns written by Charles Wesley. I've removed the primary source text from the article and replaced it with an interwiki link, just as was suggested in the VFD discussion of another hymn by Charles Wesley, " Love Divine, All Loves Excelling". (The discussion is at Talk:Love Divine, All Loves Excelling.) Please re-read the article and consider other courses of action. Uncle G 13:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the rewritten stub. Notable hymn. Pburka 15:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gamaliel 15:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Well-known hymn. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. And, er, thanks for getting it stuck in my head. This is a major hymn. Jesus Christ is Risen Today should be made as a redirect if this survives. - Aranel ("Sarah") 17:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You're welcome. : - ) I realize it's a major hymn; I sang for three different churches last Easter and it was used at all three. My question is: Is it something to be included in an encyclopedia?
  • Keep. Well-known hymn. -- Idont Havaname 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just because this is a major hymn does not validate this pathetic article. Denni ☯ 23:15, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've tried to expand the article a bit. Note, however, that "Jesus Christ is risen today" is a different hymn. This article is about "Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia! Sons of men and angels say. Alleluia! Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia! Sing, ye heavens, and earth reply, Allelulia!" The other hymn (which I at least know much better) is an anonymous translation of an anonymous Latin hymn, and it goes "Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia! Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia! Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia! Suffer to redeem our loss!" -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 07:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Whilst several hymnals list them as different hymns, note that the final and antepenultimate verses of the former hymn are in fact the first and second verses of the latter one. Uncle G 10:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I'm disputing this; I checked a Disciples of Christ hymnal and a Catholic hymnal (see the talk page) and they have different texts. The music seems to be interchangible, but the text is not the same. -- Essjay · Talk 11:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've posted the text of my hymnal at the talk page. It's demonstrably different. Perhaps it's printed with alternate text elsewhere? -- Essjay · Talk 12:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Denni. JamesBurns 08:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep...it is an historically important Easter hymn, very important in Methodism, and there is much to say about it other than a simple text and dates. KHM03 12:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable hymn, explication possible and useful. Xoloz 17:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Words have gone to WikiSource; entry is now encyclopaedic. Peter Ellis 04:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - WP is open to articles on all sorts of topics and subjects. Tolkien minutia is welcome here, but not articles about hymns? - Acjelen 04:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as rewritten, is at least as significant as Layla. Dsmdgold 03:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. - Splash 21:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Khuded

Nonsensical & very little content. Also the title doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article itself. KFP 12:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 01:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Liquid (Church)

Is nothing more than a stub, and even if it weren't, it still wouldn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Essjay · Talk 13:04, July 17, 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. Joyous (talk) 02:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

St. John's Church, Camas, Washington

Stub, and article doesn't demonstrate any reason to be included in an encyclopedia Essjay · Talk 13:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Essjay · Talk 13:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.. Gamaliel 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Camas, Washington. — RJH 23:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence that this is a notable church. No need for a merge, I don't think, because there's basically no encyclopedic content here, aside from "there's a church called St. John's in Camas". CDC (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable church. JamesBurns 08:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable church. Xoloz 17:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Currently Boilerplate (text), but let the originator create a truly encyclopaedic entry another time. Peter Ellis 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 15:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

You Need More Money

Stub, doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Essjay · Talk 13:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect per users below; it's been here for a year, and hasn't had a content edit since last September (that is, all the edits since then have been spelling fixes etc.) -- Essjay · Talk 19:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I did not know that criteria for deletion included whether articles or stubs had had a content edit within the last 12 months-- AYArktos 02:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
It doesn't; I was making the point that it was unlikely to be de-stubbed, as nobody has paid any attention to it in over a year. It should be redirected. -- Essjay · Talk 22:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but only if notability is not established. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hillsong Church-- Porturology 13:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Published book available on amazon. Pburka 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hillsong Church. The book is already mentioned in that article. Doctor Whom 16:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hillsong Church. Dcarrano 18:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. - Splash 22:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've heard of the book before, and it's a fine example of the ideology behind Hillsong and why Houston is such scum. Ambi 14:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above. I believe this is a self-published book, and I find these are vanity creations, not independently notable. Xoloz 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the church is extremely notable in Australia for its controversial (for many Australians) approaches which are in fact shifting the religious and political landscape in this country. The book merits a separate article as the sentiments are very different to the values of many Australians. There are separate articles for other Christian books such as This Present Darkness, Come Holy Spirit and Charismatic Chaos (book) - this book is at least as notable.-- AYArktos 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hillsong Church with expanded entry there. Peter Ellis 04:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Seattle Catholic

Single line stub with no notability. Essjay · Talk 13:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Essjay · Talk 13:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is established. -- malathion talk 14:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per malathion. Gamaliel 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Amoako

Non-notable vanity page the wub "?/!" 14:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, non-notable activist. Dcarrano 18:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 00:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)=== PUNE=== No content that should be merged to Pune; and even the title does not need to be redirected in my opinion. Delete -- Marcika 14:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per Marcika. Ken 15:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about a well-known city in India. More information will be provided by myself on this city on this site. Plz dont delete. Undelete-- Munira

  1. The article Pune already exists though, as already mentioned. This page is therefore redundant.
  2. Undelete is not a valid option. It also makes no sense.
  3. Speedy Delete -- TheParanoidOne 15:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

English for children

Non-notable company advertisement. Reads like an ad brochure for the company. Searching on Google found very few links that can be attributed to this company. Recommend delete. — Cleared as filed. 14:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


KeepIt is not an advertisement, it is an information guide to the company. Wikipedia is designed to provide users with free information about a whole range of different topics; this is one such topic. The page does not, in any way, advance the goals of the firm through commercial usage, only affirming its existence. -80.120.190.34

  • Delete. Use of the word 'we' throughout reveals its inner vanity nature. Nandesuka 18:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Not to mention "Please call us for a sample lesson free of charge!" Anyway, delete, non-notable company. Dcarrano 18:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatant advertising 82.44.213.192 19:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - advertising-- Pold 00:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN, spam, mis-titled (s/b proper noun). -- A D Monroe III 00:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

In response to the above criticisims, I firstly reformatted the page to make it more formal and remove any hint of an adverising tone. Next, the arguement proposed that the firm in question is non-notable has to be discussed from several viewpoints.

  • Firstly, notability cannot simply be measured by how many internet hits and links one can find for it. Some companies, through either economical reasons or geographical inability, cannot be montioned or monitored on the internet regardless of how notable they may truely be.
  • Secondly, the word non-notable is in itself a highly relative term and depends purely on the views and experiances of the individual in question who makes the assurtion. This is often the case with grocery stores(and in this case language accuistion programmes) in which the notabilty depends highly on the geographical location of whoever is claiming the firm to be notable/non-notable. Shopper's Warehouse is highly notable in America whereas in Germany, where the firm doesn't exist, anyone would calim the firm as non-notable.

Also, the definition of an encyclopedia according to the merriam-webster's dictionary is, " a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge." and from dictionary.com, "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects." Looking at the definitions, one can see that wikipedia, the proclaimed "online and free encyclopedia" should be held to that definition. "All branches of knowledge" and "wide range of sujects" dictates that wikipedia should allow this page to be left online as it constitutes to a widening of the available knowledge on this site. Lastly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, wikipedia's own mission statement, " Its(wikipedia) purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible." The mission statement itself states that the authors on wikipedia are merely expending it to encompass all ranges of topics. I am merely one such author. Bringing new information to this site helps not only people understand and gain more knowledge themselves, but may spur other people to add their own comments and pages, another one of wikipedia's goals. I am merely trying to provide people who may not have known about this company information, in the same way all other pages due. This response should bring to light the true intentions of this page, so once again, Keep -80.120.190.34

  • Comment. You can't vote twice. Looking at your revisions, it's just as much an advertisement for a non-notable company as it was, now it's merely not as much in the first person anymore (we do this, we do that). This is not a substantial enough revision for me to change my vote. — Cleared as filed. 19:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still feels advert. Same material you've got in German in your promotional page. The entry was done clearly to promote business. No serious references to double-check (URL, printed ISBN, besides reports in the general press press of its activities), to prove it has a place in the teaching history as it hints. Stating that an encyclopedia must contain everything at all is no argument. I keep my delete vote. -- Pold 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)=== Kui Yong Sin=== Promotional vanity page. Delete. Ken 14:54, July 17, 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. Joyous (talk) 18:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dan Darling

Delete. An intern and a blogger. NN. Gamaliel 15:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete this please, darling. Dunc| ☺ 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete wow, and intern AND a blogger? how interesting. Friday 17:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable blogger. JamesBurns 08:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Asep Muhajir

I first marked this as a speedy but it might not quite meet the criteria. I'm not sure if this is a personal attack or a vanity page. If it is vanity it should probably be userfied. KFP 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy as possible attack page. - Splash 18:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy as per Splash. -- Etacar11 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete looks like an attack page. JamesBurns 08:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Terence Gunning

Vanity. smoddy 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete standard nn vanity. Also delete Eamonn Gunning, another vanity page created by same anon user. -- TheMidnighters 15:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it, more will come and it is unwise to be so quick to condemn vanity.
  • Comment from 218.42.221.38, author of article.
  • Delete this as well as Eamonn Gunning from the same author. Gamaliel 16:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ummm, is that a threat of vandalism from the author? Friday 17:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 18:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 01:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit· t 20:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Acetone Peroxide production

Not a good idea to have a cookbook here Shaddack 15:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete - not worried about terrorisst seeing this - but there is bound to be some kid who will try this. 62.253.64.15 16:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I've speedied this (and would have if I had ben first to see it). The issue was discussed on the talk page of the main article and I've no idea why IP 4.250.138.52 chose to look back in the history and make a new article, just as I have deep questions about the original appearance of the manufacturing instructions added here (and on another explosive) on 30 April 2005 by IP 85.206.83.143 which is in Lithuania. There may also be some sense in advising appropriate authorities of the original source of the 'recipe'. See talk page for more. -- Vamp: Willow 16:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dorothy Hall-Kinnear

Delete standard autobio nn vanity. Just read the last line. TheMidnighters 15:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)=== Scott F. Smith===

Delete. Hoax? Vanity? No relevant google hits. No google hits for the "Fritz-Schmidt Institute". Gamaliel 15:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, sadly, Mr. Smith has chosen a profession whose practicioners are hardly ever well-known. Dcarrano 22:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 01:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Traver Rains

Vanity. smoddy 15:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Abstain, originally voted delete since it seemed made up or vanity. But if deleted, include Richie Rich (designer) created by same anon user. Google search of "richie rich" "traver rains" returns about 800 results, but I don't know how to discern notability for fashion designers-- TheMidnighters 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Google returned 869 results. [23] - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Cleanup or delete Current article is very POV and in need of cleanup. However, slightly notable person working for a notable company, so given enough work on the page, it's worth keeping I think.
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 18:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

DJ Kilmartin

Non-notable 'drummer' who used to play on pots and pans P0per 15:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no claim to notability. - Harmil 16:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Friday 17:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 15:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Amber Rose (porn star)

Google search for amber-rose queefer gives 18 hits, some of which are wikipedia mirrors. Vanity page. Delete. -- Norvy (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This may be because of aliases used when refering to her. Finding her real name was quite a challenge. -- Easyas12c 23:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply


  • Keep and cleanup Slightly notable ( according to Google) porn actress with 1,600 hits. I think this entry is too geared toward her recent work, and should probably be edited with less emphasis on anything in particular that she's done recently and more on her career as a whole and notable films. - Harmil 02:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While a Google search revealed 46700 results, most of the results weren't about her. [24] This indicates that she is not particularly notable. Capitalistroadster 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Huh?! Because there are more notable "Amber Roses" out there, this one is non-notable?! I suggest you just stick to my results, above. - Harmil 02:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable porn star known only to fans of an obscure sub-genre. AdorableRuffian 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Cleanup. If this was cleaned up a bit to explain more of why she is notable, we should keep it. Otherwise, delete. Nandesuka 18:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The fact that she works in an obscure sub-genre sets her apart and makes her more notable, in my opinion. Pburka 19:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- verifiable actor - Longhair | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2005

(UTC)

  • Keep, clean up and expand: my God that's a double-entendre.
  • Delete, that few hits for a porn actress = non-notable. Dcarrano 22:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subgenre is very obscure and I couldn't find another as notable porn star on that genre as she is -- Easyrider1283 2005-07-18T01:50:31.0+03:00
  • Keep. She is a genuine adult actress. Agree with Pburka's point about notability. -- Judson 22:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I already said on the talk page before VfD (with minor corrections)... Queefing genre isn't that big, so basicly anyone who has been in the movies is notable within the genre. And they will be even more notable, if the genre grows huge someday. So either it is reported as a shortly fading phenomenon or a huge success. So notable anyway I'd say. If there are lots of pornstars specialised in queefing who have been in the genre before 2002, then I guess that would make her less notable. -- Easyas12c 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable genre actress. JamesBurns 08:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trivial and unnecessary. CalJW 13:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets the Google test for me. Impurience of her field is not reason for deletion. Xoloz 17:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup Enough Google hits for me.-- Grpunkim 19:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only with expansion. measurements would be a plus -- fpo 01:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --  BRIAN 0918  00:19, 1 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. Joyous (talk) 23:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Lesbian Queefing & Other Kinks

Non-notable movie by non-notable porn star. Google search for lesbian-queefing other-kinks turns up 53 results, which are wikipedia mirrors and online stores with one-line descriptions. Delete. -- Norvy (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nn. BTW Norvy, you can use "-wikipedia" on Google searches to remove Wikipedia and most of the sites that use Wikipedia content (as they will mention Wikipedia on the page). - Harmil 02:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable. AdorableRuffian 17:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 19:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per vote below. JamesBurns 08:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trivia. CalJW 13:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Amber, The Lesbian Queefer (movie)

Non-notable movie by non-notable porn star. Delete. -- Norvy (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It's no "Whore of The Rings" or "Sa-pornos" :-) -- Madchester 16:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete 1000 hits on Google, but most are retail sites... - Harmil 16:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, very obscure and non-notable. AdorableRuffian 18:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 19:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable movie, per IMDB. Pburka 19:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Verifiable film. - Longhair | Talk 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn, obscure. Wikipedia IMDB. - Splash 22:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Important because of it's relation to queef. Note that there are not many queef movies that are more notable than this one (, not in Wikipedia anyway) -- Easyas12c 22:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are many other erotic movies that have articles on wikipedia. -- Judson 22:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep verifiable genre film. JamesBurns 09:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Trivia. Serves no purpose except as an advertisement. CalJW 13:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obscure ? Or even very obscure.... sounds interesting :-) MutterErde 14:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not my kind of thing mind you, but it is notable only for the fact that this is one of the (apparently) few movies in this sub-genre. Therefore it should be covered, if only for that reason. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 04:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 23:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

DFTA

Non-notable local band -- TheParanoidOne 16:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Friday 17:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep User:Bancroftian We should work on expanding the entry not deleting it. This band has relative fame, I've heard of them. We should get started on the expansion instead of deletion.
    • You are free to expand on the article. If you can establish notability, then it may encourage others to a) change their vote and b) add to the article. -- TheParanoidOne 05:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable. -- KFP 15:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I seem to recall hearing of DeinitelyMaybe, but this band is a dissolved local band. Not notable. -- Scimitar parley 16:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • There are numerous examples on Wikipedia of bands that only have local fame and don't meet some of the criteria that are allowed to be kept up. User:Bancroftian
      • You are free to use examples of such, as demonstrations of an existing precedence. -- TheParanoidOne 19:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no proper album releases, no evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow.sg:The 14th Editor

Possible hoax. Website has no mention of any such 14th editior. Even then, it should be merged with Tomorrow.sg and doesn't justify its own article. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • WTF? Even if blog is notable, editor is not. Delete. Dcarrano 19:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article on the "rumor" of an "unknown" contibutor to an obscure blog? How very NN. -- A D Monroe III 00:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable blog. JamesBurns 09:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak weak delete. SHINE was sanctioned by the government. Tomorrow.sg was sanctioned by SHINE. An editor of Tomorrow.sg might be pushing it...a little. -- Natalinasmpf 12:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a PI agency. Mandel 12:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 23:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Showa (temp)

temp page used in move, delete JeroenHoek 16:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • I think that this could qualify as a speedy delete. Jeltz talk 18:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete empty article. JamesBurns 09:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Eamonn Gunning

Vanity -- TheParanoidOne 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, not notable. -- NoPetrol 17:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Friday 17:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Six whole Google hits. - Aranel ("Sarah") 17:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 19:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 01:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep it I dont believe in deleting an entry just because the person is non-notable. I think it would be cool to have information about non notable people so you could see where people you knew at high school are now, and that sort of thing. (Unsigned vote by Sexyeamo ( talk · contribs))

  • Delete Ditto as above, but Sexyeamo has a good idea for a possible new wiki project. Karmafist 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Well, there's already a million of those reunion sites, like classmates.com... -- Etacar11 14:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 06:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

MC Pee Pants

This is an article on a minor recurring character on the television program Aqua Teen Hunger Force. I vote that this article be deleted because the character is already described in as much detail on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force article. NoPetrol 17:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Character bio on ATHF article is sufficient, anything more specific on this character should be in episode summaries, not bios. -- Norvy (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge then Delete. I see one sentence from this article that could be sent over there, and that is where Meatwad likes MC's rap but everyone else hates it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
That's not even correct. Carl doesn't seem to mind MC's rap when MC Pee Pants makes his first appearance. -- NoPetrol 02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, before Wikipedia becomes useful only to Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. Nandesuka 18:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I loved MC Pee Pants. "I had a strizzoke in my brizzain!" That said, redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force, already covered there. Dcarrano 19:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 20:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Uvaduck 20:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to ATHF article. - Mustafaa 23:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable minor character. JamesBurns 09:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect he's certainly notable to fans of the series but as much information on him thats going to exists already exists in those other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 19:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Sentait

I think this article results from an accidental misinterpretation of french.

I can find absolutely no mention of this goddess anywhere, and I think its an error resulting from translating a description of Hathor from french (sentait = felt i.e. (one who) felt in French), as much of the description is that of a form of hathor, with the "name" of "sentait" possibly being a title (as the french translation of the title).

"Sentait" also doesn't look very Egyptian as a word. The only translations I can see are

  • "brother-land-father" (i.e. brother of the father-land or brother of the land's father)
  • "kiss-land-father" (i.e. (one who) kisses the fatherland or (one who) kisses the land's father)
  • "sister-father" (i.e. the father's sister or the sister's father)
  • "sister-room" (i.e. the sister's room or the room's sister)
  • "sister-picture" (i.e. the sister's picture or the picture's sister
  • "sister-my" (i.e. my sister), requiring double feminine ending (e.g. bastet rather than bast)

none of which make much sense. [N.b. don't value my ability to translate it well, I'm not a professional Egyptologist].

I'm really not completely certain here, so its really only a

  • Weak delete unless someone can verify it without using Wikipedia mirrors. ~~~~ 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This is my first votes for deletion vote, so please bear with me. I vote keep. Doing a Google search of Sentait goddess -Wikipedia comes up with a lot of sites which have this information, although admittedly not much more than that she was an Egyptian cow goddess. Now it's possible that they got their information from Wikipedia, but they don't say so. See http://www.alsirat.com/deathlore/deathgods/sentait.html, http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/sentait.html, http://www.aurochs.org/cows/famous/, and http://library.thinkquest.org/12865/mray/pegy.htm, just from the first page of the Google results. I did do an image search, but it only came up with one image which is unlikely to be what we're interested in. John Barleycorn 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Google searching is that
  • You also need to do -encyclopedia and -GFDL as some don't cite wikipedia (unfortunately also cutting out encyclopedias with original info)
  • When the article has been up for a while, you run into places where people have read the article on Wikipedia, and published it as part of their own sites, but in their own words
The way to cut this out is to check exactly what they have written. It will tend to be virtually identical in substance to Wikipedia, sometimes refactored a bit, with no new information.
In particular, in this case, with Egyptian words there are usually a variety of spellings - e.g. set=seth=sutekh, nebt-het=nebhet=nepthys, bast=bastet=ubasti=pasht - due to the fact that the vowels are not completely known, and there was sound change over the vast period of egyptian history. However, for this goddess there is only "sentait" which is very unusual, variations should exist, e.g. (this isn't necessarily a legitimate variation - it depends on what the hieroglyphs actually are) "sentejt", "snetajt", "senetajt" and "senetay-te", and there would at least be the greek version & egyptian version which would be two different words (e.g. horus vs. har, isis vs aset, iusaaset vs. saosis).
So these articles are likely just to be from information that originated here, albeit indirectly.
In a way, if I created an article Hoger, about the cross between a horse and a tiger (c.f. liger), and it existed without people questioning it for a few years, then it would appear across the internet on people's own sites, rather than Wikipedia mirrors, particularly if it was difficult to verify - e.g. I said that Hoger's were rare, and only existed in antiquity, as the breeds of horse suitable have since died out.
I have tried searching google for the term (Sentait, and various different guesses at alternate spellings) before I put it up for VFD, but couldn't find a single mention that didn't seem like it had ultimately originated from somewhere other than here. ~~~~ 21:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Essentially, from your list,
so these are all the same source - pantheon.org, like most such articles will be
and many articles from pantheon.org are basic copies from earlier versions of wikipedia articles (or vice versa, not sure which), making the same basic errors (e.g. treating one god as two, despite the fact that when you translate the names it is so obvious that you would never make the error) ~~~~ 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
in fact, google search "sentait -wikipedia -mythica -encyclopedia -le" ("le" to cut out some of the french usage of the french word "sentait") only returns 606 articles, almost all of which are lists of gods copied from wikipedia etc. or french using the word "sentait", sa normal french word. ~~~~

Okay. I obviously didn't do sufficient research, and you sound like you know what you're talking about. I will change my vote to delete based on your comments. John Barleycorn 21:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

N.b. it can always be recreated if someone later verifies it and it has been deleted. ~~~~ 07:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pantheon.org is filled with bad information, this was just another example. The page on that site was created in 1997, the one here was only made in 2002. DreamGuy
err, though the pantheon.org page has a lot less information than the one here... hrmmmm.... got me second guessing myself now... won't change vote for now, but let me thikn this over. DreamGuy 03:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I would prefer it if more than 3 people voted on this. ~~~~ 07:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not a professional and my resources are too limited; a newcomer too. For these reasons, I am not sure I should vote here (would have voted to delete though). But what I did, I additionally looked up Russian sites for religion and mythology of ancient Egypt. For what I was able to dig through in one day, I found no traces of anything even resembling the name Sentait (including whichever variations of "Sentait" in Russian or English I came up with :). For example, http://middleeast.org.ua/history/egypt.htm or http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/036/599.htm seem to contain credible research with numerous quotations and references to the sources such as translations of Egyptian papyri, museum exhibits, professionally reviewed publications or printed books by famous egyptologists. Among those, of older times: M. E. Mathieu (ru: М. Э. Матье) or B. A. Turaev (ru: Б. А. Тураев) or V. S. Golenischeff (see e.g. http://www.cesras.ru/eng/pers/pers.htm); also other sources and more recent ones, as well. I am wondering if this new name for a goddess emerged on the Internet as the result of even newer research, but in this case especially, shouldn't one expect credible references to the sources. Of course I could have missed the obvious (must be well hidden! :) - would be great to have a professional step in. - Introvert talk 08:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
You are entitled to vote if you have over 200 edits. If you are uncertain it doesn't matter, essentially, we can always create the article anew if it later proves that Sentiat is genuine, there wouldn't be much lost through deleting it (the article only has about 2 sentences) ? ~~~~ 08:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - found no credible supporting research (please see my comment above). - Introvert talk 06:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (PS: Please note that I am a newcomer and I don't have 200 edits even nearly but I wasn't aware this to be a requirement for VfD voting. Please discard my vote should it be in violation of the policies. ) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The page was completely overhauled by the end of the time period, making the vote invalid. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Totes

Dicdef, if that. -- Tagishsimon (talk)

  • Delete - neologism, dicdef. -- TheMidnighters 18:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Wasn't there a company called Totes that made socks? Even if there was, delete this rubbish. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Google Totes. The first result is "the world's largest marketer of umbrellas, gloves, raincoats, rubber overshoes...". (Thought so. I think I have one of their umbrellas...) Totes + umbrellas gets 197,000 Google hits; Totes + socks gets 171,000 (with a few matches for the sock company in the first 2 pages). So delete this Urban Dictionary slang dicdef and convert the page into a disambig for the umbrella company and the sock company. -- Idont Havaname 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG STRONG KEEP Totes is a large company that makes gloves, wallets, umbrellas, etc. Why should it be deleted?
    • All that content was added since I placed my vote: before hand it was some rubbish about a word used in chat forums. Keep in its current format. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – AB C D ✉ 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Richard Chandler (editor)

This feels like vanity by an unencyclopedic fanzine editor. I advocate redirection to Gallery (APA/'zine). — Theo (Talk) 18:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, no verifiable claim to notability. Dcarrano 22:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

As the person referenced, I just thought I should mention that I didn't make the entry. I have no opinion one way or the other about merging the entry with the one on my 'zine, but it wasn't put here out of Vanity. - Rich Chandler 7/21/05 10:58 PDT

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Relate

Delete a statement of the obvious that is either said explicitly elsewhere or is implicit in writing an article. Appeared to exist because there was/is Template:Relate which has now been voted for deletion over at TfD. - Splash 18:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - dunno able the template but definitely shouldn't be in Wikipedia: space CDC (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per CDC. JamesBurns 09:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. CfD deleted the unpopulated category, then TfD deleted the unused template, and now it's time for VfD to delete the confused page. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit· t 01:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tao Yang(I)

This vfd was started by 61.157.145.177. Every vote or comment to date has been from an anon user, all of which I've placed below the sockpuppet section. It also was not listed on the vfd page. So let's start over, shall we?

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

Votes from registered users

  • Delete. Resumecruft. Gamaliel 06:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. He is well-published with number of books to his credit. Capitalistroadster 19:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete socks suck.  Grue  19:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep. An author of multiple books stays. mikka (t) 20:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep. An author of multiple books stays. Article might be toned down, a little. -- Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Marginal keep, needs to look less like his CV though; mention what he did first in the lead section, his career after. Dunc| ☺ 21:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep despite rampant socks. Seems notable enough by my standards. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 23:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fuzzy logic is one of those fields in which it's easy to write books because it's mostly BS. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch. JamesBurns 09:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Many books are not so-called fuzzy logic. James1234 06:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppet votes

(please sign your vote to count by adding four ~'s followed your votes. It is important!)

Keep. Yang in his 1998 Physical Letter A paper

TAO YANG, ``Optimizing Stochastic Resonance in Visual System, Physics Letters A, 10 Aug. 1998, vol.245, (no.1-2):79-86.

Addressed the way to processing images with extremely low SNR, we found this method is very useful in many applications. Nice theory and thank you very much for your contribution to real-life image processing! 221.239.142.113 07:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Please keep! I am a graduate student, I know the theory of computational verb fuzzy controller from my undergraduate text book (see the following link:)

http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/puo/arro/ARROCourse/ContentPage.aspx?nid=20041101232701

This control theory was invented by Tao Yang in 1997. 218.83.230.156 06:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

We can find that Tao Yang had made big contributions to control theory. This is a REAL book, a GREAT book written by the very expert and a mathematician. 61.172.63.204 06:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep it! I feel so awful that someone wanted to initiate a deleting proposal for this entry. I found this Tao Yang did many interesting scientific researches such as: computational verb, physical linguistics, computational noun, to name a few. These concepts constitute a new science of matter and minds. I found this Tao Yang also did many applications of scientific principles to engineering problems, as well as many pure mathematical researches. These researches are very important to our knowledge base and therefore deserve to display in Wikipedia. 222.69.229.68
  • Keep. He is a Mathematician, a Scientist, an Engineer, a CEO, and will be a great Scientist. Pure and simple! 221.239.146.175
  • Keep. I never know any folk scientist could publish papers on the following first-class journals:
    • Physica D
    • Physics Letters A
    • International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos
    • IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
    • IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems
    • International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications

Yang published many scientific papers in the above-mentioned journals.

Yang also published the following book:

    • TAO YANG, Impulsive Control Theory, Berlin: Spinger-Verlag, Aug. 2001, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 272, ISBN 354042296X

by the well-known technical publisher [Spinger-Verlag]. It is an insult to such a famous publisher and its editors to the book serial "Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences" by calling any author of any book in this book serial a "folk scientist".

Yang had been worked in the [University of California, Berkeley] for more than 5 years as a visiting scholar. It is an insult to [University of California, Berkeley] if a "folk scientist" had been worked in one of its best department for such a long time.

It is also an insult to the Office of Technology Licensing, University of California, Berkeley, for they allowing a so-called "folk scientist" to gain the following patent:

    • Title of Invention: ``Chaotic Digital Code-Division Multiple Access(CDMA) Communication Systems. Inventors: Tao Yang and L.O. Chua . Filing Number: University of California, Berkeley, Office of Technology Licensing, Case No. B-97-080-2, U.S.Patent 6,331,974 issued Dec.18,2001. 218.78.201.110
  • Keep it! From this page I found lots of valuable information on [cellular image processing]. I vote to keep it! 218.90.140.2
  • Just folk scientist. Delete it. 61.157.145.177
  • Keep. hi sockers, please support our hero in a wiser way. A real support is to keep rational. Goudong 01:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • First edit.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 23:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Justin A. Cobb

Delete autobio nn vanity. 23 Google hits. TheMidnighters 19:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nn vanity. -- KFP 19:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Friday 20:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 20:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn vanity (contains hobbies section). -- Etacar11 01:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gregory J. Brewer, PhD

Delete - was started as a blatant attack page (see first edit), then, instead of being speedied, was edited to a stub that will likely never be expanded. TheMidnighters 19:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. www.icr.org (one of 4300 google hits) lists him as a creation scientist. That's a bit unusual for someone who seems to be prominent in mainstream research. He has potential for an interesting biography, and seems more notable than the average professor. Pburka 19:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • delete. nonnotable. Pburka's search criterion is a bit faulty. "Gregory Brewer" OR "Gregory J. Brewer" gives some 300 unique hits. mikka (t) 20:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn. His website makes no statements about his notability beyond the average college prof, so he fails the professor test. - Splash 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn professor. -- Etacar11 01:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn professor -- and if he is a creation scientist, this fact (standing alone) would make him less notable, as he is likely to be shunned in his field. Xoloz 17:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Persecution of non-Muslims

The title of this article, being as unspecific as it is, is a POV fork. It is riddled with, lets call them inaccuracies, and whats with the Islam Category? -- Irishpunktom\ talk 09:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

    • if there is a problem with inaccuracies, correct them. If all inaccurate articles in Wikipedia were deleted instead of corrected, there would be no Wikipedia. Tnhis article needs to be deleted, though, because its name is incorrect and there exists a better alternative now. -- Germen 09:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • keep (Abstain; I have no knowledge to judge the article by its merits). You did not provide convincing argument. POV fork of what? Why POV? Were non-muslims persecuted or not? If there are inaccuracies, please list them in the talk page or correct. mikka (t) 19:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see the point of this article. There are over 4 billion non-Muslims. How can we make one article about their persecution? Heraclius 22:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed, the suggestion of Mustafaa is better i.e. to rename this article to "Religious prosecution by Muslims", which is I think a relevant subject. -- Germen 09:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, only editor is a known problem user who has developed the obnoxious habit of creating new articles ( [25], [26]) to suit his POV rather than being willing to cooperate with others on existing ones. (Trend within these articles is of course obvious.) Dcarrano 22:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • You have no proof for this thus baseless slander. I have contributed to several articles and cooperated with several authors. Unfortunately, some people seem to have trouble in distinguishing between their personal POV and NPOV. -- Germen 09:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, cleanup, and neuter. The topic title is about as neutral as is the Persecution of Muslims article, and belongs in the same general Religious persecution suite. — RJH 23:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; topic already treated better, under more meaningful titles, in Persecution_of_Christians#Islamic_persecution_of_Christians, Persecution of Jews#Arab and Islamic (sadly, Persecution of Hindus is junk.) "Persecution of non-Muslims" would refer to persecution of non-Muslims anywhere; what the author means is probably "Religious persecution by Muslims" (to which, if kept, this should be moved.) We don't have a "Religious persecution by..." series, as far as I know, and I don't think we need one. - Mustafaa 23:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • There does not exist a summary page yet. It makes sensde to have such a page I think. -- Germen 09:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge with existing article. Persecution by Muslims is as legitimate as a subject as persecution of Muslims, so I do not see the point of earlier remarks. The remark of Mustafaa is valid, I will create a new article under this name, because the title he mentioned or "Persecution by Muslims" does not exist as yet. This one can then be deleted. -- Germen 08:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup, as per RJH. JamesBurns 09:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Germen, it's creator and chiefe proponent agrees that "This one can then be deleted", as it stands this article could be about Persecution by Hindus of Christians, or Persecution of Hindus by Christians. It could be about Persecution of Jews by Hitler or his persecution of the Roma, etc. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 11:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, too broad for an article, "non-muslims" is not a group per se. R adiant _>|< 11:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecesary POV article with overly broad scope. Another attempt by Germen to disrupt Wikipedia ( WP:POINT) by creating more POV articles when his edits are rejected elsewhere. Why not focus on compromise and work on existing articles than consistantly attempting to circumvent Wikipedia policy in this way? Axon 14:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Hm, an interesting, but somewhat paranoid twist to the story. I am quite a fan of Wikipedia (as proven by many hours of editing), so disrupting Wikipedia is not in my interest. IO value good suggestions, so I have created a new article with a title proposed by user:Mustafaa. Check it out here: Religious persecution by Muslims
      • Paranoid: you've already created Prejudice (islam) and Prejudices (islam) articles, now both up for VfD, as well as attempting to re-create the successfully VfD'd Islamophilia article (an article which has been speedily deleted three times now). All these pages seem to contain content related to the protected Islamophobia article. Again, I ask that you focus on compromising and contributing to existing articles rather than rushing to create new articles whenever and whevever you can. You may find you feature less on the VfD pages if you do. Also, please always sign you comments with ~~~~. Axon 21:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Of course, all disputed pages are about islam. The majority here agrees that the article ipse has reason to exist but disagree on its title. This problem has been fixed. -- Germen 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete title is ridiculous and unencyclopedic. A "Persecution by Muslims" article might work, but should only exist if "Persecution by Christians" also exists. In any case, that can be created independently, without need of this tripe. Xoloz 17:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- Viriditas | Talk 09:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. POV, unencyclopedic; see also Mustafaa's points. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Religious persecution by Muslims the wub "?/!" 15:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. -- Michael Snow 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This topic is covered better elsewhere and under specific terms, rather than this general catch all "non-muslim". The original author seems to want it deleted. "Ok, as per suggestion of several users I have started an article called Religious persecution by Muslims. I agree on deleting this gem ;). -- Germen 20:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)" I agree. Hamster Sandwich 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, far too vague, implies non-Muslims are a monolithic group persecuted by a monolithic group of Muslims. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- incredibly broad - the religious persecution by Muslims seems to be what was created here. gren 20:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

MC Babushka

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 19:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

They got me! It took quite a long time for me to recognize a hoax. mikka (t) 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I think he just about makes the cut. Dcarrano 20:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Due to the paper shortage, we regrettably cannot document every person who's ever posted on a forum, but this guy is more than just a forum user. Friday 20:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Dcarrano. -- TheMidnighters 20:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep MC Babushka is quite honestly a legend within the Oasis fan internet community. He is not just some random virgin browsing a web forum looking for topless women, but rather he has an endless wealth of knowledge for all things Oasis and indie. Mention you know "Babu" on any Oasis forum, and you will be given instant respect and credibility. -- Scubes 18:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. and perhaps Friday is referring to the not-paper shortage =). Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 23:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable fan. JamesBurns 09:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - we would run out even virtual paper if we would mention all the possible forum contributors in all the web forums. (Not to mention that the words could conceivable mean "motorcycle club russian mother" :-7) - Skysmith 10:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep To be fair, Ville (MC Babushka) is actually a real important symbol in the global Oasis community. He used to be a big staple in the Brit Pop scene in the late 90s and was always spotted among the more promenent Europeans during release parties. He's not just some "forum user" as some people would like to describe him. I'm trying to look for my article from Q Magazine a few years back so I could show you that he was briefly mentioned in an Oasis article. It was something about how obessesive he was with the band and how he wouldn't eat/sleep until they came to Helsinki to perform. Out of sympathy, the band invited him to a few parties and shows in the UK and that's when he started to get some attention. I think he's a small part of British pop culture, but I vote he stays TheSunTheSea
    • A groupie is a groupie is a groupie. nothing notable. Every band of some notability has obssessive fans, who know how often every band member takes a leak per day. There is no notability in this. mikka (t) 19:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable. Xoloz 17:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep.. the man is a legend.Unsigned vote by 24.154.164.11 ( talk · contribs) -- Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 23:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Irpen 00:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Mikka's comments: Yes, I agree that a groupie is not notable enough to be featured on an encyclopedia, but when a band such as Oasis dedicates a song to a person such as Ville, I think it's quite notable. How many "groupies" do you know of that have a song dedicated to them? In case you're wondering, Oasis wrote a song a few years ago called "Wonderwall". I suggest you check it out -- TheSunTheSea

KEEP! How dare you consider even deleting this page. Ville is a legend and a godsend and w/out question a reason for Oasis' career lasting so on. He also is a legend in the wrestling circle. Back in 1999 the WWF was doing a house show in Turku, Finland. Babu was there and The Big Show was doing a fan challenge and he got into the ring and CHOKESLAMMED the 7 foot, 500+ pound Big Show. This would not only be a disservice to virgins and Oasis fans everywhere, but to humankind itself. Keep MC Babushka. He's also a musical artist and has created several albums, mostly of Finnish bippity boppity crap music, but he tries at least. (unsigned; by User:69.248.221.16. mikka (t) 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)) reply

OK guys, you have had your share of giggle and thrill in making fools of us. How about writing something useful for a change? mikka (t) 00:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Hmm...I don't think this Mikka character is for real. Seriously though, the facts I mentioned alone merits MC Babushka's spot on Wikipedia. That's just my two cents. -- TheSunTheSea


KEEP IT! :)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Whittaker

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

John_Breslin

non-notable blogger cruft Kryptops 21:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • If it is agreed that this person is not a notable blogger, they should be removed from the Categories: Bloggers section. Apart from that, the article seems valid and I would leave it as is. -- Kier Allison 22:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Is he notable enough to have an article? Running a web site and discussing Quake is not really grounds for having an article in my opinion, but feel free to prove me wrong with some evidence of notability. Kryptops 23:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Try Googling for Breslin or John Breslin. I clicked on the Boards.ie site and it isn't just a Quake bulletin board: there are hundreds of forums, and at the moment there's over 42000 members registered there. -- Kier Allison 04:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Having 42000 members on your forums still doesn't make you eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I see nothing notable about the google search results. Can you actually provide evidence of why this deserves to be here? Has he done anything exceptional? I am abstaining from actually voting until more facts are presented, because I had previously not heard of this man or his internet site/blog, and wish to see if there are reasons to keep the article here. Kryptops 12:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He is a troll. (preceding unsigned comment by 80.1.241.102 00:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)) reply
  • Strong Speedy Delete See Kryptops. -- Weev 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete - the site he founded ( boards.ie) is notable, don't think he personally is. -- Kiand 14:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Kiand. Dcarrano 22:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: blogcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We shouldn't favour people whose activities are relatively more prominent on the internet than in the real world, and so far as I can see he's not really any more significant than most moderately successful people his age. CalJW 13:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sendandsee

Alexa: not in 100k. Also some promotion. Feydey 20:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete advertising CDC (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, ad for non-notable company. Dcarrano 17:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 23:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Love

Finishing someone else's nomination. A search on the Focus on the Family website [27] turns up no hits. The words Johnny and love together are sufficiently common that Google shows many hits but I can't find this guy on it. I conclude non-notable/vanity. Delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 20:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable like vanity. He is "semi-controversial", which says it all, really. - Splash 22:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 23:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jose's disease

  • Keep, I think this article should be kept to inform the public of a real, and obvious threat.
  • Delete, very dubious looking, could find no references on web searches. -- Eoghanacht 2005 June 29 18:27 (UTC). Also, the user ( 206.228.78.68) who posted the page is the same one who added the delete notice. Yet he also added the "keep" request above, and overwrote my "delete" vote. -- Eoghanacht 2005 June 29 20:22 (UTC)
  • Keep* Just an FYI, the IP address you listed Eoghanacht is that of a company, that of KnowledgePlanet. Being a company only their external IP address is going to be listed, so very likely multiple user's are posting. Keep that in mind.
  • Speedy Delete: Joke article. Peter Grey 30 June 2005 00:30 (UTC)
  • Keep* Sorry Eoghanacht, I didn't realize I was deleting your entry when I posted mine.
  • Delete inside joke AreEmmKay
  • Delete. Uvaduck 20:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly a joke. And please, the anonymous keep votes aren't helping. Friday 21:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 22:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparently of note in the sock puppet community but not elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax. Xoloz 17:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 - no consensus to delete, but minimal support for this as a separate article. CDC (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Mario Vasquez

Not notable tv show contestant. Some top 5 American idols have made it to WP, but this looks like redirect to American Idol. Feydey 20:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect -- to American Idol. - Longhair | Talk 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there's nothing to be said about him besides that he dropped out (which is already described in American Idol article), and his name is spelled wrong here. Dcarrano 22:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When he dropped out, that made him notable. -- Judson 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable idolist. JamesBurns 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, redirect to TV show. R adiant _>|< 11:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Xoloz 17:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 CLEANUP: 4k, 2d. Including anon nomination vote as well as unusually formatted notDelete since editor has many contribs. Tagged and listed for cleanup. - Splash 21:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Joseph Goguen

This old nomination was never listed, doing so now. -- Dmcdevit· t 20:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Who is this? Does not seem encyclopedia worthy. 163.1.159.104 07:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply

  • notDelete, article mus be expanded -- AndriuZ 13:58, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep, he appears to be a university professor and published author; the article definitely needs improvement, but not deletion. -- Russ Blau (talk) 19:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, the article should be improved. Perhaps I can do this later in the summer (but go ahead, if you want to do it now). Tillmo 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, published professor. JamesBurns 09:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Notability is not established. Most professors are published. Indrian 17:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 23:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Josinaldo Costa

Delete Not notable as far as I can tell. However, I can't read Portugese, so there may be something out there I don't know. Icelight 06:09, July 10, 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 keep; 60 people voted for different proposals (See vote results). Reform should take place on talk pages, not VfD. Talrias ( t | e | c) 01:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Template standardisation

This is instruction creep. It makes no sense whatsoever to standardize the color of templates. On the contrary, the rest of the world out there (afk and online designers) are talking about color coding and user-friendliness. Fenice 20:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC) I have also done some research on how this guideline was set up: the choice of having different colors was not even presented, and the voting system excluded opposing votes.-- Fenice 21:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Um, no. Keep. This is a worthy attempt to bring some kind of order to a horrendous mess. It was chosen in a fair vote. You, Fenice, are only making this allegation because it disagrees with you. There are ways to change policy/guideline. VfD ain't one. smoddy 20:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, obviously. May I also assume that most of the people that voted are also wanting this to be kept. violet/riga (t) 21:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Any disagreement with this page should be addressed in another way. Maurreen 21:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I do not agree with the Template Standardisation guideline, but seeking deletion of the page is not the way to go about expressing disagreement. Courtland 21:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is in Wikipedia namespace and not an encyclopedia article, but apparently, an established style guideline. I am no fan of this template standardization, but I believe that guidelines are out of the scope of Vfds'. See the deletion policy. Vfd is not the right place to propose changes to or removal of guidelines: the page should be retained in any case, even if a decision is made to remove the policy, purely as a matter of the record Wikipedians can all see. -- Mysidia 21:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No, I checked this. You can list guidelines according to the deletion policy. It makes no sense to keep a guideline forever, does it?-- Fenice 22:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. (Dare I say spurious nomination?) This is a recent guideline supported by consensus and a vote. The transition to the new standardized format isn't even complete yet. -- MarkSweep 22:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 23:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Glenn Maerz

Delete nn, vanity, or hoax. 4 Google hits TheMidnighters 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Do not delete Glenn Maerz is a municipal political treasure here in Goshen, NY, and to delete this article would be a crime. He is a legitimate political activist as well as member of the Citizens for Open Space Coalition ( http://www.citizensforopenspace.org/7343.html) and the article is entirely factual. (Unsigned comment by 67.139.63.253 ( talk · contribs))
    • He also can't decide which political party he is from: the name of the party has changed since this article was nominated for deletion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • The Shirtless Grizzly Bear Party of New York has been renamed the Nudist Party of New York in a PR bid for New Yorkers to take its candidates more seriously; please do your research before talking about something you know nothing of in the future, because I'm not always going to be around to do your homework for you. (Unsigned comment by 67.139.63.253 ( talk · contribs))
        • And that change took place while this article was being written did it? PS please don't change the attribution for your comments from your IP to a username. If you have a user name please sign in and use it. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
          • I was informed of the name change shortly after I wrote the article, yes, but the change apparently took place many weeks ago. What other problems do you have with this article, if any?
            • There, I've created an account.
              • Good. The problem I have with the article is the individual in question isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
                • How can you make such a judgement as a non-resident of Goshen? He is a local celebrity here and deserves at the very least a stubbed entry on Wikipedia for all his fame.
                  • That's precisely my point. If he's not notable outside one small town in New York, he's not notable enough for an encyclopedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
                    • I disagree. You are underestimating Goshen's importance and quite frankly, I find that very offensive. We'll see who's not "notable" outside of one "small town" in New York when Governor Maerz is sworn in in 2007.
                      • Oh please, stop wasting my time. The guy is an activist that Google has never heard of. He comes from a town in New York with less than 13,000 people living in it, and the article about him establishes no notability outside who his wife and children are, and the fact that he might one day run for Mayor of New York for a political party that no-one has ever heard of. Come back when he actually gets elected. -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
                        • Again, you're failing to do your research. It is a run for Governor, not Mayor, that Mr. Maerz is considering, and I already linked you to an article that establishes Mr. Maerz's prominent seat on the board of directors for the successful Open Space Coalition. You want me to stop wasting your time? I'm sorry; I know you're a very busy man, spending every waking hour of your day patrolling Wikipedia and all.
  • Delete, nn -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete looks like a joke to me. joke or not, nn. Friday 21:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per TheMidnighters, plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 22:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete Glenn Maerz is an active politician of Goshen and a model citizen. Deleting this entry would be a slap to to the face of this great member of society. (Unsigned comment by 24.161.53.139 ( talk · contribs))
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 01:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lets stop wasting time-- Porturology 02:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • It is not vanity. I've never even met Mr. Maerz, but you can't live here in Goshen and not know of him. (Unsigned comment by 67.139.63.253 ( talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. I didn't merge it as its all POV. I give up caring about this topic, so now you can be as London-centric as you want. Hedley 02:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Charva

Redirect to Chav, not notable enough for separate article SqueakBox 21:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Just to explain why Squeakbox is listing this while voting to redirect: vfd for this page was suggested here and there is an active dispute in progress as to how to make this article more npov. Some feel it should be deleted outright, and so listing here was suggested. Personally I feel it should be merged with Chav. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Would prefer a delete but will settle for redirect. Despite its pretensions, the article makes no attempt to reference its claims and reads like a personal essay. There's barely a single assertion that can't be immediately questioned eg Charvas often stay within their own 'clan', and gang fights can be common, again backing up the theory of mild US influence. What is a charva 'clan'? Are their fights common or not? Whose theory are we talking about? How is their gang fighting a US-influenced phenomenon? adamsan 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Chav. The word 'charva' is just a variant of 'chav' used mainly in the North East of England, and despite the extensive discussion on the talk page I remain to be convinced that it warrants its own article. AdorableRuffian 21:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (or redirect to chav if we absolutely must). Nasty class prejudice, as well as mainly being a dialect variant of chav. — OwenBlacker 22:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or if neccessary, redirect to chav. This article is POV and unverified. I do not see how it can be verified either. Furthermore, it seems to be a close regional variant of chav, which only minor, if any, differences. -- Joolz 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Although a vote from someone who lives where they do will make little difference, Strong über "Or your children will be next~!" keep for the simple reason articles on Islam which are POV aren't deleted. Also, this is not the same thing as chav, which is to be honest even less factually correct than this one. Hedley 08:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Delete because I, quite frankly, couldn't care less. Hedley 18:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge any NPOV information into Chav and redirect. Charva, Chav, Townie etc are different regional names for the same group of people, but the southern-English Chav is the name the media (predominantly based in southern England) have taken to using, and so is the best known of all the names. The others should be redirects. Thryduulf 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That can only be true if one restricts onesself to the U.K. concept(s) of a townie, note. Uncle G 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Chav. JamesBurns 09:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect with chav.. I have seen no evidence against the idea that charva is nothing but a regional variant of chav, and the POV issues here are so great (the article would be a stub if all the unverifiable POV were deleted) that we would benefit more from concentrating on a single article. BTW, we shouldn't keep bad articles because others are doing it. If there are articles on Islam with such amounts of POV, we should try to remedy that instead of making other articles as POV as them. EldKatt ( Talk) 10:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect with chav. All regional variants should be treated similarly. Secretlondon 11:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect with chav. As the article has no references and presents opinion as fact, it is unlikely that there will be much material worth merging. Warofdreams 13:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. The distinction between this lot and the chavs made in para 2 is totally groundless, anyway: [chav] = "often anybody who is stereotypical of the lower class". Nah, that's not right. –Hajor 20:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Mrege and redirect. James F. (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. I agree with EldKatt, alleged POV somewhere is not an excuse for abuse (for it is far worse than just biased writing) here. It disturbs me that User:Hedley is taking this line. Morwen - Talk 15:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect with chav. I've never quite understood why this merited a seperate article from chav in the first place. I've lost count of the number of different names I've heard depending on the part of the country being talked about. Neither "chav" or "charva" are the terms used where I come from, but "chav" is the one that's been picked up by the national media. While there may be regional variations I don't see that chavs of one part of the country are totally unrelated to charvas of another part. The article also has quite a POV problem: "Charvas are widely thought in the North as the scum of British youth today." Presumably the charvas themselves don't take this view. The article's blanket statements about charvas almost remind me of the 1911 EB's country articles talking about the "national character" of somewhere. Compare "Most charvas are considered to be unintelligent, and rarely show any intelligence that they may have, in order to look good around their mates.", "Socially charvas are seen as dis-obedient with a mind of their own." and "Although some can be reasonable, most commit crimes.", with "If the Chinese character is inferior to the European, this inferiority lies in the fact that the Chinaman's whole philosophy of life disinclines him to change or to energetic action. He is industrious; but his industry is normally along the lines marked out by authority and tradition. He is brave; but his courage does not naturally seek an outlet in war." I think we'd do well to have all this stuff under one article so it can be kept in a reasonable state. No one is saying we can't talk about regional differences, so this is a merge, not a delete. — Trilobite ( Talk) 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I've lost count of the number of different names I've heard depending on the part of the country being talked about. Neither "chav" or "charva" are the terms used where I come from, but "chav" is the one that's been picked up by the national media. - round our way it's Ned -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Wikipedia has Ned (Scottish), notice, from which I excised a whole load of such regional synonyms (which are all in Wiktionary) a while back. Uncle G 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Which illustrates the need to merge because I'm not Scottish. Kev is another local one too. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ned (Scottish) to help nuke localisation on Wikipedia, which we clearly want. Hedley 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That's a mischaractization. The issue here is sourcing and verifiability. The editors commenting above appear to be commenting on the fact that in fact there is no localization here, and that, regional pride in who had the concept first and whose spellings are the correct ones notwithstanding, there are no sources provided that make a distinction between the concepts of a charva and a chav. Whereas the BBC and Anoop Nayak from the University of Newcastle think that the two are the same thing. Uncle G 09:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Chav. — Ashley Y 03:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: There seems to be some confusion as to why this article is on VfD. I certainly didn't vote as I did because of the POV issues alone, as should be clear from my previous comments. I hope, and indeed believe, that nobody else did either. As of now, it's unlikely that I'll vote either way in the Ned VfD since I don't want to spend my time reading up on that term, but in the case of charva I hold the firm opinion that it's not different enough from chav to have its own article. The thing that could change that would be new facts being unearthed that point to more differences, but that hasn't happened yet. EldKatt ( Talk) 07:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redirect to Chav.-- Ade myers 23:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) The article tries but fails to convince me of the difference from Chavs. Although it does make a valid point about the rise in chav/charva culture due to post-industrial deprevation, especially in the North of England. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Keep Ëvilphoenix Burn! 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

MuggleNet

MuggleNet was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-30. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-07-30.
MuggleNet was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-10-07.
See also MuggleCast ( AfD discussion).

Wikipedia is being used as a media to publicise a Fan Site. 203.145.137.226 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Fixing malformed AfD notice. That being said, speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination from a vandal. H e rmione 1980 13:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Previously nominated twice, and kept. I don't see any reason to delete this article. MuggleNet is notable enough for J.K. Rowling to invite its founder to her house for an interview. -- D e ath phoenix 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a site that gets 20m hits/month. Marskell 14:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep This is the third nomination in less than six months. This is getting absurd. Jtmichcock 14:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Joyous (talk) 03:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Henry Gallay

Henry Gallay, Barbara Gallay, Kalman Gallay, and Brian Gallay appear to be non-notable family members of Mike Gallay. No encyclopedic value. Tokek 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 22:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Delete them all, per above. Friday 22:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mike Gallay might be borderline notable but his relatives aren't. -- Etacar11 02:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Breathing Meditation: What worx for me!

I think "original research" would be the pertinent category. Joyous (talk) 21:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Correct. Delete. Dcarrano 22:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh dear. - Splash 22:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is not exactly encyclopædic. IINAG July 23rd 2005, 18:29 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. Joyous (talk) 03:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dogheart

Non-notable band. No entry on AMG. EvilPhoenix talk 22:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 22:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 00:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. -- Etacar11 02:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 09:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Cathy Godshall

Vanity page about a preschool director. Joyous (talk) 22:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Gwk 22:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn. Dcarrano 00:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 02:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 03:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Crosby

Non notable Mayor sub-stub. EvilPhoenix talk 22:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, most small-town mayors are not notable. Dcarrano 00:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Mayors are notable, and Yarmouth is a medium sized town :-P -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Earl Andrew - maclean25 03:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 09:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He is notable in Nova Scotia. Besides, "non-notability" is not an accepted grounds for deletion. This article is more than a stub, although it warrants further expaansion. Ground Zero 12:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dcarrano. Since when is a town of population 8000 "medium-sized"? No references in article to substantiate any of the claims and non-notable even if claims were verified. Quale 17:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If 8,000 is not medium sized, than what is? Once you get to 10,000 you get some places being called cities! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A mayor of an important town in Nova Scotia and also president of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Potential to become good article. - Joshuapaquin 11:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The mayor of an important town is notable enough. -- Death phoenix 17:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In lots of places in Canada an 8,000 person town, is considered big. I also point to Iqaluit which is a capital city with about 6,200 people. -- Cloveious 04:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect CDC (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Kemal Hana Gegeo

delete - unless there is more info, non-notable. Most of text is copy and pasted from Uday Hussein page. 165.230.70.71 01:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Someone needs help making links. -- Dmcdevit· t 22:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually he is slightly notable, primarily for the manner of his death. But coverage on the Uday Hussein page should be sufficient. Redirect. — RJH 23:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Uday Hussein; merge shouldn't be necessary if the text is from there anyway. Not notable on his own. Dcarrano 00:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 09:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Dcarrano. Xoloz 17:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – AB C D ✉ 00:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Michael Shapiro (conductor)

copyvio'd vanity. Probably not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 22:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

deleted after listing at WP:CP-- Duk 17:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 15:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Allen Dillan Newman

Non-notable individual (stuntman who has worked on one film); appears to have been written by a friend of the subject. tregoweth 22:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, it would take much more for a stuntman to become notable; also seems hoaxy/personal attack-y, with the stuff about changing his name, "rumors of his death", marrying his sister-in-law, etc. Dcarrano 00:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore yoo can not do this it is not right Marijuanaisbad
    • This user also removed the VfD notice from the article (edit summary: "revert user was playing a practicil joke"). tregoweth 01:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. -- Etacar11 02:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn vanity. Xoloz 18:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Didn't really see anything that wasn't mentioned, edit hitory is preserved for those interested. Sasquatch′↔ T↔ C 00:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Diablerized

Merge with diablerie and delete redirect: this article is redundant. Goblin › talk 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge/Redirect to Diablerie. — RJH 23:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect No need to have two articles. The demiurge 21:45, July 18, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. - Splash 21:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Marty O'Hara

Blatant vanity about someone's favorite history teacher. Delete. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 22:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Be advised that patent nonsense is intended to refer to completely unintelligible text, ie. random characters, not merely nonsensical sentences. At least that's how people are explaining it. EvilPhoenix talk 00:25, July 18, 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. I note that nearly all the votes to keep outright come from anons. I also not that there were 6 redirect votes, and while I don't deem that as enough for a VfD decision, I dnon't think anyone would mind if someone were to create the redirect after this is deleted. -- Dmcdevit· t 01:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha guy

Non notable vanity Francs2000 | Talk 23:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Note the sister article HA! HA! guy is also up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HA! HA! guy

  • Delete for a good laugh. — RJH 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Hetemeel.com -- pile0nades talk | contribs 23:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Why would anybody want to delete this entry? (Unsigned comment by 68.3.232.189 ( talk · contribs))
  • Delete, just a random thing that happened at Fark. Dcarrano 00:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Kept because it's funny. — nightrose 00:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Message board vanity is really the most pathetic form. Who the hell cares about this crap. Postdlf 00:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it Let's figure out who this guy was, or what this image was first associated with. The page should also note that hetemeel.com is the reason for its huge popularity due to the ease of dynamic imaging. -That guy, July 17th, 2005 (Unsigned comment by 67.172.124.173 ( talk · contribs))
  • Delete This would be great for a Fark Wiki, if anyone were to be interested in running such a thing. A detailed listing of every cliche does not belong in Wikipedia, and given that this is very new, only the proven cliches should be mentioned in the Fark entry. Bersl2
  • "Keep it" Because it has the potential to be a serious article. Well...as serious as something related to fark.com can be, at least. But really, have you seen some of the crap contained in Wikipedia? You're going to delete the Ha, Ha! Guy and keep all those other just-as-lame-and-deletion-possible items? Wtf? Just keep the article, police/edit it for about a week, maybe the next two to four days. It'll be fine. Look, if you're going to delete the damn thing, and I don't think you should, at least list it with fark.com somehow. Maybe add a list of the cliches, if there isn't one already. It deserves to be kept because it's funny and because the admins have a bug up their butt at the moment about it. That's really the only reason why you're getting so much traffic on it in the first place. I can assure you that the discussion page does NOT reflect the average farker. The average farker's MENTALITY, but not the average farker. There are those of us who post to fark.com who know how badly it sucks, know how out-of-control and cough-syrup happy the adminstrators and moderators are, and yet simply don't care. And why is that? Because every once in awhile, something comes along that makes us laugh, and we end up forgetting how badly the site needs a rework and how much it needs to have new admins and mods put on the site. The "Ha, Ha!" guy is one of those things that makes us forget. And when we post to fark.com, we like to forget. Trust us. Wait...what was I saying? -- 68.158.111.148 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the subject seems non-notable non-encyclopedic, For a supposedly online phenomena... a Google search for "Ha Ha Guy" yields a paltry 207 hits, limiting the search to site:fark.com reduces this number to two in minor forum postings, and a news search produces no results. Whether it could develop into a serious article or not is not the issue IMO, it is the importance, significance, and widespread recognition of the subject of the article, which just appear to not exist. -- Mysidia 01:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete forum-cruft. -- Calton | Talk 02:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. It's an Internet_phenomenon. ArcTheLad 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it The argument for the deletion of this entry seems to center on the relative insignificance of the entry. But consider this - I actually went on Wikipedia to investigate this "cliché", looking for some history or background, and was genuinely interested in what the article had to say. Isn't this what Wikipedia was meant for? I imagine that there are others like me that would be out of luck searching for the article if it were deleted. In terms of significance, I maintain that you must put the article in perspective. There are stubs for geographical locations in Wikipedia that have received far less visits or interest, yet no one disputes their validity of being included in Wikipedia. I will hazard a guess that this cliché will appear time and time again (now that it has been born as a meme). Removing the article therefore would be a disservice to the community at large. -- Digizen 02:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We have articles for fark and slashdot, surely this is jsut as harmless. (Unsigned comment by 70.64.30.170 ( talk · contribs))
  • Keep - Keep it because its funny and informative. You can't tell me there is nothing less significant than this on Wikipedia. Just because some people think they are so above anything related to internet forums doesn't mean this should get deleted.
    • Unsigned comment by 144.118.203.70. [29]

KEEP IT

    • Unsigned...comment by 64.36.75.146. [30]
  • Delete some random thing that happened on some internet forum. Utterly unencyclopedic. Also, what Postdlf said. CDC (talk)
  • Speedy Delete This can be placed in the respective sites FAQ's, not suitable for Wikipedia. User:BurningTheGround
  • Redirect/Keep I recommend getting rid of this article since the HA! HA! guy is a more correct than this article's label of Ha ha guy without the exclamation marks and less consistent capitalization. -- Ben Houston 07:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Keep I was wondering what the story was behind the Ha Ha Guy. I came to Wikipedia and found the knowledge I sought.-- Daveswagon 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. R adiant _>|< 11:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HA! HA! guy. -- NormanEinstein 14:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Keep. Make sure to keep HA! HA! guy. Rhobite 16:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, ne, vain. And burn all sockpuppets and slice and dice all meatpuppets, slowly. - Splash 01:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to HA! HA! guy. -- Atario 05:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 228 Google hits -- no matter how far behind Google may be, that is awful for an "internet phenomenon." Xoloz 04:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

HA! HA! guy

  • Comment -- More like a question, someone has started a new article entitled HA! HA! guy which is supposed to be more encyclopedic. Is this merely a sad attempt to evade the Vfd, or is does the new atricle merit keeping? I am tending toward the former, a vanity page by a new name is still vanity, and the fundamental question is still whether Ha Ha Guy should have its own article on Wikipedia, although it would be ashame to totally lose this original research.. thoughts? -- Mysidia 13:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It -- Although the article is in need of a little work. Specifically, the origins of the picture should be at the begining and perhaps a seperate entry should then be created for the "pop phenomenon" it caused on several forums accross the net. The whole concept of clichè images that appear on web forums is very interesting and should researched and documented further. mikepickens
    • As this is your first and only edit to date, Mikepickens ( talk · contribs), it may not get counted by the closing admin. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • This reply fallaciously attacks Mikepickens' circumstances instead of his argument. ArcTheLad 22:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Actually no, it's quite within vfd guidelines to point this out for the information of the closing admin. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
          • This reply ignores my point, which concerns (il)logic. ArcTheLad 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
            • He is pointing out the circumstances, votes by users with very few edits may sometimes be discounted, it is not a question of philosophy or logic, because the comment is not an argument against his point, only a note that may later call into question the value of the vote. -- Mysidia 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to HA! HA! guy, prefer to give it a chance to become encyclopedic. WP is not a paper encylclopedia. Flawiki 20:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are some Internet memes that are noteworthy enough to keep, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 11:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect both to Internet meme (and add a short reference to it there). seeing the other 'memes' listed there, keep (sigh) and list on Internet memes. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. -- GaidinBDJ 18:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some internet memes are noteworthy, this isn't. Garrett Talk 06:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Random Hall

Delete. Non-notable article on a college dormitory, probably here for self-aggrandizement purposes. I find it weird that these people think they're so cool they have to have articles on their classes and dormitories. MIT Sucks 23:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, a dorm is not notable (unless it's Gryffindor or something.) Dcarrano 00:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note that this vote was vandalised by User:67.36.186.99. R adiant _>|< 11:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As dorms go, Random Hall is pretty notable, but a mention in MIT would suffice. — mendel ☎ 01:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not much in this article, but it could surely be expanded. -- SPUI ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Random Hall, although not necessarily known by name, is rather famous among the technophile community. It has been slashdotted several times, is known for its geeky projects, has a rather vibrant community, and was the dormitory for some rather well-known people in the open source community. I believe that the article just needs some attention. 18.243.2.35 05:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 16:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I have a hard time imagining this article could ever be about more than just the word miscellaneous. And, as we all know, WP:WINAD. So delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 23:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, we could put everything here that doesn't deserve its own entry...? Okay, fine, delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 00:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I put a move to wiktionary tag on there, but I bet its already on there. EvilPhoenix talk 00:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes it is in Wiktionary. Forgot to mention. -- Dmcdevit· t 00:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). --  BD2412 talk 03:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

FAU

Delete. This entry is nonencyclopedic. It was previously redirected to Florida Atlantic University but was altered to include the other abbreviations. - Soltak 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Clarification. Whether or not the article is 'helpful' is irrelevant. I have little doubt that some users would find articles comprised of complete literary works 'helpful.' The Wikipedia standard for deletion is whether or not an article could be found in an encyclopedia; abbreviations cannot. - Soltak 00:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Clarification. The simple fact that FAU stands for more than one thing does not mean it warrants an article. RSR stands for remote service request, required supply rate, resource status report, and several other things. It does not have such an entry in Wikipedia. If a user types in FAU expecting one thing and ends up with another, I shouldn't think they'd be very troubled to simply spell out their request in full. - Soltak 00:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Uncle G said that this page you are nominating is called an disambiguation article. If there are more than one thing that uses the name or initials, then the article is turned into a list. Example, I type in football. But there are more than one type of football, so it gives a list asking me what specific article I want to look it. That is what a disambiguation does. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I am not unfamiliar with the purpose of a disambiguation page. I would withdraw my request if FAU were to be reconstructed in a more effective fashion (more closely matching other disambiguation pages, like OSU, for example). As it stands currently this is only an entry for an abbreviation and is nonencyclopedic. - Soltak 00:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Request withdrawn. Thank you for your cooperation. - Soltak 00:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Your welcome. I have also struck out your vote for deletion, so to not confuse the admins. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT: 3mr, 1d. I figured there was no harm in merging despite the specific redirect votes; the target article does not currently contain this information which is clearly relevant. - Splash 21:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Dinar-Haut

Currency of an appearent micronation. Does not seem notable. Gwk 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Merge/redirect to Biffeche; this is a real entity, not someone's vanity "micronation" nonsense. However, it's better covered in the context of the parent article. CDC (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Biffeche. JamesBurns 09:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Biffeche. Dcarrano 17:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hetemeel.com

A website that has four pictures on it that people can edit. Yippee. Francs2000 | Talk 23:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable webcruft. Gwk 23:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Alexa #602,017. Dcarrano 00:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep [31] [32] [33] [34]. Especially #4. Many thousands of images have been made there. Of course I'm probably biased because I created the article. -- pile0nades talk | contribs 00:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Comment - Alexa Rank is irrelevant here. The website is to Fark.com as Slashdot trolling phenomena is to Slashdot. Except it is not trolling. And there has been no effort made to ban people who post the images on Fark like there is for trolls on Slashdot. -- pile0nades talk | contribs 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Besides, the GNAA site site has an Alexa Rank of 422,150, and it wasn't deleted. -- pile0nades talk | contribs 00:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect - I am changing my vote to delete as there is a much better article at HA! HA! guy. -- pile0nades talk | contribs 11:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN advertisement. Postdlf 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Fark.com has an article, is that just an advertisment? (Unsigned comment by 67.172.124.173 ( talk · contribs))
    • Fark at least appears to have some notability, and no-one has nominated it for deletion yet. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Because fark.com doesn't have an Alexa rating as poor as 602,017. But if we did delete the Fark article, would that be enough to discourage you people from wasting our time here? It's worth a shot... Postdlf 01:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Farkcruft, at least until it gets more than four edit pictures... -- Grev -- Talk 00:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a noteworthy website. Francs2000's stated reason for deletion commits the straw man fallacy. His sardonic followup indicates his personal scorn toward Hetemeel (and Ha Ha Guy). ArcTheLad 03:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no evidence of notability in the article. CDC (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Give a small explanation of the site on the Ha Ha Guy page and leave it at that.-- Daveswagon 09:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 09:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable.-- Ben Houston 03:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HA! HA! guy, until hetemeel.com becomes notable for something more than the laughing one. Darobsta 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks notability. Flawiki 12:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --  BD2412 talk 03:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Chaz (model)

Doesn't seem notable. "Charlene Hutchinson" yields 81 google hits, but only the top two appear to concern this Charlene Hutchinson.
NB this page was orignally duplicated at Chaz (until I turned the latter into a dab page), and there is also a Chaz (disambiguation). Flowerparty 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Gwk 23:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable fetish model. Dcarrano 00:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When searching for signs of a model called Chaz in her professional capacity, it seems rather perverse to search solely for text articles containing her given name. Searching images.google.com on chaz scoreland throws up quite a lot of hits (safesearch should be off of course). She seems to be a popular and well known glamor model. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand (no pun intended), as per Tony Sidaway. JamesBurns 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She does seem to be popular, a Google search on those who mention her website number 824. [35] However, only 43 seem to be notable, according to Google. Additionally, I will echo Tony's sentiment: most porn and nude models are known by their aliases or stage names, why search for their real name to confirm or deny a state of notability? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 14:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are already dozens of other adult models on this encyclopedia. -- Crevaner 00:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Couldn't find anything at all useful as we are not IMDB and therefore not a film repository. Sasquatch′↔ T↔ C 00:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cranky Bugs & Other Thomas Stories, Thomas Comes to Breakfast & Other Thomas Adventures

Is a single video about Thomas the Tank Engine notable? It doesnt have a listing on imdb, when I figured out it was a Thomas story, I went over to the main article and tried to see if there was even a relevant article or place in the article to link it to. There is not, and I don't really think it merits inclusion. Also, article seems to be a simple cut-and-paste from somewhere on the Internet. EvilPhoenix talk 00:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possible hoax. Gwk 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I did find a listing on Amazon, but I still don't think it's notable. EvilPhoenix talk 00:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
At least it isn't a hoax. It's still not notable, though. Gwk 00:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Other article found, and added. Additionally, IP address of page creator vandalised Homestar Runner. EvilPhoenix talk 02:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

-- JimmyTheWig 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_17&oldid=1081092103"