Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 15

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durin (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 15 August 2005 (Superhero smell quotient). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect. 

[refresh]

2005-08-15

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Essjay · Talk 04:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Luna class starship

This is not a star ship class that is known in the Star Trek Series. Should be deleted as it is not cannon Aeon 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla meister

Hoax. A drink recipe for a non-notable drink that doesn't even list all of the ingredients! Google for "Gorilla meister" pulls up 42 hits, most of them references to actual apes. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it wouldn't show up in a google search because the Gorilla Biscuits show it would have been served at only took place a day before the above complaint. <unsigned comment by User:66.214.140.80> --Fernando Rizo T/C 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
...which means it's not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Sorry friend, come back when they're serving Gorilla meister pre-mixed in cans at my bar. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klepper Octopus

Likely hoax [1] [2], or at any rate unverifiable. CanadianCaesar 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Holloways

Recently formed unsigned band according to the article. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 08:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aftertaste

A dictdef that has been marked {{move to Wiktionary}} three times, was transwikied, and is now happily living in a totally rewritten form at wikt:aftertaste. I can't think of anywhere to usefully redirect this, and I'm tired of taking it back out of Category:Copy to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oenology, I think (do we have a stub category for that?)--Doc (?) 11:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've got {{wine-stub}}. Aecis 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Smudge

Hoax. There is no IMDB entry for a film called "Mr Smudge", and a Google search for "'Mr Smudge' 72 foot rabbit" pulls up 1 unrelated hit (somehow). The external link appears to be a photoshop of a normally proportioned rabbit with some women who just saw how much the price of gasoline went up today. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xplkqulkiccasia

Delete: nn cruft. Karmafist 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOFTBLOW

Possibly vanity page. Non-notable? Alex.tan 01:52, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of smokers

Unmaintainably huge list with little encyclopedic value. Something like one out of three people in North America smokes right now; a century ago probably virtually every historical figure smoked cigars or a pipe. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kickass

NN slang term, Wikpedia is not a slang dictionary. Zoe 02:16, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ng2

Vanity page. Andrew pmk 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 closed. Eligible for speedy deletion at request of author, and has been rewritten without reliance on original text at De sphaera mundi; this article now redirects there. --Michael Snow 05:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaera Mundi

This article is copied from my wiki but does not contain a proper attribution notice (e.g. "This article is based on the JnanaBase article Sphaera Mundi, used under the GFDL" with an external link to the source. I consider this to be plagiarism and violation of academic standards of citation and attribution, as well as a breach of the GFDL licence. Furthermore, it is against the Wikipedia:Cite sources policy which states "What are references good for? Giving credit to a source for providing useful information. Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty." When a third-party website copies Wikipedia content, you require a GFDL notice and a link back to Wikipedia. We require the same. Moreover, another user says the article should be improved. Please delete the article or add a proper attribution notice with a link back to the source. Www.wikinerds.org 02:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habashies

Yet again another article which contains nothing but external links. Zoe 02:42, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XingDaorong

Article has no meaningful content to those who don't frequent the GameFaq board mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is not a database for keeping track of what unknown forum users do. Nezu Chiza 03:15, August 15, 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. – Alphax τεχ 05:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashi Yoichi

OK I'm bringing this one in as kind of a test case. Hayashi Yoichi seems to work for Konami on music video games. The article is linked to from the List of Bemani musicians, Bemani being the name of Konami's musical games division. The list itself seems questionable to me in it's notability, but the sheer volume of red links to other music video game artists kind of scares me. I don't really think working on a musical video game is terribly notable, but I'm interested in hearing community opinion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • After a quick look over the parent list article, it seems to be some kind of ugly, ugly list of various people who work in Konami's music department, and an unverifiable list of pseudonyms they've worked under. I've removed all the redlinks, to try and discourage further ones being made. I'd be tempted to remove all the pseudonyms (or at least most of them) on the list, also. But that's sidetracking. The actual article you've nominated is a delete as not notable IMO, but some of the people on the list are more notable than Mr Yoichi, so be carful about mass-nominating them all. Proto t c 11:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not mass nominating anyone yet, most of the links on that list were red, I just wanted to establish some kind of precedent first, by seeing how this nomination fared. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote (see vote below). I'm sincerely conflicted on this one. Merely having a credit on a game does not make one notable, anymore than being Gaffer on a film would make one notable. On the other hand, its clear that a game music composer or sound designer could be notable. It's just that this article doesn't actually assert that notability in any way I can understand. I'd like to invite the author of the article to clearly state why this person is notable, beyond his name appearing in the credits of a game. I almost wish there was a variant of WP:MUSIC specifically for "embedded music" such as in movies and games to provide us with guidance. Nandesuka 12:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, contributing music to a popular series of music games is even more notable than having a top 100 hit single. Kappa 13:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I was conflicted, but you just pushed me over the edge with your patently ridiculous assertion. Nandesuka 12:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm disappointed that you would be voting on personal feelings rather than the merits of the case. Please think of the users, wikipedia content is not your personal property to dispose of at your whim. Kappa 12:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand, of course, just as you misstate my intentions. Perhaps you should stick to describing your own rather than inventing motivations for others. Your ridiculous claim merely served as the catalyst to demonstrate exactly how non-notable this sound engineer is. From that perspective, I suppose I should thank you for placing the issue in such clear relief. Thanks! Nandesuka 14:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As the article makes clear, he composes music, so he is not just a sound engineer. I have no idea why my assertion is "patently ridiculous" so there is no point trying to explain it or asking you to explain why. Kappa 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Sdedeo 13:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the phrase "generally ignored" in the article itself best exemplifies how wikipedia ought to view people who's only claim to fame is adding music to music games. Sorry, Kappa, but as far as I can tell, this guy is just an average sound engineer, not a musician. --Scimitar parley 14:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 15:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, pop'n music is a VERY popular game in Japan, there are 11 arcade and Playstation versions, which unfortunately have never been released in the west. I am quite confident that he meets the WP:BIO criterion of being known by at least 5,000 people. --TimPope 18:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't put much store by the arbitrary numer in WP:BIO as 5000 people is nothing (or at least, not enough for me). He is involved in music-making for video games; that's not special. -Splash 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rob Hubbard yes. Martin Galway yes. These people are titans. Hayashi Yoichi is no Jack Kennedy.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as I'm not sure where the line should be drawn here. I think that extremely prolific composers for this sort of game (e.g., Naoki Maeda) are certainly notable enough to merit their own article, even though they fail all the steps at WP:MUSIC. But the writers of one song on DDR 3rd Mix who were never heard from again are probably not worthy. This article is in a gray area to me. ESkog 23:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating one or two songs on a game, unless they can be shown to be songs that, individually, were wildly popular, does not smack of notability to me. I'd compare it to "mainstream" muscician who's only work on a major label production was in a single track as a guest, rather than a whole CD. --Icelight 00:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Borderline notable. Sam Vimes 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  19:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep composer of at least 38 songs, all on the popular pop'n music series, plus singer on others. --SPUI (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 08:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil_Hall

appears to be a Vanity Page 141.155.149.137 04:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fabai

Nonsense, but perhaps not patent. Zoe 04:40, August 15, 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 speedy delete. – malathion talk 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetardking

vanity page Kewp 05:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Sev Red Kabah

Looks like vanity. This person gets 4 hits on google, all of which are Wikipedia or mirrors. Totally non-confirmable. - Nat Krause 05:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Harper

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Nancy Drew. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanzy drew

Google displays 7 non-duplicate results from 88. [10] lots of issues | leave me a message 05:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce (explorer)

Short explanation: there is no Robert Bruce the explorer -- but there is a James Bruce who explored Africa.

Long explanation: When I made a sizeable addition to Lake Tana four months ago, I misremembered the name of the explorer James Bruce calling him instead Robert Bruce, & added a link on the name. Since it does link to an existing article about another Scotsman who is known by that name, I didn't notice that I made a mistake at the time. Since then, someone else discovered my mistake -- but also misremembered the name creating this stub that clearly is meant to be about James Bruce. I'd list this as a Speedy Delete -- except that there is no category for "Information misremembered, & duplicates existing content." llywrch 06:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no concensus. (17K/16D/4M) - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Widdifield secondary school

This doesn't really assert the school notability <drini ☎> 06:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with North Bay, Ontario. The school doesn't appear to have any notability separate from its geographical locale, so since it is a sub-stub should be merged. If sufficient information could be produced at a later date to warrant a separate article (without pointless padding by listing generic courses, teachers, redlink or unlinked lists of alumni, pictures of buildings, etc. etc) then it could be spin out as a separate article. Average Earthman 07:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structural differential

PSimon removed relevant References to this article. What he/she saw offending in referencing the original Korzybski book on the structural differential is beyond rational discussion. Also, the description of the structural differential is next to meaningless without the graph I was going to add. Hovewer, altercation with censors of the PSimon ilk is not worth my time. I request that this entry will be removed from Wikipedia. Principal Author - Vote for Deletion: Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.86.100 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 01:40:15 UTC

  • Keep: I'd like to hear from PSimon why he reverted your changes... but the topic seems to me worthy of wikipedia attention... --Raistlin 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Cruise was mass adding links to his website, and I went through and reverted almost all their edits. Unfortunately, in this case they also added some references that I inadvertently removed. - SimonP 12:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    now that they are back, i'd say Keep even more --Raistlin 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Examination of history does not support the claim that Cruise was "mass adding" links. As far as I can tell, they added a single link; if it was to their own website, it was improper, but there is no clear reason that the other edits needed to be reverted. This seems to be a content dispute, so Wikipedia:Requests for comment or some other dispute resolution mechanism probably would be more appropriate. I don't feel competent to judge the claim that the article is "meaningless without the graph I was going to add", so I choose not to vote. ManoaChild 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: PSimon, I accept your reversals and rescind my request for deletion. Next time, please say 'sorry,' it goes a long way. ManoaChild, thank you for your comments. I added the graph that you can see for yourself. You are right, it was vendetta, but I hope PSimon and I will get over it. After all, Alfred Korzybski deserves to be remembered.Principal Author 3:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and restore Cruise links and references, SimonP deleted even PRINTED references, not only external links. I have recently read much of Cruise additions and they look serious. Now, either Cruise is a very ingenious prankster or - as he wrote on his own talk page - a retired professor, and so significant himself. I prefer to assume good faith, and not to scare newcomers to Wiki, so unless SimonP or sb else can prove to me Cruise works is fiction/vandalism, I definetly support Cruise and object to SimonP deletetion of useful info. This said, I am off to Cruise talk page to instruct him on wiki-ways and GDFL licences and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as forum nnanity. FCYTravis 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DMC24guy

Non-notable web forum poster. Zoe 06:32, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reklamepenner

Advertising. Zoe 07:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

'Reklamepenner isn't a brand - it's Norwegian (or possibly Danish) for "Promotional Pens". This is possibly a stab (or a stub) at an article about collecting promotional pens (at best; at worst it's linkspam). If this article could be cleaned up and expanded it might be a link from Collecting or Collectibles, I've fixed his (broken) link to his Norwegian language site to point to his English version as this might aid the VfD. Apologies if I've added to the linkspamminess Tonywalton 20:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a hoax. --malathion talk 09:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Hunters

I can't find anything on Google on what this may be. It might be refering to a fictional book, but none of the "organizations" listed show any hits. NN at the very least, quite possibly ment to be nonsense or a hoax.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroinat

False, no such myth exists in Albanian mythology. Zero google hits. Someone's been watching too much Powerpuff girls GeeJo 07:46, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shitastic

Neologism --malathion talk 08:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drops Of Light

Despite what the article says, I can't find any net verification. No all music entry or results when I query the name paired with band. [11] delete lots of issues | leave me a message 08:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No direction

Band vanity. --malathion talk 09:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gebardibot

Band vanity. --malathion talk 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't write things which you don't know about

All of the content is patronising grammar lecturing, as if Wikipedians were schoolchildren. It should already be covered in the editing guidelines anyway. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 to Douche. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D-bag

Slang dictdef --malathion talk 09:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon compliance

Wired magazine neologism without encyclopedic potential. Www.wikinerds.org 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government simulation

Page serves as nothig mroe then free advertising to these GAMES, which attract perhaps 10 or 20 regular players. Pellaken 10:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is clear (if slightly POV), and the topic is genuine. --Apyule 10:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article serves as an excellent guide to a subject matter that is a vibrant community on the internet. A possibly motivating factor is that the user proposing deletion was an administrator for Canada GovSim which just folded and has been permanently banned from several other political simulators. --Drew82
  • Keep. Notable, real thing. -- BD2412 talk 13:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article serves to explain the basis behind political simulators and what they are- the user who voted for deletion was the manager of CanadaGovSim and has been banned from several political sims, as has been said, so the case for deletion is biased. --Nightsabre- not a registered user, but knows the politics behind this
  • Keep This article is very informative and provides decent background information for people starting out in this genre of games. The user seems to be putting up this vote for personal reasons. Chris Glew 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just to clear up some misunformation, the only government simulations I was banned from were those I asked to be banned from because of the constant personal attacks against me. the admin of PolCan decided to turn this entire thing political and take a shot at me over wikipedia. this is my responce. whatever the result of this vote is I will respect. Pellaken 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the only reason you posted this vote is because of a personal comment made against you and not due to a genuine concern then this is an abuse of Wikipedia and the vote should be removed. Chris Glew 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I forgot to sign. The above comment was from me: fuddlemark 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is a real game, and it is regularly used for educational purposes. A new medium that teaches people politics and government. --Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm perhaps a bit biased, as I participate in a Government sim (one not mentioned in this article) but the topic itself certainly meets the test for natability even if few, if any, of the individual sites do. Caerwine 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke darwin reyes

This is a resume, not an article. Delete as outright vanity. — JIP | Talk 10:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is interesting. While you were tagging the article for deletion, User:Petaholmes, speedy deleted it for being vanity without assertion of notability, and you ended up unintentionally recreating the article. There is no assertion of encyclopedic notability in the article (actually a CV), so I am speedy deleting this article again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almond Beach Village Barbados

Advertising --Celestianpower hab 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath The Frozen Soil

Doesn't appear to meet band notability criteria at WP:MUSIC gkhan 10:35, August 15, 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: Speedily redirected. - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slant-6

A single link to an external site, no text at all. --Janke | Talk 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doody Trap

Patently non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to listing of practical jokes. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Van Ornum

Vanity entry. A PhD chemist who now works at a contract research company is even less notable than the average assiatant professor. Hey, I have got a dozen papers or so and won't be getting an article in here anytime soon. Pilatus 11:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Merge/redirect to WP:INS (3k, 11d, 3r, 2m) Radiant_>|< 11:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No infobox standardization and WP:NIS (its redirect)

People opposed to infobox standardization should discuss that on the relevant page, instead of making a WP:POINT by creating a stubby counterpage. Proposing that no proposals may be proposed is not constructive (not to mention m:instruction creep). Radiant_>|< 13:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep, of course. At least thirty users have confirmed on similar VfDs that putting policies and policy proposals on VfD is "the wrong way to handle policy proposals" (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation). The right way for user:Radiant! is to express his concerns about the new proposals on the talk page of the policy proposal. In general, articles should not be put on VfD just to make the point that a user thinks they are POV. --Fenice 13:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would take deletion discussions more seriously...--Fenice 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you are wrong, sjorford. Proposals to have instructions for the standardization of infoboxes are in existence right now on Wikipedia. More are certainly to come because this fails. Please consider the dangers of m:instruction creep. Standardization of infoboxes on Wikipedia will impede work on Wikipedia severely.--Fenice 05:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That of course boils down to no standardization. The projects use a template which by definition standardizes itself. Your argument is faulty, there is a logical inconsistency.--Fenice 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation to see it is not redundant. Believe it or not: there is a proposal to just standardize infoboxes - which have been used successfully by hundreds of projects. It is not easy to get a Project to work, many die. Imposing rules on the participants will no doubt scare hundreds of users who have expert-knowledge away. The benefits of this standardization are nonexistent. The projects standardize themselves, because they use templates. A layout suggestion that corresponds to the taste of a tiny minority who will be signing the standardization creep is of no benefit to Wikipedia, the readers, the rest of the users of Wikipedia etc.--Fenice 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should say so in the talk for that discussion, and not fork a whole new page. Raising your concerns in the original talk page is far more likely to get them heard by the interested community. -Splash 19:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your invitation to discuss the standardization of infoboxes. However, I would not try to create a policy against the standardization of infoboxes if I found the standardization of infoboxes helpful in any way. I am against this standardization, so I cannot contribute anything useful on how to standardize them, so I keep my contributions to the standardization of infoboxes-policy proposal to a minimum.--Fenice 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on Wikipedia:Infobox standardization was not anihilated. There were several contributions on that page since the creation of WP:NIS. The participation has been low before that point in time as well, maybe because this vote here is not representative. There may actually be lots of people out there to oppose standardization. They just don't realize that their project is threatened.--Fenice 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no second page on the same policy. The second page mentioned by some people here actually proposes the opposite policy, it is at: Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation.--Fenice 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Quote that page: "it has been suggested to discuss whether there should be infobox standardisation." Quote the talk page, first sentence: "To standardize, or not to standardize?" That is, the outcome of that page could be either "there should be standardization", or "there shouldn't be". Those are exactly the same possible outcomes as your policy discussion page, which means that either there will be the same discussion at two sides (completely unnecessary), or the discussion will be different and the result can be two contradictory policies. Eugene van der Pijll 20:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Eugene, may I just point you to the fact, that that is a little contradictory. You are obviously not against this text or else you would vote against it. Please note the hundreds of users that will be subject to bullying due to the instruction guidelines you support. It will be extremely diruptive to Wikipedia.--Fenice 04:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text you are quoting was added by me, and I deleted the original proposal, which is: To try to ensure some level of consistency throughout Wikipedia, the infobox standardisation page explains how general infoboxes should appear. Please go to the talk page to discuss policy. The current text is likely to be reverted in no time. Since people apply completely different standards to the proposal I brought forth here than on other policy proposals (one was even kept speedily for the reason that VfD is not the right place), I had to resort to change the text of Ed's standardization frenzy. People here are so standardization crazy that in my case they break their own propositions not to find VfD the right place to discuss policy proposals...--Fenice 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first version of the page was inappropriate for a proposal for a new guideline. With your text, and with {{proposed}} at the top, it's much better now. Eugene van der Pijll 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Eugene, if you supported my text, you would obviously vote for it wouldn't you? My text is on vote right here. So if you are consistent, you would have to change your vote. Please also consider the dangers of instruction creep m:instruction creep will give you some idea of what you have (accidentally?) voted for.--Fenice 05:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not only your text is on vote here, but its ___location too. I'm voting against having 2 different pages, not against your text. Eugene van der Pijll 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So your vote is against Wikipedia:No infobox standardization. that is contradictory to the fact that you like my text better, which does not support the standardization of infoboxes.--Fenice 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting on your text. (And besides; I was talking on your text at Wikipedia:Infobox standardization, which basically said "Standardisation should be discussed"; at WP:NIS you wrote "There should be no standardisation", which I don't like nearly as much.) Eugene van der Pijll 08:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm breaking my "no voting while VfD is in flux" rule here because I feel this one is important. This is a fork, and an attempt to disrupt an otherwise well organized discussion. It's arguably speediable. -Harmil 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hamil, I would like you to also consider the dangers of standardization of infoboxes before you support it speedily. You are voting for instructions which are going to hinder Wikipedia forever. Numerous users will be busy putting through rules that serve no purpose whatsoever. Numerous users will leave Wikipedia due to the edit wars that you are laying the basis for by voting for the standardization of infoboxes. Infobox standardization is going to disrupt the work of innocent human beings for an indefinite period of time. Maybe if you have time you may qwant to sit down and think about the conswequences of voting to have what we call m:instruction creep around here. --Fenice 05:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it, though. I mean, really - think it through, and if you stick to this position, that's all right, because at least you've thought clearly about it. The question you should ask is this: does the fact that a policy proposal fails mean that the flip side of that automatically becomes policy? In other words, if Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation fails, does it mean that Wikipedia:No infobox standardization automatically succeeds without further discussion (because that's what redirection will imply)? I'll let you ponder that, and say no more on the subject here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
A redirect is a redirect, Khaosworks, it does not imply anything.--Fenice 06:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is time to chill out, Man in Black. You are claiming in your statement right here that your POV should be discussed, why not let there be a discussion on someone else's POV? Yes, this proposal will go nowhere because you want to push your POV and cut off discussions on other opinions. --Fenice 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think my POV on this issue is clear. Please assume good faith, especially before accusing someone who agrees with you of POV-pushing.
If you oppose Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation, go there and state your case clearly. This sarcasm and disruption only serves to detract and distract from your goal of defeating that proposal. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, Man in Black, we're all rotfl. You have just left a message on my talk page that you do not want me to participate in the discussion on Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation, did that slip your mind. My goal is not to defeat any proposals, I have my own proposal to defend, Man in Black. And you know that too, you do not need to be told here again. Cut it out.--Fenice 10:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this comment? Perhaps you're thinking of my talk page, where I suggested you might be happier taking a short break, cooling off, and coming back to the debate, calm and refreshed. I still feel that you will be happier, as well as a more convincing advocate, if you do so.
As for the rest, this line of discussion, again, has ceased to be productive, and I don't plan to continue it further. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man in Black, again. You have suggested in seveal places I leave the discussion. It does not make you appear in good faith to ask other users to leave a discussion, just because you don't agree with them. My proposal has been trampled on so you think you can just tread on me a little more. I have no words to describe your behaviour here, it speaks for itself. Again, I am asking you to stop this. There is no reason to attack other users, man in black.--Fenice 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very difficult for me to do anything because I disagree with you, given the fact that I agree with you. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, please, just get it: I do not agree with you. And stop pestering me.--Fenice 10:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mortualia

Unverifiable, nn.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was come on, folks, have some common sense and don't nominate that kind of crap on VfD.  Grue  17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel_ninja

Original entry: hoopshapooperdoop This entry is rubbish. Zaknib 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense article. Allegrorondo 14:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DiceScape

unpublished RPG, non-notable, written in first person. Allegrorondo 15:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese box (torture)

The page should be deleted because it is a hoax and completely lacks any credible source Lao Wai 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is already a perfectly good disambiguation page or at least there was last time I checked. The bit at the bottom is the article. Lao Wai 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've changed my vote. -Splash 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Both the reference books listed do exist, although are out of print (searched on Amazon). It should be possible to find them in a library somewhere and verify.

--Howcheng 22:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well George Mason's book is there because I put it there. His book does not refer to this alleged form of torture at all. The British Library does not hold the Sair book which suggests to me that Amazon is wrong and it does not exist. If even Google produces nothing then I'd say it is a myth. Lao Wai 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Sair book exists in the Library of Congress so it's real. It's not in my local library, though, so I can't verify the information for you. --Howcheng 15:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked and no one has been able to verify it. Sair is not a China scholar so even if the book existed it would only prove that in 1944 people wrote dumb things about China. If it were real a real scholar would have mentioned it. They do not. Lao Wai 16:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given Lao Wai's legwork, I hereby change my vote to Delete. --Howcheng 20:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a myth, how can one verify it? Surely the burden of proof ought to be the other way around for an encyclopedia? Lao Wai 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Charliez 09:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC). Articles that cannot be verified in any way, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. To add insult to injury it's written in a manner that is completely unscientific. Remove it but by all means let someone write a completely new article at a later point, should they somehow manage to verify these claims. As anyone with even a minor interest in the logic of philosophy would know, it's in fact not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Unless articles like this are deleted, Wikipedia will slowly be filled with undocumented claims and nonsense.[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be unverifiable. --Carnildo 06:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe. As far as I know, a chinese box is a box within a box, within a box, etc. It's also an expression and a famous thought experiment. In terms of the torture device, it does seem like something that would be written about in the 19th century, when China and the far east were "exotic" and any tale of bizarre torture would please 19th century audiences, whether they are true or not. Both cited sources are real. Thus, if the article were written in terms of how this 19th century term for a torture device came about, etc., then I say keep the article. The device is obviously an exaggeration, but there may be something to the myth which might be worth preserving. Of course the article as such does none of this. Nrets 01:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disambiguation page that provides links to the box-within-a-box and to the famous thought experiment (and to a film as well). There is no need for another one. At least one cited source is real, but as I said, it does not mention this device (which suggests it is not true). The other one is more elusive. As I said above "Sair is not a China scholar so even if the book existed it would only prove that in 1944 people wrote dumb things about China. If it were real a real scholar would have mentioned it. They do not." What is worth preserving and where is the evidence for it? Lao Wai 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but even if this Sair fellow is not a Chinese scholar, he might have used reliable sources in his book. I think someone, preferably the original editor of the article, should produce a more specific citation of the Sair book, or check which original sources he used before we discredit the whole thing. That being said, it sounds like this article is more of a myth than a hoax, and from that angle, the myth of the so-called Chinese box can be written about. I think we should at least give the editor the benefit of the doubt. I agree, in 1944 people probably wrote dumb things about China (and about a bunch of other things), but dumb things usually have a source in the collective unconscious of the time and reflect interesting cultural trends. This is why myths are worth preserving, so we can understand how our thinking has evolved over time and why we see things the way we do. Nrets 14:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, there is a book in print called "The instruments of torture" by Michael Kerrigan which lists in it's index under China:death by insects. I wonder if anybody has access to this book if this mentions anything about a box?? Nrets 14:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough I do, but I won't be able to get it until Monday. I'll keep you posted. Lao Wai 10:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, read that. Not a bad book really. I guess Jane Austen got a little too boring for him. It refers to one case in modern China in which a man was allegedly chained up outside where the mosquitos bit him. And another few cases from the rest of the world. As far as myths go I am happy enough with moving the page to Sexual Fetishism or the like. It seems more appropriate and as long as it is rewritten that way. But it would probably be best to delete it and add some stuff to the pages that exist already. Lao Wai 13:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Casey

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless the redlinked bands are notable. He's a drummer in both of them. Meelar (talk) 15:57, August 15, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues

While not completely unmaintainable yet, it will become less maintainable in the future, not very uncyclopedic (Who looks in an encyclopedia to see where they can find an IMAX nearby?), and wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a general knowledgebase of everything ever known by anyone in the history of the world. --Phroziac (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fraser (columnist)

  • Delete - Original work / conspiracy theory / attack on columnist - brought to you as an advert for www.wikinerds.org spam. Tεxτurε 16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is slander libel gkhan 18:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Noyt quite slander (actually libel - slander's spoken). The cited article does opine that there may well be an attack in Egypt; shortly afterwards there was. The author of the article doesn't go as far as saying that there's a connection. Delete anyway; purely an attack page. Tonywalton 19:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand, as I often do, corrected :P gkhan 19:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I corrected my typo (but I was sitting) just so you don't feel alone ;-) Tonywalton
  • Delete, wouldn't object to speedy as a thinly veiled attack page. -Splash 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to point out that I never meant to attack this columnist. What make you to believe the article is an attack? He predicted an event, and I documented this, and then I just asked how he did that and I added the information that the event occured on the national day. That's all. I can't understand why someone would consider this libel. It's just a neutral documentation of something that happened in reality (columnist predicts an event, event actually happens). Can someone please explain to me why you consider this an attack? Wikinerd 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It very much implies that there's a connection. If it is not an attack page, what, exactly, is it for? "Ian Fraser made a guess which subsequently turned out to come to pass" is hardly encyclopaedic, is it? If you consider it is, please explain how. Tonywalton 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is natural that on the national day there may be terrorist attacks, since this has happened before too. I believe this columnist just guessed and his intention was to put some tone of conspiracy in his column and attract readers' attention. I considered this interesting and funny so I documented it. I could not even imagine that anyone would consider this libel. Wikinerd 02:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monique DeMoan

I think I'm going to have to renominate this, because otherwise it just serves to undermine VFD process. The article has not undergone a VFU and so should not have been reposted, regardless of merit. I also disagree with the unnecessary inclusion of non-prominent actors in a serious encyclopaedia. 80 films is actually very little for a porn star. Most notable porn actors/actresses have appeared in several hundred. If you want an example of a porn star who qualifies for inclusion, take a look at Vince Vouyer. Monique DeMoan is a total nobody. --Erwin Walsh 16:43, 15 August 2005 UTC

Additional note: see [[15]] as a reference. Erwin Walsh 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The previous nomination got completely confused on what problem was being addressed, but can be found here. I would ask people to please not vote on issues of process again, or this VfD will just be a repeat of the previous discussions. Those can be found at WP:AN/I. Vote as if the article is newly created and has had no prior history on VfU—which, in case of Tony Sidaway's rewrite, it doesn't. JRM · Talk 17:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Erwin is mistaken. There's no rule against recreating a speedied article with different content. As to the merit, she's notable enough with over 65,000 Google hits. That's more than Caressa Savage gets. NoPuzzleStranger 17:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually a contested speedy (and this one certainly was contestable) can be recreated with exactly the same content. The rule against recreation of deleted content doesn't apply to speedies for this reason--such articles should be taken to VfD unless they obviously fall under a CSD. The initial version of this article accurately described the porn star, thus providing ample context to enable the article to be extended, and asserted notability; it wasn't even remotely speediable. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Verifying the notoriety of porn stars via a standard google search is highly dubious. The vast majority (over 90%) will be spam or commercial sites, which demonstrate nothing. A more accurate method is to use the Image Search with filtering turned off. This results in about 350 hits for "Monique DeMoan" , not many. Comparatively, an image search for "Tower of London" returns 23,000; "The Beatles" returns 170,000.
  • keep, 1.5% as notable as the Tower of London. Kappa 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) LOL.[reply]
  • Delete. Notability of porn stars cannot be determined by Google. Google is inherently biased towards any internet-based phenomenon, and it seems safe to say that pornography is relatively internet based. --Scimitar parley 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. Why commercial sites should be ignored in counting Google hits I don't know, and why being an internet-based phenomenon means it should be deleted I don't know. If your point is that we should add more info on porn stars from the pre-internet era, I'm all for that. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
    • My point was that a prominent and notable person, such as Robert Countess, only gets 816 google hits because his field doesn't lend itself to internet sites, whereas a much less notable porn star, by virtue of her field of endeavor, recieves a misleadingly high amount of internet hits. Further proof of google's bias: Clement Kayishema gets 962 hits, while Melanchlaeni get 92. All are far more notable than Ms. Monique, so dont quote me google hits.--Scimitar parley 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That's a very good point, Scimitar. The deMoan debate has, if nothing else, highlighted how widely good, well-meaning editors can disagree in assessing the notability of persons. A corollary to your excellent point about things that are popular on the net is the differing perception of notability in the things that one does. It has been repeatedly pointed by excellent commentators that the sentence "X is an American porn-star" itself establishes a basis for notability. Being a porn-star is felt to be notable, in and of itself. This is quite extraordinary, when one considers that none of the following sentences, for example, would be thought to indicate notability: "X is an American dermatologist," "X is a British lawyer," "X is a Japanese researcher," "X is a writer," "X is a chess player;" this last of course, being the prototypical CSD candidate. A one-sentence article containing any of the preceding would be immediate candidates for CSD (assuming for the purposes of discussion that X is simply an ordinary, regular member of his or her profession). However, an ordinary, completely unremarkable pornstar has apparently a firm claim to notability, and inclusion in an encyclopedia — simply by virtue of being a pornstar. Ie. we have, incredibly, elevated pornstars to the level of US presidents and senators. It doesn't matter if they are the most unremarkable, unnotable of their kind — they still get in.—Encephalon | ζ 23:19:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
        • I think this may be a confusion between what asserts notability and what establishes it. A claim that X is a porn star is an assertion of notability that (if a sanity check on google seems to confirm it) means the article can come to VfD where we decide whether or not notability is established. And that is something we decide by discussing amongst ourselves. An article about a US senator probably wouldn't end up on VfD; I expect we'd just say "speedy keep" and move on to the next item--not so with an article about a porn star. Monique DeMoan may or may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. That's what we're here to determine. She doesn't get an automatic "in" just for lying on her back and gargling sperm. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your thoughts, Tony. That's really the point I'm making: that being a pornstar is apparently an assertion of notability. Why is it? What is it about simply being a pornstar that automatically makes it an assertion of notability? This view supposes that pornstarhood is inherently a claim or assertion of notability. Yet if we follow the reasoning that merely being a member of the pornstar profession is a claim to notability, that leaves us with problems. Is "X is an accountant" an assertion of notability? What about "X is an epidemiologist"? You seem to be saying that if someone asserts they do something professionally, then they have asserted notability. If you are not saying that, then you are using some method of distinguishing the "notability merits" of professions that I am unfamiliar with. Because if "pornstar" is an automatic assertion of notability but "biologist" is not, how are you distinguishing them? I would find it difficult, if only because being, say, a neurosurgeon means being a member of a far smaller, far more selective group than being a pornstar. Yet if I wrote an article with only the sentence "X is an American neurosurgeon" here, it will be knocked out, almost certainly with CSD (assume X is a regular, ordinary neurosurgeon who when you google him has an office address and online CV). What are your criteria for distinguishing which professions are automatic assertions of notability? If they are WP criteria, Tony, I hope you can point them out to me, because I'd like to learn them to make sure my time on VfD is more usefully spent for my fellow Wikipedians. Finally, if you are not using distinguishing criteria but simply believe that "X is _____(profession)" automatically rules out CSD, since it is an assertion of notability, may I ask you to kindly consider where that leaves CSD A7? It would mean that all those A7s we've been passing, on articles like "X is a computer developer," are invalid. You appreciate the difficulty? Very kind regards—Encephalon | ζ 00:41:44, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
          • Well I fought this new CSD tooth and nail because it's very ambiguous. The wording was something like "bakers aren't notable but professors may be". I still thought that was ambiguous, and I believe I warned that in the event it did pass we'd have stub articles about professors being speedied instead of VfD'd (this is important in my country because professors are pretty rare--I know in some countries the title is handed around like sticks of chewing gum). And this is indeed what has happened--sysops on RC patrol are deleting stubs which could be expanded easily.
          • But we've got it and the compromise interpretation I've arrived at is that if I, a sysop who looks at the article, think a description of a profession amounts to an assertion of notability, then it is. Other sysops may look and see no such assertion. If there's doubt like this (eg: sysops in good faith deciding an article is deletable, and other sysops deciding it isn't) the policy is at least clear that the thing goes to VfD anyway. And I'm reasonably happy with that. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, the proposal explicitly noted that "people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society." This certainly suggests that a person being an actor is a sufficient assertion of notability to demand a VFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
            • Tony: Participating in VfD has been a productive experience for me, and the main thing I've learned is that it's not straightforward. Many of the guidelines are sensible, but it is no less true that there are a few (it seems especially some newer ones) which offer conflicting interpretations. For example, WP:BIO, which I don't use when doing VfD, has arbitrary cut-offs that go against the spirit of WP:V; in some cases it is very illogical in its discrimination of professions. For example, an actor may merit inclusion in WP if he has starred in a commercial film that was seen by just 5000 people; a professional scientist on the other hand only merits inclusion if her "work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." So we have the ridiculous situation where the bar is set ludicrously low for one profession, and extremely high for another. The irony of course is that it is arguable that of the two professions, it is the latter that is intrinsically more notable even to begin with; it is certainly incomparably more selective.
            • Be that as it may, I do disagree with you wrt the CSD, especially in this particular case, Tony. There is nothing in the CSD that requires "X is a pornstar" to be interpreted as an automatic assertion of notability in and of itself. That's the reason it is difficult for us to provide a reason why "X is a pornstar" is an assertion of notability, but "X is a particle physicist" is not. In truth, in neither instance has the assertion standard been met. If the sentence was, "X is a legendary pornstar felt by many to be the greatest artist in adult movie making in the 1980s," yes, that is an assertion of notability. "X is a pornstar" simply isn't. The old deMoan "article" clearly qualified for CSD, and was validly deleted. (Equally, I think the recreation was valid). It is instructive to note the concluding sentences on notability on the WP:DVAIN page: ...For instance, if the person's profession is cited, a reasonable guideline would be how many people have the same profession: there are tens of thousands of porn models, but very few senators. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  12:01:30, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
      • I apologize, I misread the second "Google" as "Wikipedia" for some reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
        • Your point being that once the Wikipedia hit is removed, he has even less "google notability"? Because as far as I can tell, that implies less google hits (wikipedia and mirrors), indicating exactly my point- that google is inherently biased in favor of internet based phenmoena.--Scimitar parley 21:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, my point being that I interpreted your point as being one about the bias of Wikipedia rather than the bias of Google; e.g. I read your point as being we are already too inclusive in this area, and need in some way to stem the flow. I don't dispute the point you actually made, obviously Google hit counts can be very inflated in instances like these. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
        • This rather overlooks the fact that Monique DeMoan has performed in principally VHS and DVD-based pornography, rather than website-based porn. In fact some of her most prolific years were immediately prior to the era of internet porn. Google is never much use for gauging the notability of anyone, it's just a useful sanity check. The large number of mainstream porn movies (rather than net-based shorts) that she has appeared in is a much better guide. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaa. Keep current incarnation. Zoe 23:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:BIO as an actress in commercially distributed work seen by an audience of 5,000 or more. Capitalistroadster 23:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Why is someone who was a main actress in quite a few X-rated movies any less notable than someone who was an main actress in some PG-13-rated movies?--Prosfilaes 02:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the argument that this is a recreation of previously deleted material is false. Radiant_>|< 10:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually it's true. The earliest version of the current article is the version that was speedied [16]. Not that this is relevant to anything--it would be silly to vote to delete perfectly good articles just because somebody speedied them earlier. Every article has to start somewhere, and most start small. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Complainers should just let it go already. DreamGuy 12:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For better or worse, we have an extensive Category:Porn stars and this article, as rewritten, is comparable to all those others. -- Curps 18:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The debate over this article shows that there is a serious dispute over just what people considers is a "notable" pornstar. This argument will keep resurfacing until a consensus is reached, so I'm offering a few facts to try to poke this debate into a consensus:
  • A 60 Minutes segment on the porn industry noted that 70% of the women who start out as porn actresses survive only 1 movie.
  • Is the individual somehow acknowledged for their work in some way other than the kinds of sexual acts she/he engages in? I ask this because if one were to detail the activities of these people, a lot of what they do in front of the camera either conforms to a job description from a resume/CV (e.g., "while working for this producer, I not only had sex with every man, woman or animal as the script demanded, but also convincingly expressed my satisfaction with that individual"), or resembles the typical Monday morning boastings of the previous weekend (e.g., "you won't believe how drunk/stoned/etc I got the other night"). Before someone accuses me of dismissing all people in this category, I would defend individuals like Linda Lovelace, Marilyn Chambers, Brandy Alexandre (pornstar), Sunset Thomas, & a few others as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. (Note: the Wikipedia article on Brandy Alexandre currently fails to even mention her significant 'Net career.)
  • Can something worthwhile be said for the movies they appeared in? I ask this because whle some porno movies did have an effect on popular culture (Deep throat is a defensible example), can the same be said for, say, "Sleezy Lovin' Sisters #22"?
I mention all of this because this genre requires that we define specific criteria for inclusion that won't apply to other subjects. So far, it appears that no one has attempted to do just this. -- llywrch 23:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . What else ? MutterErde 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (just wondering )[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. I can't imagine the project that attempts to define any specific criteria for notability for porn. Perhaps somebody can take a stab at a porn equivilant to BEEFSTEW used for schools. David Henderson 05:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and for heaven's sake let this be the end of this. I can't believe someone opened another VfD over it, especially one citing that fiasco of a VfU as a reason. As others have said, that VfU should never have happened (and was never required) in the first place. Notability already seems to have been established above and in several previous discussions. Additionally, Erwin seems to be mistaken about the fashion in which this article was deleted, saying that it would "undermine the VfD process." To my knowledge, this article was never the subject of a successful VfD in any incarnation (but it was the subject of one botched one that appeared to be heavily leaning towards "keep"); therefore no outcome here could possibly undermine the VfD process. Aquillion 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Might I humbly suggest that this should be an end to star chambers where a sheep-vote is rendered as a rubber stamp on the summary deletion by a single person. Once undeleted, a disputed speedy can be seen, and edited, and submitted for deletion if necessary. VfD has been criticised of late, but it's not as tyrannous and anti-wiki as VFU, where votes are carried out concerning an article most people cannot see and nobody can edit during the vote. VfD and VFU should be amalgamated and no speedy deletion challenged by any administrator should ever remain deleted merely because its deletion has already been challenged by a non administrator. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Corps

Original research/vanity. Author admits it in an edit summary. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Massage. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massage therapist

Does not expand or elucidate any more information than Massage so relatively pointless. Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atromeroptics

Self-invented branch of physics / original research with no supporting citations, other than the author's own website. Please note that author has other disputed entries re: original invention up for VfD (see Wehner blower, Atromeroptic Law), non-supportable medical facts that have been reverted(see melasma suprarenale). Hfwd 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Pollyanna Principle

"Machines should work; people should think." Besides being obscure, this statement uses pointless and facile logic. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete. Erwin Walsh 17:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Your disagreement with the article's contents is not a criterion for deletion. Google shows numerous academic studies based on or relating to "Pollyanna Principle." Lomn | Talk 18:34:00, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep. IBM's Pollyanna Principle has been a well-known computer science creed for decades. The "pointless and facile logic" is quite intentional and serves to illustrate some of the misconceptions people make about computing. - Thatdog 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot of things that use 'pointless and facile logic'. That doesn't mean they're unencyclopaedic Tonywalton 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a little cleaning, it could be a perfectly good article on the subject. Certainly there is room to be fleshed out, but the term is used. --Icelight 00:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. It should be under 'Polyanna Principle', it is usually quoted as such. I have heard about it frequently but never knew the origin. there should also be a reference to Think (IBM), probably the most famous one word mission statement for a company.--Gorgonzilla 16:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep . - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Secret Diaries

Popular slashfic, but not a general internet meme, never made it into pop culture. This is no All your base. SchmuckyTheCat 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but with all the keep-type votes being merge votes I will call this a merge. I am having trouble finding a good place to merge this, but I will try merging this with the note section of Interstate 69, but if someone thinks that was the completely wrong place to merge it, go ahead and merge it somewhere else. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Interstate 69 (between Lansing and Flint)

This page is for a section of Interstate 69 that no longer exists. It does not need it's own article. Gateman1997 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Road Baptist Church

churches are not inherently notable; the "new attendence record" of the church is well below megachurch standards Sdedeo 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer boxing

Non-notable collage drinking game. Also, although irrelevant to the vote at hand, quite disgusting gkhan 18:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Drinking games are inherently notable." May I ask why that is, exactly? Fernando Rizo T/C 01:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with minimal Jewish ancestry

This is stretching it by a long shot. Sdedeo 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was djelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fjact

Utterly non-notable term. Gets 67 hits on google, almost all unrelated to this term. gkhan 18:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It has to be more notable than just being used in one forum (especially a forum that in itself isn't in wikipedia, which www.reefs.org doesn't appear to be) gkhan 19:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'll defer to the good judgement of the admins, however I'll note that it is a well established forum, in operation for over 4 years, with a relatively large readership (the site overall has 5000+ members). In any case, I'll suggest to the site owners that they catalogue this site in wikipedia (it is a notable resource in the saltwater aquarium hobby, and "The Sump" is the off-topic discussion area). Thanks for your time. --Cheese Sandwich
  • KeepI have seen several words here used in small circles unrelated to wikipedia. And I agree with Cheese...ask any saltwater aquarist about reefs.org and they will know it is an important source of information for a very popular hobby. Thanks, Manny
users only edit gkhan 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. gkhan, don't give these guys any more ideas! Sdedeo 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, wont happen again :P gkhan 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete injoke, the importance of reefs.org has no bearing on anything. Ben-w 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What constitutes enough baring on anything to allow a word to be recorded in the annals of this illustrious internet word bank? Let’s not forget, wikipedia is an internet based phenomenon that allows people to change the meaning of the language with modern speech. This word is internet related in nature, and therefore, it relates to this internet based site. The word is new and not widely used because it is internet forum based. Ask someone what a “blog” is a few years ago and see if they thought the word had any baring on anything. Thanks…I’m done now.
    • A few years ago, when blog was not a notable word, it wouldn't have merited an article. Now it is a notable concept, so it does. Wikipedia is not a means by which to spread your little in-joke made-up word. Come back to us when this is a concept in common currency among people other than your little group of piscine pals. Ben-w 21:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Piscine Pals' - heh heh :). --Cheese Sandwich
    • (BTW, adding 'little', twice, in your description was a nice touch --CS)
  • Speedy Delete not a useful addition at all. PT 19:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Cheese and Manny. Bierboy
users only edits on this page gkhan 19:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Cheese, Manny, and Bierboy. Poptart
users only edit gkhan 20:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Useless neologism, apparently only used on a single Internet forum. (And even if it were used in any significant way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) Delete. (And votes from accounts which were created just in order to influence a VfD discussion will be disregarded.) - Mike Rosoft 20:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary.' - Sure it is - I had to look up 'injoke', 'neologism', and 'sock-puppet' to understand the comments here. There they were, in Wikipedia. --Cheese Sandwich
  • Delete neologism. Kill the sockpuppets Dunc|☺ 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djelete this nelogism. Allegrorondo 20:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and thanks to the sock-puppets for making an easy decision easier. --Scimitar parley 20:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, fjact is a word I have heard used before. It usually refers to baseless political spin that is totally contrived and fabricated for the sake of proving a point.
users only edit gkhan 20:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dont let let the delete nazis change the fjact that this would be a great addition to Wikipedia. - Dave
user's only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
user's only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - That's the fjact Jjack (seven)
user's fjirst and only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fjact is Amjerican slang used in many fylker, including Sogn og Fjordane and Sør-Trøndelag. Hjiddendragonet
user has..ohh, why do I bjother? gkhan 21:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

comment Any word that brings this many brand new users to this site can't be bad right?  ;-) I do get a sense of over potectiveness from the delete fjascists though.

  • Speedy. Protests aside, there's no reason to even have this. If you want to catalog your own in-group information you can start your own wiki.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 21:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "Start your own club" he he he
  • Delete. No evidence that this word exists. There appears to be an unrelated non-English word with the same spelling. ManoaChild 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • New words enter the lexicon all of the time. Someone above cited "blog" as an example. I'm sure that there are many examples of words that are new and strange at first that are now considered a normal part of the lexicon. --- Bierboy
  • KeepI for one think that fjact should be a part of the English language. Why? Well, because there are all kinds of English words that give teachers teaching young children to read absolute fits because they are not spelled the way they sound. Furthermore, adding Fjact to Wikipedia will increase Wikipedia's accuracy. There are people in this world who use the word Fjact all the time. And I do mean all the time, in fact some of those people use it so much that it just gets tiring, and I end up making my way to bjed for the evening. -- kjnucklehead
User has only edited on this page Mr. Know-It-All 05:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* Haters be danged. Fjact is as good as it gets.I use it daily, and look what its done for me! -- Muad'dib
  • Keep* If not for things like this, new words would never be coined, such as "Danked". Gimme a freakin break. -- Hesaias ;)
  • KeepThis word may have started on only one forum (RDO), but it has already gained the status of not needing an explanation there, and I, for one, have seen it appear on other Reef related forums. Give this a year. If it doesn't spread any further, then maybe delete this. I'd hate Wikipedia to miss a chance to be ahead of the curve... -- burntom
  • Gentle Wikipedia Moderators* - Since you all agree that this (and the other term I have submitted, 'milz') can be classified as an 'unstable neologism', I have entered these words here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms I assume that that is acceptable... --Cheese Sandwich
  • Move to List_of_protologisms Fjact is a common term in Northeast Ohio, at least in my house. --3M TA3
user has only edited on this page. Mr. Know-It-All 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at the sock-puppeting of this vote is proof enough of why this should be deleted. Mr. Know-It-All 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETAIN: This has now become world-wide accepted terminology for auto-generated, unsubstantiated "facts." You absolutely must retain it as an entry, or risk losing credibility with a wide readership. And that, my friend, is a fjact. William Scott Associate Professor of Chemistry University of California, SC
This is the only edit by this IP user Mr. Know-It-All 05:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djelete as fjast as pjossible. No joke. -- DS1953 05:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the socks just make me vote delete, and the nominator and previous are right too, of course.-Splash 15:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • no puppets here I just looked up "sock puppet" to see what you're talking about. Every single keep vote here came from a different person. Sure we all came from the same place, but have your admins check the IP addresses if you care. We're all in different cities.
  • Keep* - This voting process is enough validation of the word Fjact that it must be kept. --Bucolic Buffalo
Boy, the necrophelia portion of it is a real treat. --CS
  • Cheese...After that post, I believe you deserve "the supreme houdini" pulled on you!

Scary stuff 'round these parts gentlemen...scary stuff. Slightly sickened, Manny

    • Well I hope that doesn't involve any santorum - I'm trying to cut down. --Cheese Sandwich
  • shocking...the only term I can use to describe the pedophelia section of that sexual slang article. Making light of such a serious topic seems a bit tasteless. How do I move to delete "michael jackson" from the list? I mean he was found innocent! I'm appalled...and it takes a heck of a lot to get me appalled, right Cheeso?  ;-) Manny
  • Speedy Delete a sad day for Wikipedia when Fjact stays. Rkevins82 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge (only vote). - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mormons

It seems hopelessly confusing to have two separate lists: a list of Mormons and a list of Latter-day Saints. The biggest problem is the redundancy between lists. If a Wikipedia reader sees one list, they may not think to look at the other list, or if they add an entry to one list, they may not think to add an entry to another list. If there is to be made a distinction in some cases between Mormon and Latter-day Saint, that can be done on the one-page list itself, and not through nebulous and unstated differences between the two lists. 149.169.29.84 18:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GKO

Gibberish. MicroFeet 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JAMin

non-NOTable PROgram; ESSentially an ADVert. Sdedeo 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when articles about open source software are spam or promotional or advert? Your reaction is quite unfriendly and definitely not helpful. Helpful would be leaving a message that something is missing or wrong with this page. I don't see that Cubase (which actually costs money ) article is about to be deleted, neither are lots of others covering commercial software, while here we are talking about open source software. So, again, please investigate first the subject you are considering as "spam", "advert" and "promotional" and then suggest please, what could be improved ;) --Prokoudine 10:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFADD

trivially non-notable in-joke Sdedeo 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Alliance Ministry Center

churches are not inherently notable; this one makes no special claim for inclusion Sdedeo 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States/Gallery of Cities

WP:NOT -> Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of ...images... Basically I don't really see anything encyclopedic or beneficial to having this page. Delete. RJH 19:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rubit

Creator of some Stargate fan fiction. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With the goal of breaking into the industry as a television writer and producer - when he becomes a writer and producer, he can have a page. Allegrorondo 20:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, smells like vanity. Sandstein 20:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider it vanity, since no one said he wrote that page himself. I'm actually a fan of this series of his, which is pretty good. I wouldn't even consider it fan fiction; it much rather includes 3D art, original musical themes, etc. I vote to keep it, since I'm also aware that he's been working on a feature film project, which he'll be directing, for quite some time. Jim24 18:28, 15 August 2005
User's first edit. Jaxl | talk 20:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Allegrorondo; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 20:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I just wanted to set straight that (as Jim24 suspected), Alex in fact did not create that page himself. He doesn't even know about it. I know that because it was me, a very good and old friend of his. In fact, Alex would be the last to even consider doing something like this. If you read his blog, you get a sense that he's a modest and quite funny guy. Anyway, I don't feel I have to right to vote, so do what you believe is right. Just wanted to prevent you from getting a false impression of the guy I call a friend. Have a good day! :-)
Comment: The Delete votes (including this one) aren't concerned with who wrote the article. Vanity is a frequent assumption when a non-notable bio appears, but regardless, it's still a non-notable bio, which is (regardless of authorship) grounds for deletion. Aspirations are wonderful, but they're not encyclopaedic. Lomn | Talk 21:38:06, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • I never said that a delete vote is concerned with who wrote an article, which as I did say was me (not the guy himself). Delete it if you want to; I can't say that will make any big difference to anyone.
  • Delete nn no matter who wrote it. --Etacar11 00:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense. (12:11, 16 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Blood Ov Thee Christ" (allruntogethergushaboutsomethingindirectaddresstothereader = nonsense)) - Mailer Diablo 07:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Ov Thee Christ

Some strained reading reveals that this is an experimental music project. Everything else is unclear, except for the advertising. No vote from me for now. Several Times 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE

Re-encoding Glossary

Ineptly written infodump on digital video editing, with vanity link. Sandstein 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did It Again

Contains no information that couldn't be found in the album article gkhan 20:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC) Change vote to Keep gkhan 12:49, August 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Vaughan

"Magnus Vaughan" is not notable or does not exist (no google hits). Reads like a joke page, anyway. Sandstein 20:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do exist. I am 25 and I do live in Slough. I'm glad you think that because my life contains humour, it must be a joke, I cannot be googled, vis a vis I do not exist. You need to leave the house more. Magnus Vaughan


See http://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/archive/display.var.522217.0.horses_for_courses.php for an example of Magnus' powerful work

  • Mr. Vaughan, please excuse my suspended belief in your existence. Even so, existence does not constitute notability, and neither does a single newspaper article, powerful as it may be. Please note that vanity pages, even those intended to be humorous, are not allowed on Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those unfamiliar with North and West London and environs: if that was The Times, possibly. If the Hillingdon Times is anything like my local paper from the same group, the Finchley Times, it's a free weekly paper. Nothing wrong with that, but not a very good guide of international or even national notability. Delete joke article. Tonywalton 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was boldly merged. -- BD2412 talk 21:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dawn Bible Students Association

Single-line definition, merge with Bible Students. Sandstein 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nolia

Housing project, notabily not established by being home to an apparently non-notable rapper. Sandstein 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aether Physics Model

Original research. Only seen on its own non notable website. --Pjacobi 20:35, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

APM Physical Dimensions

Original research. Only seen on its own non notable website. --Pjacobi 20:35, August 15, 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. -- Longhair | Talk 23:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero smell quotient

Delete: Putting "smell quotient" into Google returns 19 hits. None of them have to do with superheros. Putting "Daredevil McAwful" and "Ludicrously Burlesque" into Google returns nothing. I'm not a follower of comics, but surely there would be at least *one* hit if this had any basis in truth? --Durin 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_15&oldid=21089012"