This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

AIDS myths and urban legends

Personal essay, highly POV, tagged disputed for a long time and no efforts to mediate or resolve have been successful. No references. The subject itself seems borderline encyclopedic, but the article is entirely not so. WP:ISNOT a soapbox nor is it a repository for original research. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep. The article is important and encyclopedic. VfD is not the place to complain about POV disputes. As far as I can see, this article desparately needs sources to resolve the disputes. Consider getting an administrator involved if things get nasty. Sdedeo 18:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This article might need fixing (especially regarding NPOV) - but not beyond the point for deletion. -- Hurricane111 21:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Very very very strong keep! The subject of the article is extremely important: the discrepancy between what is known about HIV/AIDS by the scientific community and what is believed by the general public is enormous. And, while Senator Frist doesn't seem to know the difference, an encyclopedia has an obligation to make that distinction. Most of the points in the article ought to be unquestionably verifiable, as long as editors are willing to do a little legwork. The POV and technical issues (like where to say HIV and where to say AIDS) can be cleaned up, but this article needs to stay. I would, however, recommend a move (with an appropriate redirect) to Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS or somesuch to avoid the informal (bordering on incorrect) usage of the terms "myth" and "urban legend". - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

A move to such a page would be good. -- Grcampbell 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I would expect some urban myths and legends about HIV/AIDS to be strongly POV, we should be recording what those myths are, regardless of the strength of the POV those myths support. We could clearly state that on the page though. Alf 22:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep. Updated with some more myths/urban legends, seems a lot fuller now, and represents the mainline scientific consensus. -- Grcampbell 23:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Has no original research -- Grcampbell 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - If you are going to lead into a statement with FACT:, you better be able to multi-source your data. I think it is an excellent informational article on an important topic, however, I have to agree with Ryan Delaney that it is not encyclopedic. I would like to see a re-write that includes COMPLTELE sources for ALL statements. If the source was Pasteur et al., 1864 it would be fine, however, most of the sources are difficult to confirm without full names, publications, etc. And does it have to look like an 11th grade health class pamphlet? - PlainSight 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

References have been added. -- Grcampbell 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Vote Change - KEEP - After format change and additional references. Nice work. - PlainSight 13:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and wikify. -- Apyule 04:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I want to see this fixed to encyclopedia standard, but the information in the article is solid, thorough, and worthwhile. A. J. Luxton 07:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep . Topic (title) is noteworthy. Manik Raina 07:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and wikify - there are tons of authoritative sources for this material, someone just has to dig it out and update the article. I have friends at the Gay Men's Health Crisis in NYC, I will contact them and see if they can help- -- Outlander 14:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Lots of useful information, though it may need to be cleaned up NRS11 23:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 02:53, 27 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, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Christian Topics and Virtues

(a) So far mainly contains biblical quotes, (b) Seems pretty redundant with Christianity, and possibly other topics, and (c) hopelessly ambitious given the general title Cheese Sandwich 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete; Selected quotes from any book - however popular - is not encyclopedic in itself | Celcius 01:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Cheese Sandwich puts it perfectly. Hopelessly ambitious and redundant to pre-existing articles. I make no claim to being an expert in Christianity, but it would seem to this heathen that the Bible would contain Christian topics and virtues, at which point it would cease to be a WP article and become the Bible itself. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete (agreeing with the 'heathen') normally I'd cut some slack on a construction site and say 'wait and see' but this is going nowhere fast. -- Doc (?) 01:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Josh Cherry 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Amren 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; What anyone needs with an alphabetically organised abridged version of the bible is beyond me but I’m sure its beyond the scope of wikipedia — FlooK 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Way too vast and relavent info is already covered by Christianity. — Linnwood 05:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Spaltavian 05:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and FlooK. The title doesn't even describe the article properly; the topics included so far are biblical but not specifically Christian. -- Metropolitan90 08:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a list of biblical quotes which don't neccesarily related to the article's title. Wikipedia isn't Wikiquote. Let's have this deleted before the creator puts any more work in it. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to another wiki The author has certainly put hard work into this entry. It's not a bad wiki page, just not a good fit for Wikipedia. I encourage the author find a more appropriate wiki for this or to create his/her own wiki. Hessef 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, useless and original research. -- Ec5618 09:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to another wiki, The page is well written and might have better title as a list of..., people have obviously taken time and care over it and it would be a shame to just throw it away. If there's a suitable place in any other wiki I support moving it there. Alf 09:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Tekana 11:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete We have categories for this. Fornadan (t) 13:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• TransWiki, per Alf. Jdhowens90 13:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- KillerChihuahua 13:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per mathematics and God. Dunc| ☺ 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move to WikiQuote, perhaps? - ulayiti (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, the page is not well written and contains no other material except bible quotes. Either move to wikiquote or delete. -- Hurricane111 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I see no reason for this page. If it's supposed to be an index to Christian topics as the title suggest, it's not doing a good job of it even as a beginning. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, useless original research -- tranquileye 14:02:04, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Gantz. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Gantzs

This page should be deleted because the title is misspelled and there is an article more complete already with the right name ( Gantz) JocPro 00:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete; Misspelled | Celcius 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Amren 01:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Gantz or delete. Jaxl | talk 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Although we generally don't redirect mis-spellings pre-emptively, we generally do redirect mis-spellings where people have actually created articles. This is on the basis that if one editor has already made the spelling mistake and been so convinced of it as to create an article, others no doubt will do so in the future, and it is better to direct readers to the correct place than to go around this cycle again. If you see duplicate articles in the future, please refer to Wikipedia:duplicate articles instead of coming to VFD. Merge. Uncle G 03:07:00, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
• Redirect: I agree with Jaxl’s above comments and it doesn’t look like there’s any detail to merge in — FlooK 04:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Uncle G. No merge needed. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to avoid future confusion and help those of us who are good at tpyos. Alf 09:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as common misspelling. - ulayiti (talk) 18:57, 22 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 05:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Opium Den

There is no such thing an album by this name released by a band called Tool, meaning that it is not an official release. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment; Unofficial release? I would need more info as I have no clue what that entails. It seems that all other releases by that band have articles though | Celcius 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The album is just a rare release (like a bootleg, etc.) and I do not think rare releases should be posted at this site. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Vote pending Delete. If I understand Mike Garcia correctly, then this album was put out by someone other than Tool or Tool's record label, and is essentially a glorified mixtape. Unless there is a claim to notability above and beyond that, I will vote to delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my vote to delete in light of el Che's research. Fernando Rizo T/ C 04:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Vote pending; I second Fernando with a Delete vote on stated premises | Celcius 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Tool's official website doesn't list it (damn Flash) and this site [1] refers to it as a "bootleg" (near bottom).
• It deserves a mention on the Tool (band) page, being so notable for a bootleg, but as a standalone I vote delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above research. Dottore So 05:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with Fernando Rizo, this is basicly a "glorified mixtape" — Linnwood 05:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nn fan compilation. the wub "?/!" 08:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless it's shown that the bootleg in itself is a valuable rarity in some fashion. Alf 09:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I think that should do it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Add one more ;). Amren ^(talk) 00:17, 23 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 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Hohobans

Delete. Completely unverifiable; possible hoax. Wound up over at votes for undeletion, but in the interest of fairness, I've posted it here. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment; Well, "Kaput and Zosky" does serve up a fair amount (roughly 6k) of hits. Question is of course if it is a hoax or not. If not, I would vote keep based on the apparent popularity of the cartoon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Celsius ( talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-22 02:33:04
• I got much the same thing, but nothing that combined with "Hohobans." "Kaput and Zosky" are all over the place and there's a fair-sized article here as well. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Only hit for "Kaput and Zosky" hohobans is VfU. Niteowlneils 03:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not unverifiable, just as-yet unverified. It seems unlikely to me that a French cartoon would have such odd names (h is aspirated in French so I expect thathoho signifies a rather rare sound). I have noted the basic facts on the talk page of Kaput and Zösky so no factual information would be lost if this article were deleted. --05:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Dottore So 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no Google or Yahoo search hits for Hohobans, and Hohoban hits don't have anything to do with this. Zoe 05:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The page contains claims about "Hohobans." The claims are unfortunately unreferenced. There is no actual verification of the existence of the Hohoban, much less any verificatory source that suggests notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP accepts stubs, but these have guidelines; WP is under no obligation to accept unreferenced, unverified claims, especially those which are in all likelihood hoaxes. Should a claim of authenticity be made via Tony Sidaway's [2] or Lucky's [3] posts on the related Talk pages, my vote to delete shall remain almost certainly unchanged; simply because something purpotedly exists should not by any means be taken to suggest it automatically deserves mention in an encyclopedia. That requires notability, as explained in WP:N and WP:V. Absent that standard, there is no basis for an encyclopedic article on the subject.— Encephalon | ^ζ  06:43:32, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Wow, Encephalon, that should be added to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy pages. Zoe 04:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're too kind, Zoe. In a way, I don't think anything needs to be added. It's already there.— Encephalon | ^ζ  15:58:33, 2005-08-23 (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 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

TESF Members

Delete Non-ecyclopedic -- PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete NN. -- 152.91.9.131 02:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; nn, evil | Celcius 02:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; pointless. Jaxl | talk 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: this, along with the two below and the main paige TESForums, appear to be a failed attempt at a WikiProject. Merged into one article (and NPOVed and edited to be Wiki-propriate) they might make a legitimate article about TES. If it passes the notability test. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• It's a list of members of a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to create membership rosters for their discussion forum. Delete. Uncle G 04:06:21, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Also, page has been blanked. — Linnwood 05:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, forum vanity. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unclear what whole "TES"/"TESF" thing is; probably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:18, 23 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 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Notable Threads

Delete Non-ecyclopedic -- PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete NN -- 152.91.9.131 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; nn, evil | Celcius 02:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; pointless. Jaxl | talk 02:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• It's a list of external links to threads on a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to host bookmark pages for threads in their discussion forum that they find interesting. (Note that TESForums currently styles itself The Official TES Forums Wiki and links to a whole raft of these articles. Wikipedia is not a hosting service.) Delete. Uncle G 03:56:25, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G and add that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. -- DS1953 04:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, page also blanked. — Linnwood 05:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nn forum vanity. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a 'Wikinetforum' or similar. If there isn't I hope there will be, so this and numerous recent articles, which have no place here, have a place to be, there is obviously a perceived need by the posters of these articles. Alf 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • We have a whole Wiki Science wikibook on how to set up and run one's own wiki, if that is what one wants to do. Uncle G 10:57:43, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll suggest that to the more competent looking posters of similar material, personally I have no interest whatsoever in them. Alf 21:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Appears to be part of the whole "TES"/"TESF" schmear (though which isn't even referenced); presumably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit ( talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Optichan 19:06, August 26, 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 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

TESF Acronyms

Delete Non-ecyclopedic -- PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete; nn, evil | Celcius 02:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; pointless. Some of these "acronyms" have their own articles (ie. "1337 speak"). Jaxl | talk 02:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• It's a list of in-jokes used on one particular discussion forum, and of general Internet slang. We already have coverage of the latter. Delete. Uncle G 03:54:06, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
• Delete; nn — Linnwood 05:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Thatdog 08:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, forum vanity. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity -- Ec5618 09:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Blanked by creator. Only thing remains is VfD tag. -- WCFrancis 15:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unclear what whole "TES" thing is (and article doesn't say or reference); probably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit ( talk) 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Vanity. See also TESF Top50. Ben ^T/ _C 09:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Ben Tuthill

Delete Non-notable? Google search turns up nothing PhilipO 02:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete hoax. Dottore So 02:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete NN/Hoax -- Camw 03:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- DS1953 04:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; per nominator — Linnwood 05:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, If he indeed operates the blog under the name of "Jack of Hearts" it would mean he's real and not a hoax, but if Google turns up nothing on his real name, he's not a notable author. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Rocketboard

Take it from an old homemade-explosive expert, this is a load of hoo-ha. Potassium nitrate plus sugar gives an impressive pile of smoke but not serious thrust. The "physics" comments about diameter of truck wheels vs. terminal velocity are sheerly comedic in their seriousness. This is flat out foolish. Denni ☯ 02:37, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

• Delete; neologism | Celcius 02:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; Seems like a vanity page for "Joseph Kaile" if you look at the External Links — Linnwood 05:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I have no problem with the concept of rocket powered skateboards as such, but this is just silly. -- Apyule 05:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Absurd. Spaltavian 06:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Same website mentioned twice in the same section. Also for reasons as pointed out by Denni. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment page appears to have been created by a new user who hasn't as yet received a welcome message, can we check this when thinking of VfD and greet the user, explain what the issue is and see if they are co-operative, please. I'm going to greet the user and point them here. Alf 10:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki - to somewhere. Way too much entertainment value to offhandedly delete! - PlainSight 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 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 merge. Fernando Rizo T/ C 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Nermal

Delete and redirect The information on the Nermal page is already on much larger Garfield page. Character may not have enough information to add ot make it worth giving it a seperate page. Should be deleted and redirect to Garfield, just like 'Odie' does. Boycottthecaf 02:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Redirect. No need to delete first. CanadianCaesar 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge; | Celcius 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy merge and redirect. You definitely had the right idea, Boycottthecaf, but an article can't be redirected once it's deleted. A deletion removes the article space entirely, not just the content. In this case, just perform the merge and make the Nermal page into #REDIRECT [[Garfield]]. Fernando Rizo T/ C 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • You can delete and redirect, you can make a redirect out of a red link. But I don't think it's needed here. CanadianCaesar 02:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Potato, potatoh, CC. ;) Went ahead and did it for you. Edit the page for Nermal and you'll see what I did. Fernando Rizo T/ C 02:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I saw it. The only reason I didn't redirect it myself is because I didn't see it until it went on VfD, and I'm not admin so I don't have authority to speedy redirect. CanadianCaesar 02:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • What They Say Ok, I was confused there. I just thought that it should automatically redirct to Garfield, just as what happens when you type in the term "Odie". Thanks. -- Boycottthecaf 03:00, 22 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 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Liquid Spears

Non-notable and/or unverifiable band. Only hit for "Liquid Spears" "Monique Willemsen" is Wikipedia, and "Liquid Spears" doesn't fare much better. No allmusic.com listing. Niteowlneils 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete; nn | Celcius 02:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; nn band vanity. Jaxl | talk 03:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; Band Vanity WP:MUSIC — Linnwood 05:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; Not notable enough, only one single released in Melbourne. Khanada 08:38, 22 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. User:Zoe also wishes me to point out that there was no consensus, which I'm happy to do. Even taking into account some socking, there just isn't consensus to delete this. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Free Lunch Design

Delete Promotional? PhilipO 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't think it's promotional. It just says what it is. Tariq 02:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Vote by article creator. -- PhilipO 05:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep; Seems ok | Celcius 03:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Week keep. 5,180 google results; may be notable enough. Jaxl | talk 04:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I think Free Lunch want fome free advertising, Alexa rank of 125,136 -- nixie 04:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Free advertising or not, I think Jaxl hunch is correct: nn. Dottore So 05:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• ...? I didn't say "nn". I voted weak keep. Jaxl | talk 14:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep Fine article. -- Apyule 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, TANSTAAFL. R adiant _>|< 10:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete -- Agamemnon2 10:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep There are somewhat shorter entries on the Swedish and Polish wikis that don't seem to have attracted vfd's.

Admittedly commercial, but they do offer free downloads and have some positive comments made about them on Google. Dlyons493 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete not notable. Dunc| ☺ 14:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not more notable than the average small business. Just because they're on the web doesn't make them notable, unfortunately. Page is promotional. Sdedeo 16:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Or maybe you want to make a donation: "For profit, they accept donations through PayPal. Also, if you wish, you can buy Johan Peitz a book from his wish list through Amazon." Absolutely advertising. Marskell 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nn. Besides, any company who spells Alligator with an e ... Zoe 19:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. JDoorjam 22:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep immediately recognizable as the authors of Icy Tower.  Grue  18:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete BFD ;Bear 21:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• How come their game Icy Tower gets an article, but not the company it self. ALso, I am NOT the creator of the game. Tariq 00:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete nn. -- tranquileye 14:04:50, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 06:43, August 27, 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 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

ScotWatch

Delete. A Yahoo! mailing list. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; nn | Celcius 03:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; per nominator — Linnwood 05:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete unverifiable -- Apyule 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable. There's millions of similar groups. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tekana 11:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Group is genuine and will soon have a webpage
  • Above comment added by User:Sandmountainslim.
• Comment: Having a website soon is irrelevant, as is whether they're genuine or not. They're up for deletion because it's a one-in-a-million website with nothing to put them apart from millions of other Yahoo!Groups and websites. If a website or group is listed it should be notable (important, covered by a third party) and not contain advertising about the group in question (like mentioning admins, which is totally irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Smiley family

No claim to notability. Martg76 03:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete; nn | Celcius 03:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Looking at the writer's other contributions, my money's on the editor being a descendent of the Kerr family, making this article vanity. Delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Dottore So 05:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move to Hugh Smiley which the article is mailnly about and note Smiley (disambiguation). Alf 10:52, 22 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 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Musa Syeed

Seems to be parts of two different articles. the one about Musa Syeed seems to be about a non-notable person -- exactly one google hit on "Musa Syeed" + Producer, 9 hits on "Musa Syeed"+film. Delete unless notability better established -- in any case cleanup. DES ^(talk) 03:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - looks like a sloppy cut-n-paste copyvio, though I can't find the source. -- Calton | Talk 04:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly because it reeks of copyvio, but the 2006 fulbright suggests he's a recent graduate (which reeks of vanity) and what he's done (so far) has been in the states, so i doubt a google search in arabic or under an alternative romanization would do turn up much more. Nateji77 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note Two other arts by the smae anon IP were tagged as copyvios. DES ^(talk) 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Dottore So 05:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Incoherent at best. The other guy mentioned, "Yoni Brook", isn't a bad photographer though - see e.g. [4] Dlyons493 12:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I am one of the people mentioned in the entry, though I did not post it, nor do I know who did. I would appreciate its removal. above unsigned comment by User:Musas. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 23 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 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

TESF Mods

It's a Who's Who of the moderators a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to maintain membership rosters for their discussion forum. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:05:57, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Dottore So 05:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator — Linnwood 05:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Thatdog 08:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unclear what whole "TES"/"TESF" thing is; presumably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit ( talk) 19:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:20, 23 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 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

TESF Top50

It's a list of members of a discussion forum that post the most, with their posting counts. As the discussion forum members will continue to post, this information will be out of date as soon as it is written, and thus is both worthless and unverifiable. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:04:04, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Dottore So 05:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator — Linnwood 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Thatdog 08:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• 'Delete, vanity. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. -- Ec5618 09:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unclear what whole "TES"/"TESF" thing is; presumably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit ( talk) 19:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Vanity. Ben ^T/ _C 09:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted A7 (Geogre deleted "Xan Phillips" (Only says he used to be a videotape editor and now has a podcast: spam + vanity (click here!))) - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Xan Phillips

Not notable. 474 Google and zero Alexa. Delete - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 04:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. Makes no claim to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 10:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as above. -- Agamemnon2 10:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I note that User:Xanphillips (not entirely new but still very new) was second editor of the page and perhaps was the first, no-one has suggested he might have put up a 'user page' in the mainspace in error/ignorance and suggested he ask for it to be deleted himself. Alf 11:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Pollard and Friends

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pollard and Friends/2005-05-03.

Redelete: this page already went through VFD and was nuked. Hoax page about a UK Simpsons spin-off. Speediable? JDoorjam 04:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• If it's the same content, yes. CanadianCaesar 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; Was deleted once before — Linnwood 05:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, it's not the same content, but it remains pure speculation with no sources to verify its validity. (see this Google search) - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for hoaxery. -- Agamemnon2 10:53, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 23:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Martin Smith (songwriter)

nonnotable songwriter. IF his group is even notable, merge; else, delete (and somebody take out his group, too). JDoorjam 04:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• He's not just the songwriter, as the article itself says. Both him and the band seem notable, but this is a pretty small stub. Merge. CanadianCaesar 07:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and add stub, this needs lots of help but "martin smith delirious" in google turned up 89,600. Notable band, and Martin Smith has been interviewed by quite a few fairly notable media sources. He writes, plays guitar, piano, composes, does vocals - this is all from scanning the google hit page, not even following any links or going to page 2. -- KillerChihuahua 14:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Isn't Christian rock an oxymoron? Anyway, band at least a probably worth keeping, so redirect at most. -- zippedmartin 21:31, 22 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 discussion aborted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination). -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

ExamDiff

Re-opening abbreviated VfD. Original vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff.
Abstain. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 04:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• If you search for this program on download.com, which is a major distributor of freeware programs such as this one, it shows that it has about 120k downloads. It has also been reviewed by the CNET editors on the same site. Absent a really good set of objective criteria for determining notability of software, I think that's probably enough to justify a keep. ESkog 22:31, 22 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. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Josh danahay

junk/vanity/non-sense Rkevins82 - TALK 05:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, nonsense. ( see text). Since when are VFD candidates blanked? I've come across several of those today. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Octopus Travel

This looks like an ad. Compare copy with their web site ;Bear 05:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising. -- Apyule 06:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Advertising. -- maclean25 06:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I nominated Ebookers (VfD Debate here), which had a very similar article to this Octopus Travel, except it was created by User:Ebookers and had a picture of the website's main page. It survived with 'no consensus'. -- maclean25 06:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Shall we pillory that one again? ;Bear 18:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone cleaned it up shortly after this nomination was made and my comment/link brought attention to it. -- maclean25 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nothing but an advert. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 10:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Badvertisement. Alf 11:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete ad. -- tranquileye 14:05:58, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously an ad as written (though could be rewritten with NPOV ...presuming octopus travel is notable enough for an entry, which I doubt) Wandering oojah 14:10, 26 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 23:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

UK82

Not notable. Delete. - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 05:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, notable genre. Kappa 05:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I'm happy to change my vote if given evidence of notability. - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Kappa. -- Apyule 06:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete for nn. Incoherent. -- Agamemnon2 10:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Hardcore punk (changed from reserved pending further). Excuse my possible ignorance here, how is this different from Hardcore punk? If it's the same (as I think it is) I'll be voting 'redirect'. Alf 11:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Hrrrrmmmm. Kind of a notable thing ("UK 82", a better title, gets something like 15,000 hits. I can't tell how many are this; clearly many are not) but an awful article. It is also a song by The Exploited. Needs serious cleanup, to the point where it should be deleted if it doesn't get it. I don't have time now, but I'll take a pass at it if no one else does before VfD closure. - R. fiend 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It's been cleaned a bit so keep or merge, see below. - R. fiend 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Perhaps merge or redirect to punk music, or the like, but for now, yeeeeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and vote Delete. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per User:Kappa. - ulayiti (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• I've heard this term in use, but it might be too peripheral for having its own article. Punkmorten 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete imaginary music genres. As usual, none of the band articles to which this links uses this term to describe the band's style. — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It's not imaginary; nor is it a neologism, as the term existed in the 80's. It's not a genre so much as a specific group of bands, sort of like the 60's British invasion, but much more obscure. "UK 82" punk gets 631 google hits, and "UK82" punk gets 529 more. Not tons, but a fair number. The article's been cleaned up a bit, but if it's not expanded it should probably be merged and redirected somewhere. Maybe hardcore punk. And by the way, the Charged GBH article does specify them as UK 82, and has for more than a year. Anyway, if kept move to UK 82. - R. fiend 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wahoofive. Nandesuka 12:50, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Gooley

• Delete Dubious value? PhilipO 06:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• DOn't Delete I am interested in this topic fuck off Philip 06:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Unsigned vote by article creator at 203.23.90.12 reply
• Delete, no encyclopedic value. And personal attacks aren't necessary. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per JIP. DES ^(talk) 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Ill delete you Mr JIP mr im so good well i tell u wat mr JIP ill get my good friend mr black to crush you and your stupid smarthead Unsigned comment by User:203.23.90.12 DES ^(talk) 06:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per JIP. -- Apyule 07:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, last names belong in Wiktionary, but without sources to its Malaysian origin, this is dubious at best. I couldn't find any references to James Gooley either. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for nn and author trolling. -- Agamemnon2 10:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was intitally going suggest disambiguate but a look at this makes it hard to believe anything this editor had added. Alf 12:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable. Other edits from this IP address include personal attacks and vandalism. The IP address is one of the series assigned to St. Josephs College - Hunters Hill in Australia. -- WCFrancis 15:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Dottore So 18:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and ban author's IP for a substantial history of vandalism in addition to his trolling on this vfd. JDoorjam 22:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • URL fixed. — JIP | Talk 04:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Optichan 19:15, August 26, 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. --23:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In a world

Delete Non-encyclopedic PhilipO 06:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• delete absolutely Non-encyclopedic. Doesn't quite qualify for a speedy, but i wish it did. DES ^(talk) 06:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. One sentence, and bsolutely nothing further to say about the subject. Isomorphic 06:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per DESiegel and that wikipedia is not a list of phrases. -- Apyule 07:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Less than a dicdef. ManoaChild 08:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Less than a sub-substub. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for inanity. -- Agamemnon2 10:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete second inanity, second wishing it qualified for speedy. -- KillerChihuahua 14:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as is. But this could absolutely be a legitimate article. I may even rewrite the article just to spite the deletionists. :) (Although the title should probably be something like " In a world where...".) RADICALBENDER ★ 14:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't of anything to include in such an article. What would you include if you ever rewrote it? - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• In a world where Wikipedia was a collection of catch phrases, this article would not deserve to be deleted. Sdedeo 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Don LaFontaine or Trailer (movie). Caerwine Caerwine 17:18, 23 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 05:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Liesl Jobson

Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Circa 500 hits on Google. PhilipO 06:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. Appears to be an award winning poet, which at least establishes more notability than being a teacher. I don't know how great an honor those awards are though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep also, this editor has done quite a bit of editing on poets contribs list will welcome and attempt to persuade to register. Alf 12:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I see that this article was nominated for deletion one minute after it was created. In general, it is best to wait a little bit longer than that before slapping on the VFD tag. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Someone who can write [5] must be notable. Also I wouldn't dare vote against a S. African policewoman :-) Dlyons493 12:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep for goodness sake, it needs wikifying and work but she won the Poet for Timbila 2004 as well as other awards, she's published, looks notable to me. -- KillerChihuahua 14:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Userfy (i.e. Delete). Lacks notability. Although I welcome her wikipedia contributions, that does not entitle her to an article in the main space. Poetry competitions are two a penny. The JPS 15:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Given that those 500 hits seem to be about her and not promotional or duplicates (edit: and not just mailing list posts or blogs), I think 500 hits is fairly notable. While the article could use wikifying and editing, I think it also makes her notability fairly clear. I think User:The JPS's implication that it is written by Liesl Jobson is incorrect, or at least unproven; this IP has done significant work on several South African poets. -- Prosfilaes 03:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep and please wait more than one minute before erasing things here Yuckfoo 19:31, 23 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 Early keep. Totally rewritten. No more dicdef. mikka (t) 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Koleda

*Delete. dicdef MCB 07:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (And refer creator to Wiktionary.) - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even sure if this really qualifies for transiki to Wiktionary. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep now expanded, please take another look. -- Irpen 18:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. It is actually a new article. mikka (t) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep. It is important part of East Slavic heritage. -- Ghirlandajo 18:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

For deletionists I would advise to learn how to use google. mikka (t) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The deletion votes, including my nomination, were based on a 1-line article, not the one up now. MCB 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article has been nicely expanded; I withdraw my nomination. MCB 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As per Ghirlandajo. -- Wojsyl ^{( talk)} 19:26, 25 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Sean whisler

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nominator. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Hunt down, give a good talking to, then Delete The JPS 15:16, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Platinumpresto

Vanity and advertisement. Seems non-notable, and refers to website for any actual information. Uppland 07:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, advertising. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 10:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment new user, hadn't been welcomed, have done so now and pointed them here, have suggested some of the info more approp. to user page in non-advert form. Alf 12:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Illuminati X

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a clue what this is. It appears to be a fictional accounting of a large scale gang war of some kind. It's not encyclopedic, appears to make no distinction between fantasy and reality and cites no sources. In a Google search for "Illuminati X", I could find no results that were relevent to this. Fernando Rizo T/ C 08:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Don't Delete This is not a fictional account of a large scale gang war. That would make for an interesting book though. This is an actual account of a massive multiplayer online game. While I should be the first to say that this is not your normal history, it is in fact a history of a sort. And with a player base of around 50,000 people this would give them the opportunity to visit Wikipedia and to enjoy something of interest to themselves. Thankyou for considering not deleting this peice of online history.

• Delete, please note that Wikipedia is not a hosting service. If you indeed have a base 50,000 regular players, a condensed article on the game itself might be useful at Illuminati X, but this is not the place to put a summary or account of an RPG game's history. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN definitely. I mean come on:

"Peace during the Elitez Gangbang" "Illuminati Victory in the First Ivy League War" "Emergence of the Bots and the NATO War" Those titles had me gut-laughing! My advise to Robert Pierce is to set this shit up on your own homepage or something, and at most include that there was a massive MMOPG battle feat. 50k people here on Wiki, the total breakdown and prose is unneeded though. - Wiffle0rz 09:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• • Yo Pierce, I just wanted to say I wasnt laughing at the necessary nature of the game or whatever, just the interesting randomness of the events "Emergence of The Bots..." etc. Also I wasnt trying to criticize you or anything, I play MMOPG's and I think the battles are f'in dope I just meant to say that you should edit the article so that it talks about how you had a huge war in your game, talk about what game, how many participated, who participated, the significance etc. If you do that you will get a Keep vote from me and probably others too, atm this is too personal, and personal research-ish to stay on here my man, it wont fly with the others. I just meant to give advice and not hate or sound hostile, readin my comment I can see how that might be interpreted but it wasnt my intention dude, sorry. Keep it wiki! - Wiffle0rz 09:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 10:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unquestionably, unmercilessly, unprocrastrinatedly. -- Agamemnon2 10:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not the place to put your game reports. If the author can establish the game's notability, a very condensed version could be kept. Fornadan (t) 13:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nominator.-- nixie 13:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete cruft Usrnme h8er 13:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is some of the most overgrown cruft I've ever seen. -- Several Times 15:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete: WarCruft. JDoorjam 22:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, it was worth a try.

• Delete - very strong respect for your dedication and attention to detail...But, dude, get a girlfriend! - PlainSight 03:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete -I strongly agree with PlainSight. Do something more productive with that brain capacity, and get busy finding a cure for cancer! Croat Canuck 03:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

They found the cure to cancer.... well only breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, and ovarian cancer.... its a common virus... it was on CNN about a month ago. RX something..... its going through FDA testing at the moment to be put on the general market. The virus by itself does not kill regular cells, only the cancer cells, but in conjunction with another virus it can cause regular cells to die.

• Delete - Well, I feel like less of a person for having read this article. The spewing forth of such ignorance has no place on Wikipedia. Boothcat4320 18:12, 27 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Rivaji

133 Google hits for name. Sample from text shows obvious self-promotion: "Rivaji is not new to politics and Congress. he is a born Congressman." delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Searching on the pseudonym or the real name only finds web board rants. Vanity or a hoax. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 11:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As somebody from the same part of the world, definitely a vanity page. -- Botsie 13:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- for above reasons. -- Bhadani 14:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tintin 08:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Delta Academy of Dance, Pacific Rim Performing Arts Studios

Looks like self-promotion for a local business offering dance classes since 1966 in a town ( Tsawwassen, British Columbia) with a population of 25,000. See also links from 56th Street. Uppland 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete not notable, and wikipedia is not an advertising agency. The JPS 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per JPS. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 18:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:35, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Lil Daddy

This is either 1. Totally Fake or 2. Real and thereby so flagrantly homosexual we can not alow this shit to stay and must delete it at once. Wiffle0rz 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, it's hoaxy allright, but homosexuality has nothing to do with it. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't recall seeing Wikipedia is not gay on WP:NOT. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- Agamemnon2 10:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I find plenty of references in hip hop songs, but none relating to an individual fitting the description. Wiffle0rz, please be succinct in your nominations, "Hoax" would have been sufficient, looking back through the history of the page I cannot find anything that is flagrantly homosexual (even if I did, I'm ok with that, provided its NPOV), IMO referring to it as you did, is uncalled for. Alf 13:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete concur with Alf's final comment. The JPS 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and there should be a speedy criterion for these. - ulayiti (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WifflOrz, keep profanity and homophobia to yourself. JDoorjam 21:34, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Indian National Congress - IT Cell

This article doesn't shed light into the affiliated organization's significance. Google results for "Indian National Congress" and "IT Cell" total 64. Article created by an officier that started a vanity article for himself. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- is a department within an organisation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either vanity, a hoax, or nn. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 11:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete- I also agree with all the above reasons. Please also see Rivaji. -- Bhadani 14:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable department in a notable organisation. -- Botsie 16:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

i agree - page should be deleted its not from a neutral POV and does not give much information Vino s 19:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Thwog

Non-notable joke religion (Thwog returns 9 hits on Google if you exclude it's own site, all false positives by my count.). I was tempted to list it on speedy, but I'm not sure it would fit any criterea, anyway to quote the creed of Thwong: "Creation Is An Accident of Thwog.", I think that pretty much sums up this article. Delete Sherool 09:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, hardly a notable internet meme. Appears to be a platform to promote the religion. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not even worthy of BJAODN. -- KillerChihuahua 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not-notable. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 18:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article creation was clearly an accident of Thwog. Grutness... wha? 01:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete many reasons, plus copyvio. -- Apyule 03:11, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Aparant

Vanity/linkspam for a non-notable group that gets one Google hit and no Alexa rank. Fernando Rizo T/ C 09:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nominator. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 11:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - self promo =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: +3/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Fernanda Abreu

She used to sing in a band and is now solo. I could find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, however (I did find some googles in Spanish but I can't read that). Notable or not able? R adiant _>|< 09:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I thought my Spanish was going to come in handy here, but she appears to be a Brazilian artist; those Google hits are Portuguese. Punting this one to a Portuguese speaker. Fernando Rizo T/ C 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Doesn't seam to be an hoax. links [6] and [7] give a short bio of an rather unimportant but existing singer of group for children. - Mariano 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are many "unimportant but existing singer[s] of group for children". Admirable, but not notable enough for a wikipedia article. The article is far too vague anyway. The JPS 15:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, existence is not notability. Zoe 19:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep -- googling returns 32,000 hits which mostly seem pertinent, and she has three seven CDs at Amazon.com -- honestly guys, did you search at all here? JDoorjam 21:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Allmusic.com has an article on cliaming she is a popular funk singer in Brazil see [8]. The number of Google hits appears to bear this out. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I will change my vote if this additional research is added to the article. Zoe 04:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in light of recent evidence. I would like the closing admin to add this info if no one else does. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I nominate Speedy Keep; lets remove this from VfD. Dottore So 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree. The article as it now stands does not allege notability, and people who claim she is notable can't be bothered to change the article to make her notable. My vote still stands. Zoe 22:04, August 24, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Eat Fat Get Thin

• Delete. A joke most likely. Marskell 10:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete, surely? Grayum 10:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 10:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I've seen an article on a diet based on the film Supersize Me causing people to actually lose weight, but this is complete nonsense with a marketing title. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy pointless article Tekana 11:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comments only: all books printed are perhaps not notable to qualify for encyclopedic entries. I am not aware of the notability of this book or its writer. -- Bhadani 14:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• It appears, from a search, to be moderately well-known within its field. Weak Keep. Uncle G 10:22:29, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Has anyone heard the theory that about half of published books in NA deal either with religion or dieting? This may be moderately well-known but I think we need a relatively high bar for diet books because a) its hard to distinguish them from ads b) the sheer volume of such material means notability is difficult to prove. Still delete tho the page looks better. Marskell 10:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• week keap. I'm hungry. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, August 26, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Gnitch:gnitch

Two-piece experimental band from Australia. Fails WP:MUSIC. R adiant _>|< 09:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity and publicity. The JPS 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment. So far, this band has released one album called Ahola Aloha Loaha with 100 copies made. On the other hand, they have played live gigs around Australia and have attracted some interest in the underground media see [9] snd Music Australia has them listed. [10]. They don't meet WP:Music as yet as far as I can tell but they might in the future. Capitalistroadster 18:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete:delete. NNBV. JDoorjam 22:21, 22 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. Paul August ☎ 18:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

GardenGuideWiki

A wiki about gardening. 32 googles. R adiant _>|< 09:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and a substub at that. I doubt it's notable enough with 32 google hits, but don't we have a list of such wikis? - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per mgm. -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 00:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough, yet; but if we do have such a list, put it on that. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:54, 29 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Hall Petch

The article is kind of messy, but it appears to be a summary of the research paper of two people about material slippage. WP:NOR comes to mind. Also, the article claims to be copyrighted, which is kind of odd. R adiant _>|< 10:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the article reads like an abstract for a published paper. This is much too specialized to be considered encyclopedic. ManoaChild 10:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, they investigated the properties of a substance with a copyright label (shouldn't those be trademarked instead?) Anyway, abstracts to scientific papers don't belong here. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Original Research - see Google Scholar [11] Dlyons493 13:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I still don't know whether the title title refers to the researchers (guess 1), the name of the 'effect' (guess 2) or the name of the research project (guess 3). Alf 14:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• I have tagged it as copyvio. Guess the people who dumped it on WP won't be coming back to rephrase their abstract (dating back to the year 2000), but just in case: Delete, original research. -- DrTorstenHenning 11:36, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Dorothy Dudley

Wife to a 17th century settler. Article lists her children and says nothing much else; WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _>|< 10:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• And while Thomas Dudley appears to be a notable magistrate, Samuel Dudley seems to be as non-notable as Dorothy. Delete as non-notable. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MacGyverMagic, I really can't think of a reason to keep it. Alf 14:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. -- Sliggy 17:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as blatant vanity per CSD #A7. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Miikka Kuisma

Obvious vanity. About as notable as my left foot. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• I've speedied it under the blatant vanity provision (without asserted notability) in the speedy deletion criteria. BTW I'm sure your right foot is far more notable, JIP. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Been merged, therefore I must redirect per GFDL. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

DJ Mary

Appears to be an awful minor character in Pokemon with little to say about. I vote delete unless there's a list of minor characters I don't know about in which case, I'd agree to a merge. (Was incorrectly tagged as a speedy because a lack of context) - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete cruft. Martg76 13:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, awfully small character. feydey 16:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge into the appropriate Pokemon article - WP:NOT paper. - ulayiti (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge somewhere or keep, no reason not to share this facet of the pokemon universe. Kappa 22:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Has been merged into Goldenrod City, from where she hails. 82.210.117.215 11:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nonnotable. Optichan 17:23, August 24, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Seán Keevey

Was originally unformatted and signed by anon contributor. It was also tagged as speedy vanity, but I believe the Young Scientist Exhibition mention may be an attempt at assertion of notability. Still delete because I don't think entering or even winning that competition is notable enough in itself. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity.-- nixie 13:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete are we going to list everyone who wins a minor science prize? Vanity. I put up the original speed delete. CambridgeBayWeather 13:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I moved it to VFD, because claiming that win is obviously an assertion to notability and I didn't know how big the competition was. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe we'll see him again after a bit more work beyond his years. Alf 14:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete A7 eligible surely. Dottore So 17:47, 23 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 article significantly altered since listing, discussion no longer necessary. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Patrick Gale

I doubt the popularity (read: notability) of this popular American country singer. He seems to have left neither a trace on Google (unlike the British author of the same name), nor will amazon.com sell any CDs of his. nn-bio. Unverifiable. No context. I'm almost inclined to speedying it, but for the time being, I'll be satisfied with Delete. -- DrTorstenHenning 11:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep the new article. -- DrTorstenHenning 07:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Replaced by new article. The text has now been replaced by a stub article about the notable British author of the same name, who is the primary source of Google hits for this name. I hope this closes this VfD. -- Karada 11:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep new article, works for me, thanks Karada. Alf 14:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Karada's stub about British author. BTW, the VfD template has been removed - is this vote over. I have no problem if it is as the author is clearly a notable one who has been writing books for twenty years. Capitalistroadster 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep the British author stub. If enough people vote to remove this from vfd now I have no problem closing this discussion as is. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:30, 22 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 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

D'oh!

• Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons. Do we have articles like Kwyjibo or BBBQ? No we don't. -- MicroFeet 11:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Here in the Netherlands (at least where I am), the phrase is commonly used by young people in every day life. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- zippedmartin 13:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a remarkably notable made-up word from The Simpsons. Kwyjibo and BBBQ are both one-scene one-episode jokes, and that's why they're in the uber-merged article. It'd be like merging Mt. Rushmore into List of mountains in South Dakota -- Plutor 13:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not suitable for an entire article of its own. Maybe merge parts with Made-up words in The Simpsons, and transwiki parts to Wiktionary. Jdhowens90 13:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep this one, but not Kwyjibo or BBBQ. Dunc| ☺ 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Plutor; "D'oh" is in the OED. —  Lomn |  Talk 14:38:41, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
• Keep — Very well known expression. — RJH 15:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep has had a major impact on our culture, now in common usage and really doesn't compare to any of the other Simpson made up words. It's a good article in itself, an informative read, I like it. Alf 15:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as above, and transwiki to wikitionary (if not already there). Keep as a redirect, tho' The JPS 15:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, well written, notable phrase (as listed above) -- IByte 15:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Alf. Christy747 15:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- part of the language now, and a nicely encyclopedic article. Steve Summit ( talk) 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep notable enough. -- R.Koot 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, highly notable word now despite its origins. Gateman1997 17:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. When something like this makes the Oxford English dictionary, it's a keeper on Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 19:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep, extremely notable. By the way, VfD is not the place to suggest a merge. - ulayiti (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as well known word with Simpsons origins. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, valuable article. Punkmorten 20:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep highly notable expression. And VfDs aren't the place to nominate things for merging. Nothing gets deleted when you merge. CanadianCaesar 22:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable expression/catchphrase. 23skidoo 00:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Alf. -- Apyule 03:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep please about a million hits on google tooo Yuckfoo 19:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this has got to be one of the most notable things to derive from "The Simpsons". Vashti 19:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash 05:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Kuktem

Originally tagged as speedy, but being the first in a large region to provide wireless internet to students, would make a university notable in my opinion. Abstain unless independently verified. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this notable university, adding a {{disputed-or-something}} and {{asian-univ-or-something-stub}} to encourage facts checking & adding. -- Zanaq 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It exists, and as such I see no reason to delete. - ulayiti (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Institution of tertiary education. Keep and move to the official English name of the institution. I tried to do something about the article before, but the website was almost impossible to get to. Uppland 21:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep we have small schools and colleges in the US on this site, why can't we have Malaysian universities, unless we are being ethnocentric... -- Grcampbell 20:56, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Synapseboy

Unverifiable, at best. Sietse 11:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, blatant speculation. Besides, nicknames should be listed in the article titled by their real name, or be redirects. Having a stub for each nickname is useless. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete would have suggested a merge to the man's own page, but he either doesn't have one or I haven't searched long enough for it. Alf 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per MGM. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 18:53, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Icewind

Non-notable band. Al 12:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn band vanity. -- Etacar11 01:27, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad

A college kid. He is a friend of mine but I don't think he warrants an entry into Wikipedia. __earth 12:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - gets over 14,000 Google hits. - ulayiti (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Changed vote to delete after reading comment by Sdedeo below. I should have looked more carefully. - ulayiti (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ulayti, you may want to regoogle and reconsider your vote. Note that google actually only displays 54 results [12]; the rest for the 14,000 articles are duplicates. Sdedeo 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, 54 google hits is over 1/3 of wikipedia's 184 [13]. Kappa 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Woah... I just googled myself and I get 174 results. Should I be on wikipedia too? Weird google! Sdedeo 02:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I think we need a bit more information before we can answer that. Kappa 02:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Whatever, man, I am almost as famous as wikipedia! Don't take that away from me! Sdedeo 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
        • I get 184... I'm more famous than you! :) - ulayiti (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• delete does my vote count? __earth 08:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Earth, your vote should count; you've been participating in Wikipedia for quite a while and have over 1200 article edits. Of course, an unethical or sloppy admin could decide to ignore your vote. But on the whole, most admins act in good faith. Nandesuka 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn. Dottore So 17:53, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

DBZonPS2

Not notable web forum, Alexa: 379,797. Also vanity and promotion feydey 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, website and forum advertising. With DBZ being so popular there's fansites with a far more respectable ranking. Also, listing forum moderators and members is a big no-no. Maybe we should mention that somewhere, I've seen too much of that type of articles today. - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lets hope someone starts Wikinetforums soon, as I've previously stated. Alf 17:03, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

BlueAirNews

• Article appears to be spam. Written by User:Blueairnews. NSR ( talk) 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable website/linkspam. -- DrTorstenHenning 13:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete see above comment for DBZ forum. Alf 17:05, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Trisine Lattice

original research. Appears to exist only in the one old (unpublished) preprint referred to in the text. Salsb 12:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original "research", exists only in the completely unrefereed arXiv.org (14 revisions since 1999). -- DrTorstenHenning 13:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. as per DrTorstenHenning Dlyons493 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete definitely OR, anyone can post to arXiv.org, but that doesn't meant it gets into a journal. And this hasn't. -- Etacar11 01:35, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Headwound

Non-notable band. Al 12:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Substub promotion for external link. - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which means delete. - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete band vanity substub. -- Etacar11 01:37, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Koldfusion

Right, this is a fun one. I'd never heard of a band called Koldfusion despite knowing the Oxford music scene pretty well, so resorted to the dreaded google. Only music related hits I got were for 'Kold Fusion' - who have a stubby allmusic page and one electronica/dance EP release, on the orchard. So, in short:
- Koldfusion seem to fail WP:MUSIC
- Kold Fusion also seem to fail WP:MUSIC, having only one release on a 'digital label'
Any questions? -- zippedmartin 12:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless proof of cult following is presented Fornadan (t) 13:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn band vanity. -- Etacar11 01:41, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Blankbabied

Neologism. Kelly Martin 13:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator.-- nixie 13:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nominator. DES ^(talk) 14:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. Delete, delete, delete. -- Several Times 14:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete this nonsense. -- DrTorstenHenning 14:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If I felt that this article was speediable, I would have done so. It's not, and I didn't. It's a credible claim of some bit of net.culture, which is an area I know not enough about to decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. It certainly doesn't appear to be nonsense to me, at least not in the definition of nonsense that we use. So let's not call it nonsense, ok? Kelly Martin 17:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash 05:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Bar Mitzvah Boy

There's nothing here that isn't already on the main Play for Today page already. I can't expand it myself as I've sadly not seen this Play for Today, and the stub seems to have been up for two weeks without anybody else being able to come along and expand it either. Angmering 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment Two weeks is no time at all. Osomec 14:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and expand. — Well according to the Play for Today page, this was one of the more "famous" plays on that series. Based on a google search ("Bar Mitzvah Boy" AND BBC) it appears to be notable. There's even a musical based on the TV show. — RJH 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. With the radio series running that long, there must be someone who can expand this into something more meaningful. Alf 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, 's a Jack Rosenthal drama isn't it? Those certainly all deserve articles at some point. -- zippedmartin 19:22, 22 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 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Bernard Cohen

Vanity Page - nothing to see here. Benjamin Gatti 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep Emeritus professor, but does need a lot more to make it a good article. Alf 17:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This needs a lot more to make it a good stub. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless it can be expanded into an encyclopedia article Dlyons493 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• I guess I go with Redirect to Bernard Cohen (disambiguation). Really nothing more on this page than on that one. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • After expansion, Keep. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is the chap who in a televised debate offered to eat on-camera as much plutonium oxide as Ralph Nader could eat of caffeine. He compared the risks of such exposure to the risks associated with a six month vacation in Denver and to the risks of the average WWI draftee. A bit of a self-publicist, but at the time a self-publicising tenured professor at the University of Pittsburgh. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Seems notable enough. Keep as per Tony Sidaway, if the article has been expanded by the time the VfD is closed. Uppland 21:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Absolutely delete -- completely non-notable one-time attention-getter. This is a fifteen-minutes-of-famer whose fifteen weren't that important. Do you know how many tenured professors there are in the United States? Sheesh. JDoorjam 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Why isn't fifteen minutes of fame enough? He's notable enough that he might show up in a history book. We've got minor actors galor, why not a tenured professor that reached national notability, if only briefly?-- Prosfilaes 04:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, had fifteen minutes of fame. Kappa 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This listing is partly my fault, and I apologise. I left it as a minimal stub, thinking wrongly that Professor Emeritus would be sufficient proof of notability, which in Australia it possibly is, but in the US people we would call Senior Lecturer or Associate Professor seem to be able to use this title automatically after retirement, so in hindsight what I left was a deletable sub-stub. I then got involved in NPOV discussions and didn't get back to expand it, but others now have (thank you). Cohen is very well known for his pro-nuclear activities, we've even heard of him in Australia. His 1990 book The Nuclear Energy Option doesn't sell very well largely because he has made the full text of it available online, but it does sell. Andrewa 06:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Tony Sidaway, above.-- Nicodemus75 06:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Article gives relevant info. Could be also used for the discussion in the nuclear power phase-out article. Ben ^T/ _C 07:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes the average college professor test. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep agree with Lord Voldemort on all points. Benjamin Gatti
  • Comment: This is of course a change of vote by the page's nominator, leaving only one delete vote currently outstanding although that one is an absolute delete, which I assume is even stronger than a strong delete. I think I should also point out that as I am not Professor Cohen, this wasn't ever a vanity page. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Or rather, a change in content of the article, good work, and yeah I agree, the page has been saved. Benjamin Gatti
      • Comment: There doesn't seem to have been much doubt that it would be kept. I'm a bit surprised at your mistaking this for a vanity page, as you seem to have an active interest in the particular debate in which Cohen is prominent. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: I am interested, but without content, I found the page of no use. It needed to shape up or ship out. I learned something about him - no idea he offered to swallow plutonium. I wonder if he offered to live in Chernobyl? I wonder if he offered to adopt irradiated children orphaned by Chrnobyl? I wonder if his antics weren't merely sensational? As for Vanity, i think a page which serves no more purpose than a business card is a vanity page whether self-promoting or not - if i'm wrong about that - i'd be happy to use a different word. Benjamin Gatti 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Chernobyl has nothing to do with missions to Neptune that need plutonium-based power cores. Surely countering false claims about a material's danger is more than just sensational? -- Prosfilaes 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Hall Monitor 19:35, 23 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 delete (again). -- RHaworth 06:17:42, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Left Overtures (reprise)

This should maybe be a speedy, as it was almost unanimously VfDed before, but the content might be substantially different now. The guy who recreated it was, I believe, the same guy who wrote the original article, and a complete ass during the last VfD. - R. fiend 14:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep Ronnie James Dio, Ted Nugent, and Kansas all shop there when in town. And R fiend calling someone an ass is like Elton John calling someone gay. -- Boycottthecaf 17:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Article has been updated. Hope that makes you happy, poopheads. -- Boycottthecaf 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No claim to notability; author should explain what is notable about the store. Sdedeo 14:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The award winning barbershop next door seems to to have more of a claim to notability. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I thought the article about this shop was nicely written though, but I wouldn't want every second hand record shop which had a large collection of n to be in the encylopedia. Alf 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nn store. Could be speedy deleted since this recreation is almost identical to the original article, including the long, irrelevant letter and the misspelling of "boasts". Zoe 19:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • If that's true I'll tag it for speedy and see what happens. - R. fiend 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability claim unverifiable. -- Schaefer 05:28, 23 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 COPYVIO, with no rewrite. - Splash 05:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Tom bond

Not notable. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Ditto, but nice painting though. Karmafist 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reserved I'd really quite like to keep this one, it mentions his works hanging in galleries, if anyone can state a known gallery, that'll do it for me, the guy obviously has talent and I would say the claims of being a master watercolourist are probably jusitified. Alf 17:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Just hanging in a gallery is not notability. Anybody can do that. Zoe 19:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am living disproof of that statement. Meelar (talk) 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

*Assert notability quickly, or delete. JDoorjam 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - I'm struggling with this one, too. I was able to find two online art galleries that sell his originals and prints, some for up to $1,800. - PlainSight 03:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This appears similar to "vanity pressing" of a book. One demonstration of notability would be a review of a show (or a mention by name in a group show) in news media or notable arts media. - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 07:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reserved This is hard, and having a common name doesn't help either, but the article seems to be a copyvio from http://www.pressellergallery.com/tom_bond.htm. -- Apyule 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Are promotional text copyrighted? - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio. Tagged and bagged. JDoorjam 13:52, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

UG Madness

Non-notable webcomic. Gets 861 Ghits...but most of them aren't even talking about the comic. Several Times 14:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Death to all webcomiccruft. - ulayiti (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Several Times. Dragonfiend 01:42, 25 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Hristijan

Non-notable biography PubLife 14:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Initially, I added a nn-bio speedy tag to this, which the author removed and added some information about his appearance with 10 others on a Macedonian TV show as a child. Hence, the appearance here. PubLife 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No assertion of notability. :( -- Phroziac ^{( talk)} 01:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

56th Street

Which 56th Street is this, you ask? Why, the one in Tsawwassen, British Columbia, of course! I mean, there aren't any other 56th Streets, are there? What we have here is a streetcruft article filled with a painful amount of trivia (including notes on where traffic lights are) on a road in a minor suburb. Mention a little of it in the Tsawwassen article, but this is ridiculous. I believe even the most inclusive guidelines for road articles don't include things like this. - R. fiend 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's incredibly comprehensive, but per R. fiend, we don't really need it. -- Several Times 15:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• What? 56th Street was where Brad and Jimmy from the highly talented and influential Nobody (band) (currently signed to CD-R Records Ltd) got their idea for Yet Another Student Critique of Capitalism. (Yes, delete) The JPS 15:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia notable road, we had similar issues over streets in west tulsa. Klonimus 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • True. But they were deleted. - R. fiend 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly why is this road notable? The article does not have any encyclopaedic content. The JPS 17:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, is not a notable road. Maybe include a blurb about it in Highway 17 or 99. Gateman1997 17:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep, but Move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia and Don't Redirect after move. maybe remove some unencyclopic facts from the text - if any, redo the Wikipedia:traffic light markup and create article annual Tsawwassen Sun Festival. Zanaq 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non-notable street. The very idea of trying to keep articles on every street in the world boggles the mind. Zoe 19:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what I enjoy about it though is that some of the intersections are in plain text, others in bold and yet others in bold italic. -- bodnotbod 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, at a minimum, with the Tsawwassen, British Columbia article, although a delete is probably more appropriate. No secondary road is twice to three times as notable as the town it traverses; yet here is a 56th Street article twice to three times as long as the article about the town it runs through. And 56th Street may be a tertiary road. I quail to think what will happen to the WikiServers when the articles for the first 55 streets in Tsawwassen are created. — Friejose 20:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, completely and spectacularly ordinary road, thus, not notable. Being made of cement and having cars drive on you does not an encyclopaedia subject make. Lord Bob 20:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per User:Zoe Pilatus 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• delete textual description of a road. -- TimPope 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The reason why this road might be notable and probably why this article exists is that 56th Street in Canada is the only road access to Point Roberts, United States. Martg76 22:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Over there, at Tsawwassen, British Columbia, where that piece of information belongs, it says so already. That's still no reason to include every single traffic light on that road. Pilatus 22:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay, let's delete it. Martg76 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I wish the anonymous user who created the page and is obviously local to the area would get out his camera and upload a photograph of the border crossing point or of Point Roberts, Washington. That would be useful information; giving details of all intersections and traffic lights is just cramming irrelevant trivia into Wikipedia. Pilatus 11:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete completely ordinary street. ESkog 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per WP:POINT, until we get a WikiProject:Roadwatch. If we're keeping every school in the country, might as well keep every road too. This one seems to have some decent claims anyway. But move to location disambig'd page. FCYTravis 23:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • One set of nutty obsessions doesn't justify another. -- Calton | Talk 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry Travis, but it seems your vote is more relevant to WP:POINT than this nomination. Besides, if there are X-thousand schools in the world, then there are a thousand times as many streets. - R. fiend 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No evidence of notability. 23skidoo 00:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Why, it's got a McDonald's AND a Tim Horton's! Delete. Canadian roadcruft.-- Calton | Talk 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (added sig - oops!)
• Merge useful content with Tsawwassen, British Columbia, then delete and leave no redirect. If this is the highlight of the community then it should be described in the community page. - maclean25 00:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Please read the guide to votes for deletion. Merge and delete is not a compatible vote. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, if possible, otherwise Delete is featured as a possible voting option, and it appears to me that this is the option maclean25 suggests above. It is certainly what I intended to convey in my vote above. — Friejose 13:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, move, and clean-up. It appears to be an interesting and important major street in Tsawwassen. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 04:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable. It should be moved to a more suitable name. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete However, it should be noted that this is the only major street in Tsawwassen. So if any street in Tsawwassen is deserving of an article it is probably this street. -- Webgeer 07:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most streets. R adiant _>|< 08:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - any and all resons for this strip of tarmac being notable are already covered in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Proto  t  c 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• First move to more appropriate name, then merge a condensed version in Tsawwassen, British Columbia which should include it's the major street in that town and that it's the only access road to Point Roberts but not every single shop, intersection and traffic light. (This way, the redirect can stand as per GFDL requirements) Merge and delete is not compatible. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at a diambiguated name. -- SPUI ( talk) 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete With all deference to Tony Sidaway and others in favour of keeping, this in no measure can be described as encyclopedic. It's a street. A street. Dottore So 18:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT'S A STREET!!!!!! -- SPUI ( talk) 00:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Wow, you're comparing 42nd Street in New York, you know, the one that has has a musical named after it, with 56th Street in Tsawwassen, British Columbia? This shows a serious lack of perspective. Not all streets are created equal. – Friejose 12:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • You seem to be confusing a street with a place. A street is just infrastructure. The 56th Street article does a much better job at detailing the actual street. The 42nd Street article discusses topics that happened near the street (not on it). All streets are created equally. Well, except dirt roads. -- maclean25 22:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn.  Grue  18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep, but Move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia Piecraft 00:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia because I said so! -- Cloveious 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment, do you people really think that someone would have the patience and time to write a lengthy and detailed article about just any old street, unless it was an important 'landmark'? I see no reason for people to want this article to be deleted. The author of the article is clearly trying to illustrate the importance of a street which is considered to be of some significance in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. No one should judge this article simply because they have never heard of it nor seen it. I'm sure there are many of you who don't know what the Blarney Stone is, but if I told you it was a mere rock that was of historical and mythical value to the people of Ireland would you all vote for that article to be deleted? Piecraft 03:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• • Counter-Comment, I realize that many people define their sense of space through their local street system. However, this does not make sreets places in themselves. The vast majority are no-man's-land in which no life can exist on them for very long. Yes, some streets have grown culturally important and evolve a life of their own and these deserve articles. (But) secondly, streets are not notable because what they are associated with. Would I be notable if I had Bill Gates and Michael Jordan living on either side of me? Are streets notable because of a notable business or landmark that exists on their flanks? Thirdly, nobody goes to a street. Streets are the means to achieve an end, and not an end it itself. If you told me that every sinlge citizen of that town used that street twice a day, I would say "Hey, that street should be mentioned in the town's article." If you can muster enough information on the street (that is relevant, on-topic and not duplicated in the town's article) to make the town's article uncomfortably long, then it would justify its own article. The point I'm making? The contents of this article should be moved to the town's article because it is locally important (in terms of access and infrastructure) but means nothing to the rest of the world. Btw, I thought the Blarney Stone was just a great pub in Gastown. -- maclean25 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect it to Point Roberts, not Tsawwassen, British Columbia. Point Roberts is quite interesting because of it's special status, and 56th street is important to that hamlet. However, it is not that important to the people of Tsawwassen. Rename it also to something less ambiguous. It's a minor road, all the information can be included in the Point Roberts article. - Hahnchen 00:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep if references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I cannot believe there is any debate on this. A random street in a random town with a few random facts that will not be kept current through the years anyway. One person's obsession that contains information that even a monagraph on the town would probably not mention. This is not encyclopedic. Indrian 06:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Street provides the only land access through Canada, to part of the USA called Point Roberts, unattached to the USA mainland. That lone should prove significance.-- Simon.Pole 10:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Not really. Indrian 03:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Main road through a large town, but, especially, as per all those who've pointed out about Point Roberts.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Lord Byron - Augusta (Poem)

Delete. POV/OR essay, duplicate of Epistle to augusta which has been redirected as per a recently concluded VfD. This title isn't worth redirecting. -- IByte 15:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per previous VfD. Agree that redirect is not necessary, as it's unlikely anyone would type the exact title in the searchbox. - Satori 17:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, agree. Punkmorten 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per previous VfD. Dottore So 18:04, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Pristine the band

A non-notable "band from the MK area", could not find any Google hits except "the official site". -- Mormegil 15:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete the band. Woodland {{nnbv}}. JDoorjam 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn band vanity. -- Etacar11 01:47, 23 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 nonsense. (00:10, 23 August 2005 Geogre deleted "National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria" (Not a VfD! Contents were fgfgh)) - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

National_Insurance_Corporation_of_Nigeria

If this is an actual company, I'd say edit it. But as it stands, gibberish. Christy747 15:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. Tagged as nonsense. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 16:04, 22 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Super Fries & Dogs

Article claims "Super Fries & Dogs is an American fast-food restaurant chain that serves hot dogs and french fries, located in most United States shopping malls"; Google shows that it has one or two locations in the San Diego area. Non-notable; from Ddespie@san.rr.com, formerly MascotGuy. tregoweth 15:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable small business.- choster 16:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as nn. - Lucky 6.9 16:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn. Located in most shopping malls? I've lived all over and never heard of it. -- Etacar11 01:53, 23 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

X Airways

This is a poorly-written, content-free article about an airline that doesn't seem to exist. The external link to their home page is broken, a google search for "X airways" turns up nothing, and no one answers the phone (there's a generic voicemail message) at the number listed on the domain registration. Steve Summit ( talk) 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is no prospectus, no routes, and no planes. Not much of a carrier, is it? Mindmatrix 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Created in 2002 and still nothing in the air? The only info I could find on this was on Wikipedia mirrors. - Mgm| ^(talk) 18:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonairline. -- Etacar11 01:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 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 Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. - Splash 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Bobby Henderson

• Not notable. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is notable, so this page should probably redirect to it. In a similar way, Gene Ray and Time Cube should be the same page, as they once were and it is debated again now. &madsh; Timwi 16:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nn. Sdedeo 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Alf 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Nothing new here, that would warrant a seperate page. - Mgm| ^(talk) 18:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Alf. -- Apyule 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, until it has more meat to it and something to differentiate it from Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.-- Fang Aili 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Flying Spaghetti Monsterism then Redirect.-- Eoghanacht 14:16, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Move. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Productivity of Wikipedia Authors

This doesn't belong in the main article namespace. Delete or move to the project (Wikipedia:) namespace. Mindmatrix 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Don't bother moving it as it doesn't belong. It's a weird kind of OR that draws irrelevant conclusions. Comparing wikipedia articles across languages "might give some clues on the intellectual climate in various countries." Or not. Points out that Slovenia has an enormous % of articles relative to population compared to China. No sh*t. Marskell 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I looked back at this and realized my comments were unnecessarily disparaging. This article was posted by a new user who obviously went to a lot of work even if I don't think it belongs. Anyhow, sorry GJG if you stop by here. Marskell 18:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Move to Wikipedia namespace. - Mgm| ^(talk) 18:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. Give medals to Slovenes and Swedes. --  BD2412 ^talk 19:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User:GJG/Productivity of Wikipedia Authors. Numbers are hokum. Zoe 19:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. "might give some clues on the intellectual climate in various countries" can be taken away. Punkmorten 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Highly interesting original research. Move as above and create link within Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics. Martg76 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• OR, to start with, and the conclusions are inherently flawed. If there were some way to count the number of edits from each specific country in all Wikipedias and compare that with the country's populations and internet penetration, you might have some acceptable research. But this one is so fatally flawed by false assumptions that it is next to worthless. It assumes, for example, that no one from one country can speak a language which is not that country's primary language. That no Americans speak Spanish, for instance, and that no mainland Europeans speak English. This assumption is so clearly false as to render the statistics meaningless. How many English Wikipedians do you know not from "English-speaking" countries? Hell, there are a dozen of more English admins that are not from "English-speaking" countries (Joy, for instance, and Ahoerstemeier and Wilfried Derksen, to name just two more). Pointless pseudoresearch. Delete Grutness... wha? 01:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That's what I meant when I said the numbers were hokum. You said it much better than I did.  :) Zoe 18:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Little Astrology prince

nn. seems to be an ad for their website. 202.156.2.74 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A well-known astrologer and writer. — Insta ntnood 17:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it verifiable? The Google test does return many results, but most of them are either 1) the WP article 2) sites using the WP article 3) link to his own website. - 218.212.97.56 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A well-known astrologer and writer who has kept his identity a secret!!! Let's help him to continue to keep it a secret. Delete. Dlyons493 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sounds like a version of Russell Grant. Alf 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete nn. -- PhilipO 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please add your reasoning. Thank you. BorgQueen 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I couldn't verify it. -- Apyule 04:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please take a look at "The Internet Public Library". He is also one of the e-card providers on Yahoo! Hong Kong [14]. — Insta ntnood 10:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That might verify his existance, but I can't read Chinse and I'd like to see something more than a link to a personal website. -- Apyule 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Insta ntnood 09:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — I followed the link which User:Instantnood provided, and found the Internet Public Library only listed his sushi fortune-telling website. We are not talking about the website here, are we? We are talking about "the astrologer who keeps his identity secret" himself. Second, since there are countless people and company who provide e-card on regional sites for promotional purposes, I don't think it in itself qualifies him for the notability. Third, his book, allegedley published in 1997, has no ISBN, and I could not find on Amazon.com. Unless some better proof comes up, I vote Delete. BorgQueen 11:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Insta ntnood 12:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dottore So 18:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please add your reasoning. Thank you. BorgQueen 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete If this person is going to be that secretive, then just how much material can we add to this page? It will probably remain a stub forever. :D Jokes aside, I would like to see more evidence over the notability of this person and his books.-- Huaiwei 10:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply