Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 28

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 08:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J. Pearce

I would not expect to find his entry in any encyclopedia pertaining to any degree of completeness. Cdyson37 00:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. His notability rests on whether a)he has standalone note or b)the publication he writes for is so notable for his column specifically that he is notable just by writing it. His name alone, gets only 7 Google hits, only 1 of which is relevant and another 2 come from Wikipedia. His name with his publication gets a single hit. The Alexa rank of the website for the magazine is too low to register. The publication name gets about 380 useful Googles (i.e. those exclusing repetitive mentions). Whichever way you spin those numbers, he's non-notable (and so is the publication). -Splash 00:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, columnist for magazine with twice as many "useful googles" as wikipedia. Kappa 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 04:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the magazine can be proven to be something besides a rag designed to sell DVDs. Paul Klenk 05:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Drew Karmafist 16:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominator. FCYTravis 19:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn person --TimPope 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete KHM03 21:01, 28 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 MOVED, just closing it for completeness -Splash 01:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:04:34, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

subsequently moved to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --HappyCamper 05:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle

I think the reason is obvious. realwingus 00:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. — Trisk 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. Elfguy 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy tagged. It doesn't need to clutter VFD. --Titoxd 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Awww! Don't expunge Arielle! Roodog2k 02:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 02:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is already on BJAODN-- if that counts as a "transwiki" it's speedy-approved. Ashibaka (tock) 02:50, 28 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 as duplicate content with wiktionary. --11:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thwack

Delete. Moved to wiktionary. No potential to ever be encyclopedic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep link to Wiktionary, delete other content — page has already been replaced by a link. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary. *drew 02:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non encyclopaedic. --Cactus.man 14:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I put this on VFD because of the note generated by the Transwikied to Wiktionary template: The final disposition of the article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined. It may be redirected, it may go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, or it may evolve beyond a dictionary definition and remain on the Wikipedia. If none of these tasks have been performed, please do so. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• move as per *drew's suggestion. __earth 04:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment again: It was moved to Wiktionary on 2005-05-20. At this point, the article needs to be (1) redirected, (2) expanded, or (3) deleted. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:50, 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.

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 Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

"monteux west llc"

Looks like cleverly disguised vanity. You be the judge. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speculation at best...all very hush hush, better delete it. Rx StrangeLove 19:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline nonsense. Spam for a site with no Alexa ranking. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for shadiness and possible hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 11:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another VfD that, like many from 20 August, seems to have attracted very little discussion. Relisting in accordance with administrator's guidelines. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Has already had a valid, unanimous VfD. Get on with it, and delete it. -Splash 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm following "When in doubt, don't delete", and note that nobody else had closed it yet although it's been past its lag time for over two days. Do feel free to close it if you are certain that this is a consensus. I have no opinion either way on the article, I haven't looked at it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fair enough, but those three voters are all established enough for me to be certain that this is a consensus. If I had a delete button, I would exercise it. -Splash 01:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't do vote counts, really. Three or four people who agree about something doesn't really tell me much. More people coming along and agreeing, well that makes me more confident. And of course all the other administrators who looked at that day's listings before me had a chance to declare a consensus but they passed it over and move on to close other discussions. I'm pretty sure we can close now, but I prefer to let someone else do that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too "low-profile" to be verified. URL in article does not lead to this supposed bank. Thatdog 01:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Elfguy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not verifiable. -- DS1953 01:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dag Nabbit! Vanity! Roodog2k 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. *drew 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, non-notable, vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Splash --TimPope 08:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cakeplow

Seems like spam, no value as encyclopedia entry, just promoting the linked sites Trisk 00:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone wants to completely rewrite it and show why its notable. Elfguy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism, at best. -- DS1953 01:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. *drew 02:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dicdef Amren ^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and outright nonsense-vandalism. Block the author. Paul Klenk 05:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cdyson37 14:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense. Nothing but an attempt at blog self promotion. --Cactus.man 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to be a non-famous neologism --Mysidia (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete nn __earth 04:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just stupid. ral315 17:29, 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.

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, and Tony should stop making a WP:POINT by relisting items that obviously have consensus to delete. Radiant_>|< 08:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Batz

Non-notable remixer who is "set out to conquer the world". 28 unique Google hits for this name. Zoe 07:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Time to Delete Antonio Little cute meawww Pink Cattish Dog Martin 9:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per zoe. Dottore So 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/vanity/advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 13:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not quite sure how WP:MUSIC should be applied to live DJs, but it would seem this one does not meet the bar of notability set by that policy. Thatdog 01:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Elfguy 01:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, going by unique google hits he's 1/7 as notable as wikipedia. (just kidding about the keep) Kappa 02:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on which admin closes this VfD, your "just kidding" might not be considered sufficient evidence™ that you weren't actually voting "keep"... Nandesuka 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable non-entity. Paul Klenk 05:26, 28 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 DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing for completeness. -Splash 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:47:26, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

subsequently moved to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Shillian

No hits on Google for this or the faith it claims to descend from. As such, violates WP:NOR. Delete. Alphax ^τεχ 07:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to verify any of it. Probably a hoax. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Dottore So 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. -- Kjkolb 11:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting, yet another in a perplexingly large number of 20 August VfDs that attracted hardly any discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, that is because Wikipedians believe they are slum-dunk deletes. My vote? Delete. --Titoxd 01:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usually. Usually isn't enough. No deletion without consensus. No deletion if there is doubt. These are the principles which we try to embody. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• merge if this is some sci-fi/fantasy fancruft. Else DELETERoodog2k 02:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax/fancruft. *drew 02:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Impossible to verify. Amren ^(talk) 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 04:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The biggest clue is that no ethnic group or nationality -- or even a geographical place -- is mentioned. Google did hit the name "BA Lorian," who I would suspect is not expecting to be a religion. --KJPurscell 06:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'll move to the correct capitals. -Splash 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal friesland foods

Unknown exactly what this is. Doesn't show up in Google. Wikipedianinthehouse 01:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand/Cleanup. Many (16,300) entries found on Google. Some relevant. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I rewrote the article from scratch and removed references to two individuals which did not seem relevant. After the Vfd is over, this article should be moved to Royal Friesland Foods (correct capitalization). -- DS1953 01:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Taste the Flavour yourselves: http://www.fcdf.com/ Roodog2k 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. *drew 02:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 16k hits in google. Elfguy 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DS1953's rewrite and move to Royal Friesland Foods. Notable company with 18000 employees. Capitalistroadster 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable company. Amren ^(talk) 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but properly capitalize. Paul Klenk 04:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Have added more references and paragraph about Royal status and name change in 2004. No change in vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a real company. __earth 04:51, 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 KEEP. -Splash 01:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Theology

Delete - Neologism 63.125.67.40 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vishnu if Notable Roodog2k 02:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I quickly found two college courses[1] [2] and plenty of other relevant hits. Kappa 02:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. *drew 02:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable. Elfguy 03:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Paul Klenk 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vaishnavism. Author could have searched wikipedia before creating a new article. Manik Raina 13:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. User:Siyavash Siyavash

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoned Cognition

Delete — just your less-popular-than-most-things webcomic. Alexa rank about 2,450,000th, about 100 Google hits, most of which are presumably advertising and no indication of generating any particular attention. -Splash 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got 15,000 when I tried it: [3]--Fallout boy 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ditto on the Lex Test ---> Traffic Rank for reasonedcognition.com: 2,468,708. Roodog2k 02:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. *drew 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, 32,100 google hits. Kappa 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be improved and sources provided. Elfguy 03:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Paul Klenk 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOT a link repository. Friday (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article's deletion page is found at Votes for deletion, not Pages for deletion. Paul Klenk 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Groeck 00:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, I'd like to humbly submit that while this is not an extremely popular webcomic, it is none the less almost unique in it's catagory of being a webcomic that purports to educate it's readers. As such, it is not "just your less-popular-than-most-things" webcomic. I would be willing to link and keep updated an index of questions answered, making the page a better resource. - author, Ryan Kolter

• keep, a very popular comic on the server. Article just needs to be expanded. --Fallout boy 04:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I edited the page, including adding the index of questions that have been answered, that I offered to do earlier. - author, Ryan Kolter

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 MOVED, just closing this for completeness. -Splash 01:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for the Insertion of Random Cheese Related Content

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 01:54:42, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

subsequently moved to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for the Insertion of Random Cheese Related Content

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 in new form, remove copyvio from history.

Tokpela

It appears to be a copyvio, and it should be marked as a requested article. Delete. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:28, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)}This was listed again on August 28th, 2005, but was already listed. So here, it is re-listed.

• Copyvio is what {{copyvio}} tags are for. Kappa 02:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - copyright violation. Content taken from [4]. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve I also saw the copyright violation, but it does seem to be a real Hopi legend... Brendan OShea 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• List as copyvio or delete. If a new article is written, this copyvio should be removed from the history. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MGM. Paul Klenk 23:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have removed the copy-vio and marked as a stub however I'm not sure how procedure for copy-vio goes, does this article first need to be deleted to get rid of the copy-vio in the history then be re-created or can the previous edits simply be deleted? Lochaber 10:11, 30 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 08:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (translations)

I recently listed the article List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages for deletion, and this article was to be merged with that one. It is a pointless list of all the foreign language chapter titles in HP book one. It is useless in an English encyclopedia, as it has almost no English in the entire article, and it should be deleted. Brendan OShea 04:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Brendan.
• Delete how can this be useful or interesting? Cdyson37 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen a site that lists translations of character names, so it's reasonable to assume they also exist for chapter names. If anyone can find them, put a link in Harry Potter to avoid recreation of such stuff. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. __earth 04:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic, nor needed. ral315 17:29, 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Esquivalience

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

• And apparently a made-up one at that? Delete. Friday (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't this be speedied? Delete. --Blackcap | talk 21:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. feydey 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amren ^(talk) 22:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Might be worth redirecting to Nihilartikel and adding a note there, since it is one... Shimgray 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an entry on "Esquivalience" to Nihilartikel, so redirect. Shimgray 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • God, I hadn't realized that it actually existed. So that it's here for everyone to see, this is what's said on Nihilartikel:

"The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, gained media coverage when it was leaked that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry. This was later determined to be the word "esquivalience", defined as the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities, which had originally been added in the first, 2001, edition. It was intended as a copyright trap, as the text of the book was distributed electronically and thus very easy to copy."

I've checked using Google, and it seemed to come up with the same thing. I am now changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't exist, but it does, if you see what I mean. It's been in the news recently, which is why (presumably) someone put the page here... I'd actually been going to add a mention of it to the Nihilartikel page earlier but forgot until I saw this VFD. Shimgray 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. --Blackcap | talk 22:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary. *drew 02:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Esquivalience. Note the nominator is the same in both cases. Somebody PLEASE fix the templates. -Splash 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) I made this page 2 days ago and it had 2 delete votes on it, it appears to have been deleted itself. The rationale was dicdef, neologism. I see someone has substantially expanded the article since then but I still vote to delete. TheDeletator (talk · contribs)[reply]

This is a relevant entry and deserves to stay. Not only is it interesting trivia but I thin'k it is important information regarding proprietary encyclopedias and their practices. I think the article is worthy of staying at its present state, but certainly needs more expansion. Wesman83 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, I think it would be best just to make an "other cases" section on the Nihilarikel article and add in both examples from the Esq. article. I'm changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel Wesman83 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Google. Paul Klenk 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting and notable. Thatdog 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- encyclopedic, notable, interesting... --Mysidia (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as interesting, wellwritten article. I wonder what Wkipedia's equivalent is :>)Capitalistroadster 04:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a Nihilartikel. We have a page full of examples; Wikipedia's had at least two known cases added by users, those being San Serriffe and Uqbar. Both are now corrected. There's also a lot of cases of people adding fictional articles deliberately as "tests", which is strongly discouraged; keep an eye on VfD and you see a few. Shimgray 14:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's an interesting topic Actually, Redirect to Nihilartikel Halo 10:47, 28 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 08:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer Unlimited

Non-notable forum, no alexa rank. Flowerparty ^talk 04:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Eventually, every single person in the world will have their own personal internet fan forum. Nandesuka 05:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. Paul Klenk 05:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too small to be notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ARE YOU A GAMER? Nevermind, nn! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Public internet forum with 169 members? Need I say more? --Mysidia (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no Alexa rank + 169 members = forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 22:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete __earth 04:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Deleting this would be so stupid, I can't believe someone would make such a stupid poll.Pardon?, 22:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete--Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychedelic World of the Vanishing Cucumbers

Initially this was marked as a speedy. I deleted it, but decided to restore it so that some discussion can take place on its notability. I don't think this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia however. HappyCamper 04:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. You really have to ask whether this is notable? Paul Klenk 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Believe it or not, I've actually heard of them. But it's obviously a speedy for me too at the moment. --HappyCamper 05:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't appear to be a speedy though. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

  Alright, let's keep this page and let it pass through vfd then. Thanks for the feedback. --HappyCamper 05:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do You COnsider It A BJAODN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanet (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 August 2005‎ (UTC) –Comment merged here from content previously at this title[reply]

• Delete, current version is nothing more than vanity. Since you heard of them, HC. Do you know if they clear any WP:MUSIC criteria? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn __earth 04:55, 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 KEEP. -Splash 01:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Nation

Non notable just because its on TV doesn't mean it deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Wait a few years for this show to develop into something first. As it is now this show is nothing worth having in here.TheDeletator 04:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Show has been on for years, and is one of the most popular shows on SPEED Channel. Just because The Deletator does not watch it doesn't mean the show is not worth being here. It just needs expanding. Wikipedianinthehouse 04:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable TV show. Nandesuka 05:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any long-running show that airs four nights a week on a widely-available channel should be considered notable. Thatdog 05:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no reason to make this ncyclopedia into a place of censorship--Agricluture 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Pls note this user was banned 2 minutes after this post for impersonation.TheDeletator 05:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable television program. Capitalistroadster 11:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even I have heard of this and I explicitly try to forget everything related to NASCAR. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's horribly US centric, as it doesn't mention any foreign channels it's shown on, but I'd have to agree with Wikipedianinthehouse. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JUST NEEDS EXPANSION.Imdaking 20:11:22, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Comment It's a TV Show? I always thought this was where Nascar Dads got their passports from... Karmafist 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and cleanup. ral315 17:30, 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 keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unot

Non notable group, organization, whatever. Wikipedia is not a fan blog. This is not an issue of The Source magazine online as it were. Fancruft for idiots.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

• Delete. Article about a private feud ("movement"?) in the hip-hop community; trifling and insignificant. Paul Klenk 05:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to an appropriate destination (perhaps The Game). At the least, it is part of a notable hip-hop feud. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability further established. Radiant_>|< 08:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established in the first sentence. If this nomination is a troll, good work, LOL Kappa 11:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Enough said. The possiblity of addressing G-Unit and The Game in a detailed fashion should be accompanied with this article. The person who started this should get some support. Even though its opinion, it's an article. LILVOKA 12:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It is not a private feud, and/ or insignificant. Its something that will make history.Imdaking

Just noticed that Imdaking is the author of that article.--inks 22:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Barneyboo 22:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does exist, and is well known among the urban community and beyond.
• Keep well known to hip hop fans, recieves media attention on Urban stations --Tjss at 17:45 p.m. (Seattle time) on 8/29

Osu8907 03:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was major news here. Everyone was talking about it at my school, a historically black college. Probably the most notable feud in hip hop in the last five years. --Sketchee 02:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: well-known beef between the current hip-hop giants, an event of significance in hip-hop history.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break

Wikipedia is not a predictor of future events nor it is a volume of Tv Guide. This show cannot be notable for it doesn't exist yet. Give it a few years to achieve some prominence then post it. Non encyclopedic, Fancruft.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

• Keep. The show exists, and is premiering this coming Monday. Wikipedia has entries on many current TV shows, prominent and otherwise, as well as bands, movies, books, etc. which may not have achieved classic status yet. No reason to pick on this one.Bjones
• Keep. Prime-time major network shows are notable. Thatdog 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and it's getting harder to assume good faith. You really should be more subtle in your satire, nominator. Nandesuka 05:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly; but if individual episodes start appearing one day with their own articles, I will vote to merge or delete them. Paul Klenk 05:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Thatdog; I would have understood a VfD of the original version [5], created by a suspected sockpuppet of Maoririder, but the rewritten version is good. CanadianCaesar 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The basic outline of an extensively advertised TV show on a major network is not fancruft.-LtNOWIS 06:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is quite notable, and this nomination seems a bit trollish Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per announcement, right?.. Renominate if the series is cancelled before it premieres tomorrow, eh? --Mysidia (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable. Amren ^(talk) 22:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in fact, you can see the first 4 minutes of the show on Yahoo! TV. Is that enough proof that the show exists? ral315 17:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's starting tonight and its part of Fox's lineup and we shouldn't delete it. Heymypeeps
• Keep. The show has appeared in major newspapers nationwide (and in other countries where it airs, ie Canada), the show is directed by a major Hollywood director (Rush Hour, X-Men 3), and shows exist long before they air. There is something called production and pre-production. Know what your talking about before posting vfds or you look a little (?) silly. --Sketchee 01:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Debut tonight. Real show. --Arbiteroftruth 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is a good place for both "serious" articles as well as pop culture. --jchardt 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I thought it was rather entertaining. Rentastrawberry 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable show. Not fancruft. Jacoplane 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Not Fancruft.Imdaking 00:18:17, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm watching it now and it is worthy to be on Wiki. Assuming good faith goes a long way and needs patience.Mrja84 21:57:12, 2005-09-01 (ESDT)
• Keep.At what point did Wikipedia become an Encyclopedia of prominent events? I thought the idea of having a huge encyclopedia that anyone can add to was to create a compendium of as much knowledge as possible. Its not like someone made up an entry for a show that isn't real. This is a real thing and even if it was only on the air for one episode, that's enough. What difference does it make if there's an entry for a show that you don't think is good enough? Don't read it. However, Prison Break is airing as we speak, and therefore can be counted among all the things that have ever occured and ever been created by man.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediatoolsEC

This is advertising. When you click on the first external link, you find that the wiki article is a slightly modified version of some paragraphs on the company homepage. KJPurscell 16:09, 27 August 2005 UT.

• Delete advertising --IByte 16:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Paul Klenk 06:14, 28 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. Even discounting the author (too few edits), there is no consensus to delete. There seems to be no good reason to discount the vote by longtime anonymous editor 195.92.168.174 (talk · contribs). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYSOP

• Non-notable. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 05:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Program has been running 16 years. Will add more info shortly.--Okieman1200 22:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep reluctantly. A bit vain/self-promotional/non-notable, but it sounds real enough. Paul Klenk 06:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. -PlainSight 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, the article needs some serious work.--195.92.168.174 02:36, 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly apple club

A high school club with one Google hit. Zoe 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a legitimate article. It does not violate any current wiki policy according to WP:NOT. Additionally, there is no current wiki policy on subject importance, which many here have discussed. See Wikipedia:Importance.--lovedmc12 07:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." --TheMidnighters 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: lovedmc12 plucks people up. He plucks them right in the steiner. That's all I aba sait. I mean aba sait, aba stein. Big J double T 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Aba Steining Sait. That's all I have to say. Johnathan Taylor Thomas 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Silly Apple Club has brought joy to all those who participate in it. To delete it would ruin the lives of many good people. We must press on in the memoriy of Silly the Kid. Seriously though, the Silly Apple Club rocks! If you join it you will see...--Matt 13:30 8/28/05

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete! We get to ruin lives, gentlemen! Press on with this unparallelled opportunity! That and the article is much too silly to live. --Agamemnon2 06:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above - Chris 13:37 8-28-05

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what? - Chris 2:06 8-29-05

User's first heckensteiner. J dub (you know who) 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The Silly Apple Club is the pinacle of awesomeness. This page has great potential. No need to delete.--67.114.44.188 20:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this club has quite a cult following, and a website with examples of videos is in the works sillythekid (author)
• NOTE: The above "keep" vote is an anonymous and unsigned vote by the author. Paul Klenk
• Delete. Utter nonsense. Paul Klenk 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Such a cult following that they are barely a blip on the Internet. Zoe 06:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above Dottore So 06:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable schoolcruft. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Loganberry (Talk) 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Silliness is in the stein of the beholer. How can someone want to delete the greatest thing ever invented? - Jason Bollashotcaller20inchblades 13:43 8/28/05

Creator of the article, only edits are here and at the article itself. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. --Wwwwolf 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And stick this discussion to "Wikipedia's most colorful VfDs", too. --Wwwwolf 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From four to over 50,000 members worldwide almost overnight, now we are getting into silly, and it appears the drawers been opened already. Alf 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if wikipedia wants to remain an oasis of free exchange on the internet, we must allow entries like this to exist. This is a legitimate article, despite it's extreme exaggeration. If wikipedia does not allow silliness to exist, who will? User:sillythekidskid 22:13, 28 August 2005

Comment: Rules aside, say this encylopedia lasts and expands for the next thirty years, how long do you think it will take to sort through all the silliness to get to some encyclopedic fact? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, when I reference this wiki I expect to find and be informed of what I'm looking for. Say every small club, shop, website, film, book and building got in - theres a discussion about roads going on now, how many roads are there? I hope this puts the peeps and puppets here in the right perspective, anyone? Alf 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More important than the amount of roads is the amount of roads a man must walk down, methinks.

Comment:Are you concerned about having to flip through too many pages? Will the hard-bound book of "wikipedia" become too cumbersome to carry around? As long as a page is relevant and factual, there is no reason to exclude it because of some "encyclopaedic standard," which is not strictly defined in any wiki policy.--lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not "an oasis of free exchange on the internet." It is an encyclopedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment It may be an encyclopedia, but the only redeeming quality to Wikipedia that distinguishes it from more reputable encyclopedias is the fact that it is created by regular people, and has a relatively informal tone. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously.steiner1000 03:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Original comment by User:66.126.157.103, who has voted several times in this VFD, but later signed by a sock account. --TheMidnighters 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per sockpuppets. Sdedeo 00:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN and Nonsense. --Camw 01:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit.-- sillythekid 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you learn to use Special:Contributions properly by next week! (Was not Camw's first edit, in case it wasn't obvious.) --Wwwwolf 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per most every delete vote above. FreplySpang (talk) 03:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The author showed up on a forum that I frequent, asking the regular forumites to vote for it's permanence. I don't think that some high school kid's hobby deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Comment: I assume that you are referring to the numerous posts on the PSM forum, which were unsolicited posts not made by this article's author. The Silly Apple Club is not a hobby; it's a movement. sillythekidskid

• Comment In response to the above comment I would just like to say that me and my associates who work on another site also like to think of our site as a movement. But considering the staggering number of "movements" lately, ours has gotten lost in the quagmire of "movements." The moral here is that we don't go making articles on our own obscure little site, so why should you?
• Comment one could just as easily ask, because these people do go around making articles about obscure subjects, why shouldn't you?
• delete nn. __earth 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per everyone else on the page. --PatadyBag 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and of course socks. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, and to tick off the socks. MysteryDog 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and note that this is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus of the community. Everyone heading over from the "Silly Apple Club" to try and get the article kept, your votes will be summarily disregarded- you're not automatically part of the community if you come here to vote, even if you register accounts. ral315 17:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers." Summarily disregarded? I sure hope not. --lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn, etc. Impressive show of sockpuppetry, though.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No consensus - keep. (See below for details) --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Votes by established users:
  • Keep: 3 - inks, Robin Patterson, Nandesuka
  • Delete: 5 - KJPurscell, Aranda56, Lucky 6.9, fvw, Ziggurat

• Renaming and disambiguation:
  • Elizabeth Joan Shaw or appropriate variant, plus disambiguation - 132.205.3.20, Allegrorondo, Lucky 6.9, inks, 203.173.189.162, Robin Patterson, Grutness, Crocos

• Votes by the following users were discounted, primarily because of the low number of edit counts associated with them:
  • samf-nz, Nambio, Heyzoos, Crocos, Merstiner

• The percentage of delete votes is 75% of 8 votes counted. This is a reasonable margin for deletion, hence delete both articles. In addition, since the article has been deleted, there is no need for the disambiguation. The suggestions for disambiguation here may be used as a guideline in the future if this article were to be reinstated. --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: Wikipedian inks was kind enough to double-check the counting, and noticed that Nandesuka's vote was incorrectly attributed as a "delete". This mistake has been corrected, and the numbers above reflect the new changes to the vote count. Of the 8 valid votes cast, 62.5% is for delete. This is marginally below the threshold of around 66% required for deletion, so the article "Liz shaw" will be undeleted and reinstated. "Liz Shaw NZ" contains the same content as "Liz shaw" as stated by 203.173.189.162. A disambiguation page Liz Shaw (disambiguation) will also be made as a result. --HappyCamper 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liz shaw (with a lower case "s") and Liz Shaw NZ

Was first deleted before by me, but subsequently restored by me as well. There is sufficient content in here that probably should not have been speedily deleted, but I suspect this is not a notable subject and worthy of deletion. Would very much like a second opinion. Thanks very much! HappyCamper 05:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC) -- 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC): I added the other link to Liz Shaw NZ. Wikipedia shouldn't need two pages on this person? Perhaps I should notify the anonymous IP not to paste two copies of the article in Wikipedia. However, I think the reason why two pages exist is because I deleted one, and the IP created the other, and this sort of went back and forth... --HappyCamper 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the recent surge of vandalism to Liz shaw, I have protected both pages from being edited during this AfD process. The images used in both articles were deleted because they were not substantiated as material compatible with the GFDL. --HappyCamper 00:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think New Zealanders are going to have to make the call on this. Is there a New Zealander project to discuss this on? Zoe 06:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I initially speedied it, but in retrospect it was too rash of a decision. Better to let vfd dialogue take over. I don't know if there is a New Zealander Wikipedian group. --HappyCamper 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is - one of the more active Country-specific WikiProjects, too, complete with portal. But I digress. FWIW, as a kiwi, I've never heard of her, but that may be just me. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness - seeing as you live in Dunedin, there is a write up about the Liz Shaw phenomenon in a recent Critic issue. Here's a link to the online version, but I imagine you'll have no trouble finding a copy (although it's really not worth the time) :)[6]--inks 10:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Which isn't to say she's an uninteresting character. But one episode? One Idol crash-and-burn? One magazine? (Sigh.) Maybe I should submit all my rejection slips and see if I can get a 'pedia article about me :) --KJPurscell 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annon Edit; This above point is irrelevant as William Hung has a Wiki entry, for one bad audition he did. And Liz's subsequent publicity led to an invitation to do a porn movie with Ron Jeremy. Liz's publicity, while not on the same scale as William Hung's is still prolific considered New Zealand's size. I support the renaming to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw".

Keep The Liz Shaw Phenomenon is actually quite widespread here in NZ. She is reasonably (in)famous, and has featured on several NZ websites and magazines (including one of the adult variety). With all respect to KJPurscell, she has used her rejection as a springboard to more infamy (the same kind you'd get if you posed with your rejection slips in an erotic fashion). --inks 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Now there's a terrifying image. :) --KJPurscell 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She sounds more notable than Angelyne.  :) Zoe 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote yet. I'd like to hear from more experienced Kiwi Wikipedians on this issue. On the one hand she seems "notable enough" but on the other hand everything I can find online about her looks like it is sourced from the same group of Internet forums; so it feels like this might just be an attack article by some very tenacious haters. Also, the "links" section on this article is of tragically poor quality, although VfD is not cleanup. Nandesuka 12:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has been established to my satisfaction. She's notable. Stupid, but notable. Nandesuka 23:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I was the one who placed the speedy tag on this but after it was restored I did some research and I found more than 200,000 hits in google but mostly from forums. It needs some HEAVY CLeanup ERASE THat Sex Junk thats why i placed it on speedy on the first place and erase some more of those comments and It could Stay. If Not Delete--Aranda56 02:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Vote Change Socks placed me from Weak Keep to 100 persent Delete --Aranda56 06:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw" and disambig. Arguably outside of Kiwi-land, Dr. "Liz" Shaw, a character from Doctor Who is more notable. 132.205.3.20 21:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per previous comment - my first thought was "why are they deleting Dr Who characters?". Allegrorondo 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annon: She is notorious amongst the student and youth pop of NZ but Dr Who would have arguably more world-wide relevance. However this does not mean the New Zealand Liz Shaw is not worth a wiki.

• Keep I've just tidied up portions of the page. I believe the article's worthy of retention, since she is now extremely well-known online in NZ and is becoming so in the wider population as well. samf-nz 14:45, 30 August 2005 (NZT)User has less than 10 edits [7]
• Delete. I smell socks. Take the above vote, for example. Two edits, both to this page. Naughty sock. I found maybe three relevant Google hits for this individual. I'd say a disambig of the "Liz Shaw" version to the Doctor Who character is a good choice. - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• *Sniff* Suspicion is character assasination, not proof! :) I would use www.google.co.nz and repeat your search. Disambig, but it should be kept in some form.--inks 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and clothes pegs for everyone who smells socks. --fvw* 03:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• rename I originally posted this article, and wanted it to go under "Liz_Shaw_NZ" to avoid ambiguation wiht the Dr Who Liz Shaw. Due to an error on my part it was posted to "Liz_shaw" instead, and when HappyCamper deleted it, I reposted it to Liz_Shaw_NZ because I thought that it should go to a vote, rather than speedy deletion. I would be happy for the article to be moved to Liz_Joan_Shaw, or left at Liz_Shaw_NZ with the Liz_shaw entry deleted. Also, I would like to mention that I am none of the people refered to in the article. (posted by 203.173.189.162) --HappyCamper 03:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, sorry about that. In retrospect, this one shouldn't have been speedied which is why I've set up this VfD in the same sentiment you stated above. --HappyCamper 03:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete While she apparently has some notoriety, it's not nearly notable enough for Wikipedia (IMHO as an NZer, of course). One concern is that the Wikipedia article itself is intended as a springboard. I concur with KJPurscell regarding the supposed significance of this subject :) Ziggurat 03:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I've lost track of the asterisks, so someone can reformat this if necessary. I've heard of her, despite having read no student mags, hardly any blogs, and very few newspapers in the last 12 months. Eurekster.com search engine has not heard of her (and has only one entry on the fictional one). She's not the best advertisement for New Zealand, but there's enough public knowledge of her to keep the article in WP, preferably with a properly styled page name such as "Liz Shaw, New Zealand". I think she is more encyclopaedic than US college football coach Paul Hines, for example (nothing personal, Paul and friends!). Robin Patterson 05:59:17, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

• Unless she's suddenly become a town, that should be Liz Shaw (New Zealand), Robin! I'd agree with making Liz Shaw a dab page though. The good doctor's companion (the first one with the Pertwee Doctor, IIRC) is well known here too. Grutness...wha? 04:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For all those in NZ who are interested, Liz is appearing on 20/20 in relation to the porn shoot she did. It airs this thursday (Sept 1), 9:30pm, TV2 (posted by 203.173.189.162) --

• KEEP She is well known in NZ, frequencting virtually every NZ internet forum, and being in numerous media publications.--Nambio 04:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC) User has less than 10 edits. Started editing today. [reply]

• Keep I have nothing to add to this discussion other than I think the page should stay, for future reference for parents, who always need material to scare their children into behaving. Internet bogeywoman? --Heyzoos

• Please keep There is nothing defaming or libellious, and this is a topic interesting and relevant to many New Zealanders. Everything quoted in the article was verifiable, sources were cited, and was a fair and neutral representation.

In addition this topic is also relevant to anyone interested in the effects of popular media on young adults. The "Liz Shaw" phenomenon is a (IMO) facinating look at how far some people will go to get noticed - whether through fame or infamy.

I support namming the topic as Liz Shaw NZ or Liz Shaw (New Zealand) as she is not known as Elizabeth Joan Shaw - as well as a dab page from Liz Shaw to the correct pages for both the "Liz Shaws. I suppose that if the topic WAS to be renamed Elizabeth Joan Shaw that could be handled through a Liz Shaw dab page also - would that mean that the current Liz Shaw page is renamed to Liz Shaw (Dr Who) or similar? Maybe. A topic merge of both the Liz shaw and Liz Shaw NZ entries is an excellent idea.

It's funny how despite having done a few Wikipedia entries and updates that it's a deletion that would actually prompt me to create an account... ;-)

--Crocos 12:10:06, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

• KEEP She is a well known person in New Zealand, with her appearing in adverts that screen daily, a documentary last week, many discussion forums, and NZ Idol (albeit only in one show). It is important to separate opinions about her and her actions/style/way of life with the fact that she is now an emerging public/well-known figure. Merstiner 12:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

White Feather

No documentation/No mention on Google. Paul Klenk 06:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Chief name by itself gets only 3 Google hits; add the words white and feather (not even in quotes) and there are zero hits. Paul Klenk

• Delete or improve, the only hits bring up someone on the tribal council who was descended form Pawhuska. And his name means white hair not white feather so the name isnt correct in the first place. Jobe6 08:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Move to Pawhuska.He has his own memorial here. shows Thishe is some what notable. Jobe6 09:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

He met with Thomas Jefferson!!! Jobe6 09:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Google [8] seems to show that this chief is notable. (I don't think google counts should be a test for historical figures.) Sdedeo 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless this article can be expanded and references provided. At this point it's not even a good stub. -PlainSight 20:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , expand and move to Pawhuska. The town of Pawhuska is named after him. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:15, August 30, 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 01:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IG Culture

Vanity/bandity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete following cleanup, change vote to Keep SaltyPig 12:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, wikify and improve. Please do a bit of research before accusing an article of vanity and non-notability. There are two IG Culture CDs available on amazon. He gets 737 unique hits on google, including his own page on BBC Radio 1. Are you making a WP:POINT with all of these WP:PFD nominations? Pburka 15:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Has Allmusic.com article which shows him as an important broken beat artist and producer see [9]. Appears to meet WP:music. Capitalistroadster 17:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per above arguments. Punkmorten 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have cleaned up this article. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 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. We have a close situation here (4 delete, 1 merge, 1 redirect), the entire content of the article is ""Chi-Chi" is a character from Scarface played by Angel Salazar. He is the short guy in the gang." Now, the Scarface itself is a disambiguation page, and so merging and redirecting would need to be to one of the actual movie articles, Scarface (1932 film) or Scarface (1983 film). Unfortunately, the article here does not say which one the character appears in. There is very little content here, and it is not easy to merge this with either of those articles anyway. With no good bearing of where or how to merge this, I will call this a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Chi (Scarface)

One character in the movie -- more Wiki brah clean up. Paul Klenk 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Author actually created a template to categorize Scarface-trivia. Paul Klenk
• Delete SaltyPig 12:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Scarface. Pburka 15:39, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Minor character, expand Scarface if necessary. --12.42.48.204 15:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to scarface. __earth 04:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This user has now created a Scarface-related stub. If anything, combine it with the Scarface article. WATCH THIS USER -- he is deleting VfD tags, and posting a lot of nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Klenk (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 August 2005‎ (UTC) –Comment merged here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface)[reply]
• This nom was never posted to a main VfD page; completing nomination. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC) –Comment merged here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface)[reply]
• Delete, hasn't this been deleted previously? -- Kjkolb 08:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC) –Comment merged here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface)
  • Not this exact article, no. JYolkowski // talk 15:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC) –Comment merged here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface)[reply]
  • There's already an open VFD page for this article at Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface). Pburka 16:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC) –Comment merged here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface)
• Delete Possibly incorporate in Scarface. --Meiers Twins 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of sporting teams eponymous to automobile-related topics

Arcane/non-notable "list"-oriented article. Paul Klenk 06:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt the earth. Zoe 06:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete and per above, carthago delenda est! Dottore So 07:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These bizarre lists coming in from the same three users are really starting to steam me. - Lucky 6.9 07:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absurdity. --Finbarr Saunders 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other lists are rather trivial and are kept. Why not this one? --SuperDude 18:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answered on your talk page. - Lucky 6.9 20:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But I'll take the move to no-middle-name advice. -Splash 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's already done. -Splash 01:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Joel Hotz

Vanity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 06:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I have no problem with this article, it's about Kenny of Kenny vs. Spenny and (I now know) other film works. Alf 06:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep implies that you think the nomination has been made in bad faith. Zoe 07:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't intend to imply anything, the guy is really quite famous, obviously not vanity and definitely notbale, if that means the nom was bad faith, it stands then. Alf 10:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the importance of the subject appears to be explained in the article, currently. --Mysidia (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally I would say that the star of a popular TV show is notable. Paul Klenk, are you claiming otherwise? Is there some reason this isn't true? Until a better explanation comes along, Keep. Nandesuka 12:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect this is "non-notable" in the sense of "well, I've never heard of them." Unless it's non-notable in the sense of "different rules for Canadians". Keep, though admittedly it needs some grammar cleanup. Should also be titled Kenny Hotz, not Kenneth Joel Hotz, per "most common name" rules. Bearcat 07:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and possibly rename as per Bearcat. Hall Monitor 22:52, 30 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 userfy.

Marshall Sachs

Hoax page about his blog and his love of porn. Paul Klenk 06:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY delete this nonsense. Dottore So 07:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, should be speedy delete.
• Comment I have suggested the intial editor comments here. Alf 10:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry I userfied it before I noticed it was under VfD. If he moves it back into the main namespace we can re-open this. -- RHaworth 11:57:27, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy Tavern

Non-notable pub; claims it used to be famous and now intellectuals hang out there. Paul Klenk 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, although I'd like a list of what intellectuals hung out there, the fact that it gave its name to a district of London gives it a slight notability. Zoe 06:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC) Having read the Dottore's comments below, I change my vote to delete, nn tavern. Zoe 07:15, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, that's a good reason to merge this to an article about the district itself -- providing, of course, the district itself is in fact notable. Paul Klenk

• Keep; I intend to develop this article further. Sjc 07:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The pub did NOT give rise to the name of the neighbourhood; the assertion is false! The linked article Fitzrovia even says as much. Dottore So 07:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of Google hits, difficult to find the relevant ones. Dylan Thomas and George Orwell used to be there, according to this page. Keep, iff more can be made of this connection. Uppland 07:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It didn't give rise to the name of Fitzrovia, but it was frequented by Dylan Thomas, Augustus John, and George Orwell. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Also seems [zoe] had lunch there. Weak keep Dottore So 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that London trip is all a blur.  :) Zoe 07:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if expanded. Has the basis for an interesting article. Cnwb 07:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was going to recommend deletion, but it's starting to look interesting. (And how come I've never come across this place before???!! I spent much of the early 1980s hanging around the Tottenham Court Road area.) --Finbarr Saunders 08:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move to Fitzroy Tavern (London). There must be hundreds of Fitzroy Taverns (my local is a Fitzroy Tavern - on the other side of the planet from this one!) Grutness...wha? 09:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably the only famous one, so no need to disambiguate unless and until necessary. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We have the Eagle and Child, so we might actually keep this one. Pilatus 10:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on it's stomping grounds of.. merits. (Ignore my Cambridge bias here). Alf 10:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but a little more information in the article would be welcome before this process closes. --Bhadani 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as it does have significant literary connections. It's a nice pub, and this looks like a good excuse for a visit later in the week... Sliggy 20:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've made a few changes. CalJW 21:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus on where to move it. It's apparent to me that this is still an ongoing discussion, with some editors making conflicting suggestions at different times in the discussion. Please arrive at a consensus on what this article should be called and move it there. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot Episode

Move content to Are You Being Served; very poor choice for an article title. Paul Klenk 06:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, every tv show that has ever existed is getting to have an article on every episode ever created or thought of. Keep, but rename to The Pilot Episode (Are You Being Served?), and delete the redirect. Zoe 07:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it should be at Pilot episode (Are You Being Served?), in accordance with Wikipedia style, assuming it's not a title (the article is unclear on this). No vote. --Apostrophe 07:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the problem. If the title of the episode is "The Pilot Episdoe", then we have to include the "The". Like every episode of Friends was "The one about ...". Zoe 07:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Agree, it would be less clumsy to relocate the text directly into the show's main page, but the problem is that it then eliminates the choice to view the info, if one wishes not to see spoiler or plot details. Markt3 8/28/05

• sadly, Zoe is correct. Dottore So 07:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Zoe --Mysidia (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep (and, of course, rename) - if there is a bit more content. --Finbarr Saunders 10:00(ish), 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to whichever name is deemed most correct. Alf 11:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note on my DVD set, it's just called "Pilot". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • How about if we call it Are You Being Served? pilot episode? Zoe 20:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to The Pilot Episode (Are You Being Served?)--195.92.168.174 02:40, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

NYU residence halls

Exhaustively trifling, non-notable. Merge to NYU article. Paul Klenk 06:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom --Mysidia (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment NYU article is already 44k, would this make a merge problematic?Alf 11:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article is named improperly. Should be New York University residence halls. --Ichabod 11:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to New York University - the size of the target article shouldn't be a problem, because really only the first paragraph of this is encyclopedic. The exhaustive list of the halls themself is simply not needed, and is probably just copied from an NYU site somewhere. CDC (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Numerous universities have separate articles about their residential housing, and I'm sure there is encyclopedic information to be found for many of the listed halls. Sdedeo 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate, minority interest. Kappa 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge While it's true many universities have residence hall pages, the NYU dorms are not "colleges" in the sense of Yale and therefore don't have detailed histories and statistics. They were a better fit on the main page. By the by, I wrote the sections initially, and most of it is pulled from what I remember of being a student at NYU. TommyP 01:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

- Argument on size: The article is indeed already too long, alumni and presidents have already been outsourced. Many large sites at wikipedia have separate articles on subcategorical content in order to maintain a sizeable format. At Wikipedia, most university-related articles have the following on their main page: information on schools, rankings, size, general campus information, specialities, faculty, history, athletics and sometimes alumni and trivia/lore/traditions. Other, especially campus-related information is mainainted in separate articles, cf.: Harvard Yard, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Watterson Towers, Davenport College

- Argument on content: the article is in my view still encyclopedic, although every university article on this page contains more information than a traditional encyclopedia article. If that was a criterion, we`d have to delete 90 % of all university-related articles. I haven`t found any specific and detailed information on residence halls elsewhere and I believe it should not be included on the main page. However, I believe that this article contains valid information on NYU and should therefore not be deleted. If this article is deleted, may other articles will have to be deleted as well (see above). There are separate lists of university presidents, university museums and what not. So why delete this article ? One could argue that not all information contained therein is encyclopedic style and that for example it is not really important whether an NYU dorm offers washing machines or not - but then change the article, don`t delete it.

• Keep but rename per Ichcabod. Cmadler 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename, redirect this to there. Alf 14:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Alf 21:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Monkeysorce

Non-notable website, can't get an alexa ranking, even though Alexa is really a man, 27 unique hits. Zoe 06:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- appears to be a speedy candidate, due to its short length and lack of context --Mysidia (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Agree with above. Dottore So 07:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Alf 11:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Nandesuka 12:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Manalo

Vanity/non-entity whose favorite bread is pita. Paul Klenk 07:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a copy and paste from here [10] CanadianCaesar 07:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If copyvio sorted, never watched Barney and Friends, it's a children's tv show right? It's not as copyvio tagged yet. Alf 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged for copyvio. Alf 11:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I prefer baguette. Nandesuka 12:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio --Mysidia (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pita? Delete, then. jamesgibbon 20:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. No consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked By Chinese!

Non-notable "meme". Almost every Google hit I get is describing the worm, not using this phrase in other meanings. Zoe 07:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Code Red worm Halo 09:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. --cesarb 17:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Code Red worm. Uttaddmb 19:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. A redirect never even occurred to me when I nominated. That would be a valid choice. Sorry. Zoe 20:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Agreed. Redirect to Code Red worm. InfallibleRoxi 10:22 AM, 29 August, 2005
• Weak Keep and expand. Its in the Urban Dictionary Urban Dictionary - Hacked by Chinese content: "A phrase popularized after the Code Red worm appeared with this text in it. Basically nonsense. Code Red originated from China. Often used as an expression, much like pwned by n00bshop, except with less emphasis on the winner being neophyte-esque. - You lose. Hacked by Chinese!" end content I got 464,000 Google hits and while most are about the worm, quite a few are about the phrase.--KillerChihuahua 17:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that UrbanDictionary is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not. Zoe 06:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Kill it. and if that doesn't work, delete. Rather useless. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being in the urban dictionary is not notable.--nixie 03:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It's all good in da hood. Gold Stur 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This phrase, while not wildly popular, certainly has enough non-code-red-based use to warrent its own article. Nukekubi 14:00, 2005 September 1 (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 01:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Legendia

No mention at IMDb. Paul Klenk 07:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. It's a video game, not a movie. This is clearly stated in the article and verifiable by way of the external link. C'mon! Thatdog 08:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not on List of PlayStation 2 games#T as yet (unless its English name is different as list is 'American names', have added cats and vfg stub, not sure which year it was tho'. Alf 11:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Thatdog, plus it's already been released in Japan. Nifboy 18:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I cleaned up some of the silly text in the article. --TimPope 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Manakova

Only 111 Google hits; notable only for appearing nude. Paul Klenk 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why wouldn't a Chess Grandmaster be considered notable? If anything she's more notable than many other grandmasters (almost all of whom have Wikipedia articles) because of her extra magazine publicity. Thatdog 07:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if other grandmasters have articles. -- Kjkolb 08:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep SaltyPig 12:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Posing passed pawns. Alf 12:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Chess grandmaster is noteworthy. --Cactus.man 15:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above --Mysidia (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination is not well thought out. There are only 184 Woman Grandmaster's in the world. Maria Manakova would be encyclopedically notable for her strength as a chess player even without a nude pictorial. Quale 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Quale.--Prosfilaes 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's regrettable that the page author considers nudity to be more noteworthy than achieving grandmaster status. We are all capable of nudity. How many of us are GM's?
  • Hundreds of people are GMs, and the differences on the chess board, except for the top few, are incomprehensible to most people. A chessplayer posing nude for money is unusual (the article says unique for a female grandmaster, though I wonder how anyone not a full-time researcher with the Kinsey institute could have real evidence for that), and it's something we all can comprehend. The article is yours to edit, but I'm afraid even if you do add a bunch of information on her playing style, most of us will come away with "Russian female grandmaster. Posed nude for Russian magazine Speed. But which one?"--Prosfilaes 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the general consensus. Hall Monitor 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all GMs, WGMs and national chess champions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 31 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 ☎ 03:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Smokabong

Appears to be a vanity page. --Mysidia (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Assiduously nn. MCB 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SaltyPig 12:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have greeted initial editor and suggested they comment here. Alf 12:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alright, I agree. Mitch (initial editor) 20:22 29 August 2005 (AEST)
• Delete. Non-notable, seems to just be an ad to a CafePress store. ral315 17:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per creators wish, (userfy if he likes!). Alf 14:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Will move it to correct capitals. -Splash 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chips mackinolty

Vanity/Non-notable (Only 260 Google hits) -- one of a gazillion one-time protesters who found his way into a newspaper or two. Paul Klenk 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His artworks have been exhibited at major Australian galleries such as the National Gallery of Australia, and the Australian Centre for Photography. Certainly notable. Cnwb 07:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Kappa 11:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I originally greeted the intial editor to request tagging of the picture now used in this article (it is taken from http://www.nga.gov.au/federation, so may not be a problem in that), they may have gone offline as no reply/action on this yet. I have left a message to inform them of this VfD, pointing them here. Alf 12:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If his work is displayed at the National Gallery of Australia, then he is a significant Australian artist. According to Australians: A History" published in 1987,he was an art dealer in Katherine who played a significant role in the development of Australian art. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS After the vote should be moved to Chips Mackinolty. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 260 non-vanity, non-dupe Google hits for an non-Internet person is pretty good; not only that, the hits are from notable sources and document him as a notable person. Don't just count the Google hits; look at them. --Prosfilaes 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Subs

Band vanity. Paul Klenk 07:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The band is certainly notable. See [11] for their extensive discography, beginning in 1977. Cnwb 07:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yikes, careful with the "band vanity" tag! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Didn't even have to look this one up. Flowerparty ^talk 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was previously a very large article that got speedied for copyvio. The recent creation and shortness of the article make the band vanity assumption somewhat understandable, but let's do a little research first next time, m'kay? Thatdog 08:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ye ghods! Speedy keep. "Band vanity? What the Ð?" I checked two handy encyclopedias of rock music, both of which gave the UK Subs approximately the same amount of text column space as Nine Inch Nails or the Red Hot Chili Peppers. So I suppose those are the next two articles to go... Grutness...wha? 08:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I feel all nostalgic seeing this listed here, definitely notable as part of the UK 70's punk era. 845,000 hits on Google UK --Meiers Twins 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I didn't need to look at the article, (but I did, just to make sure), way notable to us dinosaurs in this neck of the woods. Alf 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable UK punk band from the 1970s. Capitalistroadster 13:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of UK punk rock history. --Cactus.man 15:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as bad-faith nomination. Band vanity? Punkmorten 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please assume good faith - but certainly keep --Doc (?) 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Emphatic keep. I've seen it all now. jamesgibbon 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Obviously concensus has formed on this VfD. I just wanted to point out that the article does read like NN BV for someone not familiar with the group. Suggest all who are familiar with them expand the article. -PlainSight 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a start on it, but someone who knows more about the band should have a go at extending it further. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are a notable punk band.DavidFarmbrough13:14, 01 September 2005 (BST)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Turinui

Vanity/non-entity. Paul Klenk 07:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now). I don't know enough about Rugby to tell if the claims in the article are sufficient for notability or not, but he definitely has a large following according to Google. Hopefully a Rugby fan can weigh in on this one... Thatdog 07:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It has a strong grounds for being kept according to google. Morgan Turinui played for his country in one of most prominant rugby nations. That is worth noting.
• Keep. Didn't have to look this one up. Known throughout the rugby playing world, which means he's known to more people for his sport than your average World Series player is for his. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Please don't nominate articles just because you have never heard of the subject. It shows a cultural bias. You have shown this with a number of nominations today--Porturology 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've also left a note on Talk:Rugby union, pointing here, for that pages editors' input, certainly not vanity nor non-entity. Alf 12:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - he's an Australian international! That's notable. Article needs a bit of tidying up and I'm not sure about the copywrite status of the image but the artictle should stay. --LemonAndLime 13:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable Australian rugby international. Capitalistroadster 19:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen many articles on more obscure topics than this.GordyB 21:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ditto most of above.--Finbarr Saunders 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepA well known rugby international. Just because America doesn't play rugby doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't be interested.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 ☎ 03:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request-A-Song.com and related pages

This is a blanket nomination for the article along with its armada of redirects, RAS 2002, RAS 2003, RAS 2004, RAS 2005, Best Of Request - Vol. 1 (October 2002 - March 2003), Hollow Earth Productions, Benj Edwards, Jeremy Edwards (musician), and anything else contributed by user:Docarnold; with the exception of explodingdog, which I'm explicitly ignoring.

Spam. And on a professional scale: the article was created on April 14 and a handful of gratuitous links to it were added shortly afterwards. In short, Request-A-Song.com are a band who fail WP:MUSIC, named after a website which fails WP:WEB. Delete all. Flowerparty ^talk 07:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have made intial editor aware of VfD and pointed them here, no vote as yet, will wade through each individually. Alf 12:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - self-promotion of someone's pet project - releases on their own "label", lots of MP3s, and no evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, vanity, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, vanity, no Alexa rank. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete __earth 04:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. ral315 17:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BodyTag 10:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Flowerparty. explodingalf 15:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The article was neither spam nor vanity. Read my comments on the discussion page. docarnold 02:42 14 September 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Some simple sentences in lugisu (lumasaaba)

Wikipedia is not a foreign language lexicon. Zoe 08:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dottore So 08:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I already VfD:ed this once as far as I can remember. I can't find the previous VfD-page, though. Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find both on the list of Uganda-related deletions. -- Visviva 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some of it with the article on the language, which seems to be Masaba language. Kappa 11:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep tourist phrase-lists in language articles for fairly obvious reasons (unencylopedic, Wikipedia is not a usage guide, useless for linguistic comparison, etc). If someone decides to include it, it won't stay in the article for long. We have a pseudo-article dedicated for this: list of common phrases in various languages. The basic inclusion policies don't hold seem to hold sway there, so you can add whatever you feel like. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SaltyPig 12:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, recreation of deleted content. -- Visviva 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (discounting ballot stuffing). Ingoolemo ^talk 19:23, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Jessica Stover

Vanity actor site/purported AOL show got six google hits. Currently is studying acting. Paul Klenk 08:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article does not allege notability. Zoe 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ^ Drdisque 08:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete SaltyPig 12:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article most certainly does allege notability. Creator, producer and star of, what is essentially, a television show. It's just broadcast on AOL instead of a conventional network. She appears to have had numerous celebrity guests and filmed on location around the world. If her show were on a conventional network there would be no argument about keeping this article. Pburka 14:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm a little hestitant, because I can't verify the AOL "show" exists, since I'm not on AOL. Also, I reworded the whole article, since it was an exact copy from the web site, which says "All rights reserved". If her website is not a complete hoax, it's a reasonable keep (both for her webcast and to a lessor extent as a blogebrity). --rob 18:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing notability here. The show is not on broadcast, cable, or satellite TV; it's apparently just something you can access on AOL, like a web site or blog, but it's video? I don't think AOL "content" automatically confers notability. MCB 18:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Tenative delete; I couldn't find her on IMDb...if I knew more about this webcasted teen show on AOL I might change my mind. Everyking 19:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. if we add this, we should also add all existing acting students in the whole world! __earth 04:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator --nixie 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator's Google hit count of 6 is far less than the 33 uniques I got using her show's exact title (in quotes) or the 133 uniques I got with her first+last name in quotes. I verified that even the 133rd unique hit was about *this* "Jessica Stover" (only a few were about another girl). --rob 06:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • this google argument people toss around all day at wikipedia is ludicrous. nobody knows me, and i have 119 unique hits, 100% of which refer to me (unique name spelling). the article's atrocious, she's not a "blogebrity", and getting google hits is a piece of cake (just like "releasing an album", "hosting a TV show", "acting in a movie", "making a podcast" blah blah). SaltyPig 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The world is full of wannabe-stars and odious blog-celebs. Who'll miss just one. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm hoping that's a typo and you meant "dubious". It's ok to vfd an article because the notability and/or claims made in it are "dubious". But, it's wrong to vfd an article, because you find a certain group of people to be "odious". Many valid wiki articles are of odious people who have done odious things. --rob 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • i doubt "odious" is a typo, and i agree with Agamemnon2. it's not wrong to criticize a page for the subject's odiousness when that trait is not only directly related to a desire to have one's name plastered around (perhaps specifically at wikipedia), but likely forms the sole weak (yet disguised) excuse for inclusion — the subject (or friend, relative, fanatic) wants to have an article here. see fallacy of accident for more on why your example of generally odious people has no merit in this discussion. further, it's mistaken to presume that the terse comments after votes compose a full case. what's going on here is that wikipedia articles are used for original-research publicity (and google priming) rather than for encyclopedic knowledge distribution. that's not obvious to you in this example? SaltyPig 08:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless shown notable. If her claim to fame is an an actress, no IMDB presense severely hurts her case. If her claim to fame is as a blogger, well, that's just silly. Having a blog makes one about as famous as does having a cat. Friday (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I updated the article, and included a few notable names she's had on her show. I think her ability to have extended length (not "assembly line" or "red carpet") interviews with famous people has some significance to this debate. --rob 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Nah, ... sorry. :) — RJH 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely notable and has a strong following. Sean Bonner 18:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Pburka. Hall Monitor 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Researched her and she is definitely notable per statements above and more. Feel that some of the delete comments weren't researched or are now moot as the wiki page has been updated with more information. Knowstuff 18:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • if this article stays, i'm gonna create an article about myself and point to jessica stover as evidence that i'm "notable". these vanity pages are trying way too hard, and it shows; nothing there except "became known" claims for a comparative unknown. SaltyPig 19:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Who's Jessica Strover? Why haven't I heard of this actress? 3 September 2005 (UTC) 67.176.186.22

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

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN - after all sockpuppets ignored. FCYTravis 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brillant

Non-notable outside The Daily WTF forum. Zetawoof 08:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• BJAODN It has instantly caught on with every programmer I linked to the original entry on The Daily WTF, so I think it merits preserving. Aristotle 02:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite hilarious, but unfortunately not-notable. Thatdog 08:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Dottore So 08:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. --Shutranm 12:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I really liked the entry, but it is true that it doesn't seem to mentioned in many places and therefore not really notable. user:Matt.whitby
• Keep SaltyPig 12:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN - non-notable, but the article is well-written enough, and the subject entertaining enough, to warrant keeping it for posterity. ~ Irrel
• BJAODN Should be preserved for future generations... Cdyson37 14:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN I wrote the original article, so I may be biased. I agree that it is non-notable, but I think it warrants keeping. DZ-Jay 15:11:25, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Keep for at least three months. This phrase might catch on in wider usage as WTF membership grows and Brillant would then be submitted to Wiki again. User:aikimark
  • User's first edit. FCYTravis 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Popular tech talk often enters the more common public domain, where it is often mangled and misrepresented by media who do not understand the origins. Brillant has been very popular, very quickly and stands a high probability wider usage. It is important that such terms have a clear history of the origin of a word to prevent misuse (such as when the press used the word hacker instead of cracker, permanently destroying the original meaning of the term) xepol 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit. FCYTravis 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Come on... an in-joke on a nn web site, with no other independent existence? MCB 18:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or BJAODN. Non-notable and non-encyclopedic, and I note that "brillant" has not become "very popular very quickly." FCYTravis 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in-term for one forum. Zoe 21:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does come up 486 times on Google though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2005
  • Duplicate vote. Oh dear. --Zetawoof 02:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, no merge as misspelling of "brilliant". Andrew pmk | Talk 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or BJAODN. If this site claims to be a repository of human knowledge, let all 'knowledge' remain as it is. Lithorien 16:51, 28 August 2005 (PST)
  • User's second edit. Zoe 04:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    
    • And that matters why, Zoe? It doesn't take a hundred edits to know the rules. Lithorien 22:41, August 28, 2005 (PST)
      • jack maneuver there, zoe. what's the point? SaltyPig 05:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting attempts to stuff the ballotbox, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 05:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
          • Check the IP addresses of the users. Don't try to throw mud in their faces for a small edit count. Lithorien 06:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Only developers can check IP addresses. But an admin who closes a vote can take into consideration the length of time that a signed in User has been with Wikipedia, and discount votes of those who have no stake in the project. Zoe 05:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • lithorien's first edit was august 2004. "Noting attempts" and timidly implying guilt that can't be disproved are radically different. SaltyPig 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial. --Calton | Talk 05:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to The Daily WTF. Radiant_>|< 07:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but BJAODN if people want it there. This sounds like an attempt to use Wikipedia to help spread this new usage of a term. WP:NOT. Friday (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original author of the article, I can assure you this wasn't the intention -- it was a misunderstanding of the policies about encyclopedic relevance. I do admit it is non-notable, but think it should be kept in BJAODN. DZ-Jay 14:56:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
• Keep or BJAODN. This is a borderline case, and I find keeping it more prudent for now, after all it isn't causing much harm. R6144 15:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the origin of this sarcastic term is interesting, not to mention rather humorous, and it doesn't hurt anything to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.184.75 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 August 2005
• Delete. ral315 17:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Redirect to brilliant. -Sean Curtin 01:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • But that's a disambiguous page, it doesn't contain any content, it'll still need to point somewhere... DZ-Jay 09:36:59, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to TheDailyWTF. The first times it was a BJAODN, but IMHO now it is a new word on its own. 62.14.177.107 10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 10:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we apply the rule that this term is not notable outside WTF, the same would apply to all the Slashdot articles in Wikipedia, which lots of people use often for understanding jokes made in ./ but otherwise are not known for non Slashdot's readers. Regards 138.100.12.136 14:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to TheDailyWTF. No harm being done. Ytram
• Merge to The Daily WTF. If it gains significant usage outside of that forum, then recreate it. htonl 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move To The Daily WTF - a thing of beauty is a joy forever. --Maurits 20:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this has spread rapidly amongst coders i know - vDave420
  • Posted by 66.134.25.19, not a registered user.
• Keep It is becomming quite the developer catchphrase. 65.240.133.194 14:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good write-up. And create The Daily WTF. --2mcm 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Clearly not encylopedic, but amusing and well-written. Possibly merge to The Daily WTF (which would be merited) if someone writes it. --Zootm 10:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. Redirect to brilliant. -TNS
  • Improperly signed vote by TheNotoriousSkinny. User's first edit. --Zetawoof 07:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Daily WTF (of which more should be written), as it's definitely part of the site's culture. It isn't a Bad Joke, and is wayyyy too factual to be very Nonsensical, so I think BJAODN would be a wrong place. --Wwwwolf 15:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Changing vote:[reply]
• BJAODN, on the account that TheDailyWTF.com seems to fail WP:WEB, so moving it to an article about it would be pointless because that in turn might get deleted; they have Alexa rank around 47,000 and no apparent way to check how many registered members there are, but I cursorily only found user IDs up to around 2000. Besides, we're not exactly talking of a in-joke-spreading movement that could rival Slashdot =) --Wwwwolf 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, Mayby even KEEP. This term has swept through my my company of over 600 and is used as commonly as PHB. The tribal consensus of who was brillant at my office was quite amazing.
  • Unsigned vote by Ded.morris. User's first edit.

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

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

The result of the debate was not enough disucssion te establish consensus. I have since listed it at WP:CP. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:29, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Kayserispor

I was alerted to this page by Avalon who wasn't sure what to do with it. It appears to be written entirely in Turkish (or some variant thereof). As such, it is unintelligible to users of this encycloædia. Unless someone can translate it and establish notability, it should be deleted. Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' Football club apparently, that might warrant a page in, well, English. Dottore So 08:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to be copyvio from [12]. Kayserispor plays in the Turkish Premier League, though, so definitely notable Sam Vimes 13:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Shamrock Rovers. Will do. -Splash 02:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

400_Club

This information should be in the Shamrock Rovers article, not on its own page. Meiers Twins 08:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEPWell known through out Ireland.--Play Brian Moore 14:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate comment deleted by Fenian Swine : (The entry above is from Fenian Swine who appears to be the original author. --12.42.48.204 16:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)) --12.42.48.204 06:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The Shamrock Rovers article already references this club. Merge with main article. --Cactus.man 15:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Point taken, thanks for the advice Pburka. The Shamrock Rovers article already references this club. Merge with main article. --Cactus.man 16:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Merge and redirect. (Note that Delete and Merge is invalid unless the closing admin also merges the history, which I understand is a complicated procedure.) Pburka 15:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shamrock Rovers. --12.42.48.204 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:35, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

The Conflict in Palestine

Substantial overlap with existing articles -- Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then see what can be done to merge with those articles. Raven4x4x 09:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to request a merge, but it seemed to be that should be done by persons with a better knowledge of the topic and extant articles. For instance, I didn't know about Arab-Israeli conflict at all. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reserved likely merge. At least it's well sourced and footed, if we did have an article on this as a single topic, what would it be called?. Alf 13:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Palestine_(region). Manik Raina 13:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Palestine_(region) properly talks about the region, not the conflict. We have Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline and probably too many more articles focusing on the conflict. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after salvaging useful and non-duplicating and encyclopedic information into many existing articles. To anon creator: please use search function before creating new articles. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I think this is some student's essay or something. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not NPOV, material available elsewhere in the wikipedia. Vonfraginoff 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly do not merge content that is hopelessly NPOV. Delete. Dottore So 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Content covered elsewhere, also too POV. --Heptor 16:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Humus sapiens. Alf 14:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles to merge

The page contains three discreet articles (on Palestine, The West Bank, and The Gaza Strip), each with separate sources and word counts. (Why word counts? Are they copied from something else? If so, I can't find it online.) The material appears factual enough, and thus worth merging into the three articles that have the same names. Veg0matic 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take back my merge vote. Delete. Veg0matic 00:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Forest cafe

Although I realise that content isn't a reason for deletion, this page has clearly been written by someone employed there. I've been a resident in Edinburgh for nearly 10 years now and I don't think this cafe is anyway near notable enough for inclusion. Leithp 09:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Marginal keep. Clearly an ad, but with some trimming the article might serve as a small signpost to an almost notable community center. Collabi 09:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is a small cafe in Edinburgh (even a not for profit one) notable enough for an encyclopaedia--Porturology 10:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per User:Leithp Pilatus 10:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. i'm regularly amazed by the apparent hesitation on the part of some deletion voters re blatant marketing pages. it's not like a good article can't be written later (after deletion). away with it. there's nothing to save. SaltyPig 12:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badvertisment. Alf 13:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Been around for a while but not notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. --Cactus.man 15:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 15:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I keep hearing nice things about it, but do please delete. Non-notable. Shimgray 16:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper. -- DS1953 18:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:43, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Frank Lopez

More junk from the wacky world of Wiki brah; article about one character in a movie with no point -- probably an excuse to use the word "Juban". Paul Klenk 09:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, major character from major movie. Kappa 11:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Paul Klenk: Kappa and friends, think about the consequences... In the past two days, we have seen articles focusing on 1] one scene from a movie (Chain Saw Scene from Scarface) and 2] one character from a movie (Frank Lopez from Scarface). Both were from a user who, in my opinion, is a hoaxer (if WP has a more poltically correct euphemism for this term, let me know). What would happen if every movie had each character and each scene broken out into separate articles?! What makes such tidbits notable, and where will it stop? These were both trifling articles, of little consequence, and don't add to the sum of human knowledge. If we do in fact want to document films in such exhaustive detail, we need to talk about conventions for titling and organizing these data. Further, this practice is already migrating to reality TV shows, whose characters are no-name wanna-bes trying to break into show business. Some of these shows haven't even aired yet, and (in the case of a modeling show) their characters/actors are getting new articles under their names, with links pointing to chat rooms sponsored by the show. The current view seems to be, "It's on TV, so it's notable." Since when? Prove it. Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.

• I think this is covered by Wikipedia is not paper. Incidentally I regard not covering reality TV show contestants as a gross dis-service to the users. Kappa 19:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is also not toilet paper. Tell me, is there any bit of fictional trivia too trivial for you to claim as "notable" or "major"? --Calton | Talk 04:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is ludicrous. Heck, covering individual episodes of TV shows is, to me, a waste of valuable resources. Are we not slaves of TV enough without it sticking its septic tentacles down our throats even on the Internet? --Agamemnon2 07:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Covering individual episodes of TV shows makes a neglible impact on wikipedia's resources, and there is no reason to think that people using this information are less likely to donate than anyone else. If you want to avoid the septic tentacles of TV, feel free not to hit that "random article" link. Kappa 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa. There is a huge chunk of red text in the middle of my screen. So eye-catching! So...persuasive! Must...vote...delete... Extreme Unction 23:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Robert Loggia. Alf Capone 13:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge and Redirect Strongly agree with Paul Klenk comments above. --12.42.48.204 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Scarface. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Delete. If it was that important, it seems that the editors working on the Scarface (1983 film) would have worked it into the fairly extensive plot summary. I don't think we need to feel obligated to merge this content into a seemingly well-done article. -- DS1953 18:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notabl. Dunc|☺ 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (only because a vote to merge and redirect could be counted by some admins as a keep). Denni☯ 19:11, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Delete, more Wiki brah nonsense. Zoe 21:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - 5th in cast list on IMDb so could be considered notable (within the limits of Scarface) - but not to the extent of having its own article Barneyboo 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dottore So 22:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Scarface-cruft, brought to you by the Scarfacecrufter himself, User:Wiki brah. --Calton | Talk 04:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. feydey 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for an individual article and no need to redirect. Quale 15:56, 31 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sega Genesis Master CD 32X System

Page that is rambling, not-encyclopaedia worthy. Discusses the Sega Genesis with every add-on fitted, which doesn't have a name and I don't see there being a way of making the page useful.

Duplicates content from Sega Genesis, Sega Mega Drive, Sega CD and Sega 32X but can't easily be redirected to any. Halo 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ramble w/POV SaltyPig 12:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all the relevant info in this article is already captured in other Genesis/Megadrive-related articles. Nandesuka 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jaxl | talk 15:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:31, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with all of the above reasons, and also because very few people, if any, have all of those additions to their Genesis, which is truly only what the article concerns. Eric 04:35, September 6, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rolia

This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for over two weeks. It does not appear to have much encyclopedic potential. Comments from WP:PNT (not votes):

• Xrce says: Chinese. Sietse 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Looks like an ad for a chat site targeted at Chinese immigrants to Canada. -Adjusting 20:13, 12 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Paris

This appears to be a vanity page JoanneB 11:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off this is not a vanity page. Miss Paris is actually a legitmate actress and local TV personality here in Portland and you have pages for athletes, talk show hosts, models, actors and actress, and even rock stars here on the site. Are they not vanity pages too? If so they don't belong here either and you should delete them immeditely. Or are you picking on her because she hasn't won an Oscar or made over 20 million? As I see it, her space has every right to be here just as much as someone who is famous.

Badgirl 1701

• Delete The impression I get from the page is that her acting consists of amateur musicals and access TV. Vanity.--Porturology 12:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Every actor an actress has started somewhere, even access TV. I have watched her over the years and she has grown quite a bit as a performer. Infact if you want to challege the vanity pages. Let's take a look at the pages of Courtney Love and Paris Hilton for example. Are they not vanity pages? I would think so. These two have no talent whatsoever but yet they are listed on here. But hey while you're at it why not delete ever single athlete, actor, dancer, and performer off this site reguardless. I say if you delete her. You have delete all those celebrities as well because they are vanity pages too.

Badgirl 1701

• Delete great attempt to disguise non-notability with irrelevant details (e.g., animal house!). wow. SaltyPig 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said. If you are going to get rid of her. You might as well delete all the other celbrity vanity pages too. It's only fair.

• It's not our place to judge talent here, as that's an opinion. We go on verifiable facts. I see no mention of her in allmovie. Delete Friday (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable - the rigorous defence of the page by Badgirl 1701 leads me to believe it is possibly vanity as well. By "vanity", we mean pages created by the person in question. Halo 14:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn-bio, vanity. I'm particularly amused by "Alexandra has been a Portland native since 1992". I guess she's only 12 years old! MCB 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article does not establish notability Sliggy 18:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• While Ms Paris may be notable within the Portland gay and lesbian community, she does not appear to meet the standards of notability outlined in WP:BIO.Delete Capitalistroadster 19:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-made page. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you look at her so-called "filmography" at http://www.musecube.com/AlexandraParis/about.htm, I can find no record at imdb for any of the movies listed (not even the one with Debbie Rochon), and of the movies listed, she seems to be basically an extra even in those non-notable movies. If we discount her supposed movie career, then all we have is that she's a cable access host. That is not notable whatsoever. Zoe 22:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • hey, i was a cable access host. are you trying to imply that pretty much anybody can be one? in five minutes? well... okay. you're right. SaltyPig 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wikified this page because the linking format was making me think I was judging this page with insufficient attention to content, but now that I've read Capitalistroadster's comment, I believe that she fails the entertainer's test at WP:Bio not having starring or many supporting (albiet a few) roles in movies with an audience of > 5,000. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to question that any movie she has been in has been seen by 5000 people. Zoe 04:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I live in the Portland area; I've never heard of her. Plus, whether or not you think the likes of Courtney Love and Paris Hilton are talented or not; they certainly are notable--being famous is a sufficient condition for notability. Appearing on cable access, isn't. --EngineerScotty 00:20, 30 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Diana Court

Non-notable suburban street Cnwb 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn street Halo 12:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, delete, nn feydey 12:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 15:44, 28 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; kept. --Canderson7 15:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oilily

POV marketing swill. would be good to have an article on Oilily, but this isn't it. should be thwacked until a real article is attempted. SaltyPig 11:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with information about the actual store rather than a jumble of obscure and useless data from the store's website Drdisque 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, who's going to do that? i saw about 1 sentence that wasn't marketing dreck. it's not like anything's lost by deleting the page. sometimes i think these votes for deletion are viewed as though it's the last chance for the entire future of an article. the best future for this article might be to zap it so that somebody actually starts it right one day. not jamming on you personally, but i wonder what the value is in leaving up some of these hack pages. the vote for deletion is voting to delete this article, not any article that might be made about the subject later. if you can fill me in, please do. thanks. this general "keep everything possible" flavor i've noticed lately confuses me. it seems to presume that creating a page is difficult, as though we're fortunate that somebody happened by one day and left us these pieces of litter. strange (IMO). SaltyPig 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio tagged n' reported. BTW POV is not a valid reason to delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • re POV, i'm aware of that claim and disagree. SaltyPig 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its only valid if it is not possible to make the article NPOV for some reason (like List of ethnic stereotypes). In this case its just a company, so it would be fairly easy to rework it from a NPOV Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • again, i'm aware of that claim, and i disagree. if you'd like to argue it, point me to the correct spot to let fly. i'm shocked by this VfD procedure. horrible! i gather we're not supposed to ramble too much here though. feel free to use my talk page if interested. SaltyPig 22:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Mullet

original research, non-notable, POV, etc. SaltyPig 12:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a real and valid small band. Why make it harder for them by deleting their entry? unsigned by 220.237.177.85 11:48, 28 August 2005
• Delete - just because they're real, doesn't mean they're notable Halo 12:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 15:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really a "small band", more like a "garage band" which uses free webhosting to host their website. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as classic band vanity complete with support hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 23:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeem

• Delete. Bordering nonsense; a Google search fails to confirm that this has any basis in reality. —Charles O'Rourke 12:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above Cdyson37 14:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably hoax. Pburka 15:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 15:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Gamecruft: Dalaya seems to be from a MMORPG called Winter's Roar, but the article presents this as if it were other than something fictional. --Mysidia (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You gusy r mean imo LOL

  Unsigned vote from User:206.55.145.225, the creator of the article. Pburka 14:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breast euphemisms

Simply list of slang euphemisms. No real content. JLaTondre 13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (changed from Reserved). And no pictures. It is also now blanked which meant a trawl thourgh history, all this must be here somewhere already, surely, I've not trawled slang so unsure where it would be.

I'm happy with TLE's def here, unless anyone wants to points to a word there we haven't already got that fits "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate". Alf 18:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And there's still no pictures.Alf 18:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It looks as if the article may be unencyclopedic. However, it was blanked because the user who nominated it for Vfd blanked it. I find the blanking and implying it was already blanked to be rather dubious. --Mysidia (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the blanking was a mistake on my part. I'm more used to CV than VfD. Thanks for correcting that. If you're refering to my comment of "No real content" as "implying it was already blanked" that was not my intent. A list of slang terms has no real content that is suitable for an enclopedia. Real content might be history, a discussion of the language evolution along with sexual morals, etc... JLaTondre 17:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fact that it's a list of slang, rather than an entry for a single piece of slang, does not change the fact that it violates WP:NOT Sec. 1.2.3's clear and appropriate prohibition on trying to make articles that are slang or idiom usage guides. For that matter, Sec. 1.2.2 is "No lists of such definitions" in reference to WP:NOT A Dictionary. The Literate Engineer 16:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Body parts slang. Al 16:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• might seem less stupid, if a few of these , were used every so often

• Delete. These are not euphemisms, they're slang terms. I also wonder how many of these have any currecy at all and how many were made up for this little project. Denni☯ 19:20, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure slang. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like aspirins on an ironing board. ral315 17:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary? 132.205.3.20 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and possibly merge to body parts slang. -Sean Curtin 01:19, August 30, 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 02:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people

Do we really need a page just for Irish people, could it not be included in the Ireland article? Tim 13:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep its quite a long article and part of a category. Djegan 13:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've left a note on the article's talk page, pointing here, there is quite an edit history and some talk of whether it was a good 'move' from "Irish enthnicity" in the first place and should it merged to elsewhere. Alf 13:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : This page attempts to define many communities which have roots in thr Irish people and talks about their origin from the original residents of Ireland. Manik Raina 14:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Otherwise shall I go round and make pages for British people, French people, Spanish people, Indian people, Iraqi people etc?!Tim 14:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • And two of those exist! Crazy! Tim 14:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Your quite free to create what you want - by the way their is English people, Scottish people, Welsh people - as for the other peoples this probabily has something to do with wikipedia been work in progress and predominantly English language. Djegan 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't forget theres 44m Irish Americans, many of whom are interested in Irish enthnicity, so its a useful article for them. CGorman 14:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. In my opinion, this page is about the people who emigrated from Ireland to other countries since they form an important immigrant group. This page is not about Ireland (the rock in the middle of the sea per se). Are there sizeable french populations outside france ? Then it makes sense to have such a page for those people. Manik Raina 14:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Ireland article is already too long (42k) for this to be included in it. Demiurge 15:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - re. Demiurge's comment - Pete C ^✍ 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, fershure -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article is fine. Punkmorten 19:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are more people of Irish descent living outside Ireland than in Ireland. There is 44 million in the US and 6 million in Australia for a start. Article needs more references but it certainly gives us something to work from. Capitalistroadster 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nationality of the people who now live either in the Republic of Ireland or in Northern Ireland was one of the most contentious issues of the 20th Century. This is an important piece of European history. Rnt20 20:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Ethnic groups of Europe contains hundreds of articles. Please take more care with any future nominations.CalJW 21:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude... I can nominate anything I wish, its not about taking care, if something doesn't deserve to be there in one persons opinion, its fine for them to nominate it for deletion. The fact I've been massively outnumbered shows the system works, and its not a problem for things to be nominated and then kept. Please take more care with any future patronising comments. Tim 12:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because you can it doesn't mean you should. There are a number of cautions against over hasty nominations in the instructions for this page. If you make a lot of nominations which are overwhelmingly rejected, you will get frustrated and you will have wasted a lot of other peoples' time. Neither of those things will be good. Over time you will become familiar with what type of nominations might succeed. Nominating articles which are certain not to be deleted may be a breach of the policy that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but you are not guilty of that in this instance as you are new. CalJW 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep! How strong? I've managed to show up to vote on this despite having just survived a hurricane, and having neither electricity nor a working telephone. I'm posting this vote telekinetically, by sheer force of will. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (looks like this is agreeed) --ClemMcGann 22:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Big,important article.--Play Brian Moore 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The notion of a distinct Irish ethnicity is quite widely accepted; to delete this page would be a disservice to that fact.--TheMcManusBro 00:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles exist for a number of other nationalities, check out Greeks. I would argue that nationalities are constructs but I recognise that still doesn't stop people believing in them. The present article, though, needs some revising. The Greek article could serve as a model, as as with the Irish, there are substantial numbers of Greeks living outside of Greece and that was always the case. --Damac 09:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep - by comparison with other given articles above, this should stay. Alf 15:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaskus

The forum is not famous. A forum should not be listed as an article on wikipedia Kontrovert 13:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see why, we should let it stay, all things should be on Wikipedia for then it will become an Encyclopedia of Everything. Tim 13:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 100,000+ members is good enough for me (and WP:WEB). Alf 14:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, badly written. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and leave on cleanup. Alexa rank of 6235. —Cryptic (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and cleanup. --Apostrophe 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 'not famous' is not a criteria for deletion. Trollderella 09:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED to Shankar Dayal Sharma. -Splash 02:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma

Page already exists Shankar Dayal Sharma. Normally we would ask this page to be merged with the target but in this case the page in question has negligibly new information to be worthy of a merge. Hence the vfd. Manik Raina 14:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shankar Dayal Sharma would surely be the obvious solution? Halo 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect speedily. No need for a WP:PFD — be WP:BOLD! Pburka 15:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect is fine by me. Alf 19:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to redirect .. Thanks, Manik Raina 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, for above reasons. --Bhadani 14:35, 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 KEEP. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Linton Roberson

I'm of two minds. It's all verifiable, I've pulled an extensive edit on the page, but it still has that smell of vanity. I'm not sure if the published work for eros is notable, the e-book isn't a major publication that set the world alight, he's not currently a huge name in comics, and so I bring it here. Hiding talk 14:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's really nothing here, just self-publication and "e-books", neither of which indicate an encyclopedic level of success as an author. CDC (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've left a message on List of cartoonists talk page (which, for some reason is the target of the Cartoonist talk page redirect, {whatever}), pointing here. comment by User:Wiki alf.
• Keep - Is the Wiki Comics Project about being completist or being a hall of fame? If being self-published disqualified you from being considered a professional cartoonist, many alternative cartoonists would be disqualified. Self-publishing is very common in comics, and Roberson has published others under his imprint too, and has been working in the field for close to a decade. I would also add that the comics references in Wikipedia are, in general, at present biased heavily toward mainstream comics with far less on alternative creators. Is this an oversight or reflective of a prejudice against non-mainstream cartoonists? Just because he hasn't worked for Marvel or DC doesn't mean he isn't a cartoonist, and incidentally, why has the stub reference been removed? I vote against deletion. gilesgoat talk 16:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's not the self publishing that excludes Roberson, see my statement above for my reasoning. I removed the stub template because the article is not a stub, it's a fairly decent article given the subject. I don't think he'd need to have worked for Marvel or DC, but I don't think the body of work he has produced at present deems him worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Feel free to prove me wrong. I tend to see Wikipedia as falling in between completist and hall of fame. And to be honest, if all you need to be to be a professional cartoonist is a self-published one, then I need to change my job description, having also self published comics. I think the description professional cartoonist means one earns one living at it. And look, if one does the old google test we get 56 hits. That's not huge is it? Hiding talk 21:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This guy seems notable enough for me, has longevity, and his self-publication is definitely not of the vanity kind. Requiring cartoonists earn a living from cartooning would exclude a very large number of people wiki covers. Sdedeo 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most cartoonists not working for the majors don't make a living at it. It's the work that matters. Roberson did a 252-page graphic novel, still works in the field, and is a very active presence in the comics community. And if you had done a google search under his full name, which he always goes by(because there's a lot of Robersons, after all), you'd have found a lot more hits Also, there are a lot of alternative cartoonists who turn up fewer hits because they have no web presence. The e-book in contention, incidentally, got a lot of notice within the community and included about 30 very notable people, as it was a benefit for EPICURUS and JOURNEY creator Bill Loebs. It wasn't a small thing. According to the info on it, it was done as an e-book only to minimize expense so LOebs would get most of the money.- gilesgoat talk 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment, You know, I half suspect you're John himself. I googled the way I did to reduce chaff, your search is a lot less specific. I do however appreciate everything you say, but, I still want the community to decide, is this entry and person of encyclopedic quality. As to Roberson being active in the comics community, how so do you mean? Hiding talk 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nope, I'm not, but I am very familiar with his work. I question too the misapprehension that self-publishing is vanity in comics. It's very, very common in that field. As far as how active he is, I see him commenting on issues in comics all the time in various places and he's much more prolific than you might think. I dunno. But excluding him because he self-published PLASTIC is silly. It's not the scale, it's the work, and he's produced a lot of work and still does. And why does work on Eros count against him? I've seen it, it's good. Dirty but good. gilesgoat talk 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I have made no link between vanity and self publishing. I am suggesting the article is a vanity article. I am excluding him for having a lack of impact on the comics field. Hiding talk 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How is it a vanity article if he didn't write it himself? All the info in it--and the original entry it was whittled down from--was drawn from stuff already on the web that I'd seen before, for my own part. gilesgoat talk 22:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was created by an anon, so it isn't provable that he didn't write it himself. Second, all the information in the article isn't verifiable on the web. I could not find his birth date listed anywhere on the web, and would suggest this information is the sort of thing only the person in question is likely to know. I removed most pieces of information I was unable to source, please compare this edit to the current one. No sources for most of the information were given, so are unverifiable. Hiding talk 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All I know is that I've seen that information before, as well as the picture, which I've seen at least a year back on his writers.net profile. I've made as much of a case as I can. As far as I can tell the main reason for removing him seems to be that he's not as well-known as some. To me that's not a legitimate reason, but that's my opinion. I may seem partisan but I go way back as a fan of his--I was a subscriber to PLASTIC.

Incidentally, just thought I should add: there seems to be a misunderstanding about PLASTIC now that its back issues are at Ebookopolis. It used to be a print publication when "Vitriol" was being serialized. The last issue he printed, no. 8, I received in 2001. So in fact he's only done one thing, WORKING FOR THE MAN(which he organized almost by himself) that was an e-book from the get-go. Also, his work was printed in Danny Hellman's LEGAL ACTION COMICS, and one of the pieces he contributed to in WFTM was written by Terry Gilliam collaborator(writer of the JABBERWOCKY film and former HELP editor) Charles Alverson. So this guy has worked with some notable people, and the fact he was able to get so many famous pros on what I recall as short notice for WFTM indicates influence and presence in the comics community, seems to me.gilesgoat talk 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - does not seem to fit deletion criteria. Trollderella 09:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewritten page. I looked at this page a couple of months ago and it was full of Roberson vanity, clearly written by the subject himself and bursting at the seams with grandiose and unverifiable qualitative statements (Roberson inspired by Stanley Kubrick and other such rubbish). Kudos to Hiding for his rewrite--this is a now an encyclopedic article. Quale 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep John Roberson is a Fantagraphics-published cartoonist.
• Keep I have no objection to the current version of this article. Alf 15:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Everything

It doesn't feel right. I think it's making a claim I haven't heard before, and I think it's POV. I also suspect a hoax, a crystal ball and a point. I'm probably dull and boring too, but so be it. I'll rise to the bait. Hiding talk 14:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any references which indicate that this idea has been discussed outside of the article in question, making it original research. Besides, Gödel's incompleteness theorem makes such an encyclopedia impossible, since it could not possibly describe itself in complete detail. Pburka 15:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pburka --TimPope 15:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created the article, no, there wasn't any research behind it, no, it isn't a widely accepted idea. But why not create the idea ourselves, and make our own phrase, or own sentiment? If we all added parts to it, it could become a good principle. Tim 18:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR per author. Sdedeo 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Personal essay, original research. Or, redirect to Internet Archive; if we assume that Encyclopedia of Everything is not meant literally (and therefore not subject to Pburka's objection), I don't see much difference between this proposal and what the Internet Archive is project is actually trying to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Tim's verification that the information is original research. Zoe 22:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• This is an opinion piece, such as it is. Redirect to Everything2, which seems to want the job. Denni☯ 22:16, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Delete original research - Wiki isn't the place to create ideas :) Ziggurat 22:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. I've also just removed it's main inward link, which was an assertion on Wikipedia:About that this is what Wikipedia aims to be - which I don't think is really true, as Wikipedia has been careful to define what it is, and what it will exclude. - IMSoP 12:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pearl 'n' Mearl

I can't find any outside verification of this comic. Joyous (talk) 15:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Mouton

This article needs too much work to live. At a minimum it should discuss or at least list all the proposed units, relate them to the earlier units they correspond to and the later units that adopted the concept, speak to why its decimal and related to an arc of the earths great circle, who Mouton was involved with as regards his astronomy, what problems he worked on as a mathematician, how his contemporaries received his ideas and what the connection is to measurements of the earth and the metric system.Rktect 21:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know if having once tagged it I'm allowed to untag it, but I went into the article and, despite that it took some work, corrected some of the more glaring mistakes such as those regarding Mouton and the second pendulum using "Klein World of Measurement" and then added Klein as a reference.Rktect 18:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)