Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 5

September 5

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; closing old discussion. Renata 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Template:Lang-pl"

Nonsence. Just a link to an article on Poland. No earlier version to revert to. Banana04131 21:47, 5 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 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 deleted already. Woohookitty 11:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

KHAMISA

Seems to be about a store in Tanzania. gren グレン 23:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. Jobe6 00:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. Carioca 01:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, 104 googles (none of which seem to relate to this article). Jaxl | talk 01:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like nonsense Cyclone49 05:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Advertising. Once the praise and fluff is removed, you've got nothing left. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is SPAM! It is just a bunch of nonsense. SFrank85 19:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. -- WB 21:04, September 5, 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 11:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Syria

Appears to be a hoax. The external link is a wargaming site describing a match. -- Kirill Lokshin 00:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Hoax. Battle from a game being portrayed as a hystorical battle. Nezu Chiza 00:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nezu. Jobe6 00:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Jaxl | talk 01:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There were battles between the Romans and various peoples in modern-day Syria over grain, but, of course, this "article" isn't about any of that. It's just more evidence that people need to go outside to play more often. Geogre 03:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Any battles that actually happened, probably have another name. If kept, the gaming link needs to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No encyclopedic sources provided. Amren ^(talk) 16:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks so real though. -- WB 21:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with Nezu Chiza and Geogre. However, disagreeing with Geogre, I assert that people need to go inside to play more often; wargames and other strategy games are useful methods to learn about historical conflicts, if the players have enough sense to avoid treating their gaming as real history or as encyclopedic content. Barno 15:17, 6 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 delete. Woohookitty 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-24

Listed as a speedy candidate for being incorrect/a hoax. It should be turned into a redirect if kept, but do we want to keep it at all? --fvw* 00:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete since this probably doesn't exist (no relevant Google hits at all). - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 01:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The proper target is not likely to be sought by this way, so a redirect would be low yield, and there's nothing here to keep. Geogre 03:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A redirect is not useful since sources (which are few) disagree as to what aircraft the designation actually refers to. --MCB 05:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Seems like Tu-126 was going to be designated as 24... 126 article is yet to be created though... -- WB 21:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Create Tupolev Tu-126 and redirect this title there. Barno 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Right now, Tupolev Tu-126 is a redirect itself, to Tupolev Tu-114; that would just be a double-redirect, and make no sense to someone typing it in. --Icelight 16:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy del mikka (t) 02:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Vivephilia

Obscure neologism, previously deleted NeilN 00:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism even by the creator and its been deleted many times before here. Jobe6 00:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been deleted already, but I have reworked it to make more sense. If anyone is planning to "speedy" it on the mere record of its past deletions, I would urge them to look through it as it is now. If they still think it is not valid, I would prefer it be sent to the "Deleted Jokes" section. But, to be quite honest, I don't know anything about these other deletions. As far as I knew, it was a one-shot thing (till now)... Of course, they go to show that it has been considered more times, by more than a single person. I must also point out that, as a neologism, it opens the language to an entirely new species of individual. Whatever you might say of it, I still contest that it is a useful word. Scoff if you will; it can't be denied. Whoever sees it as nonsense, with its new material, can't have much more than sour prejudice against the article. I rest my case. WAS 00:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment See Wikipedia:Neologism --NeilN 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Recreating previously deleted article is grounds for immediate deletion. This is a pointless neologism and just plain stupid. DreamGuy 01:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• speedy deleted original research voted for deletion. mikka (t) 02:41, 5 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 No consensus. However, as the split was between delete completely and redirect without merging, I will make a redirect myself. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Drug therapy

Contains nothing but illogical dietary advice for pregnant women; has nothing to do with drug therapy. 148.78.243.51 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• At the moment, this is worthy of deletion. As there are a couple of articles link to this and there could be potential for an encyclopedia article on this topic, I would vote to keep a decent stub on this topic. Capitalistroadster 01:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this can be cleaned up. I agree with Capitalistroadster that this could be an encyclopedic topic, but should not be kept in its present state. Jaxl | talk 02:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Capitalroadster has made some amazing saves in the past, but I think efforts here would be useless. The topic is far, far too broad, as it equates to, essentially, "Medicine." Perhaps a redirect without merge to Medicine or Pharmacology would be ok, but anything else would be duplicate material. Geogre 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten, although I'm not as pessimistic as Geogre about the odds on that. Meelar (talk) 06:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete currently article and turn into a redirect to Pharmacology as suggested above. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with reasons given above. Amren ^(talk) 16:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hi there. "Drug therapy" is not just encyclopedic, properly done it's an encyclopedia. Geogre is absolutely right. However, I think the page may serve as a useful redirect, so I'm voting for that. Of the possible articles to which this can be redirected, the most appropriate is Pharmacology. Drug concerns not just substances used therapeutically, but for other purposes as well; Therapeutics is a redirect (to Medicine), and Medicine of course concerns all sorts of things aside from pharmacotherapy. My vote: blank contents and redirect to Pharmacology.—encephalon^{έγκέφαλος}  18:48:58, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Rewrite/keep It could be useful if rewritten. However, the current state seems terrible... -- WB 21:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to pharmacology sounds sensible. Flowerparty 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to an article that actually covers the topic of drug therapy. Pharmacology sounds like a good one to me, too. --Icarus 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect without merging. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:53, 11 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.

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hanukkah bush

Note: This was re-nominated for deletion on 2 October 2005, having previously been nominated on 5 September and kept. Technical errors in the nomination process made it appear that this discussion was closed, possibly discouraging participation. Therefore I have re-listed it in the 3 October log to give people a chance to see the discussion in this revised form, without the "discussion closed" notice. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete immediately It is suggested that this page be either deleted or I will move it to "Jewish Christmas Tree", because of the simple fact that it is a neologism and should be removed in accordance with WP:POINT. It is offensive to both Christians and Jews alike considering that it is a ripoff of the traditionally Christian decoration of a tree at December. Jordain 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because none of the nominator's reasons are valid. In detail: Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. It's not a neologism, the term being in widespread and frequent use for decades as shown by the source citations on the page.
2. The Christmas tree is not "traditionally Christian." As far as I know, Christmas trees are not mentioned in the New Testament. If I'm wrong, please provide a citation. Our article on Christmas trees discusses this in detail and suggests that the practice either originated as a pagan custom, or as a nonreligious celebration originating in 18th-century Germany (which was objected to by at least one priest specifically as not being Christian).
3. Even if it were considered offensive, the appropriate remedy would not be to delete the article, but make sure the article is neutral, by providing proper, well-sourced material showing to whom it is considered offensive. The article already addresses the differences of opinions between Jews in some detail. I am not aware of any widespread objections by Christians, but if there are, please provide properly sourced commentary for inclusion in the article.
4. I don't see how WP:POINT applies, because nothing the actions and procedures surrounding this article were disruptive to Wikipedia.
5. The article was discussed in AfD very recently. In its present form, it received fourteen keep votes and no delete votes. (For some reason Jordain did not vote in the first AfD, even though it is clear he or she was aware of the article.) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• It should not be moved to "Jewish Christmas tree" for the following reasons. Unlike Hanukkah bush, "Jewish Christmas tree" is a neologism. This term is not used to any appreciable extent. Our naming conventions call for the use of the most common term; this is "Hanukkah bush," not "Jewish Christmas tree." This specific question of whether the article should be entitled Talk:Hanukkah bush on whether the article title should be Hanukkah bush or Jewish Christmas Tree resulted in four fairly strong opinions, all to the effect that it should remain at Hanukkah bush, and no dissenting opinions. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Valid informative and encyclopedic article on commonly used term/object. Nomination is another WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The only WP:POINT I see here is Jordain's AfD nomination. Sorry, but you can't delete something just because the idea is offensive to you. If that were the case Wikipedia would comprise one article and it would be about something totally generic like clay. As for the article itself, I am judging it on its current incarnation. A quick look around the internet shows that there are a few examples of a Hanukkah bush in the manner it is described in the article... enough that I'm willing to let it stand for now, though it is scraping the edge of non-notability. I'd also recommend a cleanup tag as the article could be written a bit better.--Isotope23 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I, for one, find clay offensive. ;-) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I knew that statement would bring out the gloiophobes (or would that be pelophobe?) :) --Isotope23 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought Clay was intentionally offensive. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep good articles about marginal subjects, and anyway I have heard of this before. We do not delete articles because they are offensive. — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Jayjg .Carioca 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Clear Keep; [[User:Jordain|Jordain]'s use of AfD is disruptive verging on vandalism. Dottore So 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Dpbsmith. The fact that some people may be offended by the existence of Hanukkah bushes does not mean that they would necessarily be offended by an article about them provided it is written in a fair and factual way, although User:Jordain may disagree. Do not move; "Hanukkah bush" is the common term for this item. --Metropolitan90 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please do not relist this we already discussed it Yuckfoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per previous vote. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Hannukah Harry needs a place to string those blue and white lights! -- BD2412 ^talk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep with extreme prejudice. This AfD is absurd and should be removed as soon as possible. How many times do we have to vote on an article before the results are excepted. AfD is not about voting on the same article over and over again until a deletionist gets the result he/she wants.--Nicodemus75 00:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per everything already said. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong & Speedy Keep. The nominator is simply ill-informed, and the issue was decided less than a month ago. MCB 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep. nomination and nominator are ridiculous. ericg ✈ 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even though the idea might be offensive to some Jews (especially Orthodox), it is common and accepted by many Reform Jews. Furthermore, it has been rewritten. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep User:Jordain has demonstrated at the AfD for Terminology alteration a pronouncedly obvious POV agenda. AfD is virtually groundless. Xoloz 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep (but cleanup). Do not re-name to "Jewish Christmas tree" (which really would be a neologism and a violation of WP:POINT). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per Nicodemus75, MCB, and Angr. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:24:25 Z
• Speedy Keep for the same reason I commented that this is real concept the last time. Crypticfirefly 03:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE POST VOTES ABOVE THE FOLLOWING CLOSED DISCUSSION

Closed discussion from 5 September nomination of Hanukkah bush

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 11:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

History Forum

Non-notable website. CHAIRBOY 01:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. CHAIRBOY 01:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Jobe6 02:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable, Alexa rank >2,000,000. Jaxl | talk 02:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete forum vanity. Mindmatrix 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. -- WB 21:20, September 5, 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. -~~ N (t/c) 18:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Computer anxiety

Looks like someone's research paper NeilN 02:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete anyone wanna check for a copy vio? Jobe6 02:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Can't seem to find one, but delete anyway. Original research. Googling "computer anxiety" does get 16,100 hits, though, but none of them are associated with the iPod. Jaxl | talk 02:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A dump from some other source at the least. However, the title is one thing, and the body is a product review. Borderline hijacking. Geogre 03:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I found that one of the paragraphs is a cut and paste from this site: [1], so there's one copyright violated. Jaxl | talk 03:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, book vanity, at least partial copyvio and most of it is a POV form of information we've already got in iPod and related articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete poorly formatted original research. Mindmatrix 14:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't understand what they were talking about until halfway through the article. This may indeed be a valid topic, but it is (as has been said above) original research and I don't see it going anywhere. Amren ^(talk) 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Good grief. Delete.—encephalon^{έγκέφαλος}  18:51:42, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Delete -- WB 21:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. Can't find a copyvio, alas. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:07, 5 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 Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

G4 Forums

My crusade against cruft continues. Karmafist 02:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Preach on, brother Karmafist. Can I get a Hallelujah? Nandesuka 05:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hallelujah! :-) Karmafist 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank for g4tv.com: 3,100 so g4tv.com may warrant an article, but the forum is not notable on its own and contains largely non-encyclopedic information and vanity by its visitors. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, now that I've seen the article on the site exists. Merge a heavily condensed version of anything mergeable into the main site's article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomin. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- WB 21:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - As of 6pm EST, 9/5/05, the page is being redone, and now provides factual information concerning the communities of both G4 and Tech TV. all of the redundancy and personal shoutouts have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.127.60 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Authored by a Bush Vandal. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment - there were several original authors before i came and redid the article, removing most of what they wrote. the above unsigned comment is also myself, i just created an account. Chmielowiec

• Merge new article with the stub G4tv.com. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:49, 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.

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 no consensus to delete. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Albanian mafia

User:82.35.34.24 who created this article regularly vandalises pages, in particular Albanian related pages. The article contains no useful information other than an opinion of the user that wrote it. He even allows himself to claim, without any proof or reference, that mafia "more or less controlles the Albanian Government"/ Kosovar 02:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. This article needs a cleanup. There are reliable sources on the activities of the Albanian mafia see for example this BBC News story on the involvement of the Albanian mafia in people smuggling see [2]. There are 12,300 items returned for a Google search on the Albanian mafia claiming that they are involved in the drug trade. [3] Capitalistroadster 03:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at some point it makes sense for Albanian ot have an organized crime problem. Klonimus 09:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified rather than unverifiable, so a few external links and a NPOV rewrite might save it. --jet57 (u∴t) 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 13:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Every country that ever existed in the world has had or has problems with crime and criminals. Albania and Albanians are no exception. The article contains no specific information, no references, or anything else other than the hate and the point of view of the author who wrte it. -- 81.77.228.235 16:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This anon-spawned item looks like an attack article. Delete it on general principles. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on the Albanian Mafia, let them start from a clean slate rather than from something that seems to originate in bad faith. Nandesuka 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Resurrect only if someone shows references. Peter ^Isotalo 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think I've definitely saved this based on Capitalist's links. Marskell 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but could always use more sources. Having an article on the "Albanian mafia" is no more prejudicial than having one on the Russian mafia or the Triads. Sdedeo 19:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep could be useful if rewritten. -- WB 21:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep BBC reference proves existence. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:54, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. However, the split was between delete outright and redirect without merging, so I will do the redirect myself, after moving the page to the proper spelling (9/11 intelligence failures). Anyone believing there is salvagable content should feel free to Be bold and merge what they can from into 9/11 commission report, per consensus on this page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 Intelligence Failures

This is poorly unified and the information can easily be found elsewhere. (see 9/11 commission report, Summary of 9/11 Commission Report, and Central Intelligence Agency). We don't need another redundant article on a major topic with a POV tag on it forever. Voice of All(MTG) 03:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This should be properly capitalized and redirected to 9/11 commission report. Voice of All(MTG) 03:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot see how an NPOV article could be created under this title. Physchim62 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 9/11 commission report. --Apyule 07:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to proper capitalization (9/11 intelligence failures) before redirecting and delete the incorrectly capitalized version once the history is empty. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article as it became clear that Able Danger is really only one incident in this larger topic. Even if Able Danger is proved entirely false this does not invalidate Ashcrofts assertions about 'the wall', nor does invalidating the wall disprove Able Danger. It is universally accepted in the intelligence community that 9/11 indicates some sort of intelligence failure, possibly multiple failures. Discussing one incident in isolation necessarily leads to a POV article. --Gorgonzilla 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually now I remember the original idea was to find a more neutral location to put an extended discussion of the intelligence issues being raised in the able danger article, however it now appears that the individual raising the issue is actually a paid political consultant who makes similarly bizare POV edits to large numbers of articles involving political controversy so there is no point whatsoever in attempting any form of dialogue.--Gorgonzilla 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge any non-duplicated content into 9/11 commission report or Summary of 9/11 Commission Report. Robert McClenon 00:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with redirect to 9/11 commission report. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:39, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to 9/11 comission report; include section in latter article along the lines of "Alleged failures not included in the report". Was Able Danger in the 9/11 report? In any case, there is a place for this information. Sdedeo 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to 9/11 commission report -- WB 21:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - inherently POV. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Covered better elsewhere. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any non-duplicated material can be merged into other articles. Robert McClenon 00:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pertinent information regarding those events.Kiwidude 17:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Any relavent non-repeasted info can be added to '9/11 commission report'.Voice of All (talk) 18:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. ~~ N (t/c) 18:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Mass Murder Records

• del. nonnotable or hoax. mikka (t) 03:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete Sure, Google isn't the be all and end all, but if the bands signed to this label really are "widely acclaimed", you'd expect to get some hits... CLW 05:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable--Shanel 05:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CLW. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Jobe6 13:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.-- WB 21:23, September 5, 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. ~~ N (t/c) 19:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

BoredAtWork.com

Pure advertisement and openly vanity. No encyclopedic content, no evidence of notability. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. A little low on Google hits (only 1,840), and the site's Alexa rank >170,000. Jaxl | talk 03:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, vanity, NN. MCB 06:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatantly non-encyclopedic vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity spam. Jobe6 13:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Mindmatrix 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Amren ^(talk) 16:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam -- WB 21:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - advertising a non-notable web site. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:09, 5 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 No consensus. Moved page to Pascal Costanza. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Pascal_Constanza

Looks like a vanity article about a person who does not fulfill the notability criteria 128.119.232.69 19:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a lisper. This guy is notable in his field. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am relisting this article. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I've asked Tony for additional information on Pascal. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know him mainly through a very influential introduction to Lisp. He's a researcher with a number of interesting projects, and I think we might put him relatively high on the scale of notability mainly because he has co-organized international workshops and conferences; for instance he was one of the organizers of ECOOP 2005 (European Conference on Object Oriented Programming) at Glasgow as well as delivering workshops and papers at that event. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major figures in the field of a certain programming language are encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The article title is wrong, as it should be Pascal Costanza. I'm somewhat familiar with Costanza from reading his postings in c.l.l. and c.l.s., but I'm not convinced that it's accurate to characterize him as a major figure in the field of a certain programming language. Right off the top of my head I can think of two dozen or more lispers who are more much more notable. Although I love lisp and this is certainly not an attack on Costanza, I'm not sure that lispers that far down the totem pole are encyclopedically notable. Lisp is over 45 years old so it's harder to become notable for it now than it was for work in the 1960s through 1980s. Quale 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A review and a presentation do not establish notability. Pilatus 15:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we treated this analogously to WP:PROF, I think he fails the sniff test. I'd say delete without prejudice for resubmission at some later date when he is well-known beyond the Usenet pond. His CV indicates some good research, but nothing that rises beyond the level of thousands of other CS PhD's. His research may yet yield fruit that is truly notable, and we should welcome him with open arms when he publishes it and is recognized for it. Not yet. Nandesuka 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Nandesuka. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nandesuka. Does not meet the "professor test". MCB 19:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony, but the article needs to be improved and expanded. I confess to being a LISP fanatic myself. Sdedeo 19:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep title is wrong, yet, you might be able to expand on this a lot. WB 21:34, 5 September 2005
• Keep and move - to Pascal Constanza. Notable in his field. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a humanities prof with a similar level of exposure people would be deleting. Maybe that shouldn't be the case but we need at least to be consistent. Marskell 08:28, 8 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 KEEP as rewritten by User:Uncle G. I'm changing it into a disambig page. — JIP | Talk 04:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul carpenter

Sorry, I can't find any verifiable evidence that this person is notable. The claims of "several full length feature films" might do the job, if they were actually released by a legitimate moviemaker, but they aren't named here, and IMDB can't find any sign of them. The rest of the named activities are definitely not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of certifying moviemakers as legitimate. But, the article needs sources. Sdedeo 20:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (see below)
  • Maybe I should have said notable moviemaker. That was a hypothetical point anyway - the main problem with this article is that I can't find any evidence of these movies - maybe I'm missing something. This article looks like self-promotion. CDC (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi CDC, yes, it looks like you're right. There is a famous actor called Paul Carpenter, but his latest movie credit was before this guy was born. I couldn't find any references to movies even on his own home page. Delete. Sdedeo 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A quick Google comes up with Paul Carpenter as an actor as per Sdedeo and a baseballer who played one season for the Pittsburgh Pirates back in 1916. One season of baseball is marginal but perhaps we could have this as a disambiguation page. This bloke claims to have been an American Idol contestant but there seems to be little verifiable evidence that I could find for the claim. If he was on American Idol, he could be directed to the article for the season. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• If he was an American Idol contestant, he didn't even make it past the first auditions, otherwise American Wikipedians would've recognized his name, I think. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am relisting this to gather more consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article doesn't establish that subject meets WP:BIO. Quale 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No verifiable evidence of meeting WP:Bio. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep uncle G's rewrite. Capitalistroadster 12:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• This person's home page is empty, containing no actual ordinary HTML content at all, and a Google Web search reveals that he is simply a magician for hire in Houston and little more. Therefore, for your discussion pleasure, I've done a Complete Rewrite about the actor and the baseball player mentioned above. Uncle G 09:08:32, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

• Always great to have a good article on legitimate targets, but, um, this article started life as a Geogre's Law failure (miniscule last name) and was personal spam/hoax. Again, no faulting of folks who do the saves. It's just that a new article (that wouldn't keep the deletion material in history) under the proper name would mean, essentially a "delete this" vote. Indeed, a proper article can be written with no reference to this at all, then just a redirect, and then there is no VfD debate at all -- as the nominated article has become only a redirect. Geogre 13:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Uncle Gs re-write. Jobe6 13:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a poorly formatted disambig about two extremely non-notable people. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like a hoax to me.---CH (talk) 09:05, 12 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.

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 --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

David Kohler

Advertising. Also, this David Kohler does not seem particularly notable. Eddie.willers 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Quale 09:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Geogre 13:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an ad. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious adspam by a collector who mistook Wikipedia for Ebay.---CH (talk) 02:49, 12 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 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. ~~ N (t/c) 19:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Russian Dumbass

vanity, no data on Alexa NeilN 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Please check the history and make sure none of the votes have been tampered with. --NeilN 10:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, vanity. Zoe 04:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity abakharev 04:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no comment. KNewman 12:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, anybody can make a stupid skate video. Jobe6 13:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds amazing -_-, but it's still non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment reverted blanking of this page by 24.163.65.156 --NeilN 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I'd be inclined to keep it as an example of natural selection ;) --Kennyisinvisible 23:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like vanity and no Google hits besides its own site. Or people saying, "It's in Russian, Dumbass." --DanielCD 21:32, 9 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 Speedy deletion of previosly deleted material. Lucky 6.9 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No jive

Band vanity NeilN 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yet another example of why stuff like this should be shot on sight. Delete with extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 04:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Never mind. I thought this looked familiar. It's already been deleted twice. Gone. - Lucky 6.9 04:51, 5 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 KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 19:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles Beall

Charles 'Chip' Beall may be notable as a former quiz show winner from 20 years ago but I doubt it. The site this article links to is pure advertising. Eddie.willers 04:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite with NPOV and remove advertising. Arevich 21:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have rewritten the article to remove advertising. The subject is referenced in the National Academic Championship page. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:00, 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 Merge. Note: The decision was to keep the information, but not in its present form. Feel free to be bold and perform the merge into Belgian Third Division, per consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Belgian Third Division Playoff

Well, we are deleting Swedish 3rd division player bio-stubs so what makes the Belgian 3rd division any more notable? Eddie.willers 04:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel the text should be moved to the main article Belgian Third Division...Julien Tuerlinckx 09:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is clearly far more notable than an individual player at this level. Wikipedia has many articles about sports competitions at this sort of level. Calsicol 14:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or possibly keep. This is information on the structure of the competition, which should be included somewhere. The question is whether it is separate/complicated enough to have an article of its own JPD 15:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sportscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Real and verifiable. Under what part of the deletion policy do you propose that this be deleted? Keep. Guettarda 23:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Real and verifiable" is so not a criteria for inclusion and never has been. It could be used to motivate keeping anything that isn't an outright lie. The issue is non-notability. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Real, verifiable, trivial sportscruft. Delete or merge one or two sentences into Belgian football or some such. We don't need separate articles on playoff systems or promotion/relegation systems for every nation, let alone each level, nor do we need each year's full results. WP:NOT. Barno 15:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't need articles about Star Trek either, but we have articles on each episode (and some rather good ones too). Wikipedia is not paper. Guettarda 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Belgian Third Division. Sam Vimes 11:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Belgian Third Division. Qwghlm 18:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Sam Vines, etc.... Dottore So 01:30, 9 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.

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 --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Dr. aemon malone

Hoax article. - choster 04:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be so quick to judge. There does seem to be several working external links with mentions of Dr. Malone and several edits. sluxer 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, "Sluxer" doesn't seem to exist - the user who left this comment is one of the two that worked on the original article. The other user who worked on this article has an ISP which only differs by one digit. Please draw your own conclusions! CLW 05:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The above is by 130.195.86.37 (talk · contribs). Zoe 04:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense, hoax. Zoe 04:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are three Google hits for "Aemon Malone". One is from his high school, one mentions his being a senior at the University of Virginia. Want his phone number? It's there. Zoe 04:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

If the "holy google" says so, than we definitely should give this up.

The above comment was left by the "other" user who had worked on the "Dr. aemon malone" article (see my comments above)... CLW 05:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Of course, Google isn't the final authority on all matters, but if "Dr" Malone really is notable, you'd expect more than two hits. Similarly, if "College: The Scenic Route" truly had brought him "widespread fame", you'd expect some hits. The "achievements" are mostly nonsense, so nothing to suggest notable. The inclusion of "rumours of [his] sexual orientation" reeks of a hoax/prank entry. CLW 05:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you check the history and read his "Banneker Elementary" (yet to be added to Wikisource) you would find there is some basis for this comment relating to his sexual endeavours.
  • I do wonder why an IP from New Zealand is writing this nonsense about some University of Virginia senior. Although now that it's fall, he's probably graduated, unless he's spending all of his time writing encyclopedia hoaxes. Zoe 19:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable as per WP:Bio, possible hoax. Capitalistroadster 06:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable. --Apyule 07:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Sophomoric prank. You'd figure, with all his fame and accomplishments, the doctor would have gotten a shift key, too. Unverifiable because childishness. Geogre 13:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable hoax. Jobe6 13:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and Jacob

Confused original research, non-encyclopedic topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not clear what the author was getting at, but the page's name seems fairly useless. Flowerparty 06:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the content could become part of the Gospel of the Hebrews article, but I don't see any need for an article about these two as a pair. -Acjelen 06:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, any discussion should be at Gospel of the Hebrews, but since this is unreferenced research, there is nothing to be gained by a merge. --Doc (?) 09:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of encyclopedic significance. Barno 15:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a confused fragment that wants to say something about something Jerome states he read in the Gospel of the Hebrews. (A little poking around will find the passage over at Wikisource.) The use of idiosyncratic forms of Jesus ("Yeshua"), & James ("Jacob") only adds to the confusion. If this were better written, I'd say merge what's there with James the Just; but nothing links to this, so let's just pretend it was never written & remove it. -- llywrch 00:28, 7 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 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Projekt Horizont

An incomplete expedition isn't sufficiently notable (may become so if completed?). Also, the ending of the article looks like vanity to me. CLW 05:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Reserved This is a difficult one. It's not easy to verify, but if it can be, it is probably worthy of inclusion. --Apyule 07:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

But is it really worthy of inclusion before the actual expedition has been completed? CLW

Well, to me this is more about being able to verify its existence than worthiness at this stage. --Apyule 02:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• A private expedition with no stated goals looks much like vanity to me, so delete Pilatus 14:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eitelkeit. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article can be rewritten if and when the expedition is completed. -- Kjkolb 05:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The subject of the article is real (ie: not hoax). From the provided website, it appears that the expedition did receive some news coverage (ie: more than 20 different media organzations - hence at least some third party deemed it to be "interesting"). I agree, though, that the end of the article seems vanity - which suggest it to be tag for NPOV or for cleanup. --Hurricane111 13:56, 10 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.

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 --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Edward_Tang

Blatant Vanity page Closedmouth 05:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, nn-bio. MCB 05:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• CSD for a few reasons. --Apyule 07:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 18:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• USERFY 132.205.95.68 20:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• CSD per "use a method called 'De-Canadianization' to get the 'Canadian stink off those bastards'" attack on Canadians. --maclean25 20:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity
  • Vote by user:Hillman - Zhatt 18:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zhatt 18:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 no consensus to delete --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Queen Street Bus Terminal

nn bus terminal --Aranda56 05:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's a bus terminal. Not every single thing that exists in Singapore deserves an article. Zoe 05:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Informative, Category:Bus stations is well established. Nominator should get out more. Charles Matthews 07:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. We've got scores of Metro and bus station articles from other countries, so just because this is from Singapore is no valid reason to delete it. It could use a cleanup though. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A bus terminal with only one bus line is little more than a bus stop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think it should go because it's in Singapore, that wasn't the original reason for nomination. It's because it's verging on the trite. Category:Bus stations may be all very well, but that doesn't mean that every single bus station in the world needs to go on there. Barking and Catford Bus Garages and Willesden Depot are missing from London, for a start. Where would it end? Peeper 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It is an International bus and provides one of the links to Malaysia. Stamford spiney 09:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, international bus. Kappa 09:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps I'm missing a policy here, but this doesn't seem any more notable than any other feature, building, shop or flowerbed I happen to pass by in the street. If there are other articles about bus stations that also have absolutely no encyclopaedic information whatsoever, I say delete them too. --Last Malthusian 10:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Further to that, I don't even see how it could be 'expanded' as the stub bit requests. It's a bus stop - what more is there to say? Average queuing times? Famous people that used to get on the bus there? Whether it smells of urine or not? Last Malthusian 10:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, now I'm imagining Category:South Asian bus stops that smell of urine as a featured category in Kappapedia. Nandesuka 13:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not a bus stop it is a bus station or terminus. There are two other Queen Street bus stations on Wiki already, as weel as countless others, including the entire system in Perth, Australia, which includes Park and Rides bus stops. I thought Wiki should be all inclusive (ie as a paperless work, it can be exhaustive in scope). Stamford spiney 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Wikipedia is not paper" does not mean that useful, encyclopedic information can not be overwhelmed and diluted by the presence of unencyclopedic trivia. One of our responsibilities as editors is not only to write material, but to use our judgment in terms of deciding whether that material makes the encyclopedia better, or just makes it bigger. Nandesuka 13:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • IMO the "dilution" argument makes no sense at all. If people look up France, they will get an article about France, not a minor article. Calsicol 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You haven't thought it through. There's the obvious dilution of "give me a random link" being more likely to return a useless stub on a dumb subject — like this one — but let's put that aside. Part of the value of an encyclopedia is in the selection and ordering of material, as well as the inclusion. Inclusion of a main article on a subject is an implicit assertion that the topic is notable. If Wikipedia becomes known as a place that asserts that random bus stations with no distinguishing characterics in Singapore are important main topics, then our credibility is diminished accordingly: we become known not as an encyclopedia, but as a garbage dump. This article is, essentially, the geographic equivalent of a dicdef. Unless there's some actual aspect of this bus station that is encyclopedic, let wikitravel or some other more appropriate site catalog it. Nandesuka 16:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, there seems to be precedent for including bus stations. If this article is kept, the other Singaporean bus articles should also be edited to include the template. — JIP | Talk 14:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly will be known to a large number of people. Calsicol 14:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• This has 32 hits on Google and is only mentioned in context with the 170 bus. Delete Pilatus 15:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How many hits should a bus station have? If somebody wants to write about, it is factual, non-opinionated, non vanity, non spam and does not breach copyright; surely it can't be doing any harm ? Stamford spiney 15:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • • It's not specially distinctive and from what I have seen appears only in the context of the bus that goes to Johor Bahru, a city not too far from Singapore. Wikipedia is not a timetable. (Victoria Coach Station, the gold standard of bus stations has 40700 Google hits, by the way.) Pilatus 15:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a friggin' bus terminal. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant bus terminal. JYolkowski // talk 18:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  19:18:47, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Delete nn --TimPope 20:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a bus terminal not a bus stop. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs. There is no reason to suppose that this one might not eventually turn out an excellent stub, but even if it doesn't it still contains useful information right now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Theresa. Is there a reason for the qualification in your first sentence? I'm just wondering because I'm unsure how your stated reasons for keeping a bus terminal/station would make a bus stop any less worthy of keeping. For example,

"Keep, it's a bus stop. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs..."

And it will always remain as a crappy stub. --Calton | Talk 00:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

If we base our decisions only on this reasoning, and not criteria such as, say, the availability of multiple independent reputable sources/studies on the subject that may be used to write an encyclopedic entry (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N), how do we decide if anything can (or should) be deleted? Why not,

• "Keep, it's a phone booth. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs..." Or even,
• "Keep, it's a public garbage can used by quite a few people. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs..."

• It's not immediately apparent to me how the above reasoning might distinguish between these (or even whether it is intended to). Perhaps we should keep them all? With best wishes,—encephalonέγκέφαλος  22:46:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• To confirm I just looked up the name of the station on the SBS website. That bus stop is really just served by exactly one line. Pilatus 23:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn ♥purplefeltangel 23:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's real and verifiable. We have articles on other bus terminals. Guettarda 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's real and verifiable -- and utterly unimportant. And a whole SERIES of articles on Singapore bus terminals? PLEASE. --Calton | Talk 00:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean as opposed to whole articles on Star Trek episodes, or separate articles on Tom Riddle and [Lord Voldemort]]? We have articles on US towns with <10 residents. Why are those important and this not? Guettarda 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite as notable as your local high school. — Phil Welch 00:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. This crappy stub -- inflated by an over-sized template devoted to a whole series of other utterly unimportant bus stops -- is longer than articles on entire CITIES. --Calton | Talk 00:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. With repect to Nandesuka,Calton, Peter and others, it is not "just a bus stop". A little research would show that it is the main departure point for bus services between Singapore and Malaysia, and huge numbers of people (in the low seven figures), including many tourists from Western countries will pass though this terminal each year. There are numerous other bus station articles, and this one has services that link two countries. Pilatus is correct but misleading - the terminus is served by one SBS Transit line, AND at least 3 other companies that run express buses between the two countries (one runs every 7 minutes from 6.30am to midnight daily). Services to other cities in Malaysia also depart from that Bus Terminal. It was built 20 years before, and is as impressive in terms of passenger volume and area served as the George Washington Bridge Bus Station, which is not up for deletion. Information that could be included, but isn't there ATM is the interesting method of clearing customs on both sides of the border (Get off bus, take belongings, bus leaves, clear customs, get on next bus, travel accross causeway, repeat). Google and ye shall find.--inks 01:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You're defending a bus terminal, dude. This is just one among thousands and doesn't add more encyclopedic information than any one of those thousands; it's non-notable buscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've clearly outlined why this is more than just "a bus terminal" - there are other entries for bus termini much less notable than this one - it follows logically that either we delete all of them, or we keep this article.--inks 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Then it's very obvious to me that pretty much all of them have to go. I don't see either guidelines nor common sense as good reasons to keep these articles around. I'm sure bus-n-road aficionados have more than enough info online about these things alreafy without having to stake a claim to Wikipedia as well. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • No problemo - but are you going to be The One Who Placeth 4000 Bus Station Articles on AfD? :D --inks 10:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Bus terminals have a place like metro stations. Besides, it is still the only terminal here to have an international public bus route for decades.--Huaiwei 11:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Intercity bus terminus. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiability, , these are objective criteria. notability is subjective and infected personal and cultural biases. If someone took the time to write it, and others take the time to defend it (unlike vanity articles) then proposed non-notability by itself isn't a reason to delete it and all these notability arguments waste everyones time. SchmuckyTheCat 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:11, 6 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was userfy to User:Zebde/Anthony Dushko-Jane. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Dushko-Jane

• Fails to establish notability - greatest claim is director of company with no article Scott Davis ^Talk 05:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Userfy - company website is not configured, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (nominator)

• Userfy earlier version and explain why it's being considered for deletion. Can anyone verify Wolodymir Dushko by the same user? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, I guess. The author/subject seems to view this VfD as an "attack" and mostly blanked the article. I reverted it.---CH (talk) 01:25, 12 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 Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lord Peter Ravenscroft

Hoax. Google is silent about this person. -- RHaworth 06:00:37, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

• Searching for Lord Ravenscroft gives more hits, but I'd still like this deleted as it's unverifiable and based on rumors. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would wager my top hat that this is a lot of old tommyrot, hey what. Peeper 09:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What a load of cobblers. Vizjim 09:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A cursory scan of genealogy sites suggests that there is no extant British hereditary peerage in any Ravenscroft family, much less a younger son with this name and career. AlexTiefling 13:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Amren ^(talk) 16:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifyable. If this gets deleted, make sure that he is removed from January 12 as well. --Apyule 01:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified (when British peerage is fully documented). From the article: "These claims have been fiercely reputed by his living family." Huh? "Repudiated" perhaps? Barno 15:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and possible hoax; I found only a mirror of this article at a (hijacked?) company website---CH (talk) 05:14, 12 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 no consensus. Note that this does not preclude anyone from being bold and merging the content themselves. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurlbut Hall

nn dormitory Prefer to Merge to List of Harvard Freshmen Dormitories or Delete --Aranda56 06:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• If anyone could group all those Hall pages i am nominating for deletion into one group I really going to apprciate that TY --Aranda56 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • With respect to grouping all together, I would point out that there are many differences between the articles because there are many differences between the buildings. Although all are now used to house freshmen at Harvard College, some have significance as historic structures or for their architecture, some are located on Harvard Yard (which has some significance in itself) and a couple are rather bland. I have expanded several of the stubs already. See Weld Hall, Grays Hall and Hollis Hall. They can be expanded further, as can some of the others. I think they should each be viewed on their own merits. -- DS1953 20:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• If you want to merge them, then go ahead. You don't need to clog up VFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this and all the others into a single page. - SimonP 15:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete or merge does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- more notable than high schools; Harvard dorms are inherently notable. (and no, I am not advocating either keeping or deleting schools...) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Ficelloguy. — Phil Welch 00:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unimportant to non-Harvard students or lovers, merge into another article. -- Kjkolb 05:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a Harvard housing article unless more evidence of individual significance is provided. I disagree with "Harvard dorms are inherently notable." Barno 15:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • These are not simply dorms. Most buildings in the Yard serve many purposes. For example, Massachusetts Hall, the oldest building at Harvard and the second oldest academic building in the U.S., houses the office of the President of the University, but also houses freshmen on its upper floors. People really need to take a look at all of the articles because they are all different. -- DS1953 19:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 06:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Pennypacker Hall

nn dormitory see above --Aranda56 06:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fails the Cornell test. Klonimus 09:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is it non-notable, but there are 32,441 other dormitories with the same name. --Quintin3265 18:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. but how are there 32,441 other dormitories? Kewp 18:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete or merge does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable about this dormitory is asserted in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- appears to be more notable than high schools (and no, I'm not advocating anything either for or against the inclusion of schools)... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Flcelloguy. — Phil Welch 00:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. Nandesuka 04:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. -- Kjkolb 05:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge like the preceding AfD. No indication of notability is even attempted except that three possibly-notable people resided there. No indication that this fact was of any significance. Barno 15:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as per my comments in other VfDs ---CH (talk) 06:13, 12 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 REDIRECTED by User:MCB. — JIP | Talk 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

3C2X1 Tech Control

Merge/redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. Wikipedia does not need to cover every AFSC/MOS/Rating; this can be listified in the AFSC article, if it isn't already. MCB 06:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}}. Merges don't have to go through vfd. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 06:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I nom'd for deletion before I saw that AFSC existed. Good reminder. MCB 07:00, 5 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.

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 no consensus to delete (just about 50% keep, 50% delete). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

(Was named Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories)

Non-encyclopedic. Do we really need to make an article about some whackos' pet fantasies? (No.) Yath 06:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can people voting to delete please be aware that deleting the article is easy, but may make it harder to control the material's appearance in other Katrina articles. There's a certain wallpaper bubble effect. Rd232 19:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Since an anon user insists on repeatedly deleting the global warming section, falsely claiming the material is in tropical cyclone, I post a link to a recent version which includes it here. Rd232 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you've caught BD's inability to read since its covered right here [4]. Perhaps if you didn't just keep reinserting the text while ignoring the talk page discussion entirely you wouldn't have been mistaken. --24.165.233.150 18:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please observe a modicum of Wikiquette. You've now gone deep into Clintonesque parsing to suggest that the articles I've cited mean something other than what they plainly intend, in order to support your own ssertion that no one has even alleged any connection between Huricane Katrina and global warming. Attacking the abilities of your fellow Wikipedians is a rather silly strategy to counter the simple truth, that various individuals have in fact ascribed particular unnatural causes to this event. Why, exactly, are you so determined that such allegations should not be documented? -- BD2412 ^talk 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been very specific, no one of notability has asserted that Katrina was influenced in any way differently or more extreme than other recent tropical cyclones. To argue that point you keep providing externals to articles that say things like "Is the rash of powerful Atlantic storms in recent years a symptom of global warming?". There is no singling out of Katrina. The text is covered in Tropical cyclone, and I object to your claim that I am "determined that such allegations should not be documented" as I started the section in the Tropical cyclone article. I have strongly opposed duplicating the information elseware because the people who know what the heck they are talking about edit Tropical cyclone and make sure the text is accurate, while people who want to pump up excitement over conspiracy theories edit 'Alleged causes'. The text related to global warming that has spent most of its life on that article is embarassingly inaccurate. BD, I didn't start out intending to say anything rude at all to you, but since you continue to just simply repeat things which are untrue and you fail to respond to any of my points at all I must simply conclude that you are unable or unwilling to read. If you're going to worry about wikiquette, you could help me restart my assumption of good faith by not ignoring my talk page discussions requests. --24.165.233.150 19:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now responded to your talk page statements. I've never suggested that anyone is claiming that Hurricane Katrina was affected by global warming in a way that other hurricanes wouldn't be. As you just pointed out yourself on the talk page, Katrina is "mentioned to hook readers" in articles about global warming - ergo, people (some of them notable) have, for whatever reason, invoked this hurricane in an effort to raise the issue of global warming. The point of the debate is not to "pump up excitement" over such theories, but simply a) to document that they exist, which is a notable sociological phenomenon, and b) to give them a place apart from the various Katrina-related articles in which they originally sprang up, and where they will spring up again if this article is deleted. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused by your position then. If you are not claiming that people say Katrina is special, what is wrong with directing readers to our coverage on Tropical Cyclone? We discuss all other weather related factors which are common to all such storms there already. In any case, Thank you for your reply. --24.165.233.150 20:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but Katrina is special, in that it is a particularly devastating hurricane, and therefore something of a magnet to which people have attached their ideas (just as 9/11 was no different from any other terrorist attack, except for its location and scale, and the Kennedy assassination was no different that any other shooting, except for who he was). I think we can agree that, had it been a category 2, or had it just fizzled out after brushing through Florida (and knocking down most of the trees in my yard), Time Magazine would not be writing articles with headlines like "Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?. Also, I think there a are a few particularly apocalyptic references by persons such as Ross Gelbspan (referenced below) who suggest that Katrina was worse than previous hurricanes because of global warming, and a sign that things are going to get worse still. The fact that some people will now believe these theories who would not have before the hurricane makes these specific allegations a notable point of discussion. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I assume the real causes are outlined on our Hurricane Katrina page. I don't think we need this assembly of idiotic quotes from fringe figures. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although interesting reading, keeping this article would only encourage them. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, non-encyclopedic personal rant. — JIP | Talk 06:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a personal rant. Weak delete (not strong). — JIP | Talk 04:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Some wacko's like Fred Phelps deserve articles dedicated to them. But their wacko ideas don't. --rob 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per rob. --Apyule 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep. This is not a "personal rant" (at least not now) as there are a number of different contributors. It is eminently NPOV. The entry is a fine social document, recording a technically advanced 21st century society's attempts to come to terms with a disaster, using superstition. Why delete it? Wikipedia is not paper. I will put some climate change stuff in when I get a minute. If the page is not deleted. Robinh 07:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete we need to keep the public unaware of Zionist influence on the weather. Klonimus 09:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep or merge to article on Katrina itself. Robinh is right - as distasteful and far-out as many of the links may be, I agree that this page has some merit. The article itself is NPOV and it would need to be watched to make sure it stays that way, but that's no reason for deletion. Peeper 09:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rather amusing ideas, even if it's a bit hard to believe. But humans are like that. It's important to see what the more eccentric people make of this. Haoie 09:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I moved the material from Political effects of Hurricane Katrina because I didn't think it belonged there; or if it did, then it was better as a daughter article as Political Effects is getting big. People ask these questions, and that's worth documenting. Between alleged causation by government, God, and global warming, there's seems to be a good NPOV article here. Unfortunately, someone keeps deleting the GW stuff, which is therefore scattered around instead of being in one place. The resulting article looks more wacko than it need be, especially as the original intention of calling it Causes and bringing in the metereology of Katrina, with the "alleged causes" as a subsection, has got lost. Rd232 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but only if more attention is given to reasonable causes like global warming and less to wackos yelling about divine intervention (as they do every time they stub their toe). One wacko sermon is pretty much the same as another, I don't see why we need a list. Last Malthusian 10:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, but cleanup is needed. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia won't be credible if articles like this are kept. -- Kjkolb 11:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolute nonsense. You could as well blame it on the Flying spaghetti monster. --Hullbr3ach 11:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and RENAME to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Eclipsed 12:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It was there before, but I moved it to "alleged causes" because (as some had pointed out on the talk page) calling "divine causation" a conspiracy theory is bizarre and POV. ~~ N (t/c) 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. The cause of hurricanes is meteorological. Unprovable factors that may be behind that are best called theories. Conspiracy is technically just correct, but commonly may be found odd. Perhaps Alleged theories is a useful compromise. (Can a theory be alleged?) -- Soir (say hi) 18:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster--nixie 12:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is too specific a topic; also agree with Capitalistroadster Besselfunctions 13:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this page seems to chronicle actual public statements no matter how wacky and I'd rather see this still separate than included in the main article. I just won a bet that within a week nutbars would start claiming conspiracy theories about this natural disaster. Sigh. Agree with Eclipsed that it should be moved to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories; I would be bold and do so myself if it wouldn't mess up the VFD process. 23skidoo 13:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete as it is nothing more than standard superstition, i.e. nonsense. --IgorTrieste 14:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is stupid. If this is not deleted then I fear that WP will be punished by supernatural forces with a gigantic DDOS. Paul 14:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, with definite move as per Eclipsed. I don't really like the idea of setting precedent by keeping this around, and the word allege by meaning implies that its views are asserting truth, even if the body of the article approaches NPOV. With its current name, its lack of GW information specific to Katrina renders it POV towards the non-meteorological end. (Weather control has its own page and gets on the article, for example. Why not GW?) If someone notably blames Katrina on the Flying spaghetti monster, that can go in the new page too. Bring it back to AFD at some later point, we'll see if any of the causes listed has become any more likely. -- Soir (say hi) 14:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Delete, having thought a little more upon the issue I really do wonder if, despite its semi-notability in as much as people making comments, in today's culture any event that causes disaster can and will be picked upon by certain groups of people and interpreted in certain ways. If people were directly claiming to have divine insight, or firsthand direct knowledge of this sort of thing, then it would be notable. As it is, perhaps there could be a Commonly alleged causes of natural disasters with an archive of links before and including Katrina. I'm not going to make it though. ;) -- Soir (say hi) 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Why no GW?" - because someone deleted it several times, saying it should be elsewhere. As I said this, unbalanced the article even more. But I'm disappointed at all these deletes, which strike me as rather thoughtless in taking the article at its current face value instead of considering what it could be, and its relationship with other Katrina articles (notably the advantage of isolating the crap which will be repeatedly added as sections and harder to get rid of when there isn't a dedicated article). Rd232 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I just had a look at that. There really is duplication, which is bad, but the point really does need to be made, since GW is a noted theory as well. Trying to make everyone happy, I redid the introduction. Opinion here looks 'no consensus' to me at current, but note below Kewp comment, wait for some time to pass, it'll probably end up back here again. -- Soir (say hi) 21:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: It's not a rant, but barely encyclopedic, almost BJOADN, but there are people out there who are bad jokes. I can't wait to see what the religious nutjobs blame "indecency" on next (High Interest Rates? The 1919 Chicago White Sox? The Theory of relativity?) Karmafist 15:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Give it some time to develop; more crazy theories will come out of the woodwork in the coming weeks. If it still sucks by then, it'll deserve deletion. I don't see what's wrong with NPOV documentation of semi-notable lunatics. ~~ N (t/c) 16:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is no way this deserves an encyclopedia article. Amren ^(talk) 16:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Impressionistic article title about a current event. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Absolute fringe lunacy. There are nutjobs blaming everyone from UFOs to Satan, and from homosexuals to Texaco. Don't waste the server space. -PlainSight 17:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this will be irrelevant when the next big current event du jour happens. Kewp 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Excellent point: the contents of this page have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina itself.
• Keep for now. I've seen how many edits are being generated on this Hurricane and it's related articles, just do RC for half an hour with the related pages in your watchlist: black at the top!. Personaly I find it quite awe inspiring to see us record history this way. Now is not the time for calling a deletion discussion on this article. Alf ^melmac 20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As the original (albeit somewhat reluctant) creator of this article, I must explain why it should be kept. Really, there are two pertinent questions raised by these theories: 1) are they notable enough to deserve inclusion in the encyclopedia?; and 2) if so, do we want them in the main articles addressing Hurricane Katrina, or its impact on society, politics, and the economy? I suggest that they are notable, in line with the three different 9/11 conspiracy articles (9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel), as this was an event on par with 9/11 in terms of the destruction wrought and the likely impact on society. Notable people (even if they are "fringe lunatics") have made assertions about the cause of the devastation, and each individual claim is likely to have a believing audience in excess of what we would require for, say, a disk jockey to be notable under WP:BIO. These claims, therefore, will have a real impact on the world, whether it be to stir radical Islamic suicide bombers to action, or to stir a subset of American voters to desire changes in social or environmental policy. If there is no separate article, these theories will end up being housed in the main articles on the effects of the hurricane (where they were to be found before I removed them to their own space). That leads to the second question: if this information should be in Wikipedia, where should it be? Arguments have already been made for the inclusion of much of this material in the articles from which it originally came, but I draw the line here - if material that is clearly "fringe" is nevertheless notable enough to merit inclusion, it should have its own place apart from more mainstream discussions of this topic. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The decision to delete can best be made after some time passes, and it keeps the information in one place.--Curtis Clark 20:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, there exist conspiracy theories about Katrina, but these are non-notable. Sdedeo 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There is little notable content in this article, and anything notable can easily be placed on the main page for Hurricane Katrina. As far as “they deserved it” statements, these can probably be found about scores of natural disasters and don’t warrant their own article. Do we really think that this is the first time people have made such statements? If we include this article, then certainly speculation/non-notable/non-verifiable articles such as Good things about Hurricane Katrina should be included, right?. Paul 21:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Abstain, for now. Notable subject/responses, unfortunately. El_C 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I guess, but we need a Wacko conjecture category. The article should be renamed because it implies a small amount of credibility. — RJH 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC) — Delete — Changed my mind. This is just rubbish. — RJH 21:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I am also in favour of the category being titled Wacko conjecture. El_C 21:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Comment The word alleged implies speculation and the objective of Wikipedia is to be a source of knowledge not of irrational speculation. Is there a need to speculate on mindless reasons for the passing of this hurricane? Will we allow an alleged causes article on every event in history? Hurricanes are an act of nature, not a divine punishment. This kind of article detracts greatly from the credibility of Wikipedia. Senseless articles tarnish Wikipedia's objective image. Furthermore is there notability in alleged causes? Is every idea, every thought conceivable to man notable? If so then this article should be kept and nothing should be deleted ever again Joelito 21:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We are supposed to cover what is notable, regardless of whether we find it disagreeable, irrational, etc. If, for ex., a Kuwaiti Minister states that it was one of the soldiers of Allah, that is a notable statement from a notable figure. El_C 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a comment here, ... I don't care to actually vote but I wanted to point out that by reporting on the attributed speculation of others Wikipedia itself isn't acting as a source for speculation. We report on many crackpot things, and this is okay because we are not advocating the position just reporting it. --24.165.233.150 21:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Joelito 21:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, and if you wanted to start a campaign for banning current event coverage (and sending it to wikinews) I would join in and support you. At the same time, it is of factual and historic, and thus encyclopedic interest that various notable people have said various things... so like any other encyclopedia we report on these facts. Perhaps you could argue that these pieces of information are too trivial to include, but I think the majority would disagree there at least right now. --24.165.233.150 21:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Respectful disagreement with El C. I would imagine statements of that type occur every time a natural disaster takes place. Ministers of tiny countries aren't blazing a new trail here. If his statement is notable, put it in the Hurricane Katrina article itself in an appropriate section. Otherwise, shall we start digging up what government officials and clergymen have said about the last million natural disasters? Paul 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point; I'm going to observe the discussion a while longer before issuing a definite vote. El_C 21:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Reporting widespread craziness in itself is not nonnotable... really depends upon how many people say it and how long they last. If it stays at this name, Global Warning definitely needs to be listed, and probably first. If the article is only intended to be crazy theories, then it's probably kind of POV by its inclusion and would need a better name. Conspiracy theories probably doesn;t work based upon the religious claims. DreamGuy 21:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Global warming isn't an alleged cause of the hurricane, unless you want to trace the sequence of events back to the butterfly's wings. Paul 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Global warming is an "alleged" cause in the sense that notable individuals have made statements claiming (ergo, have "alleged") that it is a cause, including this editorial from the Boston Globe by Ross Gelbspan, this statement by Germany's environment minister, Juergen Trittin, and this one by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I hate to be rude BD, but for a law student you've demonstrated a profound inability to read. We argued this before, and still not a single one of your citations is talking about Katrina specifically. For example look at the quote from the German minister: "these natural events". I'd agree that we could list global warming on the page if someone indeed claimed there was something special about the specific storm. But no one is, which is a good thing because the scientific community would rightly call for their head over such a claim. --24.165.233.150 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not the issue whether anyone's said so explicitly, though it probably has been. It has been strongly implied, and referenced, and the issue raised. That's enough that readers will come to Wikipedia expecting an answer, and we should provide one. Rd232 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • We do provide one, it's answered quite clearly on tropical cyclone. In fact, the text which you've supported is misleading, and is loaded with weasel words to cover its factual inaccuracy. I do agree that the public has been, to an extent, mislead with respect to Global warming and Katrina... but we do them no service by repeating their misconceptions. In any case, the place to disscuss this is on the talk page of the article at least until it is deleted. I posted there hours ago, you might want to reply. --Gmaxwell 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • 24.165.233.150, please read the Gelbspan piece. The opening line is "The Hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming," and which later states, "Although Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico." Are you sure you want to stick with your statement that "not a single one of your citations is talking about Katrina specifically"? Is Gelbspan talking about some other Katrina? -- BD2412 ^talk 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • • BD, I've read it... he also attributed every other major weather event in the last year (about eight events if I'm counting right) to the same cause. I don't argue if he's right or not, the point is that even he makes no claim that there is anything specific about Katrina. It's just another item to add to his list. --Gmaxwell 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Well, let's be clear then - if your point is that no article has said that this hurricane and only this hurricane was affected by global warming, then you're right, none of them say that. However, the point of the discussion is that a number of people have cited global warming as an alleged cause of stronger storms in the context of discussing this hurricane. You would have to parse the referenced articles pretty narrowly to suggest that the respective commentators were not linking global warming to Hurricane Katrina at all. It's as though Big Bird said "A through Z are letters of the alphabet", and your reply was that he was not claiming "G" to be a letter of the alphabet because he did not specifically say that it was (or because even though he said "G" while reciting the alphabet, he said the same thing about the other letters). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
                • So why aren't you importing all the other information on the formation of hurricants from Tropical cyclone into the causes article? Surely NOAA has mentioned all the standard effects and mechanisms in their reports before, during, and since this event. By your logic everything that has been mentioned which is also true about all others must be repeated. I might suggest you see how far you get with interting a description of how the eye wall works into Hurricane Katrina. --Gmaxwell 06:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Irrelevant. You're disputing the actual causes of Hurricane Katrina, but this discussion is about "alleged" causes. Taking it out of the GW context may make it easier to understand - suppose Dr. Phil (who has a fairly large audience that believes the things he says are true) were to go on TV and say that the storm surge that broke the levee was actually caused by a meteorite that landed in the Gulf of Mexico right after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and but for that meteorite, the storm surge alone would not have been enough to break the levee. Now, suppose that Dr. Phil also argues that scientists have been warning for years of the potentially devastating effect of a meteorite impact on the earth, and that the government could have develepod technology to protect us from meteorites. The actual science of meteorites hitting the earth is irrelevant to this discussion, because the discussion is about the influence of the claim. Dr. Phil's "followers" will change their behavior or their priorities based on the belief that a meteorite hit the Earth, and something could have been done about it (or could be done to prevent the next one). Now, the claim itself may or may not spur people to argue about the actual effect of meteorites hitting the Gulf, and proponents could bring up every other non-Katrina related meteorite alleged to have hit the Earth. But what makes it notable is that there is a belief shared by a significant number of people that this particular Hurricane reached its deadly apex because of a meteorite, and now perhaps we should change our policies because of it. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Global warming is, at most, an alleged reason for the hurricane's severity; whether or not there would have been a weather event named Katrina without global warming is not the subject of debate. Keep the science cruft to a minimum, put the relevant info on the page Hurricane Katrina, and lets leave the notion of an "alleged causes of..." page behind us. Paul 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE non notable G Clark 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Judeo-Christian weather-cruft, unless the title is changed to "Hurricane Katrina apologists", Then I'll vote to Keep. Hamster Sandwich 22:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't Judeo-Christian Weather Cruft a segment on the 700 Club? Karmafist 23:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete some conspiracy theories may turn out to be true e.g. Watergate, some conspiracy theories, even if widely regarded as erroneous, may gain sufficient currency to make them encyclopedic e.g. Apollo moon landing hoax allegations. However they do have to gain a certain currency to become encyclopedic, as Hurricane Katrina only just happened it is too early to say this. This sounds like the ravings some preachers might come out with after any natural disaster. PatGallacher 23:03, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Nut-jobery has a place on Wikipedia, from Apollo moon landing hoax accusations to Time Cube to Flat Earth Society to John Titor to Lyndon LaRouche to David Icke to 9/11 conspiracy theories to Illuminati to Elvis sightings. — Phil Welch 00:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not informative, perhaps it coulde be retitled. Possible causes of Hurricane Katrina.(Divine retribution is silly) A good idea might be to talk about regular hurricane cycles and the possiblitiy of us entering the 1500 year cycle. Newbie222 00:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The same issues that are being raised in this article are also being raised in the major news media today. Furthermore, I would hope that Wikipedia would not succumb to recording only the "majority viewpoint" on any subject, without at least also recording that some attempted to use this disaster to further their own particular dogma or beliefs. Not shining the light on the crackpots lets them continue to flourish in the dark. Anonymous Contributor 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The only worthwhile content here is the global warming discussion -- which is handled elsewhere. All else is non notable. ThreeE 02:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as encyclopedic response to irrational (and rational) theorization: we sort, classify, and report. This is no different than 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the other things cited by Phil above. --MCB 04:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG Delete. Unless there is a shred of evidence (sorry, GW theories are too speculative), this is pointless. Katrina was a normal (strong, but hardly unique) storm that is only special because it hit land. Had this died in the gulf, no one would have paid any notice.--El-Spectre 09:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this is a very good point. There is nothing special about the causes of Hurricane Katrina. --Apyule 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Rama 12:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this article is being refined, and it allows insight into some feelings the public may feel / topics under discussion (i.e. there are articles on the conspiracy of JFK and 9/11, which are considered valuable, so on that note, I would consider that this article has place). Shadowfax0 11:18, 6 Sept. 2005 (EST)
• Redirect to Tropical_cyclone#Formation. I personally dont think wakos with conspiracy theroies are encyclopaedic. JKF and 9/11 are acts of man, attributing wheather to divine punishment is medieaval. --BadSeed 16:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not for an ecyclopedia, choose one of the other wikiprojects
• Speedy Delete, why isn't this nonsense gone already? Next they'll be trying to keep "Bush is an alien" articles.Gateman1997 19:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See David Icke. You may find the subject matter insane, but if it's NPOV and notable there's no real reason to delete. ~~ N (t/c) 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)\
    • Information has to be more then NPOV, it has to be truthful, not some loony fabrication of hurricane apologists. And your reference to David Icke doesn't wash. He's a real person. Albiet a total whackjob who probably shouldn't be free on the streets, but he's a real verifiable person. Nothing on this VfD is verifiable or real. Just a bunch of loony stuff that is better suited to Weekly World News.Gateman1997 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I wasn't going to vote initally since I think the information is encyclopedic but too silly to include in the primary articles on the storm. But since making that decision I've been involved in editing the article, and I've come to conclude that the primary editors working on it seem to prefer that it exists simply so they can publish inaccurate positions without their edits suffering the editoral oversight of people who care about accuracy whom normally avoid the ratsnest of conspiracy theory articles. --Gmaxwell 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC) I need to retract my statement above, it appears the other editors on the article were not advocating a particular broken version of the global warming text as I had thought but rather they just wanted the text included at all (partially because they thought it would help the article survive VFD). My primary concern was, and remains, factual oversite over this material. Since the alternative to the existance of this article is the same material spread out over several larger ones, I think the goal of factual accuracy would be best served, for now, by the continued existance of this article. Thus I now vote Keep although I hope the article goes away during a future rewrite of the current event material into encyclopedic material. --Gmaxwell 03:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've suggested a compromise on the article talk page. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We should keep info on what notable groups have said about the causes, but we can do so at political effects. Even beliefs of religeous causation have a political dimension. Johntex 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If the material on this page is moved back to the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina article (where I had already conceded that it has a political impact, see Talk:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina#Conspiracy theories), then this article should probably redirect to the appropriate subsection of that article. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm now convinced that there is too much material here to cover it all at "political effects". We still need to make sure that we are covering only the claims of notable people and groups - one wacko with a web page does not need to be quoted. I would suggest that the bar should be set at whether the person/group being quoted is worth their own Wikipedia article or not. I would also propose the exception to this rule be anyone intimately involved in the hurricane (such as an evacuee or a rescue worker). There comments add the dimension of documenting the beliefs of the people closest to the disaster. Johntex 15:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Any bits of this that are infact encyclopedic can/should be placed (if they are not already) in more approprate articles. This one is just bait for the nutjobs. Dalf | Talk 21:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete silly and nonencyclopedic, and a de facto POV fork. Anything of use (such as the global warming issue) should be incorporated elsewhere where it is subject to far more peer review. Postdlf 21:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia should be a source of knowledge when it comes to what large groups of people/notable persons believe, whether or not those beliefs are correct. I don’t believe in poltergeists and I’m not sure about parallel universes but I want to have well written articles that deals with those topics in Wikipedia. --Tsaddik Dervish 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just read that some people believes that poltergeists are caused by "the Hutchison effect" while others believe it is a form of "psychokinesis generated by a living human mind". I still don't believe in poltergeists but it was, nevertheless, interesting to read about all that stuff. --Tsaddik Dervish 22:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete What Wikipedia needs is an article on Alleged causes of hurricanes with possibly one or two of the Katrina-specific allegations there if they are still notable a year from now. Caerwine 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge section on supernatural causes back into Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. It's important to document how religious leaders and others have tried to exploit this natural disaster for political influence.--The Bruce 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It appears as if a majority of "keep" voters are citing the same reason for keeping the article: that its contents might be stupid but they still warrant inclusion. I agree with the principle this argument is based on--stupidity is often notable and encyclopedic--however an article entitled "Alleged causes of..." is a sanctuary for garbage that, as someone else mentioned, escapes proper oversight because it's in a garbage article . Paul 01:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons - Sempron 02:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While this is a NPOV and encyclopedic, I don't think the religous or technophobic nutjobs who think this deserve to have this article in here. Waste of space. --Admiral Roo 10:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We've got Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, so why not this one? Some of this stuff is fairly amusing, and having this article may help keep the crackpottery from creeping into the more serious Katrina articles. Anyway, having some weird stuff is what makes Wikipedia fun. *Dan* 12:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to agree with the "waste of space" comments on this article, since we are wasting hard drive space by pushing a VoD for this article. Somebody also brought up an interesting point about the title of the article, "Alleged causes of". Can anyone think of a better title for an article that talks about GW conspiracy or weather control theories? The current title doesn't seem to bother me much, since the keyword "alleged" suggests that these causes are only proposals to explain the nature of the hurricane. I also cite the earlier arguments in regard to having articles on 9/11 theories and what not. Besides that, if people hundreds of years access this article (if this hurricance becomes a key event in the bubble-popping of America's supposed arrogance: given that civil order and basic services in New Orleans were reduced to that of a war-torn third world country), they should be able to read about every detail in relation to this event, including the wacko conspiracy theories that arised. But anywho, that is my two cents, and waste of one or two VALUABLE kilobytes of Wikipedia storage space. ahem... KEEP --Ted 12:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - the article was originally named Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories, but was moved to its current title because neither global warming nor divine retribution could properly be categorized as a "conspiracy". Personally, I would go for Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. If, however, this article is deleted, the weather control part (which is the only true "conspiracy theory") should be moved to Conspiracy theories (a collection), right under 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami conspiracy; global warming and divine retribution comments will go back to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, to the extent that parties are using the hurricane to push policy changes; the part about victims suggesting that the event was divine retribution for their own sins (or a test of their faith, or the like) would go in social effects of Hurricane Katrina, and this title would probably be redirected to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina#Speculations for the cause of Hurricane Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

    That sounds like a good merge/redistribution. +sj +

    Sounds good, yes, but I do worry about the ever-lengthening "Political effects" article - which will eventually have to be broken up into into sub-articles anyway. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or at least Rename. The only reasonably encyclopedic claim here is the global warming one, and that's covered elsewhere. The "divine retribution" stuff isn't being stated by anyone truly notable, so it shouldn't be here. You'll ALWAYS have zealots saying that a catastrophe of any magnitude is divine retribution. There's no "Claims of Alleged Divine Retribution of the Kennedy Curse" section, but if you scour the web enough I'm sure you'll find some lunatic website claiming it's God's way of punishing the family. At the very LEAST this should be renamed. Global warming can at least be considered alleged, but not divine retribution. An allegation is defined right here on wikipedia as a statement of fact by a party in a pleading, which he or she expects to prove. People claiming that this is "divine retribution" aren't expecting to prove their statement is true at all, anymore than they try to legitimately prove existence of God, Satan and Heaven - hence the term faith. jcomp489
• Keep this information somewhere per WP:NPOV. Opinions with significant support (including notable nutcases) need to be included. No opinion on renaming or merging. Kappa 01:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the point above about global warming being the only notable part of this article; that argument can be made about hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of weather events each year. The subject is therefore unencyclopedic. Dottore So 01:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keeps this stuff out of the serious articles, scribble space for the kids. Delete it a year from now when no one cares anymore. Stbalbach 02:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur; you said it so much more clearly that I did above.--Curtis Clark 04:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. My guess is that 40% of Europeans, 60% of Americans, and 80% of people in the Middle East believe that an omnipotent, all-knowing god either made, or let Katrina happen. And these people aren't talking about rain on their wedding day, or natural disasters in general - they are talking specifically about 'entity Katrina', that has no relation to the science of weather-related phenomena. Why would Wikipedia care what those people think? Beliefs are important in themselves, irregardless of what the reality of a situation is. Maybe even more important. They shape the future of humankind, as beliefs always have, whether they're religious, philosophical, based in science, or whatever. Even the most hardcore materialistic determinists that edit Wikipedia should realize that. Another reason to keep the article is that when fanatics of different denominations read/edit the article they will (hopefully) be exposed to a sober, enlightened atmosphere, where they can't help to read that their opinions are (very) similar to the opinions of 'those crazy' Jews/Christians/Muslims/etc. --Tsaddik Dervish 05:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep and possible rename. It's my personal POV that the theories outlined in this article are bullshit. But, unfortunately, this nonsense is notable and has wide enough currency for Wikipedia. As others have mentioned, it could use a better title, mostly because the current title is a bit illogical. We know what "caused" Katrina: an atmospheric heat engine fueled by high ocean surface temperatures. Since I'm not a big fan of the term "conspiracy theory" in an encyclpedic context, I suggest something like Alternate theories about Hurricane Katrina. Anyone's welcome to come up with a better title. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:57, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. My POV is also that there wasn't anything supernatural about Katrina. However, you (as many others), seem a bit confused regarding what is meant by 'cause' in a religious context. The religious person may very well agree with you that what "caused" Katrina was an atmospheric heat engine fuelled by high ocean surface temperatures, but note that the physical 'cycle of events' were proceeded by divine will. That we are mistaken when we think the shadows on the wall of the cave are real. --Tsaddik Dervish 06:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I have renamed it back to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Consensus appears evenly split, and many suggested a renaming. -St|eve 06:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• The count so far: For keeping, we have 27. For deleating, we have 32. Sorry keepers, you're so far outweighed. --Admiral Roo 11:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to apologize, the information doesn't seem to be in any danger. Kappa 11:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Admiral Roo, I just don't see where keep votes are "so far outweighed." Right now, the opposing views are separated by 5 votes out of over 60 votes cast, yielding about 46% to keep and 54% to delete. Wikipedia:Consensus notes that "consensus is interpreted as something closer to supermajority" in general and suggests "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" in particular. Quite frankly, this is one of those issues where there are strong feelings on both sides, and where it may just be impossible to ever reach a consensus. There votes cast include 5 strong/speedy keep votes (and I was not even one of those), an equal number of strong/speedy delete votes, a smattering of weak keep and weak delete votes, and no fewer than four voters who have changed course, in different directions no less. I think a number of people have hit on the best basic formula to deal with this: keep for a few months, until the current surge of interest in these theories has ebbed, then quietly trim them down, move them to a more general conspiracy theories page, and make a redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk

I did not emply that it is so far as in they are far behind, I emplied that so far they are behind. --Admiral Roo 19:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your construction, then. Nevertheless, your comment, "Sorry keepers, you're so far outweighed" does imply that the article is headed towards not being kept, which is simply nowhere near the case based on the current count - there is no consensus to delete.-- BD2412 ^talk 19:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That is ok. I don't always make myself clear. --Admiral Roo 02:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Don't encourage this strong/weak vote silliness. It's one editor, one vote. --Yath 15:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Just pointing out that there is a broad range of opinions here, not a clear-cut preference for one side or the other. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deeceevoice
• Very stong delete, there are so many reasons to delete this, not least because it is entirely unencyclopedic. Martin 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Only good thing I can see about it is that it is NPOV, but unencyclopedic. Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since some of these theories are believed by many people (especially the global warning one). Compare to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep NPOV, encyclopedic, verifiable. Sam Vimes 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A lot of information here looks fishy. The "Assertions of the use of weather control technology" section almost looks like science fiction to me. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• keepGeni 00:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense but maybe Merge the a few of the facts to other Katrina Pages --Aranda56 05:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ethereal 10:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but the article needs to clearly distinguish the scientific (if heavily-contested) debate on the relationship between global warming and extreme weather events from claims of supernatural causes. It may be better to create an article on Global warming and extreme weather events because the debate includes assertions about droughts and forest fires as well. [5] Alan 12:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• The simple fact is: These issues are valid, existing references surrounding this event. While they are 'conspiracy' based, it is a valid reference to sociology and psychological states of a section of the US population. An open information based encyclopedia such as this is used by researchers of all types. Why remove information simply because it might not 'jive' with what you would want it to. I can certainly see the worth articles such as this have in providing research and insignt into the state of affairs from social to mental in this day and age.
  • ^{Unsigned comment by 4.244.90.65 (moved down from top of page). -- BD2412 talk 17:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete silly article, the GW material doesn't fit because of its title
• Keep. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide what theories are correct, but to at least provide a place for plausible ones to be written and fleshed out. If not, this stuff will clutter up the main articles. -Timvasquez 01:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I does base itself on truth and correctness. It is not a place for the creation of new ideas, as in WP:NOT. --Apyule 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Regardless of the validity of the theories themselves, they are (at least most) prominant and an interesting look at society's reaction to the event. The theories may not prove true (like the witch trials of Salem, MA), but the reaction is, so I think that this is of academic use. --Kolzene 02:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia can be a place to document historical events, including responses to those events. As long as the theories aren't presented as fact, there's no harm in letting the article stay, documenting other theories. AySz88^-^ 06:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Kaldari 16:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like the somewhat disparate arrangement of items here very much, but the content is clearly notable. It is the role of Wikipedia to document widely held theories, whether we think they're true or not.--Pharos 20:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The third comment above makes a lot of sense. History is not only defined by dates and occurances, but by collective states of mind, as well. Factual information captures only so much. This page, being distinct from the main Katrina article, reflects deep currents in American culture--the debate over and between science and religion and persistent, widespread mistrust of the government.Prophet840 23:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)prophet840
• Keep. The article does a great job in illustrating the range of people's reactions to the event, and also demonstrates just how devoted to their religious/political beliefs people can be. It does not present theories as fact, or theorise on new tangents, it just documents the response of people to the event, which is encyclopaedic. --Aramգուտանգ 05:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Petri Krohn 10:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Human wackiness is interesting in and of itself, at least to some people. To argue that the article should be deleted because it is "not encyclopediac" sounds like a tautology. I think that at least some of those taking that position may be confusing an article about the wackiness with an endorsement of the wackiness as being factually correct. At its heart, that viewpoint is akin to saying we shouldn't have articles on Nazi Germany because the Nazis were bad people and their views were clearly wrong, or we shouldn't have articles on abortion or creationism because (one half or the other of) the participants in the debate are clearly wrong. (And yes, I recognize that there are distinctions that can be drawn between those cases and this one, but I don't think those distinctions change the basic fact that some of the "delete" crowd are engaging in the same sort of magical thinking -- if we delete all mention of the evil content from Wikipedia we can delete it from the world -- that motivates those who would like to purge articles on things like Nazis and abortion). -- John Callender 17:44, 13 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 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Greenough Hall

nn dormitory See above --Aranda56 06:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This vote goes for all the "XXX Hall"-articles below. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There must be genuinely notable examples of "early American architecture" and I'm sure we have article on them by now. This is just dorm vanity. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete or merge does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Harvard College until a list of freshman dorms exists. Alf ^melmac 20:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --- Kjkolb 05:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Everything at Harvard is NOT notable by default. Roodog2k (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete unless author can provide evidence that this building has individual architectural importance. A possible compromise would be to merge with an article on notable buildings on the Harvard campus.---CH (talk) 23:53, 11 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 no consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Weld Hall

nn Dormitory see above --Aranda56 06:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep historic building on Harvard Yard, with architectural significance. -- DS1953 19:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge probably does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Harvardcruft. --- Kjkolb 05:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Everything at Harvard is NOT notable by default. Roodog2k (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly a Princeton man ;) Oh, delete Dottore So 01:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I am confused. The Library of Congress' American Memory project entitled American Landscape and Architectural Design, 1850-1920 devotes a page to Harvard University buildings and this is one of the buildings covered as part of that retrospective. I took a one line stub, did the research, added history and a photograph and came up with what I thought was a decent short article on a notable building by a respected architect of the period. And I get comments like the last three. Is it really that bad or is no one checking the article before they vote? -- DS1953 04:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Past votes have been to not keep articles for every dorm. If there was an article about historic Harvard buildings, like in your source, then the content might be viewed in a more favorable light. Vegaswikian 05:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Can the content be saved somewhere pending the creation of such an article? I would not object to a consolidated article. -- Kjkolb 12:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or perhaps merge with an article on architecturally notable buildings at Harvard, which could serve as a model for similar articles for other older campuses). DS1953, nice photo, decent small article, sorry you are suffering the consequences of all those overenthusiastic folk (teachers, parents?) out there who create articles on incredibly non-notable "magnet preschools" :-/ and so forth. There are people (not many, but they exist) who choose to spend to spend their vacations traveling to famous campuses around the world, where they can be seen snapping photographs of unusual architectural details. Harvard and Oxbridge would be prominent examples of campuses which would be notable even if they did not feature some many historic or at least architecturally notable buildings.---CH (talk) 21:48, 11 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 no consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mower Hall

nn Dormitory See Above --Aranda56 06:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• See Category:Harvard Freshman Dormitories: a lot of very short stubs. Merge all to one article.Zeimusu | Talk page 06:30, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete or merge does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --- Kjkolb 05:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Everything at Harvard is NOT notable by default. Roodog2k (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable historic building. -- DS1953 06:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with similar articles, assuming DS can support his claim that this building is individually architecturally notable.---CH (talk)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Grays Hall

nn Dormitory See Above --Aranda56 06:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable historic building. -- DS1953 18:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge probably does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --- Kjkolb 05:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Everything at Harvard is NOT notable by default. Roodog2k (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge with similar articles into an article on architecturally notable buildings on the Harvard campus.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Note that this result does not preclude merging if one so chooses. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hollis Hall

nn Dormintory See Above --Aranda56 06:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable building. The fact that it is used as a freshamn dormitory does not detract from its importance as one of the oldest educational buildings in the United States. -- DS1953 18:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh. You could have avoided all these AfDs by merging them into a list and redirecting. Keep. These are notable as examples of early American archetecture. Let's see if the stubs grow. I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect to a list of freshman dorms, however. Sdedeo 19:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete or merge does not warrant own article. --TimPope 20:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Although I'm agnostic about the above halls, I think the history of this building warrants keeping the information somewhere. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --- Kjkolb 05:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete Everything at Harvard is NOT notable by default. Roodog2k (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge with other articles into one on architecturally notable buildings on Harvard campus. DS is right that this is a suitable topic, but others are right that these articles don't stand alone.---CH (talk) 04:19, 12 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 Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Rusty Griswolds

non-notable band. Nothing on allmusic.--Shanel 06:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• One incomplete sentence is not an article, not even a band vanity article. Speedy delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tagged thusly. — Phil Welch 00:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Lucky 6.9. --Apyule 07:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Very much a speedy candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, nn vanity. Jobe6 13:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (as stub). Google search indicates that this band has a large following in Cincinatti. Media references, web references. Arevich 21:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:Music. These guys are a cover band meaning that they have no recorded material to their credit. Further, they don't appear to have participated in a national tour nor have any notable members in their ranks. These guys may be notable in Cincinatti but their notability is only local. Capitalistroadster 22:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Music in agreement with Capitalistroadster. Opinion: Cover bands lack significance, and bands covering Eighties songs lack both significance and taste. Barno 15:51, 6 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 delete as noone has provided the original script. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

She-elat kitbag

Slang phrase. Move to Wiktionary and delete. Zoe 06:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Just delete, no transwiki. This is a transliteration without the original script, so is useless to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Israeli slang, belongs on Wiktionary if original script is available. — Phil Welch 00:54, 6 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 KEEP as rewritten by User:Hillman. I have ignored votes by anonymous users and User:Adastra, but there is still a good argument for keeping the article as rewritten, so I'm going by that. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

AFAICR, Jack Sarfatti is an Internet troll. Anyway the article's contents are patent nonsense. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, should have been speedied for failing to allege notability. Zoe 07:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. There may be space for a future article on him, but the current content adds nothing, and will not be useful in a new article. --Apyule 07:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

change vote to a very weak keep. He probably meets notability (eg here and here), but the article must make the alternative nature of his work clear. --Apyule 06:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Change vote to a plain Keep following CH 's great work. --Apyule 05:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. Having seen (but not actually bothered to read much of) his contributions to certain usenet groups, I am actually slightly curious who he is. This article doesn't say more than I had already figured out on my own, but I may vote to keep a rewrite. Uppland 07:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite. Uppland 16:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• sigh I'm going to have to vote keep. Notable kook/quack/hoaxter in pseudoscience. DS 15:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is linked by 15 other articles and has been ordered. In my private opinion, it will never get too much longer, and it contains the critical information everyone wants to know. --140.247.123.100 (Lumidek) 17:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone cares to make it not-crazy, in which case keep. It seems he is notable, but unless someone can take the time to fix the article it shouldn't be here. Sdedeo 20:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Pauli said: "It's crazy, but is it crazy enough to be true?"

Bohr said: "The opposite of a truth is a falsehood. But the opposite of a great truth is another great truth." Einstein said: "Great Spirits have always been harassed by mediocre minds." Remember Sarfatti studied directly with Hans Bethe, David Bohm and other great physicists. He knew Feynman and Heisenberg and many others of top rank. [Comment by an anonymous user, possibly woodymarble@mac.com]

Anon, I'll only say this once, but in future please sign all your comments on VfD pages with your Wikipedia user name to avoid confusion about who said what. By the way, it would be nice if you dropped "deep cover" and confessed to being Jack Sarfatti, if that is who you are.---CH (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sarfatti has made a major financial contribution to Wikepedia. He has a PhD in physics from the University of California and has an increasing influence on the funding of theoretical physics by the Bush Administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.166.142 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 September 2005
• Weak keep if this article can be properly rewritten before close of discussion. Hall Monitor 16:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: All the people here above who voted to delete are not physicists. They have no degrees in the subject. How dare they?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adastra (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 September 2005, user's first edit
• We note that all of the votes for "delete" are by non-physicists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.166.142 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 September 2005

• We need this article. Jack Sarfatti is a legitimate physicist who has been involved in alternative theories. However, this article needs serious revamping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.103.49 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 September 2005

Hmm, I ran into you (65.241.103.49) earlier today in another VfD, where you were supporting an article about a patently nonsensical "theory" due to another (?) German engineer. If by "legitimate physicist", you mean that Sarfatti did earn a Ph.D./ in physics, as a matter of fact, you are right about that. If you mean he is worth paying attention to, I disagree. (I know noone who actually reads his incomprehensible Usenet posts. As someone who knows the jargon, I claim they are incomprehensible because JS doesn't make sense, not because physics is hard.)---CH (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I note that several of the people above who vote for deletion have done so making personal attacks on Sarfatti as a "troll", a "hoaxter", a "kook" a "quack" etc. Does this not violate Wikepedia rules? Why the obvious double standard.

Sarfatti wrote: "Caveat: This glimmer of "RV" advanced action-at-a-distance FROM the future from Dick Bierman's "presponse" signal nonlocality violating linear entangled unitary quantum non-mechanics of lifeless closed systems is still half-baked "speculative" with low decoding signal-to-noise ratio and is in danger of being not even wrong. Proceed at your own risk. Nevertheless we must oppose the Victorian Station Masters who prematurely censor what may prove to be ideas of vast importance. Talking about an idea does not mean that one professes that the idea is true - only that it might be of some utility as it matures." woodymarble@mac.com

• Delete. Jack Sarfatti is not a physicist (at least not a notable/significant one as claimed by the article). A quick search in Citeseer shows that Jack Sarfatti did not produce / coauthor in any scientific publication. Thus, it appears highly likely that the article material is nonsense (which would qualified for speedy delete). --Hurricane111 14:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not clear if Hurricane111 changed his/her vote, so I removed "s" pending clarification by Hurricane111.---CH (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I see now that Hurrican111 did change his vote, so reverted slash.---CH (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reserved. A few newspaper article including, San Francisco Chronicle [6] did show that such physicist existed and is notable. Thus, subject pass notability test. However, since I am not a physicist, I cannot verify claim as listed in article. So, I am open for keeping it and tag it for verify.

Indeed whoever wrote that Sarfatti never published is wrong, whether deliberate misinformation or not I don't know. Sarfatti has been involved in deep cover intelligence operations since 1973 or so when he virtually disappeared from conventional academia. For the record Sarfatti wrote an important paper with A.M. Stoneham "The Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect" (1967) that is cited in the American Institute of Physics "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics". Ray Chiao credits Sarfatti's Phys Lett A paper on self-trapped laser filaments as analog to Type II superconductor magnetic vortices as stimulating his experimental work on the phenomenon. Sarfatti predicted the recently observed "supersolid" in a paper published before Antony Leggett's. This will be confirmed by George Chapline, Jr at LLL. Leonard Susskind of Stanford will confirm Sarfatti's essential role in Susskind's first published paper on quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1963-4. Sarfatti is in several TV shows and is in Paramount's Star Trek IV DVD on "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible." Sarfatti is an informal consultant to the new National Intelligence Directorate MASINT. [Comment by anonymous user, possibly woodymarble@mac.com]

• Abstain. I agree with several comments above:

1. DS is correct: Sarfatti is well known in some UseNet physics.* newsgroups as a frequent poster, who rarely if ever replies to criticism in the groups (except by email threats to file suit for defamation of character-- in the interests of full disclosure I should say that I have been the recipient of at least one such threat). Most would call his behavior cranky, but he is not a "troll", since his aim is apparently to promote his "ideas", rather than to foment flame wars and such like. Anyway, on this basis, he is perhaps notable, although not in a very laudable fashion.
2. OTH, I agree with JIP that the present version of the article is patent nonsense. (Lumidek, you can't be serious--- this article "contains what everyone wants to know"?!) The problem seems to be that JS reacts very badly to what most would consider an NPOV characterization of his writings as incoherent and highly dubious. Is there any way to rewrite the article to remove the nonsense and express what I just said as nicely as possible, cite a few of Sarfatti's published papers and link to his website, and then lock the content? If not, I'd have to change my vote to delete.
3. Let me call attention to the possibility that several anonymous commentators are socks of the same user (perhaps JS himself). Jack, if that is indeed you, we appreciate your financial support of Wipedia, but you do tend to be very excitable and sometimes your behavior is in my opinion inappropriate. If you attempted to delete someone else's "delete" vote above, or if you are trying to vote here under multiple names, these would be examples of clearly inappropriate behavior. I think you recognize that your ideas are not mainstream, so in my opinion the place to try to sell them is in published papers, or barring that on your website, not here. Also, contrary to what one anon said above, it appears to me that the non-anons are pretty much of one mind about the dubious stature of Sarfatti's "ideas".---CH (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As per several user's suggestions above, I just rewrote the article to be more NPOV. Sarfatti fans, please keep your cool! I think a good compromise is to say right away that most who have encountered JS's writings consider them cranky, but I balance that by stating second that he does have a genuine background in physics. I took some basic biographical infro from his own website, made a list of claims from the previous version of the biography, (plus one from one of his books), and cited his entry in crank.dot.net but also some of his own websites. I think that's NPOV and I propose that an admin now lock the contents, at least until this VfD is over.---CH (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep After completely rewriting the article myself, and reading some minor improvements by Chan Ho and Apyule (thanks!), I am changing my vote, since the current version of the biography appears to be sufficiently NPOV and we three seem to agree that a sufficiently prolific UseNet poster is perhaps notable simply on the grounds of being so prolific that many newsgroup readers will have encountered his posts.

One comment: I am suspicious of Chan Ho's claim that Wikipedia's coverage should be different from that of a paper encyclopedia (at least without knowing more about what kind of differences he has in mind), but I have to agree that I can envision the possibility that some newbie might encounter a Sarfatti posting, notice all the impressive buzzwords combined in apparent gibberish, wonder "is it just me?", and search Wikipedia to find out something about Sarfatti.

We'll need to monitor this page for incoherent, non-NPOV, and unwikified additions by our anon (which greatly marred the version which I revised). And anon, if you're reading this, please keep your shirt on! The biggest problem with your contributions to previous versions of this page has been, I think, that you haven't bothered to investigate how we do things in the Wikipedia and you seem to tend toward impulsive edits which are too thoughtless to help readers. So if you want to modify the article again, please research Wikipedia policies first, read some other biographies here, and think hard about how to keep your contributions NPOV. Fair enough?---CH (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Just because one doesn't agree with him or regards him as "unworthy" somehow of a Wikipedia article does not negate the fact that he is well known in certain Internet communities, such as Usenet. Brittanica would not have an article on him, but I thought Wikipedia took a different slant than a standard encyclopedia. And yes, as someone pointed out, this is a very useful page to learn what Sarfatti is about. --C S 02:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 01:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Solms TCD

Commercial page created by User:FritzSolms who owns the company, which gets only four unique Google hits. [7] Therefore, no possibility of making this encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. A lot of marketing talk but no actual encyclopedic content. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. —Cryptic (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly an advertisement. --Bhadani 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Help, don't want to spam. Page closely modeled on other company pages. What are the criteria? FritzSolms (talk) (the culprit) 20:33, September 2005 (UTC)

• Question, what other pages? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, aggreed, is is spam. FritzSolms (talk) (the culprit)

• As the author has agreed it should be deleted, I've gone ahead and done it, as in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 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 speedied per CSD #A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Gray

Vanity; article also includes some inconsistency (born 1998, moved 1995). Most likely vanity. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:22, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nn-bio, CSD:A7. MCB 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, some 7-year-old kid has learnt to play drums, and thinks that makes him instantly encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The AfD tag was removed by anon user 66.140.173.220. I replaced it with a {{nn-bio}} speedy tag. MCB 07:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes...ok...fine delete it. I was bored. I just wanted to see if it was possible. I apologize profusely for pissing anybody off by doing this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InsayneWrapper (talk • contribs) . - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, September 5, 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 -- Joolz 20:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Article on Plone Book

This is a review or an advertisement, not an article (despite claiming to be one). It's also mistitled, articles shouldn't be named "Article on Foobar" but merely "Foobar". It doesn't even explain what this "Plone" thingy actually is. I've certainly never heard of it. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to post book reviews or to conduct business (paeg has a "Buy the book"-link). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Concur with above. --Hullbr3ach 11:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete generic tech book with poor article name. Mindmatrix 14:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Now the article looks more or less ok. The article should be deleted in case of advertiseing intention. But after the styling it's fine. The problem lies in the name it seems. (preceding unsigned comment by Arnabbh (talk · contribs) 09:40, 12 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 DELETE. There are very few votes but they make strong arguments, and applying basic reason I have to agree, it's quite unlikely the IDF has been developing such a weapon for 5 years and only those articles have heard of it. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sound bomb

Article appears to have been created based on a mis-translation that has appeared in a couple of webpages (see article discussion page). See User talk:Stephenrbenson for discussion of the sources. Megapixie 11:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete see my reasons above. Megapixie 09:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per megapixie. Just to be clear, the article hypothesises a new weapon employed by the IDF, whose existence is asserted by reference to poorly translated articles that use the term "sound bomb". Sdedeo 20:35, 5 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 DELETE. As the article is basically a direct copy of Sound bomb, the same ruling applies. — JIP | Talk 16:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Light Bomb

See also Sound bomb, article is based on a couple of mistranslated webpages. See User talk:Stephenrbenson for discussion of the sources. Megapixie 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per megapixie. Sdedeo 20:34, 5 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 REDIRECT to Stick figure. — JIP | Talk 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Stickman

VfD previosly unlisted, now fixed - no vote--Doc (?) 10:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (unsigned by User:Stikman)
• Redirect to Stick_figure --Abu Badali 18:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stick figure. This isn't even the real name of the comic; just a nickname. — Gwalla | Talk 03:39, 4 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Stoofoo

unlisted Vfd, now fixed - no vote--Doc (?) 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable website; 722 Google results. Paul 21:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB.
• Delete. Entertaining, but crap nonetheless and non-wikiworthy. McA 19:42, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Strategiance

Neologism, stated as such in art, not in wide use, so not approprioate for wikticionary either. Delete. DES ^(talk) 17:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All user's other postings are rightly up for Deletion. Don't wikticionary this. Dlyons493 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, like everything in the Lanz Chan vanity series. --IByte 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: original nominator did not list entry on Articles for deletion, now fixed (no vote) Doc (?) 10:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At least they made it easy by admitting it is a neologism. Worthless. Paul 03:02, 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 merge. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Stroudie

Vfd unlisted now fixed - no vote --Doc (?) 10:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is way too unencyclopedic IMHO. -- Eagle^amn 16:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• This should just be made a section of Stroud, Gloucestershire and redirected there - there's just not going to be much need for a separate article. Stan 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Trivial, parochial and silly. Delete. Flapdragon 12:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• I created it when I was a newish user and didn't have much idea of what should be here and what shouldn't. I say add something about it in Stroud, Gloucestershire and redirect there. --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 13:28, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Suburbaluna

vfd previously unlisted - now fixed - no vote --Doc (?) 10:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This word appears to be a neologism, and a google search comes up with nothing but wikipedia mirrors. --Zantastik 04:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-word. RickK 05:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article Etnoy 10:35, 21 August 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 -- Joolz 20:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Shawn Werner

Appears to be a vanity page. I can't find anything about this person except on his own website. Finbarr Saunders 10:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Googling for "Shawn Werner" garners 164 hits, none of the top ten seem to be this Shawn Werner. "Shawn Werner" + poet gived an outstanding three hits. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed - delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Diasagree. This is a real poet and have made clear with further information. --Tinsley79 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, Tinsley79 (I see you've made your first contributions today). Does this "International Journal of Poetry" have a website? --Finbarr Saunders 12:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact they do...... http://www.poetry.com
    • Slight typographical error on my part.
    • As you can see, if you do a search for Shawn Werner at poetry.com you will find a half dozen of his works. This poet should deffinately not be deleted from the wiki database and deserves to be recognized. That's my case, in a nutshell.
      • I note that poetry.com "features over 5.1 million poets!". --Finbarr Saunders 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Poetry.com is essentially a scam for the talentless and gullible. Bjsiders 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. More information has been added. --Tinsley79 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tinsley79, you can easily "sign" and date your comments here by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. If you do that, it allows everyone else to see exactly who's posting what, and avoids double-counting of votes. --Finbarr Saunders 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Following Finbarr Saunders note, I'd consider having some poems on poetry.com as being as notable as being a regular Wikipedia contributor. Average Earthman 16:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn -PlainSight 17:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all vanity publications should be discounted, but those from the notorious poetry.com people should be. Sdedeo 20:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poetry.com is the very definition of a vanity site. No other assertion of notability. --MCB 20:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Artist has clearly shown effort with a released CD and clothing line. The popularity may be minor, but still garners attention for the efforts shown. --Tinsley79 23:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (User has already voted, above. Welcome to Wikipedia, Tinsley79! Please don't think me rude for striking the duplicate votes - I just don't want the closing admin to miscount. This isn't Chicago, so you don't have to vote more than once. Feel free to continue to comment, though. Nandesuka 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, nn, vanity. — Phil Welch 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mr. Werner had the first poem published in The International Who's Who in Poetry and out of four included in the first section, he was the only one from the US. --Tinsley79 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (See above --Nandesuka 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Being one of 5.1 million poetry.com listees could be seen (caviling on Average Earthman's comment) as one-tenth as significant as being one of the almost half-million Wikipedia editors. Does one pay for inclusion in The International Who's Who in Poetry, like the many Who's Who of American High School Students publications? Does it evince any notability beyond "got a friend to nominate him"? Barno 15:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity and possible a joke page ---CH (talk) 07:35, 12 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 keep -- Joolz 20:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Coop Himmelblau

• About an Austrian architectural design bureau. Perhaps not exactly like an ad, but firmly promotional in tone. Non notable modern company. Bishonen | talk 03:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like vanity. And a ghastly name at that... / Peter ^Isotalo 17:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Extremely famous, has pages on German, Dutch and Spanish Wikipedia. It should be moved to Coop Himmelb(l)au, however, which is the actual name. Martg76 22:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - looks notable, de. article is over a year old. Guettarda 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely notable, as the picture alone should demonstrate. I've seen displays of their plans and models at architectural salons alongside archiects like Frank Gehry and Norman Foster. --Calton | Talk 01:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable: Coop Himmelblau is one of the famoust international known architects of Austria and has build a lot of well known buildings around the world like the European Central Bank in Germany or the Gasometers in Vienna --Andreas.poeschek 23:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Very notable, designed a number of famous buildings. --TexasDex 04:31, September 7, 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 -- Joolz 20:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Ava K. Molitov

Delete as her notability has not been confirmed. Zero google hits. Probably written by herself. --Ghirlandajo 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Some dude kept on restoring this article. KNewman 16:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity deleted before. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete --Irpen 21:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established/vanity --Etacar11 01:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per KNewman abakharev 02:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-verifiable vanity. Hall Monitor 17:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete as apparent nn vanity.---CH (talk) 01:33, 12 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 delete -- Joolz 20:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Stephane Aubin

Only limited notability due to being in top 32, but not higher rob 10:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Abstain - This was put as a speedy, but I feel that was wrong, since there's a claim of notability. However, top 32 doesn't seem like much. I don't know enough about this person, at this point, to vote. --rob 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not a speedy, but NN -PlainSight 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional delete as NN but only if there are no other articles about similarly-placed Canadian Idol finalists. If there are and they haven't been VFD'd or have survived VFD, then precedent exists and this must be kept. 23skidoo 01:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I think precedent exists in favour of people who make the Top 10 in an Idol series; I'm certain that there isn't a precedent in favour of Top 32 finalists who don't make the cut. Delete. Bearcat 02:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per precedent --rob 03:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator (I think you're right about VfD instead of speedy). Unlike skidoo, I'd say if there's other articles about similarly-placed Canadian Idol finalists, then we've got a lot of deleting to do. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity bandcruft---CH (talk) 07:40, 12 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 Redirect to A Swiftly Tilting Planet. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. O'Keefe

fictional character only 'notable' for being the mother of a character who himself is not notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC).

Comment. Page has now been vandalised. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to A Swiftly Tilting Planet. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to A Swiftly Tilting Planet per Merovingian in accordance with WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 18:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Ah... the memories... merge/redirect. Sdedeo 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above.---CH (talk) 00:36, 12 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 delete -- Joolz 20:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Doom DS

Highly non-notable page that was incorrectly speedied as vanity. We really need to expand the CSD criteria to include these, but we haven't done so yet. Sigh. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it's both non notable and vanity. CambridgeBayWeather 10:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is advertising for nn project. Only first names of involved people given and uses peacock language to promote it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Promotional, vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as advertising Proto t c 13:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't see how a CSD would work for this. Meanwhile, this message was posted on Planet DOOM forums on Saturday:

  The team that is trying to bring a version of DOOM to the Nintendo DS is putting out a distress call for programmers with experience. The DOOM game will be based on a modified version of JDoom with lots of new features and effects. To be able to help out, you must own a DS, the flash equipment needed to run apps on the DS and of course, experience programming. If you think you have what it takes to help the team bring their creation to life, then hit up their website and drop them a line!

• This is taking the Stone soup concept a tad too literally. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 16:56, 5 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 delete as a one year (!) old hoax -- Joolz 20:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Galnafanaigh

Vfd not listed by nominator - now fixed --Doc (?) 11:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am convinced this entry is entirely bogus - as are two others added by user 81.153.144.198 Saga City 20:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, when I first saw this I didn't believe it but when checking up with Google I still didn't believe it, however the name of Galnafanaigh does seem to link to a Scottish village which does in fact have a Duck festival for some odd reason. My guess is that this village is so isolated that there isn't enough information about it. The author of this article is probably the only person from the village who's connected to the net. But I do agree there is not enough backup information or source material to allow this article to remain. Piecraft 01:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable place --Doc (?) 11:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My bad, I seem to have been misled by Autoroute's redirection to Gallanach and 1,000+ googles many not mirrors - but I can't get one of those googles to give me anything verifiable so delete unless someonecan verify. --Doc (?) 14:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• • In what way is this verifiable?? Streetmap.co.uk goes down to individual farms, especially in Scotland, and it's not there. It was this that alerted me in the first place.Saga City 12:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't find it in Google Maps or viamichelin.com either. It does get 1070 Google hits, though (about a place in the Scottish highlands, and they're not all Wikipedia mirrors). Perhaps the place (however small) exists, but the information isn't right? --IByte 14:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Try googling on 'Simon Fotherington, Galnafanaigh' and you will discover he could be (or this is the pseudonym of) the only resident of this 'place'. I remain convinced that Wikipedia is the victim of a hoax here, most of the other hits are automatically generated from lists of placenames. It's not in geodaisy.com either! If someone can point to a reliable gazeteer I may be convinced but the arrival of The Festival Of The Punctured And Feathered One and the equally elusive Latheronwheel in the same part of the world on the same day from the same anonymous contributor would make me suspect that our hoaxer may even have got to it.Saga City 15:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • All right then, delete for lack of verifiability. --IByte 16:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Latheronwheel definitely exists. It's on the coast road between Lybster and Hemsdale. Grutness...wha? 08:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• search google groups for it. its fake. (preceding unsigned comment by 70.185.250.195 (talk · contribs) at 5 September 2005, 16:36 UTC)
• Delete There are only a handful of red links on the list of burghs in Scotland, and this isn't one of them. CalJW 20:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A very believable hoax, but it's interesting that Google has never heard of the Gaelic Jewel Thistle Award, which you'd think some of the previous winner would want to brag about. What's more, my prized Johnston and Bacon road atlas, which in iolated areas like the Scottish Highlands shows and names towns, villages and individual farms does not mention this place among the hundred or so shown in the desolate wilds between Thurso and Latheronwheel. Achnavanich, yes. Galnafanaich, no. Grutness...wha? 11:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, there is a Thistle Award, just no Gaelic Jewel Thistle Award... Someone has been trying hard to make us believe this. --IByte 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is crap. Albeit very believable crap, but still crap nonetheless. McA 19:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - bogus, from someone who knows Caithness reasonably well. --MacRusgail 14:21, 7 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 delete -- Joolz 20:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Festival Of The Punctured And Feathered One

vfd unlisted - now fixed- no vote (for now)--Doc (?) 11:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am convinced this entry is entirely bogus - as are two others added by user 81.153.144.198 Saga City 20:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete patent nonsense--Firsfron 00:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, probable hoax. Quale 03:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per research on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galnafanaigh --IByte 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost certainly a hoax - but absolutely certainly unverifiable at present --Doc (?) 19:15, 6 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 Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Tree sitter extractor

Dubious, possibly nonsense stub, probable neologism; nothing cited to back up assertion. It's been here for a while but I never completed the deletion process until now. paul klenk 11:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. No relevant hits on the web. --Hullbr3ach 12:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a dicdef at best even if true, but likely nonsense. Quale 03:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --- Kjkolb 05:20, 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 keep. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Model-driven architecture

Duplicate of Model-Driven Architecture Hullbr3ach 11:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Changed my vote. Keep this one and delete Model-Driven Architecture (duplicate) per Wikipedia naming conventions on capitalization. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that. Anyway, whoever deletes, make sure to copy the content from the capitalized version to the lowercase version. I've already merged relevant content. --Hullbr3ach 20:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• • If miscapitalized version had more content which is now merged, I vote redirect per GFDL to retain history. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Argh, there is more info in the miscapitalized one. Here goes: delete this article, move Model-Driven Architecture to Model-driven architecture. Sdedeo 20:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, dupe is not reason to remove but to merge. BTW I've added merge request to both pages. --Thv 05:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. After merge, old page's content should be replaced with #REDIRECT [[newname]]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Roger Wickson

Was marked for speedy deletion for being a non-notable person but I moved it here to AFD for assistance. Apparently this person is the author of the book The Community of the Realm in Thirteenth Century England (ISBN 0582314011), but I am not familar with that book to make an opinion on whether or not to keep this article (beware of the Google test). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity
• Delete. Amazon sales rank of the book is very low, so doesn't pass the criteria for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 15 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 delete -- Joolz 20:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Baker v. Gordon, 759 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)

This seems to be a straight cut-and-paste of a legal ruling. There may be a useful article to be written about this case, but this surely isn't it. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable legal case (only 5 Google hits [8]). --Metropolitan90 18:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copy/paste transcript (source material) of nn court case. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: pasting in the ruling from your legal cases in unacceptable. Author should be warned not to keep doing this.---CH (talk) 03:34, 12 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 delete. -Sean Curtin 23:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Frevert

• I do believe this is a hoax. No mention of this guy anywhere, except here, where he somehow managed to posthumously post a link to his "Wikipedia entry." Pretty lively for a dead guy. Joyous (talk) 13:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree. I think this is a necessary article, which allows many of Ben's old Southwest friends to mercilessly edit away his dignity. User:Softbulletin
• delete as hoax. "To mercilessly edit away his dignity"? If you really meant to write that, Softbulletin, you've convinced me that Joy probably guessed right. His wife was named Dunya Kalashnikova?! Well, I know there was a Mr. Kalashnikov, so there might be a Ms. Kalashnikova, but John Major saying "douche-bag" and so forth... it adds up.---CH (talk) 01:45, 12 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 delete -- Joolz 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Tuly Idiot

Web forum in-joke. So non-encyclopedic it's not even funny. Strong delete. — JIP | Talk 13:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic entry. Mindmatrix 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination --NeilN 15:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn dic def forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 13:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete someone's idea of a joke ---CH (talk) 08:40, 12 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 redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fabio (dj)

This article should be deleted. It features heavy vandalism and rather than being sent to cleanup, it should be deleted, as there is already an article on this DJ - Fabio (DJ) - with 'DJ' in the correct capitalized form. Thenugga 23:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Completing now. Redirect to Fabio (DJ). JYolkowski // talk 13:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fabio (DJ). A lot of people don't seem to be able to spell DJ so it's a useful redirect. Heavy vandalism on an article is not a valid reason to delete something. Vandals would like it if that was true. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fabio (DJ) as per above user. Capitalistroadster 22:57, 5 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 delete. -Sean Curtin 23:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Festizio

User:Hooperbloob put a VfD tag on this article but never completed the nomination; doing so now. This article was previously deleted per VfD (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Festizio) but that article was about something completely different. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 13:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Kjkolb 05:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:55, 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 Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fire at will

VfD tag added by anon but nomination never completed. This page has previously been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. No vote, I'm undecided whether this is a valid encyclopedia topic or not. JYolkowski // talk 13:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as bad precedent. Army orders as articles? Why not add "Good evening ladies and gentlemen" or "this is not a test!" Also, I suspect (though someone can correct me) that movies rather than actual army commanders are fond of the saying. Marskell 18:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sh*t This Is Not a Test! actually exists--as an album not as a saying, mind you. Marskell 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already tranwikified and no info apart from a dic def. Can't ever be more than a dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One could imagine a non-dic-def article about this, however. (Like, what is the origin of the term, is it actually used, what problems does it present, etc., etc.) Sdedeo 20:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at will. — Phil Welch 01:02, 6 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 delete. -Sean Curtin 23:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Follow-me

Delete. Someone copied this from an instruction manual for a telephony system. --nertzy 11:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page, and was malformed as well. Fixing all this now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 13:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; looks like a joke --Hullbr3ach 17:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio - copy & paste job -PlainSight 17:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Then please tag it. Uncle G 18:21:26, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• See also night service. Uncle G 18:21:26, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this a copyvio, it can't become an article either. I wouldn't waste time listing it as a copyvio if it can't be fixed. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Follow-me/Temp begs to differ on that point. Uncle G 21:08:21, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
    • Oops. In that case, Delete and replace with Temp page. Sorry for not using my eyes and look out for a temp. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • No worries. You would have seen a redlink at the time. ☺ I wasn't implying that you'd missed anything. I was making the counterargument that it is worthwhile listing it as a copyright problem, since it is possible to grow an article here once that has been done. Uncle G 22:14:17, 2005-09-06 (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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fragman52

User:Dayg1110 added a VfD tag to this page but never completed the nomination. Doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 13:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete nn RJFJR 15:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 19:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn gamer vanity. Your nickname is never a good article idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by RHaworth per CSD. -- Soir (say hi) 18:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Francesco

This should not be deleted, it is valuable for the education of today's society. This post has not been made by the submitter of the Francesco Wikipedia description. I am a seperate party and do NOT wish this to be deleted.

DO NOT DELETE PLEASE. Nobody has voted for, so dont be the first any of you. great.

I value this page.

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing and completing now. Weak delete unless more context is added. JYolkowski // talk 13:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article in its current state. Mindmatrix 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (Can this be justified as speedy?) Inherently non-verifiable, un-encyclopedic. RJFJR 15:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, please, unless someone knows something Google doesn't. First comment comes from the same IP that wrote the article. I invite a remake with context and cited sources if the article's creator wants to do that.. -- Soir (say hi) 15:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as WP:CSD A1 (lack of content), G3 (vandalism) and/or A7 (non-notable bio). Sixteen-year-old divine manifestations are nonsense (but perhaps not patent nonsense in the strict Wikipedia sense). --IByte 15:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete surely? Average Earthman 16:41, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

FreeCode

Not notable. 1,080 Google, Un-Alexable (neologism ^_^) however this may be due to systemic bias. Has three links (one per subsection) to same website. Always happy to be proven wrong. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've updated this entry to be more up-to-date. We are intending to expand the subsections in this page as our presence and reputy in the free software community grows. I've presented us to Alexa by submitting the information required to their editorial staff. Could you please explain the number in front of Google above (1,080)? Finally, we have four links to our sites, but none are to the same website. Please reconsider this deletion. guStaVo ZaeRa 20:32, 22 August 2005 (EST)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Weak keep, appears to be vanity but otherwise a valid topic. JYolkowski // talk 13:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the comments above by User:Zaera clearly show this is intended as advertising. Zoe 21:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete patent advert/spam. MCB 04:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, provides no useful information beyond advertising. -- Kjkolb 05:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

MCB and Zoe: Howcome pages like FAST, LinPro, Google, RedHat, Novell, IBM and countless other companies of various sizes are registered in Wikipedia? These are also company names and could also be regarded as advertisement/spam, right? Does the size of the company matter to the content of what can and cannot be listed in Wikipedia? What is Wikipedia's policy on this matter? guStaVo ZaeRa 15:31, September 7, 2005 (EST)

• There is a relationship between the notability of an articles subject and the amount of increased attention it will recieve from inclusion in Wikipedia. Google, for instance, has plenty of ink already, and thus an article on it would not be advertising. If you could provide other examples of smaller companies, perhaps? - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Aaron; Our company holds fortnightly seminars on free software to promote its usage in the business world --completely free of charge. Additionally, we release our own code -and our customers' code- under GPL, LGPL, and BSD-type licenses. This argues strongly we're actively contributing to the open source community --more so than many other Norwegian companies listed in Wikipedia: EZpublish, Telio, LinPro, Funcom, Visma, Chipcon, Opera, Schibsted, Dolphin Interconnect Solutions, and 24SevenOffice. --guStaVo ZaeRa 17:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I'd have listed EZpublish, Telio, Dolphin Interconnect Solutions, and 24SevenOffice for deletion as well. (I'm not doing it to avoid the appearance of violating WP:POINT.) Funcom, Chipcon, Freecode doesn't meet my personal criteria for inclusion just yet. Perhaps an article such as Norwegian open source community could hold some of the information until Freecode grows a bit?
    brenneman^(t)(c) 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How big does a company have to be to be included into wikipedia? It seems pretty clear to me that your rules for advertisement/spam are neither upheld nor clearly defined; several of the companies listed in WP do not have anything else than $$$ on their agenda, and they are allowed to advertise through WP. So, the question is then on the size of the company, but is this the number of employees, or the revenue? If the focus is on the revenue, is the cost of living calculated into the equation? A firm in Ghana of 200 employees, will probably not have anywhere near the revenue of a company in Norway, such as FreeCode.... And one more thing; What are your personal criteria for keeping a listing in WP? :) --guStaVo ZaeRa 13:23, September 9, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Freelandia

An airline with one plane in the 70's is not notable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Real airline. I added some content and fixed it up a little. Rx StrangeLove 23:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Real airline. 1 aircraft or 200 aircraft, it's real and notable that this member shared some wiki-info. Isn't that what it's all about in Wikiland?
• This nom was never added to a main VfD page; completing nom now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per unsigned vote above. Kappa 16:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A very real, but also very non-notable airline. Airlinecruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of the history of the industry. -- DS1953 18:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A Charter Service is not an Airline. A guy who rents his airplane is not notable. Also, the external link doesn't work. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do the people who vote to keep even bother to read the articles? This is not an airline, it's a charter service. There are probably a thousand charter services in Alaska alone. Zoe 21:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. Guettarda 23:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be a charter service, but it was notable enough to be covered by Time which is enough justification right there. The fact the airline included waterbeds adds additional trivia value. It may have also been one of the first to offer real discount fares, making it a predecessor to the discount airlines of today. Three good reasons to keep, even if it is "just" a charter service. 23skidoo 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Couldn't have said it better myself (referring to previous vote by 23skidoo). Apparently this chartered airline was much more than just a charter as it signified a huge change in airline travel, in concurrence with the views of the day. I think that this material is EXACTLY the type of material sought for Wikiland. Some of you folks were a wee-bit harsh here.

John1 5 September 2005

• Keep, as per above comments. I learned something new from the article... waterbeds! Anyway, we know its not an ad --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The bad external link was the result of a wiki mistake, it is fixed now. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Airline history is one of my fields, and Freelandia and the charter "travel club" model for discount air travel was very important in the field. The regulatory climate at the time made this very innovative and notable, independent of Freelandia's lack of long-term success. --MCB 04:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks good to me, good content, and apparently much more than just a charter. McA 19:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes Beau, I bothered to read this article. —RaD Man (talk) 02:10, 7 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 keep. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

From Software

nn/spam RR68 06:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. They did Armored Core 2 and own the Tenchu franchise, so if we want articles on the games, it would be nice to have an article on the game company. I reserve judgment on whether we actually want articles on every single video game of the past two decades, though; at some point maybe a line should be drawn. But not here, I think. --Quuxplusone 15:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep commercially released and distributed video games and the companies which make them. Kappa 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So are you really claiming that every single video game ever released should have an article? Zoe 21:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why any commercially released and distributed video game should not have an article, unless there is an equivalent of "vanity publishing" in the industry. Kappa 00:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable game developer. Deathawk 23:45, 5 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 keep. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Frédérik Boisvert

Shameless Self Promotion by a Tory, and in French as well-Jack Cox 7 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

• Keep - gimme a few minutes to turn it into something less POV and more English. --Diderot 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written by Diderot. Ground Zero 14:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Très bien fait avec la traduction! Amicuspublilius 22:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Convince me that he's notable and I'll change my vote. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. no prob with this. Alf ^melmac 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, major party candidate for Parliament. Zoe 21:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because of role in organisation. Well done Diderot for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by Diderot. Hall Monitor 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep re-written article. Mindmatrix 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite, as per Zoe & Capitalistroadster. — Nowhither 00:46, 9 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 keep. Note that this does not preclude merging with another article if a consensus exists to do so. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fukuoka-Kitakyushu

The two cities of Fukuoka and Kitakyushu are 50 km apart, with lots of countryside in between, so it is not a metropolitan area. Both cities are in Fukuoka prefecture, and the former is the prefectural capital, but residents of both do not use or refer to this concept of "Fukuoka-Kitakyushu", which is a misleading one. Also the second statement: "It probably takes up about 1000 to 2000 km2 (400 to 750 sq. mi.) of urban and ex-urban land. " is very vague indeed. So I propose this article be deleted. See also the discussion page. Historian 07:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Even if it is deleted, it likely to re-appear sooner or later. Negative comments will give more information than deleting it altogether. Soredewa 02:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: The articles in Wikipedia should be articles, not studies or campaigns. Fukuoka-Kitakyushu is not a metropolitan area but a (political) campaign.

I don't think this article will simply be delated; It should be renamed and reorganized. As the article describes that campaign, then it will be appropriate. --Suika, 29 July, 2005

Doesn't anyone else have an opinion? --Historian 04:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. Keep, seems like a somewhat valid topic. JYolkowski // talk 13:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The designation of "Fukuoka-Kitakyushu" as a "metropolitan area" was by government ordinance in 1972. Therefore, the link to metropolitan area is misleading; I'm going to change it to metropolitan area. (Incidentally, that "Cities designated by government ordinance" article is (was, I created a better name) tragically misnamed; it applies only the Japanese cities.) Nandesuka 16:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as officially designated metropolitan area. Capitalistroadster 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's #84 on the List of metropolitan areas by population and #83 on the list ja:都市圏人口の順位. Fg2 07:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think Kitakyushu was designated a metropolitan area in 1963 and Fukuoka in 1972. They were not designated together as "Fukuoka-Kitakyushu", were they? And as for the List of metropolitan areas by population it is admitted at the top of the page that the listing is "controversial". You bet it is! And here is the Japanese Kitakyushu Urban area which is different from the Fukuoka urban area. On the latter page it is specifically stated that there is a term "Fukuhoku Toshiken" (Fukuoka-Kitakyushu urban area) but it is not generally used. OK, people want to keep it. I accept the majority view, but I still think it is an unhelpful expression.--Historian 09:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps merge into Fukuoka-ken as it is hardly a notable term Ashibaka (tock) 18:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

OK I have removed the sentence "It probably..." and now I think it can be kept, though I would support a merge as suggested by Ashibaka. --Historian 11:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I have now added the following to Fukuoka-ken: "There are separate economic areas around Fukuoka and Kitakyushu, and very rarely the term "Fukuoka-Kitakyushu" is also used." When does this process finish - i.e. when can we get rid of Fukuoka-Kitakyushu ? --Historian 09:19, September 8, 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. Note that this does not preclude anybody from splitting, or merging, or split-merging (?) to their hearts content. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Steppe-tundra

I suppose this entry should be deleted, as it duplicated info contained in steppe and tundra. Or perhaps split? --TintoRetto 14:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - steppe tundra is real, and it is possible to write an encyclopaedic article here. This is not a candidate for deletion. Guettarda 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Split/Merge - This article is poorly placed (steppe is a classification of environment, seperate but similar to tundra). Moreover, the seperate entries for each are more accurate. ogl.codemonkey 05:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Split and merge? How, pray tell? It's neither steppe nor tundra, so why merge it into two things it is not? Guettarda 19:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Steppe-tundra is a palaeo community without modern analogues. I cannnot see how merging it into either of the two modern communties makes any sense. It's like merging ant lion into ant and lion. Guettarda 13:15, 13 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 speedy deleted. (11:38, 6 September 2005 Sasquatch deleted "Gilded cage") - Mailer Diablo 07:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Gilded cage

WP is not a dictionary Paul 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There could be an article about the notable hit song of 1900, She's Only a Bird in a Gilded Cage, by Arthur J. Lamb and Harry Von Tilzer. But the phrase "gilded cage" is not in any real use by itself. Obligatory pun: in some cases, she's only a build in a girdled cage. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to the strains of "Limelight" by Rush, from their album Moving Pictures. — Phil Welch 01:04, 6 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 keep (and cleanup). · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Galactic Ghoul

VFD notice added by 141.218.24.237 on August 12, 2005. Completion of AfD process occurred at later date. — Phil Welch 01:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Why has this page been marked for deletion?
  • Unsigned comment by 212.32.110.71. DNS lookup indicates possible sockpuppet of below. — Phil Welch 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to vote if I am not logged in? If so I vote to Keep. The article may not be particularly well-written, but it describes an important cultural creation of the early 21st century. Mars exploration is hugely ambitious and historic, and I think we should allow its explorers the recognition of recording the cultural icons of its explorers. David Corking 13:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Only comment by 82.153.195.65. DNS lookup indicates possible sockpuppet of above. — Phil Welch 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I agree - Dean
  • Only comment by 140.180.138.75. Princeton University IP. — Phil Welch 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. The existance of the term Great Galatic Ghoul was coined by John Casani of the Jet Propulsion Labatory in Pasadena, CA upon attempting to communicate to a reporter that developing successful space probes and missions was difficult. The reporter demanded a reason for failed space flights that he (in his simple mind) could comprehend. In frustriation John Casani told him perhaps there was a Great Galactic Ghoul at Mars that simple devoured spacecraft. The term Great Galactic Ghoul subsequently appeared in a prominent newspaper article. John Casani has been routinely reminded of this comment by his friends since that date. John Casani retired from JPL but was recalled to take charge of the PROMETHEUS mission. J. F. Skipper (JPL)
  • Only comment by 66.214.248.250. IP is registered to a California ISP. JPL is located in Pasadena, California. — Phil Welch 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was never added to a main VfD page and was malformed as well. Fixing both today. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known running joke during the Pioneer program. Pilatus 14:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The reference is here [9] at the bottom of the page. Pilatus 15:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, have added it. Sdedeo 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN: Move over Flying Spaghetti Monster. Karmafist 15:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep weak because only 730 googles for '"galactic ghoul" mars', but keep because seems main stream and something a person might want to look up. RJFJR 15:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep found numerous references at NASA & Space.com. Even though it is a bit of an inside joke, it is definately notable enough for a Wiki article. However, it needs to be cleaned up pronto to avoid a potential copyvio problem. -PlainSight 17:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a non-GFDL-compliant Wikipedia mirror. If you've found references that are not Wikipedia mirrors, please add them in a "References" section to the article. Uncle G 18:17:40, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable and notable within its field. FCYTravis 20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but this article needs sources, stat. Sdedeo 20:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ...which I have sort of provided. I couldn't find evidence that John Casani invented the term, however. Sdedeo 23:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I see we already have Mars Curse, and there's lots of duplicated info. I suggest a merge/redirect to that article. Sdedeo 23:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be expanded enough to justify it existing outside Mars curse, otherwise merge per Sdedeo. 23skidoo 00:56, 6 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 Keep --Aranda56 01:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

George B. Crist

DELETE:not important

• This nom was malformed and not added to a main VfD page... until now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep four-star general who was the first from the USMC to head the US Central Command. -- DS1953 19:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Marine four-star general with impressive record. Capitalistroadster 23:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 4-star with an impressive record indeed. McA 19:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. highly notable. I made some minor improvements to the article.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -Sean Curtin 00:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

George Barnes II

Vanity Page

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Adding now. No vote JYolkowski // talk 14:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The wikipedia isn't a bio-posting page for the world. McA 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like an interesting guy, but this is autobiographical vanity (check the author) and not encyclopedic. Paul 02:58, 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 redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Georges

This article may be truthful - but it doesn't deserve a full article on its own. In my opinion.

A.K.A.47 16:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and orphaned. Fixing now. Maybe redirect somewhere, haven't really decided where. JYolkowski // talk 14:20, 5 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 delete. -Sean Curtin 00:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Comic Jam

Blatant vanity article containing little or no useful information Agentsoo 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Unorphaning now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 14:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, comicjamming may be notable, but a substub without much context about an website on the topic sure isn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Feel free to redirect wherever you feel is best. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good and evil

User:Paul Klenk added a VfD tag but never completed the nomination. Doing so now. Keep or redirect somewhere (Ethics maybe?). JYolkowski // talk 14:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Evil exists, good exists, Beyond Good and Evil exists so I don't think this is necessary. Marskell 18:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Evil, a much better article. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:00, 6 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 delete -- Joolz 21:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Jarheen

Neologism. DS 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Booshka! — Phil Welch 01:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. jni 10:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be nonsense dictionary "definition". I think author forgot which wikimedai site he was trying to hoax.---CH (talk) 04:37, 12 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Steve midgley

I am the Steve Midgley referred to in this article, I am not a public figure, and I don't want this information posted about me. In addition it appears that this person copied text from a copyrighted website about me: [10]. Please delete this article 68.121.100.102 02:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

(comment nomination incorrectly made August 3, finished September 4th RJFJR 14:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC))

• Further comment the article is currently on copyvio, but before it was it looked non-notable. RJFJR 14:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I marked it as a possible copyvio in view of the above, but probably best just to delete it anyway. --Doc (?) 15:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn person. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio about non-notable person. Capitalistroadster 23:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• On second thoughts, this is A7 speedy even if it weren't a copyvio. The material that was copied contains nothing that asserts notability according to Wikipedia standards. Further, Mr Midgeley seems to have confirmed that he is not a public figure. Capitalistroadster 23:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tagged as such, making this possibly the first article in history to be tagged with three separate deletion tags. — Phil Welch 01:21, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Burton Third

Okay, MIT is one of the world's most famous universities, but this doesn't automatically make it's (sic) dorms notable. Wackiness alone is not enough. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy as attack page? There should be an article on Burton, though; there's nothing mergable here, unfortunately. Sdedeo 20:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• burton third is separate from burton and therefore should have its own entry. it has a rich history that sets it apart from the rest of MIT.
• Delete, dorms are not inherently notable, let alone sections of dorms. -- Kjkolb 05:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Random House has had a Wikipedia article for some time. Although Random is a full dorm at MIT, it has less residents than does Burton Third. Though the Burton Third article is obviously a stub and lacking in what would be the depth needed to show why it is a legitimate entry, it should stay so that it can be added to. Then the unique history of this community dating back almost 50 years at one of the most prestigious universities in the world can be available for reading and appension.

Whoever has said that dorms are not inherently notable has obviously never spent time around MIT. Our dorms are world renowned (yes, I'm serious) for their unique character and rich history. Burton Third is among the top tier of that group of famous dorms. Therefore, I believe it deserves a proper recognition.

This article should stay because Burton Third is unique, not only within Burton Conner but also throughout MIT. Things that are unique at MIT, whether they be positive or negative, always end up being acknowledged, and better Burton Third than the 10 year old milk in Random House. (don't get me wrong, that's impressive)

• Keep, while this may be only half of one level of one dorm, to anybody in the hacking world who has spent time at MIT, it is an entity known for its vibrance, quite unique when compared to most parts of that section of the campus. -- Cronus 06:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• merge with similar articles into an article on MIT culture. I could live with that because dorm culture has been featured in a PBS show, but clearly an encyclopedia article on a section of a particular dorm at any university is utterly absurd.---CH (talk) 03:15, 12 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Worst natural disaster in US history

POV and probably original research. Some of it might be worth merging with Hurricane Katrina, but I'm not sure what. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The current article isn't very good, but it could potentially be turned into an interesting and well referenced page like Films that have been considered the greatest ever. - SimonP 15:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The title is awful. What happens if/when something worse happens? Delete the article? If they want, they could make a list article with the title: "Worst natural disasters in US history." I'm still not sure if this is the worst anyway, about 3000 died in 1906 San Francisco earthquake. --Quasipalm 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean a list article like List of major natural disasters in the United States or List of United States disasters by death toll? Uncle G 18:04:25, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Delete. The current article is a personal opinion/essay piece (Wikipedia is not a blog). If it were recreated as an article listing estimates in terms of numbers dead or estimated damage caused with references, then it might be worth keeping. Average Earthman 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthless title, horrible POV. Simon might be right, but I'm not entirely sure how to go at it. Earthman has a similar point. But this article needs to go away. --Golbez 17:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It almost seems like a really long test page. Marskell 18:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research/POV --IByte 18:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a catch phrase used by the media and government officials to try to convey the magnitude of a catastrophy.
  If that's true it can be covered in the Hurricane article. No one's going to look up such a long catch phrase. List of major natural disasters in the United States and List of United States disasters by death toll do a fine job at determining the severity of US disasters. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Worst article title in Wikipedia history. — Phil Welch 01:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eventually it seems reasonable to simply stop contributing rants disguised as articles to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with Hurricane Katrina 70.224.79.181 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blogs are free, man. Get one. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that the article shows a definite point of view. Could a heading be put with Hurricane Katrina concerning viewpoints about it be labeled Worst natural disaster in US history? Could then the page for Worst natural disaster in US history be used to point to the objectively relevant worst US natural disaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.131.196 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice blog essay, but terrible encyclopedia article. The policy guideline page Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not specifically states that Wikipedia is not a blog .---CH (talk) 23:20, 11 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate-Guitar

As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable guitar-tabs archive plus a non-notable special-interest forum. --Quuxplusone 15:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (Nominator's vote)   Advertisement for non-encyclopedic website. Wait until (1) people start using it (Amazon); (2) it enters pop culture (Google), or (3) there's something interesting to write about it. --Quuxplusone 15:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Even I know it and I don't play guitar. Spearhead 16:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• EXTERMINATE! — Phil Welch 01:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. Korg (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is a pretty popular tabs website [11]. Article does need to be rewritten though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and put as external link on another appropriate page, unless suitable references and usages can be cited to support its inclusion.Tyrenius 04:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, One of the most popular tab sites, with extremely useful articles, and a huge amount of users, but the article needs re-writing. Rodders 21:35, 12 September 2005(UTC)
  • Previous comment posted by IP 86.132.68.251, there is no such user. [12] Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:26, September 12, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Takfa

I speedied this before and the poster just removed the speedy. It doesn't appear hoaxy, so instead of just re-speedying it, I guess we can vote on it. Unfortunately, the author doesn't say anything to give this topic notably and I can't see anything that pops out that this is a stub article, which a significant future to be expanded or be useful to the Wikipedia community at large. Antares33712 21:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Original nominator did not list entry - now fixed (no vote) --Doc (?) 15:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: isn't "the first Iranian complete and countrywide plan for ICT" an assertion of notability? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm dismayed anyone would try to speedy delete this. Kappa 22:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very poor candidate for speedy. Sdedeo 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion. It's a stub, yes, but useful and expandable. MCB 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hard to believe this was nominated for AfD, much less for a Speedy. --Nicodemus75 07:45, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Nauless

Not sure this is quite CSD, so I'll put it here. Lack of neutrality, un-encyclopedic, possibly non-notable term, and if it is notable, should be transwiki. -- Soir (say hi) 15:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to wiktionary --Quasipalm 16:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Eliminate With Fire: Somewhere between a BJAODN and a neologism. --(unsigned by User:Karmafist, 21:31, 5 September 2005)
• Delete, do not move to Wiktionary. Zero Google hits, except as a street name in East Brixton. Zoe 21:17, September 5, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

TeamLeviathan

Delete Not notable/vanity page. Icelight July 9, 2005 18:20 (UTC)

• Delete, ditto. Paul 23:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this vfd was not listed by original nominator - now fixed --Doc (?) 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn airsoft team. Doesn't appear to have won any major tournaments if those even exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:54, September 5, 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, however this does not preclude anyone from being bold and merging and redirecting the content elsewhere. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Horse

This was VFD'd and deleted in January (see archived discussion), but it seems to have been independently recreated with a lot more content (the old article was just one sentence). The arguments in the VFD were against a "throwaway character on Ren and Stimpy" like poor Mr. Horse having an article in the first place, but it looks decent as it is right now. I submit it to AFD for reconsideration. Coffee 16:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He's mentioned in Ren and Stimpy. That's enough. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• If he's mentioned there, surely at least redirect there so people looking for information (which is why we're here, remember?) can find it. —Cryptic (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect. This article contains a lot more info and cannot be compared to the VFD on the previous one sentence article. Just because he's minor doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to Ren and Stimpy. I think I look a bit like Stimpy so it might be my bias talking here. Alf ^melmac 20:14, 5 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 keep. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ted Sizer

Looks like self promotion, and probably doesn't meet notability criteria. The contact information in the article probably creates a problem too. (Unsigned by Robinoke (talk · contribs))

• The only problem with this entry is that it doesn't give the man the credit he deserves. He is an absolute giant in the field. (unsigned by 128.103.176.23 (talk · contribs))

• I was abslolutely shocked that this was ALL the Wiki had on Sizer. I recommend: remove the contact information, and regard this as a stub to be expanded. Theodore ("Ted") Sizer is known to practically all knowledgeable educators for his 1984 "Horace's Compromise," and has been churning out books since then. And although he's relatively unread outside of education circles, this doesn't have to be the case; his writing is engaging and readable enough for anyone, unlike much of the educational philosophy writing. In fact, anyone with a vested interest in schooling--including anyone who has a child in school or went to school themself--ought to read "Horace's Compromise." --Andrew Bonner (unsigned by 65.87.180.216 (talk · contribs))
• Comment nominator failed to list on vfd, now fixing (no vote) --Doc (?) 16:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable educator, underwhelming article. Plenty of google hits, books on Amazon, etc... -- DS1953 17:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I revised the article. -- DS1953
• Keep. Definitely a notable educationalist, as article now clearly demonstrates Sliggy 21:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Google hits seem to indicate notability even further than what is indicated in the article. Zoe 21:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unquestionably notable figure. Name should be corrected to form used for book authorship. Judge Magney 22:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as educational educationalist. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable figure within his field. Hall Monitor 17:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. More notable than the article suggests. --JahJah 13:47, 9 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 keep. I encourage anyone who would like it to be renamed to be bold and rename it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Term for gay in different languages

Badly titled, with little information. Non-expandable, not very useful. Exploding Boy 05:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Gay. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Sexual slurs or Keep, provided the title is changed to something more clear. Ryan 11:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename as "International slang terms for gay" or something like that. (Note: I can see this list as becoming HUGE, so there probably should be some work on the formatting as well to condense it down.) 2nd choice is merge with Sexual slurs. BlankVerse ∅ 12:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't usually like lists, as they are very rarely helpful, but this one seems like it could be a useful reference. Keep, but consider (on the talk page) a new name. -- Essjay · Talk 05:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, as User:BlankVerse] suggestest. Second choice, like BV, is to merge with sexual slurs. — OwenBlacker 20:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - Blank's idea is good. --Romeo Bravo ^=/\= 21:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, and remove stereotypical concepts. Originally I created this list as an anonymous user, and I intended it to be (or: I deemed it most useful as) a collection of interesting terms which are in and of itself completely unrelated to gayness, like "light blue" in Russian and "warm" in Hungarian. I don't welcome the different variants of "effeminate gay male" and "sodomite" etc. here (unless they have a really special history, like Hungarian buzi from Bogomil heretics), since they only reflect common stereotypes. The goal of this list was to collect interesting, unusual, unexpected terms, not commonplaces (especially not abusive ones). – If you agree, this idea could be made explicit in a brief and concise note at the beginning of the article and the irrelevant terms could be removed. That's what could differentiate this list from sexual slurs, and that's why they should not be merged, in my opinion. -- ClosetedOne 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment strangely seems never to have been listed on afd/vfd - listing now (no vote) --Doc (?) 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't this what Wiktionary is for? Otherwise rename to List of international slang terms for gay or List of sexual slurs. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting, provides useful context to other articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:31, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
• Keep as per BlankVerse. —RaD Man (talk) 02:16, 7 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Lords of the rhymes

Poorly written page, probably vanity. "Lords of the rhymes" gets about 4,000 Google hits, but many of them might refer to other individuals/groups. Paul 16:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Frodo keep, but needs improvement. I get 10,500 Google hits, not 4,000. —RaD Man (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand and improve Pictureuploader 12:17, 10 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 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Birdman

vanity site, google turned up no hits for either John Bryant or his alias "The Birdman", or at least none for this guy. Although a picture of him does show up when search "John Bryant" on google images... The_stuart 19:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment (never listed on afd/vfd by nom - now fixing) borderline notability nearly 300 googles but mmost are noticeboard posts - published author - but not on amazon (?) poss vanity publishing (no vote) --Doc (?) 16:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've had some encounters with him, going back to before the Web even existed; he's (in)famous in Mensa circles. *Dan* 17:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Pilatus 17:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Apparently Mensa has lowered its standards. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 80.42.95.92 is Bryant either in disguise or sockpuppeting. This article reeks of POV ad ranting, and it's humorous that he tries to cement his notability by adding a link to alexa, which has him at around 73,000. If he has problems, i'm sure he can always get his cousin, Harvey Birdman, to represent him in Wikicourt. Karmafist 17:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just for reference, Mensa's standards are based solely on IQ, as measured by standardized tests, not on morality, ethics, or non-looniness of political or social ideas. *Dan* 17:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment That's my point. How can someone with such poor grammatical skills be considered a genius? Is he an autistic savant genius who can calculate Pi to the umpteenth place, but poops in their pants while doing so? Is he a genius at cheating on IQ tests? Does he get to combine his IQ with the IQ of the bird sitting on his head? Help me out here.

If he didn't write this, then I apologize because alot of the article sounds like a Press Release written by someone that doesn't speak English. I have no problem with contreversial and/or notable figures, but this is neither unless you count "The dumbest person ever to be considered a genius by Mensa" notable. Karmafist 19:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; Mensa membership, vanity press, and a website plus $1.50 will get you a ride on the subway. Paul 18:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (P.S. Bonus points for Karmafist. rofl.)
• Delete - nn CLW 19:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice (non-notable, vanity, advertising). If we can't find any prejudice to delete with, I think there's some extra laying around at his website we could probably borrow. Nandesuka 19:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Paul, but note that city subway fare is now $2; there are no non-notable anti-semetic kook discounts. Sdedeo 20:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only 29 unique Google hits for "John Bryant" "The Birdman", only seven Usenet hits, only 9 Usenet hits for "john@thebirdman.org", only 34 unique Google hits for "john@thebirdman.org". Zoe 21:26, September 5, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Amanda wilde

Non-notable, even if it could be verified and whatnot. Bad article, too. Paul 16:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Non-notable. Thryduulf 17:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Non-notable. Twthmoses 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Article should move to Amanda Wilde if it is kept. One of the two red links to that title was added by the creator of this article. A longer biography is at http://www.kuow.org/staff_wilde.asp so I don't know why it could not be verified. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, Scott, I should have said "if it were verified;" it can be, but ditch it anyway, y'know? Paul 04:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Rewrite/Move She's fairly well known/notable in Seattle radio circles though the article needs a small facelift and should be moved to Amanda Wilde Jessamyn 01:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with an article on the show itself, which was hosted for many years by Cynthia Doyon. What's this, no Wikipedia article exists on Cynthia Doyon?! For shame, for shame! Journalism fans of the world, you have your marching orders!---CH (talk) 01:05, 12 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 redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Davy Jones Locker

The article does not assert notability and afaict does not meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. The title should become a redirect to Davy Jones' Locker (note apostrophe), which is what I was looking for when I came accross this article Thryduulf 16:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• redirect to Davy Jones' Locker; FYI the nominator can (and should) do this himself without going through AfD if redirection is the outcome he desires. —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:22, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Go It Alone

Probable band vanity. Primary claim to fame is membership of Lucas McFadden, a musician who's article failed its AfD. Search for the group on allmusic finds no hits. --Allen3 ^talk 17:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete a band that fails all of WP:MUSIC until we add one about having a band member previously being deleted from WP. -Splash 23:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:41, 9 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 no consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Null

Poorly written advertising article about a non-notable individual; written by an IP that has been posting PR material for the organisation this fellow is a member of (Future Publishing). Suggest nuking out of orbit. NicholasTurnbull 17:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. --NicholasTurnbull 17:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep - probably vanity but his books are listed on amazon. --TimPope 20:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I demur. Tim, what were you thinking? Amazon is a bookseller-- should any encyclopedia attempt to duplicate (and keep up to date) their catalog? Obviously not! ---CH (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Nuke Out of Orbit per nom. Karmafist 23:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable per his publications list. By the way, shouldn't it be "nuke from orbit"? Sdedeo 23:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess that depends on who is doing the orbiting? Kappa 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's like... oh... that is so horrible... I do not want to land on that planet... I will nuke from orbit. I think. My galactic overlord days are long over. Sdedeo 00:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I suggest a quick refresher of Wikiquote:Aliens at this point. ☺ Uncle G 01:27:10, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate journalist and published author. Kappa 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the established WP:BIO guidelines. Hall Monitor 17:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and possible adspam. What is the circulation of this magazine? Looks to me like someone is trying rather desperately to increase this figure.---CH (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please compare this person's notability with that of Cyrus Farivar, which is a self-confessed vanity article. Kappa 03:13, 12 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Kamickalo

Virtual person in a virtual world NeilN 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete none notable virtual person in a none-notable clan, set in a game in a virtual world - speedy! Twthmoses 17:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A7 vanity. Hopefully this takes care of non-notable gamers from non-notable gaming clans and their nicknames. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:43, 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 speedied. FCYTravis 19:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hellish Buttfuckk

Vanity, not notable / does not exist. Hellish Buttfuckk and all affiliated pages, COMPACT DISCrimination, Rectumcrust Records, Pferffenhalter Entertainment, Catkiller, Crustmania and Fetus Fromage.

zero google hits for "Hellish Buttfuckk" (HellishButtfuckk will give one hit) zero "COMPACT DISCrimination" zero "Rectumcrust Records" zero "Pferffenhalter Entertainment" zero "Crustmania" zero "Fetus Fromage" Twthmoses 17:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedily deleted this and all related articles as clear hoaxes. Nice find, Twthmoses. FCYTravis 19:18, 5 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 COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite. -Splash^talk 18:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Camp Rising Sun

Not notable. Reads like it was ripped directly from the camp's website (copyvio). --Icarus 18:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed it does, because that's in fact what happened. The original submitter in fact provided a link directly to the infringed website in the article itself. This belongs at WP:CP, where I've now listed it. —Cryptic (talk) 08:10, 15 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 no votes apart form the nomination, I will resubmit this one to the September 15 queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

SoundTechNarrative2

No context, very strange name, apparent duplication of From Sound to Image. Probably a good faith newbie experiment, but not doing anyone any good here. Alai 18:05, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ilona Torok

Delete. Non-encyclopedic biography, possibly a hoax. Maybe some of the information is factual, but it definitely is not informative. Celzrro 02:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination was never added to a main VfD page. Doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Did Ilona post this? *chuckle* Not noteworthy. McA 19:53, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Intradynamix

Looks like a vanity page.

• This VfD nomination was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. --Finbarr Saunders 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Twthmoses 11:12, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ionwë Andaer

This article is about a fan-made original character, and has nothing to do with Tolkien canon, nor with any popular fanfiction.

Delete please. It isn't Tolkien - just an egotistical fanfiction author. 86.136.86.221 21:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Delete, vanity. JYolkowski // talk 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I just took a -2 CHR penalty from reading that article and understanding it. Hoax, vanity. Nandesuka 19:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• This page was created by User:Ionwë Andaer so I humbly suggest we move it to their userpage. Otherwise, delete Ashibaka (tock) 00:05, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Brent Nichols

Students aren't notable. Can't find evidence of notable research or entertainment contributions. --Finbarr Saunders 18:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - not notable CLW 18:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Sdedeo 20:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, just barely the wrong side of an A7 speedy. -Splash 23:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn ---CH (talk) 01:55, 12 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines

Point of view. Member has been warned in the past by other members. Not proven facts SFrank85 18:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think the objections I wrote to Salvation Army doctrines are philosophically and logically valid. If Christians don't like it they should try and refute the arguments.Barbara Shack 17:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the objections you wrote are valid, invalid, correct, or incorrect is completely beside the point. The issue is that you wrote them, and therefore they are original research; see Wikipedia:No original research for why this is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. Regards, Nandesuka 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not NPOV. We're all entitled to opinions, but encyclopedic entries are not the place for them. CLW 18:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Not having the neutral point of view is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for cleanup, and is why we have the {{NPOV}} cleanup tag in the toolbox. A reason for deletion for this article would be if it were original research, i.e. a novel argument about an issue that is being promoted by its author directly on Wikipedia, rather than being a tertiary source encyclopaedia article citing sources where others have already presented the argument. Uncle G 19:14:03, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
    • The user's arguements that have been created in this topic are not provable and pointless. This is not about editing, because it is not editable! SFrank85 19:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The article is editable. It's not protected. Whether the arguments are proven is irrelevant here. What counts is whether what is put forward is not original. If it is not original, and sources are cited for it, then concerns about maintaining the neutral point of view come into play, which are dealt with by cleanup, by editing. Uncle G 20:27:16, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Delete - his topic are not provable and pointless. Beyond editing. SFrank85 19:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This duplicates the nominator's implicit vote.
• Delete. The article is unapologetically composed entirely of original research. I invite the author to publish his or her original research elsewhere -- not in Wikipedia. Nandesuka 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be original research. Willing to change my vote if this changes. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have said merge to Salvation Army criticism subsection, but look at the article, man. Serious kook. Sdedeo 20:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete irrelevant article - these are objection to Christianity in general - as such they can be and are discussed elsewhere. There is nothing here that is specific to the Salvation Army --Doc (?) 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc. The objections in this article do not obviously relate to the Salvation Army as differentiated from many other Christian denominations. --Metropolitan90 23:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT --ZappaZ 23:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article overflows with POV that is irrelevant to the subject matter and has no home anywhere else on Wiki. -Splash 23:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one shitty article. — Phil Welch 01:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Barbara Shack 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Is my article shitty? If I used grossly offensive language like that I would be warned at the least. If I persisted I would be soft-banned or even hard-banned. Lets have the same language rules for everyone.

Having something I have written torn apart like this is bad enough without grossly offensive language.

• Delete as OR, religioncruft, personal rant, whatever. MCB 04:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this absurdity. --Nicodemus75 07:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc. Irmgard 10:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, theological "deep thoughts" having nothing to do with the Army. Gazpacho 16:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These comments are the authors POV and have no place in an Encyclopedia Kiwimac
• Barbara Shack 18:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Can the material or some of the material in the article be transferred to criticism of fundamentalist Christianity?
  • You calling the Salvation Army a fundamentalist Christian church? Because the Army is far from that! SFrank85 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – Not encyclopedic. --WhyBeNormal 02:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. Jonathunder 04:26, 2005 September 9 (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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Portglenone

Amusing nonsense, but nonsense all the same! CLW 18:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep and major cleanup. It's a real place with several incoming wp links. Terrible article as-is, though. —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. Real, notable place. If no one else gets to cleaning it up, I will eventually. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, real place. Zoe 21:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Real place with real communities of interest and at least some level of notability. Article needs a major cleanup though. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - further to my original nomination for deletion, the nonsense has been deleted and a useful stub created. CLW 18:54, 7 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxon = Joke Account

---

Note to closing admin: Please check the history and make sure none of the votes have been tampered with. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

Nonsense, can someone speedy this? Calls for speedy deletes get removed. NeilN 18:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nominator. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but I don't think it's a speedy except perhaps as an attack page? —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Congratulations, you managed to get a sign on TV (at a wrestling event, where everyone has them, too). Nonsense, and not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Note that anon editors are editing the page in an attempt to disrupt other Users' computers, and repeatedly vandalizing this page. Zoe 22:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense and vandal magnet (such as 62.254.14.208 (talk · contribs) and 24.3.165.182 (talk · contribs), who blanked this AfD.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have protected the page because of repeated vandalism. Zoe 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would love to see this page live on. I know it's kind of stupid, but that's part of todays culture, learning about idiot things other people have done. I beleive it has a place in the Wikipedia

• Please note that Ziddy attempted to change Zoe's comment to a delete vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A note on a wrestling event that sparked an injoke on one messageboard or forum, is not important enough for its own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, messageboard cruft. — JIP | Talk 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing redeems this article. McPhail 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, speedy is fine, messageboardcruft. --Idont Havaname 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense---CH (talk) 07:16, 12 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 no votes apart from the nomination, I will relist. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Piso mojado

NN, created as self-promotion fuddlemark (talk) 18:57, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hellatight Site

Completely non-notable forumcruft tripe supported by vandals. Gets all of 9 Google hits, has no Alexa ranking and fewer than 80 members. Speedy deleted by myself, User:Dpbsmith requested that I nominate it for deletion. I still think it's speedyable material, but I'll take great pleasure in watching this go down in flames on AFD. FCYTravis 19:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please put all extended comments on other people's votes on this article's discussion page, not here. Please also remember no personal attacks is official Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 22:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Travis's hate filled diatribe aside, I would like to point out that the history of the current site stretches back beyond the current site itself. I would estime a good 100 members or so have not yet made the move to the new site for various reasons. I will not argue the point that it is not physically a huge site at this point but there is content there and there had been questions as to the history of it that I felt the entry answered.

• Delete, forum vanity. Wikipedia is not an index to every page on the web. —Cryptic (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forum vanity, per Cryptic. Nandesuka 19:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forum vanity, per Cryptic. --NeilN 19:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forumcruft. Wikipedia is not a web directory. android79 19:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cryptic. Note that Hellduck5000 identifies himself as "Pinchdice", the founder of the board. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Please do not let vandals of the hellatightsite entry (whose actions were NOT condoned by hellatightsite) be just cause for its deletion. The entry on your site serves to advise anyone interested the lengths required to create a webpage and is therefore a worthy/valid addition to wikepedia.com. Thank you, gared111 12:44pm 5 September 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.67 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 September 2005
• Keep Travis' own profile states that he plays with the delete button. It is my opinion that he abuses some self-perceived authority in contrast with Wikipedia:Administrators. Furthermore, the article was neither an advertisement nor SPAM. It is merely an article about the history of a website. The original author is well known within the community of Howard Stern-related bulletin boards. Simply because the site is one month old doesn't mean the article about the history has no merit or validity. If you want to argue relevance, there are many articles, some that FCYTravis edits and supports, that have no merit or validity to me. If you want to argue "vanity," certainly under semantics anyone who posts an article here does so for vain reasons. The first person to post about the 7/7 London Bombings probably felt good having "broke" the story on Wikipedia. For FCYTravis to use "vandalism" as a cause for deletion is a petty and weak argument. Some, like myself, could view abuse of access as a form of vandalism. STFI Alumni 20:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest Delete Possible: Not only is it cruft, which is good enough for a delete, but there's the meatpuppet/sockpuppet brigade here. (Hellduck5000 hasn't made any edits outside of the page in question or this vfd, STFI Alumni only has 3, and the rest of the keepers are IP Addresses which are automatically eliminated because Anon IP+VfD Page=Sockpuppet 100% of the time in my eyes.)

Kudos to Travis on how he's keeping cool despite the puppet attacks. Also to the newbie/s, please read WP:civil and WP:NOT before you make any more comments. With how it's going so far, you're just making things harder on yourself/selves. Karmafist 20:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• A "hate-filled" delete for non-notable cruft from me. Sdedeo 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Forumcruftvanity, supported by editors who might like to consider that being more than a little belligerent is extraordinarily unlikely to persuade anyone here to change their vote. Reasoned persuasion, on the other hand, well, you never know. And to the bureaucracy side of this: sometimes there's really no need to generate it where it isn't needed. -Splash 21:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, way too many sock puppets and too many attacks on a valid AfD listing. Vanity, nn. Zoe 21:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• OMGWTFBBQPWNN00BS or Strong Delete --fpo 21:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP-Personally I think it's a shame that someone who "has fun with the delete button" gets to decide what's mature on this issue. Note: here comes the "this guy only has an edit on this page" argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.97.185 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2005
  • Hey all. I just wanted to make the argument that this guy only has an edit on this page. Sdedeo 22:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• EXTREME Delete Ashibaka (tock) 00:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable forum for sockpuppets. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey I never heard of most of those things in your Hopefully Not VfD bait section. Does that make them not notable? Also what are sockpuppets anyway? I think the people who spend time visiting the site might find that a tad insulting.
• Obvious delete. Gamaliel 00:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE non notable G Clark 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Barely registers on Google, no Alexa rank and currently around 80 members. Even if there's still around 100 members to find the new location it fails WP:WEB guidelines miserably. Websites need to reach a sufficient audience before getting an article on Wikipedia. In this case, I believe Travis made a good call in deleting this. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Marcus22 12:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.--Isotope23 13:09, 6 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 keep. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Jurong Island Bus Terminal

Google has no hits for "Jurong Island Bus Terminal". Altogether, this looks like a local bus stop on Jurong Island that is served by two local bus routes. Pilatus 19:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete bus stops are too minor. --TimPope 20:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — doesn't appear notable in any respect. — RJH 21:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A bus terminal is not a bus stop. Duh. --Huaiwei 11:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't think a bus terminal only served by two routes merit an encyclopædic article. — Instantnood 11:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the only bus terminal in Singapore to have hydrogran cell refueling facilities, I would think that is pretty notable, even if only two routes are operated from it.--Huaiwei 11:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree. This piece of information was not available until your recent edit [13]. Nevertheless I'd suggest to have an article for all other terminals with less than 5 (or 10) routes, and link to the main articles of the more notable terminals. — Instantnood 11:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I don't like it, but there are numerous other examples of this kind of article at Category:Bus stubs. If they stay, this should stay as well. Statement left by User:Khaosworks Pilatus 16:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless, and verifiable. CalJW 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just like all the others, and for the same reason as Mailer Diablo SchmuckyTheCat 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just like Mailer Diablo and all the others. Advanced 13:38, 13 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Lovejoy clause

If it really were a corollary to Godwin's law, it would have more than 0 googles. Delete ~~ N (t/c) 19:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not very informative. SFrank85 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any important element of The Simpsons should possibly be verified by online sources because of its status in pop culture. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ramseen Rayes

Appears to be a hoax. Only 3 hits on google, two of which were this article. The other was for Powerhouse Motors, where an actual Ramseen Rayes works. Delete.--Shanel 19:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Bungopolis 09:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly a hoax ---CH (talk) 08:20, 12 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

5 GLORYHOLES

From WP:NOT: WIkipedia is not a propaganda machine - advertising -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's just an advertisement. -- LGagnon 20:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an horrific advertisement. I will nowiki the link. -Splash 23:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep So you Wikis tell my why other games could be inside wikipedia, and a game from an independent free noncommercial software group

should be deleted. this game has no sexual, violent or rasisitc content and was developed by a multi cultural group. so girls & boys take a look on it & you'll know what i mean. williamCoopers 01:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC) _{Creator of article as first edit}

• Keep i think it's really wiked from some users above, if they don't want support free noncommercial softwaregroups. if they don't like the description of the game, they should write a better one.fango 20:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)_{First two edits to Talk:5 Gloryholes. Edit 3 and 4 right here.}
• Keep WE ONLY SAY KEEP IT & SUPPORT FREE SOFTWARE GROUPS! DieBahnLackierer! _{Anonymous editor from URL: 84.56.167.231}
• Delete Make it notable, fellas. Ashibaka (tock) 18:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actually it's based on the simple game Whack-A-Mole, but they realized it really fine. And please discuss, it's not enough to say delete it.... JankoHraschko 21:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC) _{First and only edit so far this one right here.}
• Keep if delete this, so delete this, Nadine
• Delete in spite of what Nadine _{(AKA 84.56.159.198 anonymous editor)} said. Maybe the designers are unaware of the sexual slang usage of glory hole - or maybe they are. I don't know. I didn't try the game out to see what actually comes out of the 5 glory holes.

Oh, and did you notice? Suspicion of sockpuppetry.--WCFrancis 04:14, 7 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi-Tech (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

Though it's absolutely fanscinating that there is a character called Hi-Tech in TMNT, I doubt think it's worth having an article to say that. Since he's apparently from the older series, and at the very least *I've* never heard of him (or her, I guess - it doesn't make that clear either), I don't think it's likely that any more info is going to become apparent any time soon. -- Supermorff 19:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is useless. -- LGagnon 20:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 21:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So as I understand this: Hi-Tech is fictional within fiction?! The technical term round 'ere is "non-canon fanfiction", but...yeah... -Splash 23:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No. You misunderstand. (S)he's just fictional.

• Delete as uninformative substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Laguna technopark inc.

This article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement JoanneB 20:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete as a cut'n'paste ad. Tagged as copyvio, too. —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:26, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Black hole weapon

Delete per WP:NOR, for being original research. Only that "research" is a bit far-fetched here. --Pjacobi 20:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as or/crystal-balling. —brighterorange ^(talk) 20:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. I can't think of a decent "put it in a black hole" pun, so if someone else would oblige... -Splash 23:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--this article sucks. Meelar (talk) 00:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this weapon was apparently used in Blade Runner, and is therefore a valid science fiction weapon. The real science of science fiction weapons is often speculative. -Lethe | Talk 00:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. If anyone wants to write a stub on the Blade Runner weapon, I'd be happy to keep, but this material shouldn't be allowed to stay. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete: violates "original research"; articles on speculative proposals which have been widely discussed in the physics literature certainly have a place in Wikipedia, but this topic does not fit the bill. Let's delete this and if the original author wants to try again, he can write an article on the fictional "weapon" as suggested by other users above.---CH (talk) 17:24, 11 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 redirected to complete a merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs

Insufficiently notable — ciphergoth 20:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

The first vote states content was merged. I have redirected the article to retain the edit history and attribution per GFDL requirements for a merge. You can't keep the content and delete the history- Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

• Delete - I merged the content of this article into Flying Spaghetti Monsterism because it wasn't really notable enough for an article of its own. That content was cut down to almost nothing in that article because it wasn't considered notable enough even for that. To use that as justification to resurrect this article isn't an accurate view of what happened. The only notable thing about it is a very brief mention as an aside in the New York Times; it therefore deserves mention as an aside in the FSM article, which it now has. This isn't Uncyclopaedia.
• Delete per nom. Sdedeo 20:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect bogdan | ^Talk 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Nandesuka 21:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Even though I agree that the article is not all that "notable." But the Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge that should include what some may want to know even though most would find it "not notable." Indeed, arguably, most information in an encyclopedia would be deemed not notable by most people.

I wouldn't have created this page if its "mention as an aside in the FSM article"---which I agree is all that is needed (or "justified")---hadn't disappeared. For this reason, merger with fsm doesn't work because of the volatility of the fsm page. E.g., if someone reading the NY Times article (or after hearing about it from some other newspaper or blog) went to Wikipedia to find out what SPAM is, they would be redirected to fsm where there was no mention of SPAM. (This is also why a redirect won't work.)

I changed the fsm page to mention spam again, but that won't necessarily last. The solution is to have very brief articles such as this SPAM article that can stand alone and not be affected by changes on other pages. What's wrong with such a short article/note? Wikipedia is not like a paper encyclopedia where space is limited. While not an important article, it would never be seen by someone who is not specifically interested. It would not fill some volume taking space on some bookshelf. If someone wanted to learn about "spaghetti," for example, they wouldn't have to pick up an unwieldy volume weighed down with articles like spam, i.e., if not interested in this specific topic, users of the Wikipedia will never be aware of its existence.

While I don't think every word ever written should end up in the Wikipedia, this is information that people are actively seeking today. The NY Times article/column has been reprinted verbatim in newspapers all over the world, not to mention innumerable blogs. To be able to find out more and at least be directed to external sources for further information, isn't that the function of an encyclopedia?

• Delete. Goodness me. Wikipedia is not a junkyard for collecting every piece of information floating about the place. Given the reason for keeping FSM (it was used to bully an education board), I'm not even persuaded of the case for the merge, but there we are. Since it wasn't a merge in the GFDL-retaining-redirect sense, we should just remove this page. -Splash 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the principle is that you are espousing: "the reason for keeping FSM [is because] it was used to bully an education board." Apparently, the fact that it was used to ridicule a school board makes it eligible for inclusion? The VAST majority of people who show interest in FSM---especially those who edit it and develop other parodies and have developed the uncyclopedia article---are in it for the humor/entertainment. Is that legitimate enough to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia? If not, why not? Comic cultural elements are surely of legitimate interest to many. The issue for an encyclopedia surely is "what information may people be interested in seeking?" Not "what do you or I find to be junk or worthy." Indeed, short articles like this would help to prevent what your user page indicates that you are concerned about, i.e., people putting stuff in articles that doesn't really belong there and weakening the credibility of wikipedia. Short pieces like this one will not be seen by someone stopping in a "wikishop" looking for something else and will thus cut down on the feeling that extraneous information has been shoved into an article. Again, why shouldn't people be able to find out about something they are interested in, especially if making the info available does NOT clutter up other articles? -Kriegman

• Delete, we must keep some information out of Wikipedia, lest some of us decide to destroy the universe to prevent new information from forming. -- Kjkolb 06:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - If Wikipedia has room from FSM-ism it has room for SPAM. I also agree with the argument that relying on a reference to SPAM in the FSM artcile is likely to be transient. Moschops 06:35, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Jibbering records

Nothing notable that I can tell. --Hooperbloob 20:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Note: re-listing, as there were no votes either way following the original nomination. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. The web site seems to paint them as simply a record store, not a record label. If they're a label of even modest signficance, I would include them, but I can't see proof of that. --rob 08:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising for a local store. No evidence of it being a label. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it is a single, non-notable record store. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Duckfluff

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete agree with sonic mew. --Banana04131 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Under which of the WP:CSD would you speedy it? -Splash 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect to down feathers since this title is a slang term which we do not collect, not being a dictionary. -Splash 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a dictionary, plus the article does not properly define the term. --BillC 22:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speeduck... I mean speedy delete. WP is not a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL--Banana04131 01:05, 10 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 delete. Sasquatcht|c 23:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Boom Babies

Too obscure -- just a namecheck of a band one of whose members (not famous in her own right) is married to a celeb -- and adds nothing to what's given under Ben Elton. Flapdragon 6 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

• Comment: not previously listed on VfD, now fixing (no vote) --Doc (?) 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence anywhere of meeting any of WP:MUSIC in any way. Plus, with the irrelvance removed, this is an untersubstublet. -Splash 23:19, 5 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Phora

Oh where to start! Unencyclopedic, overly POV, site link says it is gone, plus other links within article appear more like attempts at advertising. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 17:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Where to start - you can detail exactly what makes this article so unencyclopedic, where you see POV, how links within the article are "advertising" (I only see two direct links, which are topical and used for comparative purposes; other non-hyper-links are within a verbatim quotation which is also topical) and any other arguments you may have please. Also the link to The Phora's website is working; the site was down for a few days but is online now.--Yipperson 07:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Keep This article is useful, but it needs to be improved and cleaned up good. --Gramaic 6 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

• Delete The Phora home page is still down, and just as Willmcw said, it's barely notable. Anyway, I like to thank Will for the support he gave me.--Gramaic | Talk 8 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
• Keep and edit heavily. What Guy M and Yipperson say about this article is true: it's horrible. Under ordinary circumstances I'd vote to delete. However I believe that Gramaic is capable (with our help) of bringing this article up to WP standards. My bigger concern is that it is small and barely notable, but again I trust Gramaic's judgement on account of his work on articles like "White supremacy". -Willmcw July 6, 2005 06:12 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's waste our time on better topics than marginal white nationalist web forums. If it someday becomes truly notable we can write a new article with less work than it would take to edit the current article into a presentable form. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 07:51 (UTC)

Can we have some discussion as to what exactly would need to be changed to bring the article into "presentable form"? The content is not very heavy, I doubt it would take much effort.

--Yipperson 22:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• The Phora is pretty well-known among racialist websites... At least a lot of people seem to have hated it! --Edward Wakelin 04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Phrases like "I created it ..." let me know there's a vanity piece here. Phrases like "This was the last incarnation of The Phora that was hacked by those Arab fucks last June" are unencyclopediac. Lcuff 22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

^Those are clearly quotations --Yipperson 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - despite the debate this was not previosly listed on afd/vfd - now fixed (no vote)--Doc (?) 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete first person verbiage per nom. -Splash 23:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable forum, unless (secondary) sources can be provided to demonstrate its notability. A stunning alex rank of three million [14]. Sdedeo 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash. Nandesuka 00:06, 6 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Time evolution of quantum operators

This article doesn't say anything that the article Heisenberg picture doesn't already say, and I don't see any way for this article to grow into anything reasonable or interesting. I think this is a lost cause in an already crowded series of articles on quanutm mechanics; time and energey would be better spent improving existing articles than trying to rescue stubs such as this. linas 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, of course. linas 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Heisenberg picture. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge and delete --MarSch 09:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I started to leave a message on the author's talk page, assuming he simply hadn't noticed the existing article and not wanting to bite the newbie, then noticed that he actually mentioned the existing article, so I am baffled by his intentions.---CH (talk) 18:23, 11 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 speedy deleted as nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

313 board

Probably a speedy. Certainly un-encyclopedic. Joyous (talk) 22:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It stops everyone ruining the 313 page does it not?

• Patent nonsense. Speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Zoe 22:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. It's patent nonsense of the second kind (not unintelligible, but entirely without meaning). -Splash 23:06, 5 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 no votes. But I think the problem listed here can be solved by making this a redirect to Padne, which is exactly what I'm going to do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Padne-thekkekad

Article seems to have been created as an alternative version of Padne (see version for 17:13, 14 June 2005), possibly by the same author a few minutes later (near-identical IPs). Both had very similar content. I have tidied up Padne, though it might not be notable enough to warrant an article itself. BillC 22:39, 5 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

J. D. Rehsif

This seems to be vanity. this Google search yields nothing for "J.D. Rehsif", and this one yields nothing about a movie called "Doctor Who: Nemesis'. Given the urls of the two external links, this may in fact be one "J.D. Fisher". See this search for a consideration of that possibility. NatusRoma 22:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unfunny notjoke. -Splash 22:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity and possible hoax ---CH (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete see above Lectonar 07:48, 12 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mohideen

I admit to knowing nothing about Sri Lankan politics, but I can't find any Google hits for 'Mohideen "Ranasinghe Premadasa" homosexual' or 'Mohideen "Ranasinghe Premadasa" gay', and just a search for 'Mohideen "Ranasinghe Premadasa"' doesn't bring up anything relevant. Attack page? Zoe 22:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. That website it links to does talk of the existence of "Man Friday Mohideen". However, systemic bias allowed for, if it can't be verified it has to go. Weak delete unless and until material and claims properly sourced, independently of that web article. Some prod my talk page if they can verify this? -Splash 22:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for non-verifiability. --Pjacobi 12:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete SinhalaPOWEr Has also been editing pages related to Sri Lanka with non-neutral POVs. - [User:Share_Bear|Share_Bear]]Share Bear
• Delete per Pjacobi. At any case, I don't think creating a single-word-name (a common muslim name of course) article for such an insignificant character is pretty. If he was a significant character, there would have been better evidences on verifiable sources. Greenleaf 01:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable claims. If the book cited exists and supports the claims, I'll change my vote.---CH (talk) 05:51, 12 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ye Olde Backyarde

Not notable. Google returns nothing, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. D. Rehsif. NatusRoma 22:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not sure this is non-notable so much as non-existent. Even allowing for Google's alternative spelling, it gets about 4 irrelevant hits. -Splash 22:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity? Lectonar 07:47, 12 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 DELETE. ~~ N (t/c) 19:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ingredient

Dictionary definition. There's already an entry in Wiktionary. Zoe 23:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed; it's merely a dictionary entry and of inadequate quality or length to qualify as an article; delete if nothing else relevant or merge with something related and delete. -- Paul Robinson 23:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef. --Kwekubo 23:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictionary definitions. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Eep

eep was nominated for deletion on 2004-07-02. For the deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eep.

This sentence no verb. That article no purpose.

Also, it's been BJAODN'ed at least once; I think it is not merely of low quality, its level of quality falls below nonexistent. -- Paul Robinson 23:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete since it's already been BJAODN'ed Ashibaka (tock) 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This is one word from the chorus of a non-notable song which has already been deleted before. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Sheesh. ---CH (talk) 04:06, 12 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 delete -- Joolz 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No Campin' Gear

ad for non-notable garage company with five google hits [15], created by author of Shawn Werner, also under AfD. Sdedeo 23:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete advertisement. —brighterorange ^(talk) 00:05, 6 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.

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 no consensus. The votes are: 2 to keep, 3 to delete (including the nominator), 1 to merge. A bold merge may be in order. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We Drink Ritalin

Before anyone can say but it's a notable flash video!!!, let me say, it's a notable flash video Paul 23:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Animutation Ashibaka (tock) 23:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per nomination. Kappa 00:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps I should clarify: maybe it's notable as flash videos go, but this does not warrant an article. Paul 02:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: don't sweat it. Kappa never votes delete on any article. Quale 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Paul you are saying it's notable, but that users shouldn't be able to find out about it anyway, I find this hard to understand. Quale please don't wilfully misrepresent fellow editors. Kappa 10:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Clarification What I meant was that it might be notable relative to other flash videos, but on its own, it isn't. Being more notable than lots of stuff that isn't notable at all isn't criteria for inclusion. Paul 19:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Proto t c 10:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, For two reasons. First, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia and second Category:Flash_cartoons (and especially Badger_Badger_Badger) show that good quality articles can be written about notable flash videos. --BadSeed 08:08, 13 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 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. ~~ N (t/c) 19:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles Eeyore Newman

nn person, zero Google hits, founder of an organization which gets 8 Google hits. Zoe 23:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Zoe. Karmafist 23:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Karmafist. Quale 03:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Quale. – AxSkov (☏) 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per AxSkov. Grutness...wha? 10:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (how far will this go?)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Al-Qaeda. The content is actually already in that article, in the section about incidents so I'll just apply a redirect. -Splash^talk 18:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe

Article about a quote from Yahoo news. No reason to keep. Paul 21:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - nom forgot to list this - now fixed --Doc (?) 23:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I have heard about these guys in relation to claiming responsibility for major terrorist incidents. (Of course that means they're not terribly secret. A Google search for The Secret Organization of Al-Queda in Europe gets 3,490 English returns including Fox News, Al-Jazeerah and CBS News see [16]. The article should possibly be renamed and redirects should be created. Capitalistroadster 00:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Merge, or Redirect. This sentence or whatever it logically expands to has no independent existence outside the main al-Qaeda article. --MCB 04:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge contents into main article. – AxSkov (☏) 07:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't delete an edit history while merging the content. GFDL requires attribution is given to original contributor. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it can be done via cut and pasting the history, but few people are willing to do this, as it is time-consuming, and it's easier to just leave a redirect. Proto t c 10:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to section in main al_Qaida article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per etc. Proto t c 10:27, 6 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 DELETE. Splash^talk 04:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Huang

Vanity page. Contributed by User:Rhuang. Kwekubo 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy and/or Delete Karmafist 23:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Forbsey 00:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity -- WB 02:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Zoe 03:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, user has submitted nothing but his vanity. Let's reserve userfication for actual contributors. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 17:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mindmatrix 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete no pretense of notability, sheesh.----CH (talk) 06:30, 12 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 DELETE. ~~ N (t/c) 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Archdesigner syndicate

This is a gaming clan that specializes in the design and winning of a computer game that hasn't been released yet. Joyous (talk) 23:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• delete clanity. —brighterorange ^(talk) 00:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 03:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if the game exists, articles on gaming clans are vanity by definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 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.