Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 13[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hwa chong humanities[edit]

There's precious little indication what the institution itself is, so we have no idea if it's notable; even if the institution is established, this particular department is not individually notable, and especially it's not notable that one guy is always patting his belly and thinks another has a nice butt. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The institution is Hwa chong. What we have here is a breakout article for the humanities teachers of a school so noteworthy that all that the author of the main article could think to write about it was a one-sentence "{{subst:{name}}} is a school in {{subst:{location}}}" article with added academic boosterism for flavour. There's nothing of value here to merge, and retaining the title as a redirect is pointless. Delete. And note that List of schools in Singapore would be better off as a set of tables. Uncle G 00:59, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not the institution itself is notable, its humanities department doesn't merit having its own article. Zzyzx11 01:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fork. Megan1967 02:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hwa Chong Institution, otherwise delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Android79 04:57, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, joke or personal attack - David Gerard 13:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete kinda funny though. I laughed at the polo mints and nice butt parts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sadly, delete. Nothing here merits merging. --BD2412 04:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it is amusing, though. Ganymead 04:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: all the above reasons, but really, those who find it amusing, please get a life! :) --Orelstrigo 13:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Trillionaire[edit]

Is this a useful article?? How large does the magnitude of the money someone makes go?? Delete if no one can explain how practical this article can be. Georgia guy 00:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Dicdef. Could probably redirect to wealth or a list of rich people. -Sean Curtin 01:02, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs) removed the {{Move to Wiktionary}} tag, that was on and that really should be on this article, given Wiktionary:billionaire. Put this article back in the Wiktionary queue, as it was before the anonymous user edited it. Uncle G 01:13, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • A Dicdef that needs to be put Transwikied into Wiktionary. Zzyzx11 01:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Onto Wiktionary! Tygar 02:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does wiktionary want words for things that don't exist? Few nations are even worth a trillion dollars, and certainly no people are. -R. fiend 02:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Becoming a trillionaire may be possible in the future, but for now the article seems unneccessary. Edited article. тəzєті
  • Comment: Apparently Bill Gates is well on his way, only 20 years to go [1] (or 5 if things go well). He probably already is one if you use the right currency. Kappa 03:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could be a useful article when Bill gets to be a trillionaire. 03:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article in its present form doesn't provide any useful information and there isn't much that can be written other than a dictionary definition of the term. - NormanEinstein 04:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since none exist yet, even a dicdef wouldn't be all that useful. Allowing this article to exist sets a bad precedent for quadrillionaire, quintillionaire, sextillionaire, etc. Android79 05:00, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef, imaginary subject. Gates's wealth in dollars has been decreasing steadily. I don't know where people get the idea that he's headed for trillionaire. Gazpacho 05:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary or delete. Megan1967 07:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worth the effort and delay involved in transwiki. wikt:Billionaire is a ridiculously better base to create wikt:trillionaire from than this. —Korath (Talk) 09:44, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for now - David Gerard 13:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Korath. DaveTheRed 19:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Korath. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until some of them exist Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition at best. Re-create after hyperinflation. -- Curps 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. There are no trillionaires, and won't be for a long time to come. Even the richest person on the planet is hovering around $50 billion, which is 1/20th of a trillion. --BD2412 04:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not at all difficult to be a trillionaire in some currencies. I'm thinking Turkish Lira here, where £1,000,000,000,000 = $760,000Tom k&e 09:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pseudo-pantheism[edit]

Utterly POV distinction: "my pantheism is real pantheism, yours isn't". Has been previously deleted, albeit not in this form. Redirect to pantheism to prevent recreation. -Sean Curtin 00:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • More to the point, the whole article is essentially meaningless. It attempts to draw a distinction, but doesn't actually bother to say what that distinction is. Delete. Haikupoet 01:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV fork. Megan1967 02:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the wordiness, the meaning of this term is entirely clear to anybody who understands the prefix pseudo-. And even if it wasn't, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. On top of all that, this seems like a pretext for some more POV along the lines of pan-atheism. The place to discuss these points of view is the naturalistic pantheism article. --BM 04:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is essentially worthless, and attracts Vogel-spam. As suggested, redirect to pantheism to prevent POV re-creation. --Nat 08:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - should be a section in Pantheism. It's a real term used in Pantheism. What this article is actually about is things like Cosmotheism, which attempts to dress up White Separatism as "Pantheism." - David Gerard 13:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The original article (written by me) mentioned "Cosmotheism" as a specific (and widely-recognized) form of psuedo-pantheism. The reference was removed by POV parties and replaced with attacks on naturalistic pantheism. --Nat 04:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The above comments say it all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Pantheism, for reasons stated by David Gerard; Psuedo-Pantheism is a real concept, and worthy of mention, but only makes sense when discussed in relation to what Pantheism is anyway. --BD2412 04:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 06:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Davey Jones[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. DanKeshet 01:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Carmel Schrire[edit]

Non-notable professor. She has written one book with an Amazon rank of >1,000,000, and the article reads like a CV. Delete. RSpeer 01:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, and to make the article even more self-serving, the link to her book is an Amazon referral link. RSpeer 01:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, self-promotion. Keep per RJHall and TenOfAllTrade's excellent edits. Android79 16:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, this article keeps changing! I'm guessing someone will try to salvage it again. No vote until it's in a more stable state. Android79 17:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promotion, or somebody else promoting on behalf of her, along w/ book ad. -Deadcorpse 05:26, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - professor with multiple non-vanity published books - David Gerard 13:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — notable. I linked in her bio. — RJH 17:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Seems to pass the average professor test, though the book ad-ish flavour needs work. I've removed the Amazon.com link from the book title, and collected her works into a separate Publications section in the article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Damn copyvio. Delete. I've moved the Publications section of the article to the temp space. If someone writes a substantial non-copyvio article at Carmel_Schrire/Temp, that can be kept. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and if so - wikify - Eixo 02:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs work. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio. Gamaliel 17:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A perfectly valid topic if someone writes a non-copyvio article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 09:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please Yuckfoo 21:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Kent University Conservative Association[edit]

Local student political group - doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable JeremyA 01:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity or something. Their pic doesn't have a copyright tag on it, either. Tygar 08:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, without this kind of contrubution, wikipedia would not be in the position it is in today. Rosscowling 09:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • The above User's only edits are to the article in question and this page. Another newbie who seems to know Wikipedia better than the regulars. Delete. Not notable. RickK 09:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline keep, and it hurts slightly to say that. Evidence that anyone else cares would be nice. Look at the fangs on that one! - David Gerard 13:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the relevent University student's union article after cutting out all the ego claims (typical politicans). This probably leaves about one line. If any similar Labour or Lib Dem articles are skulking around, get them too. Preferably expand with as full a list of the other clubs as relevent. I also dropped their claim to be 'the dominant force on campus' from the main University page because it's very, very hard to believe and I couldn't find any evidence to support it (googling for the Union president finds him supporting the NUS president, which doesn't sound very right wing to me). Average Earthman 14:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Basing judgments on SU Officers; endorsments for NUS Presidents is very dodgy - a few years ago one of the previous prominent Conservatives in the SU publicly endorsed the left-wing candidate for NUS President. Furthermore the current SU President, from recollection, was elected on massive transfers. The ability to win (or even the readiness to contest) SU elections should not be a measure - at Kent everything possible has always been done to make the elections as unpolitical as possible. I wouldn't merge this into the SU page - individual socities are very distinct from the union and that would not be the best place to locate the page. Timrollpickering 16:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - borderline vanity, given that the only non-anonymous contributor to the article also shares a name with the group's "registrar". CDC (talk) 16:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant! 08:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete student groups unless spectacularly influential or famous Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student groups are rarely encyclopedic. Gamaliel 17:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep who's place is it to decide that this article does not have ageneral public interest - for anyone thinking about attending the university in question for example. unsigned vote from 129.12.200.49
    • Our mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to provide free server space for everying of "general public interest". Gamaliel 18:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • what exactly do you consider an encyclopedia to be if it is not to inform the public about issues to which they may be interested in.
  • Delete. Looks like vanity. Doesn't seem any more notable than the average political club at an average university. Jonathunder 05:35, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 23:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste[edit]

  • Delete Advertising and Spam The article was created by Wikipedia user Daniel C.Boyer on June 18,2004. A Google Search will generate substantial hits and traffic, yet this is not the original Paris Surrealist Group (or Surrealist Group in Paris, whatever you want to call it) under the direction of the late Andre Breton who died in 1966. There are numerous credible reference sources that state as fact, that the real Paris Surrealist Group disbanded in 1969 (see "Revolutiuon of the Mind" by Mark Pollizotti) and (What is Surrealism by Andre Breton). This GPMS (Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste) is a commercial enterprise run by the friends of the original 1966 group that sell literature and publications to libraries in Paris, as indicated on their home page from their website. Note: the home page of their website, sells catalogues, publications, etc, for 15 Euros. The creation of the article is intended for promotion. Also, links on there site lead to numerous essays by friends and collegues, as well as exhibitions in Prague back in 1999, yet, I cannot find any other substantial reference sources that acknowledge the Prague 1999 as an International Surrealism exhibit. On record the last official International Surrealism Exhibit (the real thing) was in 1965, see Sarane Alexandrian's, "Surrealist Art".Classicjupiter2 01:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Classicjupiter2 is nothing more than an anti-surrealist liar. He knows full well that there was a 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition in Chicago; he will find some reason to say that this is not a "real" surrealist exhibit, but it will be based on POV. None of what he says is relevant to VfD, and I am suspicious that an analysis of anonymous POVs will reveal that one of them writing in the same highly idiosyncratic (even Wigdoresque) way is responsible for the not-very-relevant note on price. Yet whether or not they sell publications (Classicjupiter2 is surely aware that the original Paris Surrealist Group and its members sold publications) is a POV question relating, perhaps, to the purity of surrealism; all these questions are POV issues to be discussed in the text of the article but not grounds for deletion. Should be delisted from VfD as Classicjupiter doesn't bring up anything but his POV dislike for the group. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please try to remain civil and on topic. This is not the place to bring a greivence against another user. --InShaneee 16:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Ceci n'est pas un bidon de Spam. Dpbsmith (talk) 04:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Surrealicruft. Android79 05:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google shows 330 hits for "Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste", 296 of those without the word "Wikipedia". Without the accent, 353 hits for "Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surrealiste"; 305 without "Wikipedia". A better google showing than many of the recently listed surrealism articles. -- Infrogmation 05:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, group promo. Megan1967 07:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undecided - but you know, third-party evidence that anyone else cares would make that a solid "keep" - David Gerard 13:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- -- B R A N C H E Z - V O U S ! --], http://baumgart.net/index.php3?page=88&pub=o. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DanKeshet 05:49, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad, possible vanity. Radiant! 14:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but a side remark: I would guess that in all of this which Daniel has tried to spin out into several dozen articles there is one valid article on post-1980 surrealism, if he'd like to write it. This, however, is like writing separate articles about each branch of a marginally notable bank. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 17:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this surrealcruft. Edeans 03:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Rene kessler[edit]

Vanity (or has so little information that it looks a lot like vanity). -Frazzydee|✍ 01:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (don't count implicit nomination). -Frazzydee|✍ 01:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. -Deadcorpse 05:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 13:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, probably vanity. Jonathunder 22:05, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Kelly Martin 17:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all the obvious reasons. --BD2412 04:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • 02:56, Mar 13, 2005 Rich Farmbrough deleted Zedd's Cat (Speedy patent nonsense content was: '{{speedy}}{{subst:vfd}}Zedd's cat, Cat.')

Zedd's Cat[edit]

Seems like a new user's test тəzєті

  • It should qualify as a speedy delete, no need to waste our time going through VFD for this. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious speedy. -R. fiend 02:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, empty article. Megan1967 02:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Shannon Kahrig[edit]

As usual, vain, vain, vanity.... ;) - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; it is vanity. тəzєті
  • Delete, hardly worth debating. Plus, somebody removed the "vfd" line at least once already. -Deadcorpse 03:36, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Aw, how sweet. Delete - David Gerard 13:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, someone likes her, but having friends or admirers at school doesn't make you notable. Average Earthman 14:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing to do with anything --Feitclub 19:47, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete And recently added a round of abuse of the VFDers, now (which I've just removed). Alai 21:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity and not noteworthy. --ElTyrant 23:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sure if this is weird vanity or someone else's personal attack... either way... --BD2412 04:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not remotely interesting, notable, grammatically correct, orthographically correct. What do they teach them at school nowadays? --Orelstrigo 13:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Does she really love gorillas? How marvelous! Well anyways, Delete this useless vanity. vlad_mv 15:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

"The Noble Kingdom of ShakAlistan"[edit]

Made no sense to me, it looks like a promotion of some organisation or website. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, no please don't delete this! it's not an organisation or an advertisement or anything. it is this imaginary country that a group of harvard undergrads established a few years ago - think of it like the onion magazine and is not intended for commercial purposes. it would mean a lot to us if you didn't delete the post. thanks. seh. ...posted at 02:53, 2005 Mar 13 by User:129.67.43.241 (the same IP as that used to create the article)
    • Uh... sorry, in that statement you said exactly why it must be Deleted: "It is this imaginary country that a group of harvard unergrads established a few years ago". If anything, I'd place it as a website: http://www.shakalistan.org/. Now, I don't mean any offense here, but if all there is to it is a bit under 40 people... It's not notable enough for an encyclopedia. It's not an issue of free expression or anything else, but rather an issue of: is it well enough known that people on the other side of the world might look for it? That's how I'm viewing this... It's interesting, yes, but... not really well known enough to go on here. This is a place to go AFTER you're very well known, not when you've just been running something for less than three years... Ok, time's not a major factor but... Anyways, try again when you're more well known, we'll be waiting for you. Wakuseino 03:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • can we move it to a website (http://www.shakalistan.org) entry? - seh ...posted at 04:13, 2005 Mar 13 by User:129.67.43.241 (the same IP as that used to create the article)
    • You could, but I'm afraid shakalistan.org would be deleted too... the main thing is, you guys just aren't notable enough yet... Sorry to have to put it like that, but... Wakuseino 04:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Its non-encyclopedic vanity Dabbler 02:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it is creative and interesting and in the interests of free expression it should be allowed. Jacob R. ... posted at 02:59, 2005 Mar 13 by User:129.67.43.241 (the same IP as that used to create the article)
  • Keep It is not non-encyclopedic, but if it must be deleted, i would rather it be moved to the bad jokes etc.. section - Orkan ... posted at 03:23, 2005 Mar 13 by User:129.67.43.241 (the same IP as that used to create the article)
  • Can't you put it on a user page? Kappa 03:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Advertising for a non-notable website. --BM 04:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given by BM. -- Hoary 04:50, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable, advertisement, non-encyclopedic; take your pick. Android79 05:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promoting their website that is only notable to their clique, as I infer from the creator's comments. -Deadcorpse 05:34, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • ok, fine just delete it - seh
  • Delete. Three sockpuppet limit has been reached. RickK 05:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete and delete - David Gerard 13:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noble, possible. Notable, not. No influence, no importance, no fame, no point in having an article. Average Earthman 14:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wish these vanity posters wouldn't feign childlike innocence every time we delete one of their pages. Binadot 22:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Embarrassing. --Orelstrigo 13:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly block IP for sockpuppet abuse Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: And very amateurish sockpuppet abuse it was too: the same IP number was refraining from hitting the twiddle key and using various names, without bothering to create even a single ID. (Of course, it could have been a group of chums around the same computer.) Anyway, "student" life these days seems really boring. -- Hoary 15:50, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, advertisement. vlad_mv 17:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'm sorry, but I really have to, despite not wanting to. While I will give you that some people on this site are prone to thoughtless deletion of even the most legitimate articles (a.k.a., Eyre family), this simply isn't well known enough. It is quite fascinating and creative, though! I'm going to visit your website.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cameron redpath[edit]

Seems like vanity to me, doesn't have any useful information. тəzєті

  • Concur. Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not specially famous or influential. Kappa 03:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Android79 05:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke page - David Gerard 13:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Cameron Redpath" googles to 2 relevant pages [2]. One comes from Vfd, the other is about a young chess player from Scotland. Unverifiable, possible vanity, otherwise nn. vlad_mv 17:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Podutainment[edit]

This is a neologism that apparently had an article about it created less than twenty-four hours after its invention. This can't possibly be encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 03:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "The first use occuring on March 12, 2005". If this isn't a neologism, what is? DaveTheRed 04:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ultraneologism. Android79 05:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WHat they said. -- Infrogmation 05:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, before it memes the blogosphere. Rhobite 06:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficiently verified neologism - David Gerard 13:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hyperneologism Chris 21:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ultra-mega-super-neologism Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gofer cakes[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable fictional cake in a specific advertising campaign. DanKeshet 03:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. NTK 06:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - verifiable. Needs work, but entirely worth keeping - David Gerard 13:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 16:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fictional cake used in an ad, non notable Deathawk 00:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. vlad_mv 17:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Runescape gangs[edit]

Huh? What's this? - Mailer Diablo 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Note: IPs 68.147.9.249 and 66.222.158.179 have steadly changed the format of this section, adding italics to other people's posts and introducing comments at the top. I have tried to manually restore the original formatting, since reverting the page would erase new posts. I thought it would be allright to make exception to the rule of not formatting the discussion in this case, since it had been already unformatted by said IPs. If anyone should disagree, please revert the page. Note that, except for Mailer Diablo's VfD nomination, these IPs are the only contributors to the "Runescape gangs" page. vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Response: My list of runescape gans and clans I am trying to start.
  • Statements I have put in italics do not apply anymore.
Both by 68.147.9.249 vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhh... I think it fancies itself a List of Runescape gangs, but only mentions one gang. By my guess, it'd be the one run by the guys that made the article... In other words, advertisement. Delete. Wakuseino 03:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: I am sorry about only having one gang on the list. If you know of any other gang or clan please add them. This does not apply anymore anyways. (Also by 68.147.9.249 vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete J1459 06:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable, nonencyclopedic. NTK 06:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 07:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete adddddddd. Tygar 08:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: Sorry if you think its an ad. I was not hoping to be the only one with a gang website on this list. I have removed the website so this doesnt apply anymore. (Also by 68.147.9.249 vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. Bye. - David Gerard 13:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete KingTT 19:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: Anything I can do to make this page better let me know.

I am very sorry to hear all this about my entry. I was hoping that other people would add their gangs and clans to the list. I only know of about 4 other gangs and clans and I added them to the list to the best of my knowledge.

Can someone make me a suggestion of how to improve my page rather than just saying delete or atleast give me more to go on please.

All the above by 68.147.9.249. vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Lacks context: what the h**l is runescape? And what makes this topic encyclopedic. Delete unless someone makes this very different and can provide some evidence of notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:19, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: To find out what runescape is search it in wikipedia. The main purpose I started this was to see how many people there are who have runescape gangs or clans. Also by 68.147.9.249. vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, my vote is an obvious Delete for nn, advertisement. vlad_mv 18:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not encyclopedic content; more appropriate for a fansite about this game. CDC (talk) 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Rene Crook[edit]

Non-notable, Google only returned 6 hits. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete without third party evidence that anyone cares. Oh, and substance would be nice. I wonder if any more annoying pastel boxes can be packed into the article - David Gerard 13:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Clearly non-encyclopaedic. Zantastik 03:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jersyko 03:12, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Jenkins[edit]

Possible hoax. "Ryan P. Jenkins" returned 4 results on Google, 4,000 on "Ryan Jenkins" but none at all about his alleged imprisonment. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • "He should be considered lazy and mentally dangerous"... Yeah, I'd say hoax. Delete. Wakuseino 04:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, at very least an uninformative unverifiable POV stublet non-article; likely a prank or hoax. Other contribution by this isp today was clear vandalism, since deleted ("The Cunt") -- Infrogmation 05:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

NanoAging[edit]

This page appears to be an advertisement of some kind, but I didn't have the confidence to mark it for speedy deletion. So I figured this process would be the best solution. --Feitclub 04:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is not an advertisement we describe what would be the ideal body for a human, dont delete it please remove the deletion.
  • 204 unique hits with Google Test. Non-encyclopedic, contains an advertisement, and I'm a bit tempted to say that the article as a whole is a bit on the non-sensicle side. Delete.
    • Guh... Just noticed that I forgot to sign it. Check the history. The sigless one was me. Wakuseino 18:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spamvertisement. A list of "what would be the ideal body" in broken English does not an article make. The external link goes to a bizarre slashcode site; I have no idea what it's supposed to be/do. Besides, a 24-year-old CEO of a biotech company? You've got to be kidding me. Android79 04:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This reads more like sci-fi than an encyclopedia article. Also, the CEO of a nanotech project is 24 years old? Carbonite 04:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever is meaningful (including the external link) into Life extension, and delete the remainder. — RJH 04:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this appears to be an ad. certainly not an encyclopedia entry. -Deadcorpse 05:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam article created by chronic link spammer. --iMb~Mw 06:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Life extension. Megan1967 07:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ad. Merge, delete, just as long as this goes - David Gerard 13:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think there's anything here that should be merged...anywhere. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE - this is some upload project. Spamming Wikipedia today. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus = SimonP 06:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dowism[edit]

Non-notable dictionary definition. Describes a couple of one-off uses of this "humorous term" or "misspelling." This probably doesn't deserve to be in Wiktionary either. NTK 05:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's got a reference. Is the ref good? If so, it would redirect to an article on the book (or just keep this). Only delete if the ref is bogus - David Gerard 13:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no "reference." The humor book it mentions only uses the word once as a joke/neologism in the author's fictional biography. It does not actually describe "Dowism" because there is no such thing. NTK 14:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of very slight usefulness. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't google much (~200), so NN neologism, so delete. Radiant! 14:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; at the very least, a likely misspelling of "Taoism", but I think this is more useful than a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Even the article admits to the lack of use. Edeans 03:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 04:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 03:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anabolic frolic[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. --Worldbound 01:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable enough from google, and I heard someone say he sucks just today. --SPUI (talk) 11:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 14,800 google hits [3], 2 or more "Happy2bHardcore" albums on amazon [4], and if people say he sucks, he must be famous. Kappa 13:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Third-party verifiable evidence is reason to keep - David Gerard 13:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Has an allmusic.com entry, but it's only three sentences long. Article needs cleanup, as I've read it and still have no idea who this guy is. Gamaliel 17:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I plan on giving this page a major overhaul in the future. He's a very notable DJ. :edit: Updated the article. Plan to add picture later. Coolgamer 19:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Grant Fraser[edit]

Not notable. Delete.-gadfium 06:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. DaveTheRed 07:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Canadian Green political spam. Someone should probably have a Little Word with them - David Gerard 13:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not likely to be elected, less than 5% in the federal election. Average Earthman 13:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete campaign statement, on understanding that if he should actually win election to the BC Legislature, then a new NPOV article can be written. Bearcat 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As per my comments elsewhere -- if someone creates a list page for BC Green candidates, Fraser's personal information could be salvaged for a mini-bio (and Fraser's own page could be re-created as a redirect, under these conditions). For the time being, though, delete. CJCurrie 00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Failed candidates for individual seats in the House of Commons aren't notable, particularly when they garner less than 5% of the vote. Incidentally, the current article is just a copy-paste from the candidate's online bio sketch here [5]. Come back when he's leader of the party or he's won a seat. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 06:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

BTHSnews.org[edit]

Non-notable. Give it a mention in Brooklyn Technical High School and delete. Neutralitytalk 06:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 06:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ahmed El Esseily[edit]

Possibly non-notable. Only 4 results returned on Google, but that could be down to different spellings. TigerShark 07:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible self-promotion. Megan1967 11:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undecided - badly written, but is there third-party verifiability? Google test doesn't cross alphabets well, you know ... - David Gerard 13:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and wikify - except for that last sentence. He's credited in Mystery of the Nile for example. — RJH 17:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to FMTV, and delete the first couple of paragraphs. The article has more interesting things to say about the show than about one of the people (Ahmed) working on it. Radiant! 09:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only is it self-promotion, it needs to be cleaned up. SusanaeIII
  • Comment I can't even find a obvious reference to FMTV via Google. "Egypt and Mazzika" returns plenty of hits, but there are no results for "Mazzika and FMTV". I think this is non-notable, unless anybody knows better. TigerShark 12:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You can even know more about it from www.esseilyat.SlangOnline.com

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mc Bain[edit]

Nonsense. Can't find any Google hits for it. RickK 07:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redir to Evan Hunter..aka Ed Mcbain.Saopaulo1 08:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. It might be a real colloquialism that refers to an actual dialect spoken in McBain, Michigan, although I can't find any supporting documentation for this claim. I'm willing to change my vote to keep if someone can substantiate the article. [6] --Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable original research. --Angr 12:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless and until third party verifiability supplied - David Gerard 13:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless third party sources are cited and verified. Zzyzx11 22:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to McBain, unless someone can cite a peer-reviewed reference. I'm automatically skeptical of novel English dialects described in articles full of spelling errors. McBain has a disambig for the only two McBains I know of: Rainier Wolfcastle and McBain, Michigan. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 by request from the author shortly after being vfd'ed. Thue | talk 10:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of music video rippers[edit]

Non-notable, POV. And "don't delete" is just calling for a vfd header, anyway.  :) RickK 08:05, Mar 13, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in Tunisia[edit]

At first glance it looks like a disambig page. But all it has is a link to Islam and Judaism and two links to articles of groups of Jewish people. Neither of those articles mention Tunisia. This article doesn't make a lot of sense as it's currently written. Keep as currently rewritten. DaveTheRed 08:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can only barely imagine an encyclopaedic article of this title, and can't see how to get there from here - David Gerard 13:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand — It appears to be part of a series of articles linked from Jews by country, many of which are substantial pages. So to me it just looks like a stub at the moment. — RJH 17:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It makes no sense to create articles about Jews in different countries and then redirect users to Judaism and Islam as if Islam is synonymous with Arab countries. --Prisk 22:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Valid and important historical article subject. --Gene_poole 01:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - compare Jews in Algeria. Was well short of the stub bar, admittedly, but I've expanded it to a stub. - Mustafaa 08:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with David, delete. Radiant! 09:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn jewcruft. ComCat 09:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 03:33, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stubby, but has perfectly good article potential. I can't imagine why anyone would doubt the potential to write an article on almost any ethnic group with a significant history in a given country. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Eliezer 06:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Mrfixter 12:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential for expansion. --Decius 09:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Jmabel said. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it a little, and given a number of links which indicate significantly greater expansion is possible and worthwhile. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also agree with Jmabel. SlimVirgin 22:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's coming out good SF2K1 23:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, request by author

Blockland mapping[edit]

Wikipedia is not a HOWTO. Delete or transwiki to wikibooks. Thue | talk 09:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Megan1967 11:09, 13 Mar 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Great Cube Debate[edit]

A question on a SAT test where some people are unsatisfied with the reference answer. The article should establish notability (will this be remembered in 10 years?), or be deleted. Thue | talk 09:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Google returned only 2 results, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, since the event happened less than 24 hours ago. Zzyzx11 22:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh, neither of the 2 hits is relevant. One is one about how quickly ice cubes freeze and the other is whether collectors of mini-RC cars should keep them in the original "cube" packaging. By the way, there are no relevant hits in Google News either. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without verifiable references to the debate's existence - David Gerard 13:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad title. Not suitable topic for a whole article and not useful as a redirect. I'm not inclined to believe there is such a debate; Google news search finds 22,900 articles about the SAT, many within the last 24 hours, with no such problem mentioned. I'm suspicious about whether the article text is correct, and the wording is too muddled for me to judge the issue for myself (are we talking about right angles or right triangles?). There have been very few (commendably few) cases of SAT questions where the wrong answer was scored as correct, and they've been national news. I would be inclined to think such questions are notable enough for a section within SAT, perhaps "Disputed questions," but any such items would certainly need to include the actual question text, suitably-sourced authoritative opinions about the right answer, and an indication of whether the ETS acknowledged an error. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P. S. Nothing in rec.puzzles about this.
  • Delete. How great could it be within 24 hours of the test? Gazpacho 18:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a news agency that reports events that occur within days. Zzyzx11 22:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Even though it might be notable in the future, it is not notable now. Zzyzx11 02:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The debate may be great, but the article...not so much. I also wouldn't mind seeing a section on disputed questions (for the SATs and other major standarized tests). Carbonite | Talk 01:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless substantial media coverage happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability apart, it seems to be wrong. There are 24 distinct right triangles on a cube. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • ???? I would have said that there are no right triangles on a cube. There are eight corners, each of which consists of three edges at right angles to each other. The three edges at a corner form three right angles. It's been too long since I took geometry to remember whether there's a definition of the phrase "distinct" in regard to angle.
    • The three right angles are distinct in that none of them are congruent with either of the other two. That makes a case for 24 distinct right angles.
    • On the other hand, each right angle shares each of its sides with one of the other right angles, so in a sense none of them are fully distinct. So you can make a case for 0.
    • If you ask "if you pair edges into right angles, never using each edge more than once, how many right angles can you construct?" since there are 12 edges and each right angle consumes two of them the maximum is 6. To actually construct them seems to be a little bit of a puzzle; I've managed to find six, but it's surprisingly asymmetrical.
    • Triangles... there aren't any triangles in a cube unless you draw some diagonal lines between the vertexes. I have an idea that the question must have contained a diagram. However, I don't want to try to reverse-engineer what the diagram might have looked like, or the wording of the question, based solely on the information that the right answer is supposed to be 12. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —wwoods 20:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This should be a subject of an article, but it's got to have a more descriptive title. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gargoyle Recording Studios[edit]

Studio vanity. If this was "One of the most acoustically correct in the world" then it should get more than 55 google hits. Delete as not notable. Thue | talk 09:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 11:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we get third-party references for the claims - David Gerard 13:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Tygar 19:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Blackmer is kind of an interesting person, but he's worked on many studios in the U.S. I think it's telling that he doesn't bother to mention this Gargoyle outfit on his client list. --iMb~Mw 02:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. And unverifiable. Radiant! 14:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Aliyaho Pearce[edit]

Not notable. Thue | talk 10:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 11:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a speedy? Delete anyway - David Gerard 13:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam and blatant vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, since I agree with Mike that it is spam. Zscout370 21:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dori dori[edit]

Not even a dictdef, just the Japanese pronunciation of an English word. RickK 10:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Do we have a list of Japanese onomatopoeias here or on Wiktionary that this can be merged into? If not, just delete. —Korath (Talk) 10:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 11:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Either Keep and merge if the list exists, Delete otherwise.Ethereal 11:22, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki unless something more than a dicdef can be found - David Gerard 13:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why transwiki? This is not a definition of a word, this is the Japanese pronunciation of an English term. RickK 21:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • The word is used in Japanese (image search), so it would be helpful to be able to look it up in wiktionary. Kappa 01:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Can you confirm that the definition is correct, though? While it certainly looks reasonable, I'm hesitant to transwiki without some kind of confirmation; it's not in any of the dictionaries I have handy, and my Japanese is so out of practice as to make searching through the google hits impractical. (Admittedly, I don't have a specialized gitaigo dictionary.) —Korath (Talk) 02:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually the google image hits above confirm that it's used for drift racing. I've rewritten it to clarify that. Kappa 10:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Frank Stewart[edit]

A resume, not an encyclopedic article. He also doesn't seem to be notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 10:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Not even a resume, it's a political advert. Delete, spam - David Gerard 13:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like it is copied verbatim from a political flyer. Average Earthman 13:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not for stumping. Delete Tygar 19:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a job search web site to post resumes. Zzyzx11 22:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete campaign statement, on understanding that if he should actually win election to the BC Legislature, then a new NPOV article can be written. Bearcat 00:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Adding to Bearcat's comments: if someone were to start a Green Party of British Columbia candidates, 2005 election page, this guy could certainly merit a mini-bio as part of the larger list. But yes, delete the current version. CJCurrie 00:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

James eden[edit]

Not notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 10:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not famous. Ethereal 11:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly personal attack page - David Gerard 13:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think it's a personal attack because it looks autobiographical. But I don't think it's so much vanity as someone confusing Wikipedia with a personal homepage host. Treborbassett 17:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Jonathunder 20:51, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing is alleged in this non-article that even remotely justifies its existence. Would have to be reworked from scratch for me to change my mind. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the future, tag articles like these with {{delete}}. This kind of nonsense falls well within the criteria for speedy deletion. NTK 03:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Screen[edit]

There is one sentence and is yet another example of fancruft! I think that this would not be searched for on Wikipedia and is a small piece of Pink Floyd info, which is mentioned in their article. This is in style like a dictionary definition, this is not a dictionary. Google brought up results for computer screens only. TAS 14:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to a relevant Pink Floyd article. Or delete, of course - David Gerard 01:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, no article. Megan1967 03:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this kind of thing can't possibly merit an article. NTK 03:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Edeans 18:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial article IanMcGreene 10:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sniper (Archer)[edit]

No potential to become encyclopedic. It's hard to tell from the poor stub text, but this is about the name of a character class in Fire Emblem game. This will never be a full article; there's no information to add. --A D Monroe III 14:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this could redirect to Sniper. This article is about a character class in a medieval-fantasy game -- no one looking for that is helped by reading about high-powered rifles, terrorism and SWAT teams. Maybe if we had a Fire Emblem character class article, but there's nothing like that available. --A D Monroe III 23:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be redirected because Sniper (Archer) is really just a subcatagory of sniper. People looking for information on Fire Emblem probably wouldn't look under this name. If you absolutely wanted an article on this, it would probably go under Sniper (Fire Emblem). Although I personally feel this information would work better as part of the Fire Emblem article. DaveTheRed 19:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sniper (Archer) is a subcategory of Archer in Fire Emblem, not Sniper. The article is misnamed, mis-capitalized, and ambiguous. No one is going to search for this name, no one is going to link to this name, and there's no Fire Emblem articles to direct it to, other than Fire Emblem itself. Please, there's nothing to preserve here; let's just drop it and move on. --A D Monroe III 23:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with A D Monroe III; this would be a useless redirect. —Korath (Talk) 04:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Monroe. - SimonP 06:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Kleinman[edit]

of no apparent note. a literary agent who some blog thinks might become rich if he succeeds in getting a particular book they like published. dead-end page both in & out. deleted once by User:Thue, not sure if it's exactly the content same though. update: the book in question recently failed vfd [7]. Michael Ward 15:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It is roughly the same content: some guys writing an article about the guy who decides whether they get published. Almost all content is about how great a decision it would be to sign them. Speedy delete again. Thue | talk 21:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as recreation - David Gerard 01:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Quattlebaum[edit]

DIctionary definition. Delete, or move to wiktionary, though it might not be widespread enough for a dictionary. Thue | talk 15:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - unless evidence turns up that this isn't somebody's inside joke. CDC (talk) 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can verify that it is actually a region specific vocabulary word. Then, if it is, let Wiktionary deal with it. Tygar 19:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Quattlebaum is a family name, and this page is an attack page aimed at someone with that name that the author knows. Nothing on this page is true, so there is nothing to give to Wiktionary; and there's no reason to have a name disambiguation page since there appears to be nothing of note by this name that would warrant an article by this title. Delete. Uncle G 22:26, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not specific enough to be speedied as personal attack page - David Gerard 01:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 06:23, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Luelinks[edit]

This is one of the multitudes of GameFAQs spinoffs. Much like the recently deleted Fuck you and die article, it's a private forum. Previously speedy deleted because it had little content. It has been recreated with more content, but several users have been redirecting it to GameFAQs. One user keeps reverting, so I'd like to obtain consensus on redirecting this. Please don't suggest speedy deletion, since this IS a different article than the one which was speedied before. It should go through a full VfD to build consensus. Some people have a notion that once an article has been speedied, it can be deleted without due process at any point in the future. This is wrong.

The previous discussion is available here. Rhobite 17:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 19:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Protect against changing it back. Not notable. DaveTheRed 19:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Protect both this and LUElinks --BesigedB (talk) 20:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 01:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect / Protect agree with the above Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete permanently and protect - Otherwise, the LUElinkers will be at this again and again. The #136,277 Alexa ranking shows that the site is non-notable. User:Markl222
  • Delete this webcruft. Please. Edeans 03:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:25, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

SAR[edit]

Added to the VfD page by User:SchmuckyTheCat. I've completed the nomination. No vote. Radiant! 19:47, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Then again, I entirely fail to see why this should be deleted, so keep (with the note that a heavy edit war seems to be going on over the 'Sar' and 'SAR' pages) Radiant! 19:47, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I'm a bit confused... did he list SAR or Sar?
    • Xe listed SAR. Radiant! applied the VFD tag to Sar, however. Uncle G 22:53, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
      • Correct, because at the time of my edit, SAR redirected to Sar. This is apparently part of the edit debate. Radiant! 09:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep dont merge (heavy edit war!?! Good grief, you've been lucky...) - William M. Connolley 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • Looking at the "please discuss" requests in the edit history, the incomplete nomination appears to have been SchmuckyTheCat's way of getting William M. Connolley to come to the talk pages and discuss a merger instead of reverting. Looking at the talk pages, it appears to have worked. However, {{merge}} and {{mergedisputed}} are the correct ways to do this. Given that no-one seems to want the article deleted, if neither SchmuckyTheCat nor anyone else come forward in the interim with a reason that it should stay open, I will close this discussion as Keep (without prejudice to future VFD discussions) tomorrow. Uncle G 22:53, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I had to get up and leave and was confused that it was successfully listed. My vote is that SAR should be merged with Sar. They are both disambiguation pages. I fail completely to see why a disambiguation page should care about being case sensitive. SchmuckyTheCat 02:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You are probably right about that, given that expanding a disambig page lessens the chance of mistakes. Radiant! 09:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • and this is VfD, not VfM, but since the merge pages don't try and poll for concensus, and there was dispute, and VfD often ends up polling for merging - meh, you get it. SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - no merger Words and acronyms are completely different things, and should be kept as such. Grutness|hello? 10:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - don't merge, just add see also to both. As it was before this whole mess. --Joy [shallot] 23:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

StC has done the disputed merge; I've undone it. It shouldn't be done in the middle of this vote, which anyway looks like being for keep not merge at the moment (William M. Connolley 20:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)).

  • Merge--probably best at SAR. I think this is the more common way of handling instances when both u/c and l/c uses exist, probably at least partially because most searches outside Wikipedia are NOT case-dependent, so it is NOT valid to assume that just because the user typed lowercase letters that they are looking for a word instead of an initialism. It's also more convenient to have 'em all on one page. For example, AA serves both the word "Aa" and the initialism "AA". Niteowlneils 04:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur with Niteowl, Merge. People make capitalization errors all the time. Radiant_* 09:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to False memory. —Korath (Talk) 04:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Imaginary memories[edit]

  • Originally I thought this article was simply very badly written and in drastic need of cleanup. There is, however, confabulation and source amnesia, which appear to describe this sort of condition far better. Some of the information here might be salvaged and merged and this page could be a redirect. I don't know whether it's an appropriate redirect page though (would someone really search for 'imaginary memories' when after one of the others?) so maybe delete. I'm not sure, but I think some action is needed. Treborbassett 17:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure if there's anything useful to merge, but then redirect probably to False memory. Kappa 18:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's probably better. Treborbassett 18:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree: redirect to false memory. -Sean Curtin 19:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - David Gerard 01:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Could possibly be rewritten, but a new article title would probably be needed. As it is, hopelessly incoherent. Is there a Soft Redirect option whereby you can convert an article to a "click here to continue" status? Haikupoet 02:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't a hard redirect work? I have the feeling that anything that says "X is a Y, click here to continue" would be deletable as an 'unexpandable article'". Kappa 09:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to false memory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to false memory. Psychonaut 10:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Platinpower[edit]

Advertising. Inter\Echo 17:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising. Tygar 19:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What he said. Rl 22:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without more to it than the ad - David Gerard 01:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worthy. NTK 03:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam Zscout370 21:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject:FACTS[edit]

Total votes are 10 for delete and 3 for keep giving 78% delete.

This page does not belong here. It is a sockpuppet of Ungtss, and various biased creationists as a way of bypassing the conventional methods to add their POV to articles. Bensaccount 18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: this page no longer exists. This page exists, per the active link on the name above.

Keep There are enough folks interested to make me think it's still worth a shot. It's not a misuse of anything. it's an effort to develop npov policies and guidelines behind the "front lines" where only chaos rules. it does absolutely no harm. please let it be. Ungtss 19:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about misuse of a userpage? Bensaccount 18:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
how is this misuse of a userpage, according to the VfD rules? VfD says it is inappropriate to have userpages that are not on topic. this user page is PRECISELY on topic -- and has its own name in order to maintain neutrality. i also note that the rules require you to TALK to the user before VfDing ... something you failed to do. again. it's fun to put things up for VfD, isn't it Ben? yeah. it's fun for everyone. and it's especially fun when you can break the rules doing it. the current creationism pages are full of all the nonsense you could hope for. isn't that enough?Ungtss 18:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Userpages are for users. Why not move it to a WikiProject page. I don't recommend this as a wikiproject, but it would be a step in the right direction. Bensaccount 19:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Done. next time, why not make that suggestion BEFORE you directly violate the wikipedia policy requiring you to discuss the issue before VfDing, eh? Now how does this affect your vote? Ungtss 17:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are only about 20 pages this project could involve, and none of them should have similar content, therefore this WikiProject is useless. Bensaccount 02:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. I don't see why the editors cannot work on the associated pages. Wikipedia isn't about making little fiefdoms of competing articles, is it? Joshuaschroeder 19:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • hmm. he votes to delete, and then joins the "little fiefdom."[8] interesting. Ungtss 15:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading name for what should actually be a WikiProject, and what is discussed there is disputed. Labeling POV as fact does not constitute neutrality. Radiant! 19:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nobody so far has explained why this page should be deleted rather than renamed. Dispute resolution sandboxes are permitted. Gazpacho 22:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reason for this account is to minimize edit wars; instead of edit warring on a creationist page, one can put the desired version of the page here and then discuss why the page is/isn't POV on the relevent creaitonism talk page. And, oh, I'm not a creationist. Samboy 22:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is atrocious is that there is no way in Wikipedia to assemble NPOV pages in some areas of Human activity and thought. This VfD is a case in point. The whole set of Creationism pages have been ravaged by what the Frenchman called "les chiens" (the dogs) who replace quotes, paraphrases, and citations to prominent scholars by the "dog's" own personal research. Evolutionists and creationists alike have ripped out scholarly citations from creationism pages--not to be replaced by better scholarly citations but rather with the Wikipedia editor's own uncited personal research. As I read it, the User:FACTS page sets forth an incredible idea! --that the creationism pages would be assembled only from a balanced presentation of what the scholars have actually written with zero personal research. 8)) So of course, "les chiens" are here to make sure that that cannot happen on Wikipedia. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're supposed to use the talk pages - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are ways to assemble NPOV pages. This page has been devised to bypass the conventional system. Bensaccount 23:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One wonders what process is envisioned by which pages which are composed by the FACTS project will be substituted for existing articles. Will the existing articles be replaced by the work of the FACTS group? Or will the new (allegedly NPOV) material be integrated with the old (allegedly anti-creationist) articles? Will the allegation be that the new articles are inherently superior, and that replacement should be automatic? --Goethean 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In fact, one wonders how the existence of the FACTS project will change the dynamic of wikipedia at all except to limit the pool of users who contribute to evolution/creation articles to those who are committed enough to join this project. But is that a good thing? --Goethean 00:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I predict a huge kerfuffle in the near future and arbitration cases on content. Oh boy - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The redirect should be removed. This needs to go to redirects for deletion - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork despite claims it is NPOV. Megan1967 03:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: After further consideration, I think this project is a bad idea; it seeks NPOV in precisely the wrong way, which is unilateral rewriting by one faction. Sandboxes are appropriate when the article is protected and different sides agree to participate. Gazpacho 05:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • As I read the User:FACTS page, only the rules are different from the MainSpace. That is, anyone who works on that series of articles agrees that uncited personal research will not replace paraphrases, quotations, and citations to actual published scholars. How is a mix of 50-50 evolutionists and creationists a unilateral faction? Without good rules, they would be at each others' throats. 8)) I would guess that the rules on the User:FACTS page will have to evolve much more if this project is to succeed. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Does it bring in people who have been most zealous in suppressing descriptions of creationism? Gazpacho
      • Certainly I, as a volunteer to the "rebellion" 8)) such as it is, would invite anyone interested in "suppressing descriptions of creationism." But the rules would be quite different on User:FACTS, from my view and only from my one vote. In contrast to the normal operation of Wikipedia, those interested in "suppressing descriptions of creaitonism" would not be allowed to "suppress descriptions of creationism." 8)) As I read the rules, everyone is to report in a balanced fashion what the various scholars have actually written about the topics on the page. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Personal research is frowned upon in Wikipedia proper, so that rule isn't different. I fail to see where the other rules are different. Joshuaschroeder 14:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Currently, Wikipedia does not have NPOV rules and policy explicit enough to deal with the personal research on the Creationism pages. As I read the rules on User:FACTS, every editor's statement--if questioned--must be backed up with a quotation, paraphrase, and citation to what an actual scholar has written. This is quite different from the MainSpace where both you and I have allowed bigoted editors to remove whole sections of paraphrase, quotation, and citation to what scholars actually wrote when they replace the whole page with uncited drivel of personal research. Think about it. In my opinion, the most important product of this experimental space would be a set of rules and policy tested and proven to be adequate for keeping personal research out of the Creationism pages. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • <<unilateral rewriting by one faction>>
      • which "faction" is rewriting here? 3 of the 4 ascribe to evolution. only 1 is a creationist. and one wants it deleted, so i don't know exactly what he's doing. Ungtss 17:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transmogrify into a WikiProject Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It just seems like backroom editing. A WikiProject is not a place to write encyclopedia articles. --Goethean 16:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • would you fine individuals voting delete on a project with which you're not involved care to justify your vote with some policy from VfD rather that your own "feelings" on the topic? Sandboxes are permitted. This is a sandbox. What seems to be the issue? Please articulate your votes in the form of valid policy-based reasons for deletion, to deflect the currently overwhelming impression of inquisition. Ungtss 16:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I like how you mock Joshuaschroeder for voting to delete and then joining your project (which makes perfect sense to me---one wants to have a hand in the editing process no matter where it takes place), and you also mock individuals who vote to delete a project with which we are not involved. To you, there are apparently no legitimate grounds for voting for deletion. I and several others posed several pertinent questions above about the motives and ramifications of your project. Instead of answering them, you prefer to mock people's votes. Then you whine about a conspiracy against you. I call that passive-aggressive. --Goethean 17:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • i asked simply for POLICY-based justifications for deletion. you still haven't provided any. you just laid into me, personally. very nice. I want POLICY, goethean. and NONE of you are providing any. This IS a wikiproject now. the other pages are just a sandbox in the namespace. As to schroeder, the big question is: why is schroeder joining a project which he thinks should be deleted? He's got free run of the "real articles," but he also wants in on the sandbox, until he gets it deleted. Very nice. Ungtss 17:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • <<I'm sorry you're running into conflict. We have processes to deal with that, though. Obviously I was not joking. Gazpacho 09:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)>> I thank you for your person-to-person condolence. 8)) And if I take you at your word that you are not joking, then I must say in all seriousness, "No. There is no process on Wikipedia for dealing with the problem that this VfD page buries." For example, you and I at this moment have an opportunity to get the Wikipedia community to deal with a very serious problem that erodes the legitimacy of two enormously important segments of the world's enlightened and worthy people: 1) Wikipedia and 2) evolutionists. But there is no Wikipedia "process" for dealing with the problem. What would you suggest would be a "process for dealing with the problem"? ---Rednblu | Talk 09:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Be bold? I'm currently on RfC for being bold -- an rfc, incidentally, composed in direct violation of multiple rules which are detailed there. being bold on creationism pages just gets you RfCed ... unless, of course, your goal to is distort the pages out of all semblence of reality. in the latter course, you're a hero. Ungtss 22:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, you are not on RfC for being bold, you are on RfC for making highly biased edits, even ones you agreed to not make as part of an effort to reach consensus on talk pages, and for making highly inappropriate personal attacks.
Maybe i would be, if ANY of those charges were true. sadly no, which the rfc links and talk demonstrate. perhaps you should look into the facts instead of taking the inquisitor's word for it, eh? Ungtss 18:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, ALL of those charges are true, except for the sockpuppet claim. Of course the IP address involved in that was another individual also RfCd for highly biased edits to creationism articles, so you can see where the confusion might come in. The fact that you refer to someone as an inquisitor goes to prove once again that you are the kind of person who simply refuses to accept objective facts if they disagree with your highly biased views. DreamGuy 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
i've learned that those who don't recognize their own bias and see everyone who disagrees with them as biased are, without fail, the most biased. Rednblu and i disagree fundamentally on the issues -- he is a tried and true atheist and evolutionist -- but we have something you don't have -- a recognition of our own pov AS a pov that allows for writing npov articles. The key to writing npov articles is FIRST to recognize your own bias, and THEN recognize the rules for building npov articles that fairly represent your pov in concert with all the others. you haven't reached step one. you still think you're unbiased, and so that article must represent your pov entirely in order to be npov. how quaint. Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Being the subject of an RfC, if you are in the right, can be an effective means for convincing people of that. If experienced editors think you are not in the right then it's probable that you aren't, but you can press it to higher levels if you want. Gazpacho 09:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I hope so. So far, it's managed to draw out some of the vandalism of my accusers ... i suppose that's a step in the right direction. Ungtss 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This can be done when the admin deletes the project (which so far seems to be the majority vote). Bensaccount 02:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - This project is nothing more than a way to bypass the normal talk pages and consensus-making process in an effort to force their POV onto articles. With Ungtss specifically, it's a way for him to make changes on articles that he promised he wouldn't touch from now on as part of his way to try to get out of an RfC he knew was coming and have some other member of the group add his comments for him. The normal process works, the reason many of these people here are upset with it is solely because the process working means that their agenda is thwarted. DreamGuy 08:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Balderdash. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the above argument is balderdash. Rednblu | Talk 13:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Anyone "with an ounce of intelligence" who isn't operating with a specific agenda of bias to try to distort Wikipedia pages would and does disagree with you. You created the page in secrecy (which didn't work, of course) to push "facts" that are not facts onto articles where your biased agenda was already declared inappropriate. This project has no legitimate purpose and needs to be deleted. DreamGuy 19:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for being such a paragon of civility and demonstrating how exactly to assume good faith, Dreamguy -- i've certainly learned my lesson. Ungtss 19:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Again, as has been explained, assuming good faith does not mean being blind to obvious, repeated, extreme cases of bad faith, as you have shown time and time again. The only possible uncivil thing in that statement was a repeat of what the previous editor falsely claimed about the other side, so if you're going to complain about civility, you should be yelling at Rednblu for trying to claim that people who disagree with him have no intelligence at all. DreamGuy 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • My point, dreamguy, is that you are accusing others of incivility while being uncivil yourself. i don't mind incivility from you -- i consider it part of the game. but you have adopted the pharisaical approach of accusing others of incivility while being uncivil yourself. that's good old fashioned hypocrisy. Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<it's a way for him to make changes on articles that he promised he wouldn't touch from now on>>

  • Balderdash. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the above argument is balderdash.8)) First, the User:FACTS work environment is just that--a work environment. If the above argument had any legitimacy at all, then there would have to be links to User:FACTS from the MainSpace. There is not one shred of evidence that the UserSpace anywhere is governed by NPOV at all! So the above argument is balderdash. Second, several of us evolutionists can see that certain vandals here unnamed for decency 8)) keep ripping out what the creationists write even when they accurately quote, paraphrase, and cite prominent scholars. You don't have to believe any of that--except that there this one evolutionist, namely me, who thinks that it is unfair that the here unnamed vandals keep ripping out what the creationists write even when they accurately quote, paraphrase, and cite prominent scholars. 8)) How is that for NPOV? I have even given an attribution. If you will actually read the NPOV page, you will see that that attributed assertion is NPOV. Third, the above argument is balderdash because the only show of "force" evidenced within this page is the appeal to the administrators to quash one Wikipedia editor's bold attempt to develop NPOV articles that actually quote, paraphrase, and cite what prominent scholars have actually written. Will the pages developed within the User:FACTS sandbox actually be NPOV? Who knows? But it certainly an unfair use of "force" for any administrator to delete that sandbox to prevent the experiment. ---Rednblu | Talk 13:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you want a seperate wiki that operates under a different regime of policy implementation, you need to create and administer a seperate wiki. Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Goethean 17:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • you have yet to demonstrate a single rule this sandbox violates except the old "nobody's allowed to say anything i don't like" rule we've heard so much about. Mr. Dreamguy lives in the nice, pretty dream were "because the majority thinks something, it's legitimate" -- the motto, i'm afraid, of mob rule. Ungtss 18:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You change the subject, but since you ask, how about this policy: A WikiProject is not a place to write encyclopedia articles? Bensaccount 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
jeez. you TOLD me to move it to wikiproject. you never cease to amaze me. Ungtss 18:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only as a step up from being your sockpuppet. Bensaccount 23:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
it was never, ever a sockpuppet. it was a neutral user space sandbox. Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No it was a userpage -- not the place for a wikipedia project -- however useless.Bensaccount 23:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You just said it was a sockpuppet three lines up. You were wrong. Now you're making a claim without backing it with policy. Where is it said that we are not permitted to put sandboxes in a neutral userspace? nowhere. Ungtss 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No it was sockpuppet. It was you posing as another user. It was just a matter of time until User:FACTS started making edits. Bensaccount 17:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Extremely strong rename - POV is not FACT. This WikiProject is not about facts despite its acronymic title. This is stealth advertising of a particular POV, and inherently misleading. Radiant! 14:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that Ungtss has ignored Radient!'s advice, even after moving the pages to his own userspace, gives one an idea about his rhetoric. His opinions ARE the FACTS.--Goethean 01:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Massive non-sequitur. The point of the title is to indicate that the pages should reflect FACTS, rather than OPINIONS -- yours OR mine -- because facts in the form of attributed statements by cited scholars are the stuff that npov is made of. but ultimately, the fact that there is a 3:1 evolutionist/creationist ratio in the "society" makes me wonder why, exactly, these pages have anything to do with my "opinions."
  • Comment. Rednblu and Ungtss have taken to calling their opponents on this page "dogs." --Goethean 19:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Goethean, Schroeder, and Bensaccount have taken to tearing innocent projects limb from limb for absolutely no articulable reason. Ungtss 19:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see as innocent the creation of alternate versions of articles by a self-selected subgroup of wikipedians, for the purpose of replacing the main articles at some unspecified point in the future. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If anyone can edit your "FACTS" articles, then they are no different than the main articles except, presumably, that you will exercise some admin-like power over them. If you claim that you will not, then there is no difference between the "FACTS" pages and the main pages, and there is no reason for their seperate existence. --Goethean 19:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Once again, I remind you, that sandboxes are permitted on wikipedia. your view of how important or useful they are is absolutely irrelevent to the question of deletion. Policy permits their existence, and there is absolutely no excuse or justification for their deletion. Zero. Nada. The sole goal of the sandbox is to see what happens when npov, rather than mob rule, is exercised over creationism pages. That is a VALID GOAL. And far from being a faction, there are currently 5 evolutionist members, and only one creationist member. Now go back to the mob on the main pages, and tell them they're doing a great job. Ungtss 19:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I didnt call it a faction, I called it a self-selected subgroup, which is exactly what it is. --Goethean 20:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The explicit goal of the "FACTS" pages is to create a permanent alternate group of articles. That is not a sandbox.
Strategies: The development of npov "alternative creationism articles" in the user namespace, which will serve as a model for npov on the main pages. --Goethean 20:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You really ought to finish the sentences you start reading. "..which will serve as a model for npov on the main pages." The goal is to figure out npov somewhere else ... to see what it looks like ... for the sole purpose of presenting an agreed-upon npov version on the main page. That's what a sandbox is, by definition, goethean. Ungtss 20:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to this definition. --Goethean 20:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. Sandboxes are places to explore the possibilities of page editing where the rules are not as strict, to allow for more efficient and effective editing of main pages. of course, in this case, the rules of NPOV will be ENFORCED, rather than let slide, as on the main pages. Ungtss 01:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right. So a sandbox is where you try out formatting and such so that you don't bog down the main pages. Not a fiefdom where you enforce your own version of NPOV, effectively giving yourself admin powers. Whatever. Have fun on your userpage.--Goethean 04:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
the point of these pages is the project -- achieving npov on these articles through involvement from everyone. it was put in a neutral space to attempt to maintain pov neutrality. "NO!" they screamed. "DON'T DO THAT! IT'S A SOCKPUPPET" (ignoring, of course, that sockpuppets make edits). so they asked me to put them in wikiproject, and i did. "HA HA!" they screamed. "You shouldn't do what we ask you to do!" I moved them to my user page. "Tee hee hee," they snickered, "Have fun on your userpage." Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thats very dramatic, Ungtss, but all we did was discuss the best location for a page. Bensaccount 23:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And after recommending one change, you switched your argument to say that the change you had recommended was also impermissible. that's not discussion. that's bad faith screwing with people. Ungtss 14:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The word recommend does sound familiar. Maybe I used it towards the beginning of this discussion? Bensaccount 17:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Ungtss is not the first user to encounter difficulty in pursuit of NPOV, and this isn't the way to resolve it. Gazpacho 08:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe we should move this dicussion to WP:RFC, to get a larger part of the WP community to express their views on it. Mind you, I'm not asking for a personal RFC against anyone, I'm asking for a consensual opinion on whether the Wikiproject:FACTS is useful for WP. Radiant_* 11:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • What would be the point? I find this an interesting possibility. But as I look through the History of WP:RFC, I see no example where that process even began to address anything like the enormous problem that this VfD page buries. Can you give me a historical example that we could use as a "template" in thinking about your idea? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The point is that several people are shouting angry arguments at one another, and there are several processes of dealing with that involving the community (e.g. RfM, RfC, RfA). I've also seen some accusations of vandalistic POV-pushing. This is not something that VfD ordinarily deals with. RfC primarily gets things to the attention of the community (and that has precedent), which was my point. Radiant_* 12:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have an idea. If you will advise me and tell me what to do, I am willing to prepare whatever document would be needed for the WP:RFC process. However, when I look at the WP:RFC history, that WP:RFC page is just another forum for shouting angry arguments at one another. 8)) Am I right? WP:RFC is part of a dispute resolution process. Am I right? Now I can see a lot of value in getting disputants together in a place where they can shout angry arguments at one another--because it is better that most of the angry shouting be drained into one cesspool. In contrast, the important issue that this VfD page buries is a fundamental flaw in the Wikipedia rules. And the User:FACTS environment is only a System Development Environment (SDE) where "developers" who abide by the evolving SDE rules can work together in prototyping rules that actually produce NPOV pages on Creationism. NPOV pages on Creationism are obviously impossible in the MainSpace pages. What would you suggest? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


    • I would support that. Ungtss is essentially starting a mini-wiki on his userpages, with the explicit goal of replacing articles on the main pages. This is a big deal. It would be good to get the thoughts of a wider audience. --Goethean 00:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • RfC defeats the purpose here, friends. There is too much systemic bias for a "drive-by-vote" to hold any meaning. The project is an OPEN SANDBOX designed to experiment in a place where the egos aren't as hot, and where we can work FREE of systemic bias. Goethean has "essentially" redefined the project as "starting a mini-wiki" when all it is is an effort to develop procedures, rules, and ultimately npov articles in an environment free of the ideological free-for-all we have on the main pages. It does no harm. It's full of evolutionists. Why do maybe 25kb on the server outweigh the benefits of developing the project? Ungtss 14:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • all it is is an effort to develop procedures, rules, and ultimately npov articles in an environment free of the ideological free-for-all we have on the main pages. --Ungtss
        • I believe that you've just proven my point. That "ideological free-for-all" is better known as the normal state of affairs at Wikipedia. Now it's not just articles that you want to develop in a sanitized environment, but policies and procedures, as well! This project is now explicitly anti-wiki. --Goethean 15:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Another massive non-sequitur. Let's start with your assumption that wikipedia is at its heart an "ideological free-for-all." Wrongo. Wikipedia is supposed to operate according to the rules of npov. NPOV beats ideological-free-for-all just like paper beats rock -- every time. We have protection, arbitration, RfC for these purposes ... we have templates like this one:

{{subst:ltp|Twoversions|AlternativeArticleID}}

          • and we ALSO HAVE SANDBOXES. And THIS is a sandbox. And it is doing NO HARM. And it is EXPLICITLY for the purpose of furthering npov, as a workaround against systemic bias, which is a real and identifiable problem in an open system like wikipedia. but you, my friend want it deleted, because you're afraid of what npov looks like. Ungtss 15:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a parallel policy that can't be allowed. Ungtss, your behaivour will lead you into an arbitration sooner or longer. If you want to this such a proposal, do it in the Wikipedia:Village Pump --Neigel von Teighen 20:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • DuncHarris, an ADMIN, has joined the project. How is this "my behavior?" Ungtss 22:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute here, being relatively new to Wikipedia. However, it's beyond me why polite articulate explanations of Creationism, and some of its corollaries can't be articulated by Creationists and improved by other Creationists, so that we can all go somewhere to read their best construction of the world and understanding of the facts (facts too are made, en français = faire, to make, as in factory). You can't take the human and the bias utterly out of the process of facting. A lot more can be said about this, but the question of bias applies to all of us and all viewpoints, there are no facts without values impinging upon their selection and their ordering and their existence as mental units. So, if this present quarrel has anything to do with outlawing articles on Creationism by Creationists subject to contraints of politeness, articulateness, and improvement by increasing Creationist expertise: then we're just letting some other bias run roughshod over this particular bias with a smaller community of consensus. But, not knowing precisely what is the issue here, what section of Wiki is the proper place for the entries, why people seem to be stripping authority references from Creationist articles (appropriateness may require a fine line between an apologist's rant and a PhDbiologist's argument against evolution from one original simple lifeform on planet Earth, etc., and not knowing yet what a "Project" is, I would at this stage vote against deletion of the FACTS (whatever it is). Reformatikos

You, sir, have done a great deal to reestablish my faith in the human race:). Points all well made:). The goal of the project is simple -- to work on policies, procedures, and model pages that will represent creationism concisely, accurately, and in an npov fashion. the reason it is necessary is this: "due to the highly controversial and emotional nature of the topic, the main pages suffer from a great deal of ideological grandstanding, personal research, and outright vandalism by both sides, which makes high quality npov articles absolutely impossible under the current state of affairs. A number of individuals have realized that more detailed and articulated guidelines are necessary if this insanity is ever to end, and model pages can serve as sandboxes on which to develop those policies and see how they work, without being subject to the unending nonsense on the mainpages. Thanks for your consideration, and given your clearly very broad-minded outlook on the issues, I'd look forward to working with you on the project if you'd be willing. Ungtss 01:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let's see, someone who admits he or she has no clue what's going on shows up to give you support and this reestablishes your faith in the human race? What, your faith that some people are gullible and ill-informed enough to fall for your nonsense? Nobody disputes that NPOV would be good for the Creationism pages. What is in dispute is your claims to be trying for NPOV at all. You have consistently tried to -- not just slightly but severely -- skew the articles toward what you believe at the expense of all other opinions. When you finally lost out on these changes because other editors would no longer let you get away with it, and consensus clearly and firmly showed you that your way is not acceptable, you and some like-minded people decide to do a run-around the normal process and make your own rules so you can change articles as a political action committee. This is completely and totally against Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 02:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that mob rule is not a correct way to achieve consensus. The correct way to achieve consensus is to have something that approaches fact while not degenerating in to a weenie-war. I think User:172 had a lot of objections to the Wikipedia process when he left Wikipedia, and I think the fact that people very hostile to creationism are trying to, some extent, control the creationism-related pages shows a very distinct weakness in Wikipedia's process. And, oh, I really wish these discussions could be about content instead of about people. We're here to make a great encyclopedia, not to have yet another flame war. Samboy 08:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that it is highly biased to assume that the consensus that already has been reached is mere "mob rule" or that the facts that are int he articles aren't really facts just because you might disagree with them. I would agree that Wikipedia is here to make a great encyclopedia, but it's clear from the actions of Ungtss and other posters that they are only here to try to make a poor encyclopedia so that they can make a great set of pro-Creationism articles. DreamGuy 09:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

(ignoring flagrant personal attacks by dreamguy in order to take samboy's suggestion and focus on the article. Oh wait. there's nothing BUT personal attacks in his comments). i repeat. We need specific and identifiable rules so we can all look at the article, look at the rules, and say, "now THAT'S an article that follows the rules." Until then, your claims that i am biased are no better than my claims that you are biased. We need an objective standard to end this nonsense. Ungtss 14:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete-Merely a vehicle for pov pushing. "facts"?? hilarious. Yet another example of the 'lets call things the opposite of what they are' ruse.--Deglr6328 07:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is nothing "hilarious" about it. By any reasonable interpretation of NPOV, there would be facts about anything. Namely, the "facts" would be accurate and cited reports about what the various POVs are. Though you might have the best of intentions here, you are dead wrong in voting to suppress accurate reports of the facts.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That was pretty unconvincing.--Deglr6328 23:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Just facts, my friend. No convincing is necessary. Just facts. Supposedly, NPOV has no interest in being convincing. Have you actually read the NPOV policy? Where did you see anything about "convincing" in the NPOV policy? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- I fail to see why creationists think they cannot edit creationist articles in Wikipedia proper. Joshuaschroeder 14:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please note that this is joshuaschroeder's second vote to delete on this page. in answer to his question, please have a look at his rfc. Ungtss 14:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is par for the course with such a dishonest user as Schroeder. He is always bullying creationists. 138.130.201.204 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep138.130.201.204 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Anonymous users cannot vote in polls.--Deglr6328 04:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. According to wikipedia policy, "their votes may be discounted, especially if they appear to be made in bad faith. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion. a quick glance at 138's edit history shows that there's no bad faith. he's a full-out wikipedia editor with hundreds of edits who, for some reason, has chosen not to get a username. There is no wikipedia policy requiring that users get usernames, nor requiring that their votes be disregarded in VfD's. The choice is up to the admin who tallies the votes. Reality, please, Dglr. Let's have a little reality. Thank you. Ungtss 04:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If I felt like arguing the point I'd say that bad faith describes quite a few of his edits, especially from previous ip's. It's not really worth debating in this trivial situation though.--Deglr6328 05:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. The article was mistakenly VFD-tagged as fictional. Mgm|(talk) 08:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tart 'n' Tinys[edit]

This is about a kind of sweet mentioned in a children's book. If its contents belong anywhere (which I doubt), they belong in the article on the book. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, sorry. Do we have to go through the whole VfD farce, or would a friendly admin cut this short? (I have no idea what NERDS are either — but don't worry, I don't need to know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • As it happens, we have an article for NERDS, too. :) —Korath (Talk) 19:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) (keep)
  • Keep (just adding another vote to make the decision for the friendly admin easier) Rl 21:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Suckage[edit]

Er. Whatever it is, it doesn't belong here. Inter\Echo 19:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Speedy redelete okay by me. -- Infrogmation 19:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's garbage. Rl 20:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- nonsense, perhaps even qualifies as patent nonsense. Jonathunder 20:50, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense. Lacrimosus 22:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, patent nonsense. Martg76 23:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do it, or parts of it, qualify as Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense? -- Kizor 00:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The author of the article has been known to vandalize this page. Keep your eyes peeled! -- Kizor 01:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity (such a pity it's not a speedy) - David Gerard 01:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the suckage. DaveTheRed 04:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Tygar 06:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the suckage, you have every other article here
  • Delete the suckage, O Speaking Sock. This ain't an article. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Same sock vandalized the legit Sucks page. Bad sock. - Lucky 6.9 22:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE copyvio and REDIRECT to Low-cost carrier. Mgm|(talk) 08:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cheap flights[edit]

First, its a complete copy vio of this site: http://www.bigadvicecenter.com/travel/discount-flights.html and second, this is hardly encylopedic matarial. --Sarvagna 19:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree. -- Infrogmation 20:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe tag such articles as copyvio next time? We have a separate track for them at WP:CP. Rl 21:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just tagged it as copyvio for you. Zzyzx11 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think the subject of cheap flights is encylopedic. Zzyzx11 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Low-cost carrier. Cheap flights are a subject of interest IMHO - here in the UK they have fundamentally changed travel habits and how people treat their vacation time (weekend trips to much of Europe being cheaper than going somewhere in the UK), and the UK's relations with continental Europe. Qwghlm 23:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Low-cost carrier. Thanks for pointing that out, Qwghlm. I do imagine someone entering "cheap flights" in the search engine. Zzyzx11 03:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the copyvio, and redirect to Low-cost carrier. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic, promo. Megan1967 03:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the copyvio and put a redirect in it's place. Mgm|(talk) 08:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. —Korath (Talk) 04:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Alleged planned Venezuelan coup in 2004[edit]

Article is nothing more than a combination of original research and poor sourcing. Half of the sources are in Spanish and therefore it is impossible for many Wikipedians to verify the contents of them, and the others are of dubious credibility. This and the fact that the article is attempting to argue a point, namely that forces are at work in Venezuela to hatch a coup against Chavez, even when none of the sources explicitly state this leads me to conclude that this article is nothing more than original research. Add onto this that the article is out of date. Deletion suggested. TDC 19:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV, non-encyclopedic, conspiracy theory. Binadot 22:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was an important event in Venezuelan-Colombian relations and internal Venezuelan politics. Whether it was a plot to overthrow the government, or a government ploy to persecute opposition members, or something in between, it was important. The article as it stands might have POV or sourcing issues, but that's not a reason to delete it. DanKeshet 22:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) (note: this comment was edited since TDC made his reply. --dk)
Perhaps relevant sections might be reincorporated into the article as part of Venezuela's relations with its neighbors. TDC 22:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
We just moved it out of the Hugo Chavez article because the incident was overrepresented in that article. DanKeshet 22:47, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Read the header again, too much poorly sourced original research. TDC 23:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the article good right now, but original research? This seems like a perfectly standard account of what was in all the Venezuelan and world newspapers. If you want the other side of the story, check out Roberto Alonso's pictures of his ranch which he says was damaged in the raid of his employees. DanKeshet 23:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 01:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This was an alleged coup. Surely there is some Venezuelan article this can be merged to? Megan1967 03:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the whole point was that this page was split from the Hugo Chavez article. As for this bizarre idea that sources not written in English make the article original research, an article about South America that probes events in some depth is obviously going to use sources in Spanish. Of course not all readers will be able to verify them, but that doesn't mean that no one can, which is a very different thing. The vast vast majority of readers of any article don't check up on the sources and don't need to, as long as someone does it there isn't a problem. And anyway, if sources have to be written in the same language as the article in order to be valid I'd be interested to know how you think the Lingala or Inuktitut or Walloon editions of our noble project are ever going to produce comprehensive encyclopedias! — Trilobite (Talk) 04:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Half of the sources are in Spanish and therefore it is impossible for many Wikipedians to verify the contents of them" should never be an excuse for rejecting something. Especially not when the language is as easy to decipher as Spanish. This encyclopedia would be way poorer if only English-language sources were used. - Mustafaa 07:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and Cleanup to make the article more factual and less speculatory. Radiant! 09:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup, this is an important and complex incident (alleged or not) which should definitely be included, though it's equally true that the narrative and sourcing should be improved (trying to not misrepresent the multiples sides of the issue, hopefully). Juancarlos2004 18:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The objection that the sources for an article on Venezuela are largely in Spanish is beneath contempt. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Rename Roberto Alonso affair, 2004?) –Hajor 14:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. I think it is a valid issue to have, since it is a current event that keeps on popping up in the American Press. Hugo Chavez has had coup attempts against him before, so if people agree to it, we could have a page just talking about the various attempts on Chavez. Zscout370 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sheikh Aazim Muhajir Al-Amin[edit]

Google yields no hits on this name. Inter\Echo 19:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete without damn fine third party verifiability - David Gerard 01:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Mohammad Bahrami[edit]

Vanity. Non notable. Inter\Echo 19:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lunar Park[edit]

A clear example of advertising. If it should be mentioned it should be a single line on the author's page, not a seperate article. JesseW 20:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep forthcoming novels by notable Brett Easton Ellis. It's not balanced, but it sources the quotes. Kappa 20:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If you remove the fluff, it basically says "Ellis wrote a new book and his publisher says it's good". Well, duh. I wouldn't object if someone felt compelled to safe whatever valuable information they can gather for the author's article. Let them come back and create an article when there's some meat to this bone. Rl 20:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest that we rewrite it with previews from other sources and mark it as a stub. Zzyzx11 22:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove quotes, keep as stub until the thing comes out - David Gerard 01:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I prefer to consider not-yet-published works on a case-by-case basis. This time it's by an extremely notable author and should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedic topic, but this is hype. Of course his publisher says it's going to be great. And says nothing about what it is, or if they did, it's not quoted here. Reduce to stub, then add material other than Knopf hype, if we can find any. Anyway, if deleted the article will certainly be back once it's published. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam is still spam, no matter how notable the source. Edeans 03:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Anstey (anatomy)[edit]

This is a case study in poor RC patrol. This page was originally about a village in Leicestershire, then got replaced with some nonsense (according to which Anstey would be the same as the perineum). The page was subsequently moved to Anstey (anatomy) to reflect the "new" content. Google proves that this is nonsense: anstey and perineum are never mentioned in proximity. Thankfully, Anstey, Leicestershire was created, but this vestigial organ should be deleted. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have rescued relevant information about the Leicestershire town from the history and merged it with Anstey, Leicestershire. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad. We need technical means to improve RC patrol. Rl 21:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently obvious hoax/prank. Not an appropriate article name anyway, so do not redirect. Good grief, it was that way since October 2004. And edited for formatting by an experienced Wikipedian who apparently didn't notice the content. Of course, I don't understand why it was entitled "Anstey (anatomy)" in the first place. Seems to me more like a newpages issue, not a recent changes issue. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • After the (deceptively encyclopedic) vandalism, the page was moved to reflect the content. JFW | T@lk 10:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedily, anyone? Fire Star 23:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Query. Though the title is obviously incorrect and can't be retained, some material from this article's history has been merged into the Anstey, Leicestershire article by JFW. How does deletion of this stuff now square with the GFDL's attribution requirements? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The useful edits are back in the history presumably - David Gerard 01:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I manually moved the most recent "normal" version content to the Anstey, Leicestershire page. They are therefore not properly attributed. JFW | T@lk 10:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 01:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Golf (Videopac game)[edit]

Image, no article. Wikipedia articles are not collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Unexpanded since August 2004. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, a picture is worth a thousand words. I expanded it slightly Kappa 20:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heh, it's got some text now. Thanks Cyrius for pointing it out, and Kappa for fixing it (sort of). Ah, nostalgia. Rl 20:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 21:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 01:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand now that it's been brought to light. - Lucky 6.9 07:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep published game Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable gamecruft. ComCat 09:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable Jasoncart 15:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's still not a very good article, but at least it has one now. Formally withdrawing nomination. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 01:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. T.V. Puttappa[edit]

The person's name is Dr. K. V. Puttappa and there is already an article on him - Kuvempu. --Sarvagna 20:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Amit Singh[edit]

The whole article is an elaborate explanation of why some Indian philosopher was completely non-notable. And that would make it a VfD candidate even if it wasn't smelling hoaxy. From the article: His philosophies, to say the least, are considered very controversial and were never popular while he was alive. For this reason, he is not mentioned in any modern publications or web sites. Riiiight. Rl 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you believe that it sounds hoaxy, but I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge, I am telling the truth. I added the sentence on how he is not popular because of the preface of his book (Philosophy of a Man), which talked about his unpopularity. The sentence about him not being mentioned is the result of a very long Google search that I did. If someone finds a page on him, then I urge them to remove the part about him not being mentioned. Retroactive 21:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Retroactive, please cite your sources. We need more references here. For example, where was this 1967 interview published. And where can we find information on Philosophy of a Man. Zzyzx11 21:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The only source I have is a very old copy of Philosophy of a Man. I asked my father, who had it, where it was from, and he can't remember. Many of the pages are missing from this book, including the title page, so I cannot determine which company published it. A search of the Internet, which I performed, found no relevant results as to this book and the author. This can be seen in the portion of the article where I wrote that Amit Singh did not appear on the web or in any modern publications. However, my information about the 1967 interview and the rest of the article comes from the battered copy of his book that I have. I am sorry that I cannot be of much help to others in verifying the truth of my statements apart from saying that they are true. If the lack of easily accessible information makes my article moot, then I urge you to delete it. Retroactive 22:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Scans or photos would be helpful - David Gerard 01:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find Amit Singh in the correct context anywhere on Google, and none of Amazon.com, the Harvard University Hollis catalog, nor the University of Toronto library catalog list either Philosophy of a Man or Ek manus. Furthermore, there is a web page about philosophy here, and its author is—though an interesting coincidence—named Amit Singh. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I shouldn't be too hasty—as David Gerard says, some scans or photos would be very helpful and persuasive. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible hoax aside, the article itself confirms his complete lack of notability. He wrote one book that had "terrible sales," and he "did not hold any position in life nor gain any prestige." GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, smells hoaxy. Megan1967 03:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This may sound strange coming from the author of the article, but I believe it should be deleted. As many have pointed out, Singh was not at all notable, so it wouldn't make much sense to include him in a Wikipedia article. Secondly, I can't scan or photograph the book because I don't have a scanner or digital camera, so there is no way for others to verify its existence. Third of all, TenOfAllTrades has pointed out the lack of the book in any database on the Internet. Either the book I have contains completely false information (as it doesn't appear on any of these sites or databases) or it is not notable to that extent. Either way, it should be deleted in favor of articles with more useful content. To finish, I saw the other website of philosophy. That, to the best of my knowledge, is just a coincidence. The Singh book that I have says that he is dead, so how could he run a web page? Retroactive 04:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • One of the criteria for Speedy Delete is "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." I believe this may now apply. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it would fit under the Speedy Deletion criteria, seeing as I intended to create the article. However, the comments of many posted here have caused me to doubt the legitimacy of the book. Therefore, I say that it should be deleted. Retroactive 13:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because of Philosophy of a Man, but needs to be extensively pruned and reworked. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd feel a lot better about Philosophy of a Man if we had some more information about it--some sort of independent corroboration of its existence, and that it's under the correct title. The Library of Congress doesn't have a listing for it, or for Amit Singh either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with GeorgeStephanek. Radiant! 14:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 06:38, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Anti universe[edit]

Bad joke transformed into not quite correct substub. See alse version history. --Pjacobi 20:43, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

  • Delete. Bye - David Gerard 01:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bringing an antiuniverse into an anti-antiuniverse = bad results. Delete before that happens. Tygar 06:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or failing that redirect to Antimatter. Grue 20:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[Antimatter]. Plainsong 02:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No useful content, bad name. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Antimatter. Megan1967 09:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-universe is not a relevant concept for "anti matter", an anti-universe is a triviality and a speculation, there is no rational basis to believe that anti-matter implies anti-universes. John187 17:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bahistory[edit]

This looks more like a to-do list for a website than an actual article. Inter\Echo 21:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like the page is being used for purposes other than an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 22:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - ad - David Gerard 01:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - did it end up here by mistake? - Eixo 01:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable website and article is written in unencyclopedic fashion. jni 07:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - ad - Adjusting 08:11, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 09:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Horthy Miklos Prison[edit]

This article hardly says anything useful... --Adam78 21:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: We have a link in Hannah Szenes that predates and points to the prison article. I wonder if this confusing sentence was meant to say that we got the name of the prison in the Szenes article wrong. Consider the full text of the prison article: no prison was named on Horthy Miklòs. The prison in question named on the street where it was situated, "Margit Körùt". Rl 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixable? Can always redirect back, those sort of links are always fun (fsvo) - David Gerard 01:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If no prison was named Horthy Miklòs, then we don't need an article on it, now do we? DaveTheRed 04:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Edeans 03:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

MicroC/OS-II[edit]

Not notable. 11,000 hits on Google. If notable, article is completely useless and may as well be deleted. r3m0t talk 21:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • This, like Minix and XINU is one of the few operating systems to have been published with source code in book form. The book is ISBN 0879305435. This article is incredibly badly written, and appears to have been copied&pasted, although I don't know whence. I'd have a go at cleaning it up (which would probably be a rewrite from scratch), but I don't have the time right now, and there are other higher-priority things on my to-do list. Keep. Uncle G 23:10, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As far from an encyclopedia article as it could get. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 15:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Need alot of Cleanup and should be made a bit more clear for everyone... WB 22:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Godfree Roberts[edit]

Non-notable — J3ff 21:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 01:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If basis for inclusion is management of schools, schools should be listed. Website management, without other assertion(s) concerning website, is insufficient. Unless and until anything along these lines is fleshed out, my vote will be delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity, definitely bizarre. Edeans 03:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Karkarthar[edit]

Incomprehensible. RickK 21:32, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to think that there's some actual information hidden within this article, but I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm going to vote delete abstain for now, but I'll reconsider if a major cleanup can make this article readable. Carbonite | Talk 21:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject looks real, and so do some of the editors involved. If it was about a topic I had some knowledge of, I'd definitely prefer such a bad article over having to start from a blank page. It seems to be a better start than most stubs I've seen. My main concern is that the article might be worse than just bad: wrong. And that would be bad indeed. Anyhow, the article only had one day to live, I say let's give it a chance. Rl 22:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. I need to see some cleanup before I can give a delete or keep vote. Zzyzx11 22:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The article is in a sorry state, but this is no reason for deletion. Martg76 23:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be seriously overhauled. Currently the article seems to be gibberish and I can't make anything of it. There aren't many Google hits for the term Karkarthar (56 hits) and most seem to be on Indian matrimonial or "find-a-bride" services. I get the impression this may be something real, but if no one is capable of turning into something remotely comprehensible there's no reason to have it sitting around confusing people. Arkyan 00:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep based on the rewrite. Arkyan 16:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Horribly written - David Gerard 01:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, makes a reasonable amount of sense to me. If I was interested in Karkarthars I'd much rather have this than nothing. Kappa 01:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly notable Indian ethnic group. VfD is not cleanup: please do not try to use it as such. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This could have been speedy deleted under the criterion of "No meaningful content or history", but I brought it here first hoping somebody can make heads or tails out of it. The article as it stands makes no sense. RickK 05:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • No meaningful content? That's quite a strict criterion. "Mother tongue is Tamil with unique Mayavaram accent and dialect." ... "Karkarthar mostly live in Southern part of India, Tamilnadu in districts of " <list of districts> ... sure sounds like meaningful content to me. Surely you're not proposing to delete articles on the basis of the their editor's fluency with English? GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed I am, if the article is unreadable. We delete articles written in other languages besides English, why not delete articles written in English which no one can read? RickK 06:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • It seems that other people can get at least some meaningful information from this article. Why can't you? Or rather, why don't you bother trying? It's obvious that the editors are trying hard to write a meaningful article, but are having great difficulties doing so. We need to give more help to them, not cast scorn on their efforts. This is where systemic bias comes from. These people have the knowledge we need to broaden our coverage. Why make it even harder for them to do so? GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Because crap like this reflects badly on the encyclopedia. I can just see the articles and the blogs pointing to this stuff and laughing gleefully about just how awful Wikipedia is. RickK 06:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't want to see that happen either. But that's what Cleanup is for. VfD is not Cleanup. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain since this is such a mess. If the facts are correct and it was made into something a bit more comprehensible, I'd certainly support a "keep." For now, I simply don't know what I'm voting on. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The topic is certainly encyclopedic, and the content looks salvageable. All we need is one person who knows something about Tamil Nadu, and the chances of that are good. - Mustafaa 07:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If memory serves me correctly the articles creator emailed me and asked me to help clean it up. I don't know anything about the subject myself so can't help that much content-wise, but I'll try to give them some help with basic Wikipedia editing so they can clean it up themselves. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete current content and list on requested articles. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's going backwards. This is probably the best English-language resource available. Kappa 10:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified article. I hope that those who didn't know what they were voting upon will find the article legible now. Please note the requests for a neutrality check and a fact check. Most of the references that I could find appear to be hopelessly biased. According to sources the Karkarthar are either the best people ever with claims to notability coming out of their ears, or simply one subdivision out of many who are a bunch of snobs thinking themselves superior to everyone else just as the other subdivisions all do. Note that the easiest reference to find, which was supplied by the original author, is an association that promotes the group. Uncle G 14:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • Great rewrite, Uncle. I change my vote to Keep. RickK 22:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that. Magnificent save. Strong keep. - Lucky 6.9 03:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep as rewritten. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 06:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gully dwarves[edit]

Fictional, non-encyclopedic, and possibly vanity. Binadot 22:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not vanity; they're from Dragonlance. I'm 90% sure this is a copyvio, though; the first half appears verbatim in [9], and the rest looks very much like it was pulled verbatim from the same source that lifted it from. —Korath (Talk) 22:46, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • (I have no problem with an article existing here in the future, for the record. —Korath (Talk) 04:48, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC))
    • On further inspection, most of this user's contributions look like more of the same; anyone have the original modules and/or later sourcebook reprints to check? —Korath (Talk) 23:23, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • We should contact him and ask, probably. Radiant! 09:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and keep. Gully dwarves are a notable race in the Dragonlance books. But of course copying the text off another website is not a good way to write an article. — JIP | Talk 05:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do believe it's copyvio. However, the race itself should at least be a redirect to Dragonlance, to be broken out when (if) sufficient information is there to present its own article. See also kender. Radiant! 09:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite - JIP said it all. --Bletch 19:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and keep—notable race in Dragonlance world. Someone really needs to expand kender, too...they were always my favorites. Postdlf 14:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and keep if possible, as it's a fairly notable race from Dragonlance. Otherwise delete the copyright violation and wait until someone creates a real article. Psychonaut 10:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Christian cults[edit]

Extremely POV and non-encyclopedic. The anonymous creator includes such "cults" as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Unitarian Universalists.

  • Technically any sect with a ritual religious practice is a cultus, so the title arguably has that problem. Delete extremely POV article. Probably not a speedy, but it is tempting. Fire Star 23:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I fear. Being a crappy article about a real thing is not a delete reason. Cults in the sociological sense that happen to be Christian are an entirely encyclopaedic topic - David Gerard 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with a drastic rewrite. This is an encyclopedic topic, but many forms of Christianity have a habit of misusing the word "cult" to describe any group whose doctrine is at variance with their idea of Christianity. This definition is inherently POV, and therefore if the article is rewritten can't be used. I would suggest a stub along the lines of "Christian cults are those groups a) whose doctrine is based in some way on traditional Christian doctrine and b) are known to employ the mind-control tactics ascribed to cults. The term is also used by some Christians, particularly conservative or evangelical denominations, to describe any group whose doctrine they claim to be an aberrant or incorrect form of Christianity." I'd make the change myself, but the VfD note directs us not to make such changes. Haikupoet 02:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure you can. Constructive edits during VfD are fine. In fact the notice used to encourage them. You just shouldn't "blank, merge, or move this article" or tinker with the VfD notice itself. If you make large edits it's nice to mention them in the VfD discussion and give a link to the previous version, so it will be clear that earlier comments refer to a different version. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then that's what I did. And in some ways, you're right -- it is a Christian-vs-Christian thing. As far as Christians defining who's a Member Of The Tribe or not, sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't, but anyone who calls the UUs a cult is abusing the term beyond any reasonable definition of the term. Anyway, it should now be quite a bit less POV. I marked it as a stub; IMHO it's a bit on the long side for a stub but I think much more can be done with it.Haikupoet 02:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is probably an accurate expression of the point of view of The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), but we don't have an article on them, and I don't think they are an organization so notable that their particular POV needs to be documented by WIkipedia. One dictionary definition for "cult" is "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." To me, and I think to most people, that obviously does not fit the present-day Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS Church (Mormons), practitioners of Transcendental meditation, Unitarians, or probably others on the list I'm not familiar with. So, this is a private definition of the word "cult." (Actually it strikes me as being some sort of doctrinal blacklist, a Christian-against-Christian thing. Very unpleasant). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • P. S. If it's to be kept in its present form, it should be moved to CARM or Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and open with a brief description of the organization, since the article is in fact specificially a presentation of CARM's concept of "Christian cult." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, needs work is my vote on Haikupoet's version. I think the article in its present form does have serious problems. The present article is actually a (IMHO valid!) POV critique of the way the phrase is used by CARM and friends, and worse yet is a disguised critique. The present article says, in effect, Christian cult ought to mean thus-and-such; if it did it would include thus-and-such groups; and some unspecified Christian authorities "extend" this definition in a way that is as being overly slanted and inflammatory outside some unspecified conservative circles. So, is it factual that there is a well-established phrase "Christian cults" whose meaning can be deduced from the meanings of the word "Christian" and "cult," and that CARM and friends have extended that meaning? Who gets to define the phrase? Not Wikipedia; we should limit ourselves to reporting how other define it. But this is really for the article's Talk page... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This duplicates/overlaps an existing article. Also, misnamed -these are groups regard as cults by "mainstream" Christian groups. "Krishna" is not a Christian cult. Move appropriate groups to List of purported cults.-Willmcw 02:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are and have been Christian cults and sects. For example, the "Cult of Mary", Opus Dei, and similar groupings would probably be more appropriate here than in other articles. As a topic, it is appropriate. Now we just have to make the article fit the topic. -Willmcw 08:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after User:Haikupoet's excellent rewrite. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Er... how exactly is it POV? Haikupoet 04:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's probably POV. See above. Specifically, I think it's a disguised critique of CARM's definition of the phrase. The fact that I think it's an utterly valid critique is beside the point... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying, but I still defend the rewrite as the common Christian definition seems to be, by and large, a deceptive one. My experience with Christian use of the word "cult" indicates that those who do use the word in the original sense of this article don't really care about the distinction between "destructive cult" and "heresy" -- they conflate two very different (though sometimes overlapping) categories for rhetorical purposes. Haikupoet 22:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid article topic. Rewrite as necessary.--Gene_poole 04:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Rename so that it isn't plural. DaveTheRed 04:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Move groups to List of purported cults, according to the taxonomy in that article. Each of named groups have already their own articles. --Zappaz 05:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The rewrite is commendable and makes the article encyclopedic and useful. Arkyan 06:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete and move a little of the contents to Christian countercult movement Andries 08:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concurring with Zappaz. Radiant! 09:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with counter-cult movement and/or [[list of purported cults]. Note that I have NO DESIRE to suppress or censor the POV that the Unification Church (which I'm in; or other groups I like) is a "cult". The only issue for me is WHERE and HOW this POV ought to be stated. Readers looking for assertions that the UC is a cult, ought to be able to find this easily, along with the REASONS various parties think it's a cult. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Have I told you lately that I love you, Ed? I can't really decide my vote right now, but I think that if it's to be merged, it should be with Christian countercult movement rather than counter-cult movement, since the former is only a subset of the latter and the article under VfD only applies to the former. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note should be taken of Hank Hanegraaff and his Christian Research Institute ([10]) as well. Various Christian fundamentalists call any Christian group that deviates from their idea of orthodoxy a "Christian cult." -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Edeans 03:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About CARM[edit]

Whatever you may think about CARM, their description of the origins of the Unification Church is accurate:

"Moon was born to parents who adhered to Confucianism until their conversion to Presbyterianism in 1930. Moon claims that in 1935 Jesus appeared to him on a mountain in Korea and told him to finish the work of establishing God’s kingdom on earth. By 1945 he had written down the precepts of his new system in the book, Divine Principles. He went to North Korea to preach and was imprisoned in 1946. In April of 1948 he was again sentenced to longer 5 year sentence in Hungnam. In 1950 he was liberated from the prison by the Americans involved in the Korean War. On May 1, 1954, in Seoul, Moon founded the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. In 1958 he sent missionaries to Japan and in 1959 to America. Moon moved to the United States in 1971. He has been invited to the White house and spoken to Congress." [11]

I think I'll quote from them. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, maybe not! I just read the rest of the page I cited above, and it ends with a non sequitur: "Through his political social outreaches he has deceived a great many people into believing his self-exalting and self-serving theology. It is a dangerous group." (I didn't see any explanation of how Moon's outreaches have deceived any one, or any reasons that they consider his theology "self-exalting or self-serving". Worst of all, they did not specify the "dangers". (Unless we're supposed to guess that believing false doctrine is, um, hazardous to your spiritual life, e.g., you'll burn in hell; that would be dangerous, I'll grant you! :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus: I love you too.

DPB: (1) Let's fix the problem you detected re: "a disguised critique of CARM's definition" (now that I've started the CARM page). (2) I've copied the bartleby definition of cult you cited, to Definitions of cult. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help nibble away at it as time permits (unless of course the outcome of the VfD is deletion). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Towne[edit]

Obvious vanity. Inter\Echo 22:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Obvious delete. Postdlf 22:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing is asserted in this article making a colorable basis for inclusion. The most that is said is that he is a college student. Delete unless other assertion is included. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Vanniloideae[edit]

Gibberish, mostly in Swedish anyway --Orelstrigo 22:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • wtf? Delete. - David Gerard 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone speak swedish? We have a swedish wikipedia. If its a valid article it should be transwikied there. If it's just gibbberish, delete. DaveTheRed 04:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because of content but because it claims to be copyrighted. - Mustafaa 07:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like it was copy&pasted from a Swedish biology textbook. I don't know why it has parts in English and parts in Swedish, though. — JIP | Talk 05:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Vanilloideae? Fg2 08:02, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Vanilloideae was created by the same user as Vanniloideae, and it is not an encyclopedia article either. The latter seems unsalvageable, the former might serve as a basis for an actual article. - Mike Rosoft 13:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Either this has copyvio issues and should be handled as such, or it does not and should have gone to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English rather than VfD. Content is clearly encyclopedic. And yes, if we keep it, it should eventually be merged to Vanilloideae -- Jmabel | Talk 08:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Content is clearly NOT encyclopedic. Text dump, delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dodgy[edit]

dicdef. Inter\Echo 23:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Dicdef, and a dodgy one to boot. Delete, no useful content. Lacrimosus 01:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dodgy dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. Carbonite | Talk 04:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we have a better article now... Grutness|hello? 02:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten articles on dodgy groups with 5 albums releases. Kappa 11:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as such. Radiant! 14:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep as rewritten. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. —Korath (Talk) 04:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

United Cracking Force/Release History[edit]

This article is long list of software organized in a crude table that features ANSII graphics. Is this spam, vanity, or patent nonsense? Whatever it is, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I suggest that it be deleted. --NoPetrol 23:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KEEP It is a reference for the United Cracking Force article that took me 7 hours to compile. Delete if you want, it will just go back into my user space (where it was originally).  ALKIVAR™ 00:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably transwiki to wikisource, or keep, not sure what gets done with stuff like this. --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 14 Mar 2005
  • Wikisource, would that be the place for it? - David Gerard 01:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont think its the right type of material for Wikisource which is why I had it here. But since the opinion so far is to put it on wikisource I have. I'm sure in 3-4 weeks i'll get a "this doesnt belong on wikisource move it to wikipedia" vfd over there.  ALKIVAR™ 03:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it does belong on Wikipedia or Wikisource; I think it belongs on this company's website (and not your name space. That's not what its for). --NoPetrol 02:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The fact that you called United Cracking Force a company shows you have 0 understanding of this topic and should not be involved in its VfD.  ALKIVAR™ 03:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The way I see it, the fact that I have 0 understanding of this topic after reading the article in question is exactly why I think the article should be deleted. Also, I understand that while United Cracking Force may not be "an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise" ([12], definition 3 b), it is still a "a group of persons or things" (definition 2 a), so I wasn't totally off. --NoPetrol 21:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Statistical source data" and "Texts of historical documents" go into wikisource, so I say transwiki. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes after this point are redundant because the author has already moved the material to Wikisource.

  • Transwiki. Megan1967 04:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. I mean, come on, it's not like they created the things on the list, they have simply removed copy protection from them and spread them across the world. Yes, that does happen a lot, and individual cracker groups may be notable for a variety of reasons. But a list of 'look at all the things we did' is plain old vanity. Radiant! 09:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Though I'm sure some might care about this information, I also have concerns regarding the legality of keeping it here. The last thing WP needs is the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA lawyers going after it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Extreme keep as encyclopedic. Exactly WHAT legal issues are there against referential facts and statistics? In the United States, where the Wikipedia servers reside, we have something called freedom of speech and this is clearly within the boundaries. —RaD Man (talk) 04:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) 19:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, and it was here in the United States, was it not, that 2600 magazine and a bunch of other websites were sued just for linking to DeCSS code? This is not a mere list of cracked programs, it also has the exact ZIP file name and such of the cracks themselves. The current legal climate is rabidly against this sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • There is a nominal difference between linking directly to a piece of software which circumvents copy protection (such as DeCSS) and a text-based list of file names. There has never been a law against listing names of ZIP files, don't be absurd. —RaD Man (talk) 01:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It seems to me that the DMCA could potentially be interpreted that way. I don't see a huge difference between "Click here to download the crack for WinPieStudio4.01" and "The name of the file you need to crack WinPieStudio4.01 is wps4crac.zip". Anyone smart enough to know what cracking a program is also knows how to use Google to find wps4crac.zip, so the fact that it isn't a clickable link is moot. At the very least, it's a legal grey area into which Wikipedia should not tread unless there's a clear consensus that we're to start disseminating warez cracking info (and I'd like to hear some copyright lawyers weigh in on the topic too). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - lists of warez cracks are not encyclopedia material. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the group itself barely cracks the notability bar. -Sean Curtin 02:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alkivar, I'm sorry it took you seven hours to create this, but you didn't even get the character set right. This is not encyclopedic content. If you improved it, it might have a place at Wikisource. NTK 03:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    1. you cant specify the correct font on wiki PERIOD.
    2. it is a REFERENCE for the article, it is not meant to be encyclopedic
    3. you randomly search the web to collect 10 years worth of warez release nfos in under 7 hours if you can.
    4. Dont be a dick  ALKIVAR™ 03:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to List of United Cracking Force releases. — Dan | Talk 04:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a necessary reference for the UCF article. Without it, some facts in the article have no source. I think Wikisource is an alternate place for this list, but I oppose its deletion here. Rhobite 05:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Starblind has a good point about the legal issue. This is borderline illegal, including in the USA, and WP should be very careful about that (we don't list BitTorrent files either). By the way, the author (Alkivar) has just stated that it is not meant to be encyclopedic. In other words, he's just admitted that it doesn't belong in WP. My earlier vote to delete stands. Radiant! 14:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not "borderline illegal". What law does this "borderline violate"? It's not illegal to make a list of robberies, or a list of money launderers, or anything else. This is no different. It's just information.. don't be afraid of information. Rhobite 02:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, it's easy to say that if you happen to live in a free country. But the possession of information can be very dangerous if you are unlucky enough to live in a dictatorship. GeorgeStepanek\talk 03:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Calling the U.S. a "dictatorship" is the height of silliness, especially when the topic at hand is free speech. I put it to you, which U.S. law does this list violate? Hint: "it just does" isn't a valid answer. Rhobite 04:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Does no-one get my sense of humour? "Irony (adj): resembling an iron." It's just more encapsulated mollusc irritants in front of porcine quadrupeds. Oh, I'm wasted here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I already said that, it could be interpreted as violating the DMCA. See my comments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly vanity. The article doesn't establish how United Cracking Force is notable. There are millions of people involved in illegal activity out there, and not each of them deserves a Wikipedia entry. Martg76 17:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The point of this is not to make uCF notable, the uCF article itself does that. This is merely a reference for the article itself.  ALKIVAR™ 05:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, the uCF article definitely does not do that. Martg76 12:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your in the minority then, United Cracking Force passed VfD with only 3 delete votes to an overwhelming keep response.  ALKIVAR™ 07:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource. If it's already, there, delete it from here. This is currently at the top of Longpages. It's a reference (and one of dubious value at that), it's raw data, it belongs at Wikisource. grendel|khan 16:50, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic reference. On Wikipedia, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode. We certainly have room for this as well. --GRider\talk 18:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's rather fallacious - said law was deleted, and said gym trainer and minor character were both merged. Radiant_* 14:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hi Radiant! Said law is still open for discussion and has not been deleted. An unabridged response to your comment may be read at my talk page, but I must respectfully disagree with you; my argument is not fallacious nor was it meant to be. After all, we even have articles on the practice of Lighting farts. To each his own. --GRider\talk 17:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- this is just a list of files, and a poorly formatted one at that. What's next, List of software available on Joe Blogg's BBS 1984–1986? Psychonaut 10:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — neoEinstein 19:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a cut-and-paste text dump, not an encyclopedia article. It could go to wikisource if someone wants to move it, or an external link to wherever this stuff came from would probably be good enough. CDC (talk) 19:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a valid list to me. The format could certainly be improved (wikify, anyone?). The fact that someone seriously thought that this might be illegal just shows how poor the DMCA is, not that the material in question is anything approaching actionable.  The Steve  20:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

ALKIVAR, in case this gets deleted from here and Wikisource, you could go to http://www.thefreesite.com/Free_Web_Space/ to set up a free web page where you can put this. I guess I could put this list on my web page and link to it from the United Cracking Force article if you want. --NoPetrol 01:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh I have plenty of webspace to do this, however it would be considered "linkspamming" to link to my own personal page as a reference since then it would be "original research". Hence the whole POINT of it being on WP or WS instead.  ALKIVAR™ 02:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess it could be useful on Wikisource, so I wouldn't object if it was transwikied. Carbonite | Talk 21:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So is that a Delete or a Transwiki vote? I read that as emphasis on Transwiki, could you please clarify?  ALKIVAR™ 23:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_March_13&oldid=1081092548"