Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jack Westerman

Subject is a non-notable amateur filmmaker. Cleduc 00:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete no mention on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not yet notable enough in his field to be encyclopedic. Geogre 02:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with swiftness and contempt. Is this a server for people's resumes now is it?--0001 03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Good luck buddy, but if your future hinges on a Wikipedia article, your budding film career may already be in trouble. Chairboy 03:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, "aspiring" is a bad word when it comes to bios. He's not in IMDB, and he's not been on TV or movie released to cinemas. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No mention of verifiability. -- Natalinasmpf 14:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable (even on the fairly complete IMDB), vanity. Tufflaw 17:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 19:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nick Poullos

Not sure if this is actually speediable, so I'm bringing it here. Vanity, unverifiable. Author has previously removed cleanup-importance tag. -- Jonel | Speak 00:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, possible speedy as newbie test or for lack of context. Kappa 01:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
This is a clear speedy. -Splash 01:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
’’’STRONG speedy delete’’’ – Qualifies for speedy under “General” 1 and possibly 2; “Articles” 1 (PERFECT example, better than the one that actually appears on the Speedy deletion page. Kevin Wells 01:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy it. Is there an admin in the house? -R. fiend 01:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by me. It was a vandalism article. Criteria, if they're really needed, would include, but not be limited to, direct address, short with no content, and libel. Geogre 01:59, 20 Jun 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

Stantler

Antares33712 added {{vfd}} to this article on June 8th, but didn't complete the process. I am doing so now. --Canderson7 00:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

if this article was put on vfd, then whoever put it there obviously didn't have a good enough reason or he/she would have created this page instead of me. so i vote keep instantly. Supersaiyanplough 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, pokemons are notable. Kappa 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Part of a large, interconnected series of articles. Google score of 8,850 strongly suggests notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep – No more useless than any of the other Pokemon ones. Either keep them all or delete them all. Also, clearly states that it is a stub, so lack of original content is no worry. Kevin Wells 01:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changed to "Merge" per WP:FICT; see below. 15:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Fancruft. Merge to whatever phyla is above the species level of Pokemen. It's an industry: it's their job to keep making cards to try to finesse a bit more money out of pre-adolescent pockets. We'll never catch up, and we should never try. Geogre 01:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You don't know much about Pokémon, do you? They don't create new Pokémon with every set of cards! About a hundred are added every three years, and that is all. If we aren't finished by the time Pokémon Diamond and Pearl are released, we definately will be by the time the next set of Pokémon come out. (Or as 'finished' as Wikipedia can ever be.) Sonic Mew 15:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all except one page on Pokemon. This is an Encyclopedia. Hobbyists can go and make a web page of thier own with thier thousands of trading cardesque things, which are just a fad. Notability in this five year period, among kids, and wierd adults, does not indicate any unique contribution to mankind in any way. The generations of tomorrow do not need to know what 'Stantler' is. Kill it, kill all the pokemon crud off this Encyclopedia--0001 03:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This user, created today, has only edited VfD and his own user page —Wahoofive (talk) 04:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - This user, is a new user, is his opinion any less valid. He edited many articles under his IP--0001 08:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Possibly, especially since this is just a rant that is more POV than helping the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not paper. There's also crystalballery in there. Pokémon is surviving very well in post-fad status, (a Pokémon theme park has recently opened in Japan. Would they have risked all that money on a fad?) So the generation of tomorrow may still find Pokémon articles interesting. And even if it did die away, it has still become a part of recent history which, once the article is expanded, will remain interesting. Sonic Mew 20:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    - Votes in a vote for deletion don't count if the user hasn't made at least 50 contributive edits to normal pages. Edits an IP made can't be attributed to you, since Wikipedia doesn't change attributes anymore (both due to work, and to abuse). Almafeta 20:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Please cite a source for the "minimum page edit" statement. It is offensive to many (like me) who edited for a long time anonymously prior to creating a user page, and it is in direct conflict with the WP:bite guideline and innumerable be bold statements on policy pages. IMHO, if it is a factual statement, Wiki has a serious problem. Kevin/Last1in 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep unless someone can make a good and low-bandwidth index we can merge this to. No less notable than the rest of the Pokes, and Wikipedia is not paper... -- Grev -- Talk 03:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but then again, I feel that way about pretty much all of the Pokemon articles. --Xcali 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge and Redirect per R. fiend. Part of a fad. There's no need for individual articles for all pokemon. We don't have individual articles for each type of yo-yo or frisbee ever made. -ÅfÇ++ 07:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But there tends to be more variety to Pokémon than yo-yos or frisbees. Besides, it has remained strongly popular in non-fad status. Sonic Mew 15:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Just because there is more variety does not mean that it ALL has to be covered in large length (ie individual pokemon pages). Has it really stayed popular enough that a page on each pokemon and his playing card stats are neccesary? I would say that a page explaining each series or new group of pokemon and listing the pokemon therein would be enough. There arent individual yo-yo pages because despite all the variation it has, only a yo-yo geek would care about it, and to an extent such pages would be Advertisement since they would highlight a particular type of yo-yo.
    - Yes, it has stayed popular enough. It is POV to say it hasn't. More people will care about Pokémon than the 'geeks'. Maybe there will be a kid who just plays the games and watches the animé. On Saturday's episode, a Chimecho will debue as a main character. Wanting to know more, they can look in the Chimecho article. Sonic Mew 10:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      - Highly speculative. You've mentioned several times that more people care about pokemon, I take that to mean, more people will begin to care about pokemon, which is contrary to what is/has happened. I won't even touch the laughable POV statement. -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable pokecruft. JamesBurns 07:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and Pokemon is a fad, not a major work of literature, so while information on the marketing and publicising of it is notable, the statistics on individual cards is trivial. Average Earthman 08:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Good, since Wiki is not a game guide, we can get rid of the 3,427 articles related in one way or another to Chess. That should free up three times as much (non-paper) space as the Pokenonsense. We can fill that space with more Vfd debates. As for non-notable fads, can we get rid of Paris Hilton and Gangsta rap? ~~BTW, I loathe Pokemon, but the facts are objectively verifiable and articles can be presented from NPOV, so why delete them?~~ Kevin/Last1in 16:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Chess - 6th century and still going strong. Pokemon - 1999? and pretty much done. Are you suggesting pokemon should have as many if not more articles relating to it than Chess does? As for the other articles you name, I would say yes, let's get rid of those pages. But, Paris Hilton is still notable for being heiress of the Hilton Hotel fortune, and Gangsta rap is not a fad at all (having existed sicne the 80's and still going strong). -ÅfÇ++ 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Chess deserves those articles - no one has disputed that - but we are not trying to make 3,427 articles. We have only made 393 individual Pokémon pages. The point of Kevin/Last1in's response was that Wikipedia is not paper. Sonic Mew 10:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      - Just because it is not paper doesn't mean pokecruft should be left to run rampant. -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, I hate pokemon too, but you can't delete them based on being cruft, if that happens, I'll be the first to start a deletion rampage on Star Wars cruft. Wikipedia isn't paper. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I hate Pokemon articles. Hate, hate, hate them. Still, as Mgm said- can't delete 'em because of cruftiness. (Unsigned vote by User:Scimitar)
- Whoops. Thanks for signing for me. --Scimitar 16:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Scimitar, who agrees with MGM. --Un focused 14:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's far more significant than a fad, though these could quite easily be merged into larger articles. —Xezbeth 14:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Part of a project. If you dont like it, then take it to Wikipedia:Pokeprosal Sonic Mew 15:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep NSR 15:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The amount of space it takes up on the Wikipedia server, as compared to the number of people who would look up information on this article, makes it worth keeping. Almafeta 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree but when can agree to disagree. -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete as per 0001 SchmuckyTheCat 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You are voting delete because you agree with a POV rant? Sonic Mew 14:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - While I'm more inclined to agree with the "POV rant" of 0001 than the POV rant of Sonic Mew, I don't know if we can delete this and not most other Pokemon artciles, which it seems isn't going to happen. So just merge and redirect this to some larger article on Pokemon. When the trend dies in a few years and no one cares anymore we can maybe overhaul all these articles without the whining of a bunch of tweens. -R. fiend 15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Well put, mate. -ÅfÇ++ 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Why does everyone think this is going to die in a few years? It is remaining highly popular in post-fad status. Sonic Mew 10:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Because it is already dead. You chaps over the pond will catch up soon enough. Sorry to ruin your pokedreams :[ -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Voting keep because this is looking close for some reason, and precedent, common sence, culture, and a few other reasons - NOT including individual user's (troll's?) PoV's on the matter - say so. humblefool ® 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Article has been expanded as per the PAC in Wikipedia:Poképrosal. Votes may need to be reconsidered. Almafeta 20:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. As User:Almafeta has pointed out, this article has been much expanded since it was first nominated for deletion. Though it is my opinion that if any Pokémon article is nominated for deletion, it will always get votes to delete, just because it is an article on Pokémon, regardless of any other factors. --Daniel Lawrence 23:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Geeks and kids and genuinely curious people (myself being all three categories) plus many others will want to look at this. Yes, Pokèmon was a fad. So was rollerskating. Do you still see rollerskates in stores? Yes. As long as it makes money, Pokèmon will exist. As long as Pokèmon exists, as long as anything exists, there will be a Wikipedia article for it as long as more than one person is interested in it (I've never seen a Stantler fan club but I'm sure there is one). By the way, Pokèmon is NOT just a trading card game. It's also a video game, a cartoon, and a whole bunch of other stuff. The only reason it hasn't been around very long is that it was created very recently. You said chess was better? Wait 600 years and then we'll talk. Signed, a long time reader first time contributor called 69.234.76.21.
- Vote by an IP Address whose only edit is this VfD discussion -ÅfÇ++ 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nice one! I would like to extend that point by pointing to the guideline of WP:FICT, which clearly state that "Fictional characters which are cultural icons appearing in works of fiction not directly linked to themselves, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances." With the trading card game, video games, animé, various manga, etc, the only way Stantler could fit into a merged article is being discussed in Wikipedia:Pokeprosal. Sonic Mew 10:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - Change vote to "Merge" - You were ill-served by mentioning WP:FICT. It undermines your entire argument (and my support). Sherlock Holmes references have appeared in everything from CSI episodes to The Great Mouse Detective and he was inducted into the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2002. WP:FICT is saying that characters need to take on a existence of their own outside their original setting , like Sherlock, Batman, Cruella De Vil, Winnie the Pooh to merit their own articles. Sorry, but outside the Pokemon universe (which includes the cards, comics, movies, cartoons, whatever), I cannot think of anywhere Stantler has popped up or is likely to. I don't personally agree with the premise on WP:FICT because I think it conflicts with WP:NOT, but it is listed as a policy... Ergo, vote change. Sorry-Kevin/Last1in 15:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just as notable as most pokemon articles, but I guess that's really the debate. I personally find Pokemon articles more notable as most rail stubs. How do we "draw the line" between notable and non-notable pokemon? For such a notable franchise with such defined content limits (only so many pokemon), including them all won't be hard in the least.-LtNOWIS 03:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Keep the article, delete POV-pushers who vote delete. Andros 1337 22:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although we are an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not paper, and we have no practical limit to information, as Wikimedia has said. Therefore, articles like these should be kept. ぽけもんです！ Falcon 05:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of 'Cruft' (from Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create)

stuff nobody but that guy who changes his Spock ears more often then his underpants cares about, or the equivalent thereof.

A lot more people will find the Stantler article interesting. And as part of the project, it will be expanded into a better article in the near future. Again, see Wikipedia:Pokeprosal.

WP:STUPID is a humor page. Don't take their cruft definition to serious. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This article can be considered part of one of our WikiProjects. I believe there is a whole project devoted to pokemon. There are also many other types of pokemon animal articles. It would be unusual to delete this one and have all the others still on our database. I believe that you could have only deleted this article if there were no other articles about pokemon animals. Rentastrawberry 17:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was to redirect to United States. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 23:36 (UTC)

United Stated

Neologism, which appears to have been coined by the article creator. This is part of the article creator's campaign to remove all uses of the term "American" to refer to residents of the United States. He has made such stylistic changes to numerous articles, despite lack of consensus and repeated requests to desist. Firebug 01:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect (without merge, of course) to United States. Pretty common typo, as Google results show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I dislike the Wikipedia creating pages for misspelling as there are far too many of them. -Splash 01:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete without redirect or merge. Non-encyclopedic, unsourced (and apparently ultra-neo-)neologism. Unable to find a single Google hit matching this usage. Kevin Wells 01:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and then redirect, per Gtrmp: I don't want to preserve any of this, even if we make an error-space redirect. Besides, there was already a semi-successful attempt at an alternative to "American": Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonian." Geogre 01:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect without merge to United States. As mentioned above, it's a common typo. — J3ff 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it must be a common typo. Also because it was me who made it. It seems like that user saw the typo I made in the Vila Sésamo article (Brazilian version of Sesame Street), and immediately liked it for some reason. I had no intentions of coining anything at all. I just wanted "American" to point to United States. All normal, all old style. In the end, it's pretty weird that this happened. That said, I think the article should be deleted, yeah. Not sure if it's a good idea to turn it into a redirect because it's a common typo, but that could be done.--Kaonashi 02:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, get rid of it, no typo, do we need a page for 600,000 typos that could occur? This is utter rubbish. You cannot say 'stated' you just can't.--0001 02:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This user, created today, has only edited VfD and his own user page —Wahoofive (talk) 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- We don't have pages for spelling errors that could occur. We do however have a semi-policy of redirects for spelling errors that do occur, and that evidently have occurred because someone has created at article at them. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
- "stated" is the past tense of "to state", and can be easily said by anyone fluent in English. — Phil Welch 02:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect Cleduc 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect as above. In response to 0001, of course you can't have redirects for every variations, but for common ones such as this, redirects aid in making Wikipedia more user-friendly. 23skidoo 03:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In response to 23skidoo. The name of Earth's sole superpower is one of the five most recognisable and UNMISTAKABLE phrases in world culture. Poor farmers in Tiber know 'United States'. So, we need United Star, Unity States, Umpteen States, as redirects? or united statew, statea, statex (because those keys are near the 's'?? Come on! user friendly. To we really want to be friendly to users who don't know the name of the US?--0001 03:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Redirects waste almost no space. I wouldn't create those typos as redirects, but when they arrive at vfd, it might as well be done. Xoloz 04:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect common typo Xoloz 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. I mistype 's' and 'd' frequently. Pburka 04:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect for simplicity. DJ Clayworth 05:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I see no reason to put in redirects for typos and misspellings. People who make them will quickly see their mistake when the expect results fails to appear. I see no reason to contribute to the dumbening of society. --Xcali 05:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Quite often, they do not see their mistake, and they instead believe that Wikipedia is missing an article, follow the instructions at Mediawiki:noarticletext, and create duplicate articles. The argument for redirecting such articles is that deleting them would not prevent the same process from (wastefully) happening all over again, repeatedly. That is not the situation here, as this is a deliberate neologism. However, one editor has already stated that xe actually made this particular spelling mistake, so the semi-policy of redirecting a spelling mistake that has occurred and that someone has created an article at can be applied. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
- A few days ago I Redirected George W Bush to George W. Bush because apparently the author really thought the article did not exist. If we delete the aricle it would encourage people to re-create the typo'd article, whereas redirecting it would make it convinient to those who make typos. —Kjammer 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with Xcali. JamesBurns 07:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect common typo. Kappa 10:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A spelling mistake that has occurred and that someone has created an article for (albeit, unusually for such situations, coining a neologism rather than creating a duplicate article). Redirect (deleting first according to taste). Uncle G 11:14, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete. W i k i a c c 14:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Andrew Lenahan as a spelling error and nothing but. --Un focused 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Resirect. I midtype 'd' and 's' frequently. the wub "?/!" 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as with Unites States. — P Ingerson (talk) 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Common typo, the "s" and the "d" keys are right next to eachother on an english keyboard (if you havn't noticed alredy). —Kjammer 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeleteAgree with original reason Barneygumble 20:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess the standard human behavior in this situation would just consist of looking at what they typed (after getting an error screen) and going "Oh, I typed it wrong". I find it real hard that a person would just give up because of a small typo like that. Harder even would see someone creating a new article, thinking an article about the United States doesn't exist here. I think they'd just check their mistakes first before doing something like that. I don't know. And yeah, this is coming from someone that didn't check his mistakes to begin with.--Kaonashi 21:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to United States. I don't quite want to suggest "redirect all typos" as a policy, because I agree with Redirects for deletion/Precedents about extremely rare typos. This one isn't extremely rare. Moreover, the majority of words listed on Alternative words for American do not have their own entries, and the three words that do have attained notability justifying articles. Interestingly, "United Stated" isn't on that page, and even if it is a legitimate "alternative word for American", I don't think the phrase deserves its own entry, as compared to the rest of the terms at that article. I'd say this is non-notable dicdef, but due to the typo consideration, it needs to become a redirect rather than get deleted. The Literate Engineer 00:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undecided. If it doesn't legitimately exist as a neologism, then delete. (I've never heard it, but that doesn't prove anything.) Also it's not correct grammatically or semantically. Peter Grey 05:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete. No point in a redirect, they're for misspellings, not typos. Considering each key on a keyboard is surrounded by 6 others that are likely to be hit by accident, we could have 6x6x6x6 redirects for any 4 letter word, all being "common" typos. I really don't think we'll see an article saying "The United Stated is a big country in north america..." if this is deleted. -R. fiend 15:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Out of curiosity, what's the difference between a misspelling and a typo? Either way, you didn't type the right spelling in. The Literate Engineer 05:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment A misspelling is something you might wilfully, if wrongly, search for while a typo is something you never meant to search for in the first place.-Splash 12:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Note: there had been a "Move to Wiktionary" tag on there since before the vfd tag. I've removed it since it seems pretty obvious to me we don't want this in a dictionary. Comments? --Dmcdevit 08:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, neologisms do not belong on any wiki, no matter which one. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do not redirect, it makes no sense. Pavel Vozenilek 01:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Monroe

Not notable. Complete article reads: "A man from Kent, Washington who claims to have been assaulted by the on-stage entourage of rapper Snoop Doggy Dog" DS1953 01:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, but a speedy delete candidate. If it's not a full sentence, it's definitely criterion #1. There is no subject to the clause. Geogre 01:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete / Merge into bio of Snoop Dogg, as no other relevance seems attached to this person. Speedy under "Articles" 1. Kevin Wells 02:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Cleduc 03:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Woulda been more notable if he had pushed back Chairboy 03:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable and POV. -- Natalinasmpf 15:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless this turns into a major court case, then MAYBE, but right now he doesn't merit his own article. --Etacar11 19:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable--Sara22 23:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 as admitted neologism and possible attack. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Gayden Rat

Non-notable vanity page with dubious information. Hmib 02:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per five users of a neologism. Mr Bound 02:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-encycopedic vanity. Cleduc 03:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete burn. It even says, 5 people use this term, it hangs itself this article--0001 03:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy article admits that it's not notable. It's also borderline libel. Pburka 04:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete attack page. JamesBurns 07:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleting this. Creator admits it's a neologism. Some people could construe it as an attack and it's not notable at all. -Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, Jun 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all articles. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

Doghouse Comics, User:IceKeyHunter (neé Kris Montello), Cloud109, and John Flanagan

I couldn't find any significant evidence that this site is important enough to justify our consideration. The redirect at IceKeyHunter is also within the purview of this VfD, but since it's a redirect I'm not going to list it in the VfD itself. Kelly Martin 02:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding Cloud109 and John Flanagan to this VfD since they're all related. Kelly Martin 02:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

But all other webcomics have some sort of page. You may delete Kris Montello, but keep Doghouse Comics up. The only reason I see for it to be deleted is that it gives information on something that isn't yet popular. However, it gives much more information than some webcomic-related articles I've seen, popular or not. Forgive me if this is not how these things are debated, I am new. --IceKeyHunter 02:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing to forgive. Your discussion style is fine. If you can explain how your web comic currently satisfies the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines, you can make a good argument for keeping an article on it. Uncle G 19:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Comment - IceKeyHunter, please do not remove VfD messages. -- Jonel | Speak 02:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Kris Montello, IceKeyHunter, Cloud109, and John Flanagan, but keep Doghouse Comics. Also, Jonel, sorry about that. it was a lame attempt to delete it myself. Won't happen again. --IceKeyHunter 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem - it's fairly common to think that blanking a page will delete it, but that's not actually what happens. It takes an administrator to actually delete a page (that is, I can't delete it either). Now you know :) Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all, not notable. Cleduc 03:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this. Google low to no results. This is an advertisement for somebody's hobby. This is meant to be an 'Encyclopedia' not some catolog of what middle america does in thier spare time--0001 03:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Doghouse Comics, Merge the others. Andrew pmk 03:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, non notable (gone to the doghouse). JamesBurns 07:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just don't see what makes Doghouse Comics any different from other webcomic articles. Please explain this to me. --IceKeyHunter 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, also, while we may not be on Google, (we were for a while, dunno what happened) we're one of the first things that come up if you use Yahoo Search. --IceKeyHunter 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Doghouse Comics, delete the rest. --Cloud109 15:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You must also keep in mind, if you deleted Doghouse Comics, we wouldn't be able to recreate the page if DHC ever became 'popular' enough to be on the same level as all the other webcomics that have articles. --IceKeyHunter 15:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Doghouse Comics, but get rid of the rest. They aren't necessary and contain little information. However, like previously stated, many other comics have a page such as this, and the information provided could be useful, if not now, at least in future times. It seems somewhat unfair to say that just because it isn't as well known as other comics, doesn't mean it can't be. --Jackoutofthebox 17:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the specific case of Kris Montello: Since the user has made other contributions to Wikipedia, Userfy to User:IceKeyHunter (and Delete the redirect at IceKeyHunter). No vote on any of the other articles. Uncle G 19:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
- In fact, given that (from the above discussion) User:IceKeyHunter xyrself doesn't want this page in the main namespace, I've taken the liberty of speedily userfying it. User:IceKeyHunter, it's your choice whether to retain your article about yourself as your user page. User:Cloud109 has, in contrast, made no contributions to Wikipedia. Other Wikipedians may differ, but I don't support userfication in such circumstances. My vote is thus revised:
  - Allow User:IceKeyHunter to decide about User:IceKeyHunter
  - Speedy delete the redirect that I just made at Kris Montello
  - Speedy delete (no userfication) Cloud109, IceKeyHunter, and John Flanagan by the above request of their author and sole significant editor
  - No vote on Doghouse Comics
- Uncle G 19:26, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

You can keep it that way (userfied), I don't care, and I can always change it. --IceKeyHunter 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Doghouse Comics: non-notable webcomic, does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. Userfy John Flanagan to User:Cloud109 if he intends to contribute, otherwise delete; delete Cloud109. — Gwalla | Talk 20:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but, the Doghouse Comics article is much more in-depth and has more information than many other webcomic pages. And you must also take into consdieration that it is actually a collection of many webcomics, and contains cartoons and games, one of which won an award on Newgrounds.

If popularity and the overall need of the article, and not the information that is presented itself, is what matters, what happens if DHC becomes very popular? It's entirely possible for it to happen in the very near future.

If you must delete it, allow me to recreate it in the future when and if it meets your criteria. But, for now, I think keeping benefits me, as I won't have to recreate it in the future, and I can explain what DHC is simply by linking them to the article (I've had trouble with this in the past, as it is an unusual webcomic) and it's just easier in general.

You really have me beat with those Guidelines, I had no idea they existed. But I really hope you consider the work that was put in. You can't deny that Doghouse Comics has more information than some other webcomic pages, and that the site itself has potential.

In conclusion, while I don't think there is need to delete it, if you HAVE TO, allow me to create it again in the future when it meets your criteria. Keep in mind, if that's the case, why delete it in the first place? If the whole thing fails, I'll ask you to delete it now. For now, keep it.

(Sorry for the length, I tend to rant and repeat myself a lot when I argue). --IceKeyHunter 20:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete anything that can't be userfied. Icekeyhunter, deletion is not permanent - infact, what you ask is what we ask all the time: Come back When You're Famous. humblefool ® 22:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete doghouse comics because they get 60 hits on google Yuckfoo 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment there are (at least) two notable John Flanagans - one is a British tv writer, and the other a British actor. A John Flanagan disambig page may be required at John Flanagan. --TimPope 19:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete, but thanks for trying to make this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was 'delete. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Technovia

Article reads: "This company is specialized in retrofitting Yakovlev Yak-18 aircraft." A Google search on the terms "Technovia and Yakovlev" yielded 119 results but as far as I could tell every single one was a Wikipedia mirror. I may be sticking my neck out here, but I say delete. DS1953 03:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew pmk 03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Why don't we allocate 6 million pages for every company name ever registered in the history of ever country in the world then?--0001 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This user, created today, has only edited VfD and his own user page — Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising. Geogre 16:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename: I'm sure it's a mistyping of TECHNOAVIA there's an external link here http://technoavia.ru/ but it's all in Russian and another here http://www.icao.int/anb/ais/8643/8643_List2.cfm showing a long list of aircraft produced by TECHNOAVIA including the Yak-18. Short English piece here http://www.mga.ru/YAK-18T.htm CambridgeBayWeather 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

List of Zoids

Non-encyclopedic fan listing of toys. Better suited for a a fan page like the one linked to at the bottom, not here. Really detailed list, but... Found this page when looking at recent vandalism by the likely author of this page in eBay. Chairboy 03:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Andrew pmk 03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why keep? It seems inconsistent based on past vfds. Chairboy 03:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need an entire list, just an article describing them in general, unless they are specific enough to say...to have articles similar in nature to Charizard. -- Natalinasmpf 04:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The entry was written on a computer that is a part of an office network – this all entries on said network will come under the same IP address. I’d like to point out that I wasn’t responsible for what happened on the eBay entry.
Keep. Pokemon gets its own list, why not Zoids. Either keep all or delete all. -Hmib 05:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 07:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Topic doesn't seem popular enough to have an article for each, uh, "zoid", so a list is preferable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, just so we don't get somebody trying to make articles for each individual one. --Scimitar 14:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's preferable to having individuals articles for all. -- Lochaber 14:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlink all names and it can be a keep. A single master page is all we need. Any article on any particular Zoid should be killed and sent to the rendering plant. Geogre 16:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Scimitar and Lochaber, and unlink as per George. — P Ingerson (talk) 17:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unlink all names sounds fine to me. I like toys as much as the next guy, I'm just not seeing how this is encyclopedic. There are a handful of detailed 'zoid' pages that this article links to that should maybe be unlinked.
Keep with the content rather controled - this shouldn't be seen as a go-ahead to create an article on every single one of these guys. It's a OK show, BTW. Not my cup of tea, but... humblefool ® 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

B-Con

an obvious vanity page... WB 03:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. -- Jonel | Speak 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Pburka 03:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete trolls make bad article subjects. Also, I haven't checked the person in question, but it could be an attack on a forum moderator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete obvious vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for vanity and the lack of notability. Nestea 14:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete. This page was created for a little fun. Read for more information. Not a personal attack.

Fun isn't a good criterion for including something in an encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Speed Delete - It's not even an article, it makes no real claims besides "B-con is a poo face". MPS 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, absolutely nothing to warrant inclusion here. --Etacar11 19:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete - This is actually quite notable, especially once the term :bcon: takes off, and people will want to know it's origin. Markisdee 02:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Markisdee, you registered after the VfD... Plus, you're a member of . Certainly :bcon: will not "take off." User page is enough if anyone is questioning about his origin. Wikipedia is really not a place to have everyone's personal information. WB 05:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

Chan Parker

Speedy Delete None notable person, only characterized by the fact that she was married to somebody famous.

Comment - finishing nomination by User:Jtkiefer. No vote at this time from me. -- Jonel | Speak 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Chairboy 03:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Google has about 1600 hits for her[1], although most seem to be about her autobiography, which seems to largely focus on her husband. I'll err on the side of caution. Pburka 04:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Charlie Parker based on information provided by Pburka. -- Jonel | Speak 04:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Jonel. Xoloz 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not nherently notable. JamesBurns 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete!, not notable. Or maybe redir to Charlie Parker. -Hmib 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per above. -- Natalinasmpf 15:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Charlie Parker. Actually, she's kind of important to the Charlie Parker story but not necessarily notable on her own or outside of that context. Geogre 16:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Expand luy

Comment. This user only contributes to vfd pages. -- Natalinasmpf 19:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Vindibudd

I'm actually rather sympathetic to the article, quite well documented/NPOV, but I just wanted to see what the community thinks, as it might as well be done now, not later. I'm actually voting Weak Keep. People voting here might want to look at A.S. Williams. -- Natalinasmpf 03:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep 18,000 matches for Vinibudd, top ranked ones seem related.Chairboy 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I would be very satisfied if that was an accurate representation, but one realises that most of it are forum posts that are rendered "irrelevant" by google: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 154 already displayed." -- Natalinasmpf 04:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a vanity page, as both it and A.S. Williams below were created by User:Aswilliams. Moreover, only 150 Google hits are unique (see this search). So, delete. NatusRoma 04:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm not going to vote on whether to keep it or not because I am the one who created the article. However, the article just explains what the character is with a description. It isn't meant to advertise as the comic has enough readers from being linked on fark.com twice. I draw two other comic strips that I don't have on wikipedia because I don't think they are worth it. Furthermore this is a valid webcomic of which there are many listed on wikipedia so if you delete this one you might as well delete all the rest like Gods_of_Arr-Kelaan or Count_Your_Sheep BOTH of which know me. If you want to kill the article because it is vanity, then you need to reread the policy on vanity. Also the comic was has won Featured Comic on drunkduck.com and best weird humor from. buzzcomix.net. Vindibudd is also listed in the yahoo.com comic strip directory. Aswilliams
- It's not about the votes. This is a discussion to form a consensus, not a democracy. If you can explain how your web comic currently satisfies the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines, you can make a good argument for keeping an article on it. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  - I'm aware that this is not a democracy, nor is it a theocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy. And if it is about forming a consensus then there is no need to point out that X user has only posted X number of times, thereby implying that his or her voice should be discounted. AccordingWikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines I get 2 of three on the second criteria the only problem is that I wrote it myself. I think I am much more qualified to write the article than someone else and truth be told people have asked me to write it because they didn't see it here. A.S. Williams
    - There is a need, because we get people rigging votes, ie. due to sockpuppets, and that new users are often discouraged to participate in vfd until they learn the mechanics better through substantial contributions. Furthermore, if it is indeed notable, and from a NPOV, someone else will write it...ie. see Wikipedia:Autobiography - the idea is that if the author creates the article him or herself concerning his or her own works, the article will tend to be biased. I'm not very sure of its notability myself, given a google test, and impact on say, the international scene, the world, and as such. Its only borderline notable, but it seems like a valid encyclopedic article, and therefore I called a vfd to resolve it. -- Natalinasmpf 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you won't be discouraged to contribute by this, I just wanted to see what the community thought of it, because it would be likely there would be a vfd a few days or weeks down the road, and having me spotted it now would be faster. I'm voting weak keep myself. -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually I am very discouraged by this. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to publish articles that were informative for people that were seeking to learn about things. If people want to learn about webcomics then Vindibudd is by all accounts a valid example of one. The strip has close to 300 episodes in its archive and has been online since 2002. There are plenty of webcomics on wikipedia that do not meet superstar Penny Arcade level. But if people are really so consumed with making sure that OMG Vindibudd doesn't make it on wikipedia then what can I say. I don't need this article, I want the article but if you all just absolutely can't tolerate the article then I have nothing to say to that. Maybe you all just don't read webcomics. This is not self promotion. I can advertise on a ton of other sites. Burying an article that only people searching for webcomics and Vindibudd would find is not exactly what I would call a killer marketing strategy. A.S. Williams
    - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, if it is indeed a valid example of one, one generally shouldn't create an example based on his or her own work, because questions of bias, hoaxes and deception come into play. If it is indeed that valid, then someone else besides the creator of the work should create the article. Of course there are exceptions, but given the small amount of notability of the comic and the author so far...we already have the quite respected climate modeller William Connolley (who is a Wikipedian at User:William M. Connolley, who being a scientist that has published numerous scientific papers (far more notable than a comic strip, for example) already met with a lot of controversy himself. The point is, this is just a discussion. I am glad to see you prove its notability, then that's what this vfd is for. Consider it nothing more than a court trial. Its not that we can't tolerate it, this is merely a discussion to reach a consensus on whether to delete it or not. Just because a vfd appears doesn't mean the community wants to delete it, that only happens after the vfd ends, and heck, appeals to the decision happen as well. And the problem is, Wikipedia is advoated as a neutral medium. It would be very good for advertisers to get their marketing schemes labelled as "not biased". To avoid controversy next time, a lot should be clarified in the article. Anyhow, you might win this. -- Natalinasmpf 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete per NatusRoma --Xcali 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep I see nothing wrong with this article. It is not espousing the comic as anything spectacular, it is not teling everyone that they should go to the website. It is simply an entry that gives the facts and also lets you link to more information. What else is an encyclopedic entry for? If someone else had put this article up, I'll bet it wouldn't even be challenged. So if it's the same article, but a different user, it'd be okay? That's either idiocy or hypocrisy. -Maddog3060 (actually 24.110.193.97 04:47, 2005 Jun 20 according to edit history. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC))
Keep I personally see no problem with it, it does keep within the guidelines. The article is in encyclopedia form and doesn't advertise itself all over the place. It just gives a detailed description of who he is, and what he does. I suppose the fact that it was written by the Author of the comic would draw a bit of speculation and criticism, it really doesn't stand out as vanity in my opinion. Kainchaos
- The above comment is this user's first and only edit. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
I would be willing to read this, suitably updated over time, as a means of keeping in touch with the subject. Whether, in 20 years' time, people give the proverbial ... --Simon Cursitor 07:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion by A.S. Williams. JamesBurns 07:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete creator's username indicates vanity. Notability is borderline at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Come on, let's allocate 800 spaces for anyone else who's a fan of some obscure comic. I doubt even other fans would even consider wiki would carry it and wouldn't even search for it. This is a good piece, but it belongs on the web at some fansite.--0001 14:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: The problem for me is not "vanity" or that the author wrote of his own work. In some cases, that's not a bad thing, as the article is generally NPOV. The problem for me is that artworks should be encyclopedic if they are first of their kind, leading examples of their genres, or substantially influential. If they are breakthroughs of style or subject, they're encyclopedic. If an understanding of them is vital for a historical moment (not "nice to have" but vital), they should be included. In the case of web comics, that excludes all but the incredibly famous ones. No ill-will involved, just a judgment on what is encyclopedic. Geogre 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Like Geogre said, it's not necessarily a problem a vanity, but a problem of relevance. Wikipedia is a more liberal and open version of World Book or Britannica. Neither of those encyclopedias would carry this article because the cartoon and cartoonist haven't had wide-reaching effects on the world. Wikipedia shouldn't publish the articles, because the work isn't notable enough to call for an article, not even on the Internet. I say wait a few years. If the man or the work gets a spot on television or it garners major critics' (not at some niche website) praise; then it would deserve a place on Wiki. However, the article IS well-written and informative. If the subject ever becomes popular, notable, or influential, then by all means publish it here. Volatile 17:58, 20 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per google results and over 100 episodes. Kappa 19:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre and for vanity. Alexa rank 1,515,306, no other claims to notability (DrunkDuck's featured comic is a transient "hey, check this out" sort of thing, not a particularly prestigious award; BuzzComix seems to be closely affiliated) — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I've lost my taste for the whole thing, especially after reading Gwalla's profile about being a webcomic fan and the subsequent ill-informed commentary on my own comic. This was not a vanity article and the reception that I have received here has completely turned me off of wikipedia period. Congratulations. I'll make it my mission that Vindibudd will never be listed here. Good luck. A.S. Williams
No vote, just a comment to Mr. Williams: it's no major loss to us if your comic doesn't have an article. Wikipedia might be on the internet, but that doesn't mean the people here care about your part of the internet. There are 1000's of webcomics. What makes an encyclopedia care is this: what did you do differently? humblefool® 23:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- - Obviously it's not a loss that my comic is not on wikipedia. It also wouldn't be a loss if 90% all the other webcomics listed here were not. I am positive that wikipedia will not come crashing down tomorrow because it has no contribution from me. Imagine that. I bet it also won't come crashing down if you suddenly stop contributing either. But just because you don't like something or are not interested in something does not automatically make it uninteresting. Which seems to be the major theme here. "I've never heard of it and it doesn't get 200000000 hits a day. That must mean that it isn't worth an article." Shockingly, I didn't see that listed as a requirement. In fact, the vfd policy explicitly states that "lack of fame" is not a valid reason for deletion. Additionally, I wrote an informative article that was not a vanity piece. Here is an example of a vanity piece so you can tell the difference in the future: "X comic is the best comic ever made. Go there now because it is really awesome and you have to see it." The charge that I am promoting myself is rather ludicrous as the I can pay less than $10 and get a few thousand uniques on my site in a single day whereas it would probably take years to accumulate that many from a wikipedia article. So faced with the prevailing attitude of negativity, I'm just not fighting it. You have won whatever argument we were having.A.S. Williams
    - Actually if it becomes that notable, and if it is listed, you will probably have little power to influence it. This rather seems like sour grapes, but I honestly hope you will change your mind about contributing. The point isn't about "lack of fame", but about notability. In case you didn't know, Wikipedian contributors have many attitudes, one has a "no harm in keeping it" and "no use in keeping it", attitude, in terms of half-full and half-empty. I tend to prefer keeping it, but I put it up for vfd to speed the process. Furthermore, it hasn't decided whether its an "honest article" yet, considering that Encyclopedia Britannica will probably not even put your article up. There's a difference between adveritising and vanity, by the way. The article was perfectly neutral, that was one of its best points, however, it gains attention towards itself, and becomes part of Wikipedia canon, and therefore self-centred when it is being contested whether or not it deserves it such in an encylopedia. Its a complex issue: and please, don't try to oversimplify the Wikipedia community as it holds complex views as it is. Its not just because SOMEONE doesn't like it, or finds it uninteresting, I hope you know, but this is a community effort in general. Furthermore, we are using notability guidelines here, we're not judging in on finding it "uninteresting", but whether it merits the reader. -- Natalinasmpf 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was userfy to User:Aswilliams. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

A.S. Williams

Vanity, seems non-notable, although it seems encylopedic, so I'm slightly sympathetic to it. People voting here might want to look at Vindibudd. -- Natalinasmpf 03:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This appears to be a vanity page, as it was created by User:Aswilliams. NatusRoma 04:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Aswilliams --Xcali 04:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete more vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Autobiography. No evidence that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Since this user has made other contributions to Wikipedia, Userfy. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Aswilliams See my comments above for Vindibudd. Volatile 18:05, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Userfy per Uncle G. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
userfy this please Yuckfoo 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing here that can't go in Vindibudd, if Vindibudd is kept. Gamaliel 08:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the author of Vindibudd appears to now be disinterested in fighting on, may I concur with Volatile: Userfy, since as far as I know, no-one is suggesting he isn't a valid user. --Simon Cursitor 12:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy nn but fine for userspace. You (Talk) 00:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP. SYSS Mouse 28 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Laura Cottingham

Non-notable, vanity. -- Natalinasmpf 04:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - She was on the list of 2 year old requests. I'm sure the person who requested doesn't care anymore but still why not. If they are non-notable then why weren't they taken off the request list a long time ago like it says. Matthewjhale
Weak keep. Borderline notable. See [2], for instance. Almost 1000 google hits [3]. Pburka 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 07:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - she does appear to have some notability. I would encourage the author of the page to spend some time making sure this article doesn't end up an orphan though: apart from utility pages nothing links to this article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep: I wonder who it is that wanted it? I see that nixie links to it in her sandbox, but other than that all links are from Requested lists. The book itself was substantial, although as a person I don't think the author is particularly notable. Geogre 17:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Eleven published works in three countries seems sufficiently notable to me. I have added a bibliography to the stub.—Theo (Talk) 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Nomination apparently based on a false premise. CalJW 19:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. She has published a number of works so is a notable author. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep since there is no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Joe Gould

Non-notable. Delete. Hmib 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Chairboy 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Nonsense. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's not exactly nonsense, just very non-notable. -Hmib 04:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. He's portrayed in Cinderella Man, which will certainly increase his notability. About 500 google refs apart from the movie [4] (71,000 with the movie). Pburka 04:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Kappa 10:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not the eccentric from Greenwich Village. This is the man who managed a boxer. Pburka's reasoning is shaky. If one reads the fine print in credits for biographical movies, one finds that such movies often combine or alter peripheral characters for dramatic purposes. Relying upon a movie as evidence is dodgy. Better sources are ones such as this. The article as it stands does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. It is not clear that it could. It appears that Joe Gould himself did not achieve "renown or notoriety". Mention in James J. Braddock and Delete. Uncle G 12:18, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry, Uncle G, but I have to disagree with your reasoning here. His large and memorable presence in such a big movie makes it certain that some people will want to know more about him, even if the character in the movie is a misrepresentation. Therefore, we give them the facts. --Scimitar 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, they won't find anything, and you didn't get the point. The only thing that this article tells us about the real person is that he was someone else's manager. That doesn't meet the WP:BIO critiera. (The only other thing that I found out about this person from research was that he was "confident" in June 1935 — see the above link — and that he gave his 1915 Passover suit to a friend. Those don't meet the WP:BIO critiera, either.) The rest of what this article tells us is about a character in a movie. It tells us what the name of the movie was and what the actor's name was who played the character. That information belongs (and is already to be found in) the article on the movie, not here. Uncle G 23:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Keep per Scimitar. DS1953 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, definitely. I created this page, and I'm agreeing with whoever said that since the movie, Cinderella Man, people will want to know more about him. And yeah, I don't think he was an eccentric from Greenwich Village. posted by XLikeAGazelleX.
- The eccentric from Greenwich Village had a movie made about him (Joe Gould's Secret, starring Ian Holm). This Joe Gould hasn't. This Joe Gould is just a supporting character in a movie about someone else. This Joe Gould is just a boxing manager, one of many such, and one that doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 23:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Comment I don't think the WP:BIO guideline criteria apply here, due to the function of providing information to distinguish between the character and the real person. Purpose of an encyclopedia's to explain things to people who don't already know them, after all. The Literate Engineer 00:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The article is a biography about the person Joe Gould. Of course the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies applies. The character is (already) covered in the article on the movie that it appears in. If you want to explain to people that James J. Braddock's manager was a person named Joe Gould, mention it in James J. Braddock, as I said above. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Disambiguate. We should have an article about the "Professor Seagull" Joe Gould, or at least about the book and movie Joe Gould's Secret. That's who I assumed this page would be about. This guy's obviously pretty insignificant, but if the info added to the substub is true, and not just from the movie, then I can go along with keeping this. -R. fiend 16:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I included the additional data, and it is from independent sources, not the movie (I'd list them, but it took half an hour on google to find 'em, and I'm too lazy to do it again.) --Scimitar 19:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Cinderella Man and Joe Gould (disambiguation) until someone researches deeper than Google and comes up with some biographical information. Until then, the merges should satisfy curious readers. Dystopos 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This individual is notable. Hall Monitor 22:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- For being a Lieutenant in the Army? Not according to the WP:BIO criteria, he isn't. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  - Please be WP:CIVIL. Hall Monitor 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Commenting that someone is not notable, according to the WP:BIO criteria, for being a Lieutenant in the Army is perfectly civil. Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
      - The article does not claim he is notable for being a Lieutenant. The article says he managed a world heavyweight champion - a champion whose management is noteworthy because of wartime PR issues, and a character of sufficient standing to have been portrayed in a movie. There's no need to be sarcastic, just as there is no need to be nitpicky on "notability" issues if verifiability and NPOV are ok. Dystopos 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Oh, that's what Joe Gould's Secret is. Thanks, Uncle G. I'll be looking up more about this guy soon. I'd like to keep this article. Posted by XLikeAGazelleX
Delete. Gamaliel 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this one please Yuckfoo 22:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:33 (UTC)

Lauren Brown

Non-notable, vanity. -- Natalinasmpf 04:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Member of a hall of fame == notable. Pburka 04:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Also on the 2+ year requests. I don't understand why people want so many things deleted. As long as it's not people posting info about themselves, whats the big deal. You don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I'm sure this is very discouraging to a lot of people. I feel like I shouldn't even participate if people are going to delete my contributions. It takes a lot more work for you people to delete stuff than it does for you to leave it alone. --Matthewjhale
- Yes, people might want to check "what links here before they label something as "vanity". Kappa 08:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You don't have to look at it if you don't want to. It takes a lot more work for you people to delete stuff than it does for you to leave it alone. — Both of those are highly flawed arguments. The first is flawed because what we want to look at doesn't enter into it. The second is flawed because leaving bad stuff alone is pretty much the opposite of what editors are encouraged to do. Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  - When you say "what we want to look at", are you speeking for millions of people who come here? You shouldn't do that. I've seen plenty of stuff on this site that I personally don't give a rip about but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. And it looks like people agree. --Matthewjhale
    - I repeat: What we want to look at doesn't enter into it. Uncle G 16:46, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
      - Though the argument may not have been fully stated, it has merit. (Wikipedia is not paper). In this case the subject of the biographical article is clearly notable enough for a verifiable, NPOV article and we are wasting our time voting. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        See above for the highly flawed arguments propounded by Matthewjhale that are actually being discussed here, as opposed to the completely different argument that you are propounding and then defending. Uncle G 02:53, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
        I did read Matthewjhales argument and chose to discuss its substance rather than the details of how he stated it. Dystopos 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        You discussed a completely different argument, as I said. Uncle G 15:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Keep. Due to the hall of fame and member of a touring band. Capitalistroadster 04:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No kidding...playing in a band for Lawrence Welk seems natable to me. --Matthewjhale
Keep per Capitalistroadster. DS1953 05:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep for hall of fame membership and most importantly touring with Lawrence Welk Tuf-Kat 08:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - obviously not vanity -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete speedily. I'd like to think the artists immortalized in Wiki didn't have short careers in music followed by 30 years at a meat packing plant. That really shows this persons art is etched deep in to the american psyche doesn't it. Any plumbers out there who had a demo tape made in the 70's want a wiki entry? --0001 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The information is worth an encyclopedic article.Qwertzy2

Very weak delete: The problem is that the article establishes only one reason for notability -- the connection to Lawrence Welk. Surely that's not all it takes to get into the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame? Is that it? Playing behind a Geritol banner gets you there? I'm voting on the article and not the topic. The article says, essentially, "some dude." That's not right. Geogre 17:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- comment. WP:Vfd is not the place to edit articles. You can do that directly by clicking the "edit this page" tab. VfD is a place to nominate and eliminate articles that have no hope of becoming encyclopedic. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to Lawrence Welk, or collect the hundreds of people who played in Lawrence Welk's bands on one page. At an absolute maximum, one page per band (e.g. Lawrence and His Hotsy Totsy Boys, Lawrence Welk and His Honolulu Fruit Gum Orchestra; no, I'm not making that up). By himself, just does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Big bands were *big* and continually changing. Being an individual member of a big band, even a famous one, does not automatically confer notability.

From reading the arguments presented above (and other topics above), it appears that all one has to do to circumvent any guidelines on notability is one of:

(a) Create a request for an article before creating the article. The fact that there is a request should preclude any examination.

and/or

(b) Declare an organization with substring "hall of fame". Anything that calls itself a hall of fame shall not be subject to further scrutiny. Perhaps I'll start the "Any Topic I Want To Keep Hall of Fame" and start inducting members.

--Tabor 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I don't understand why a particular topic should not be accepted, and personally feel that any factual information on any topic should be allowed, I am willing to accept that there are some general rules that have been established to guide the Wikipedia and that they should be followed. With that said, I would like to point out that I am new here, and with my three pages that are up for a vote, I was just trying to tie up some loose ends that had been around for awhile. I also feel that the Wikipedia would be better served by people sharing new information rather than deleting it. However, I will try to spend my time on more important topics and hopefully topics that I actually know something about. As far as my three practice runs, keep them or delete them. Sorry for the long post but I didn't know where else to put it. --Matthewjhale
Keep I see nothing wrong here, and it's clearly not vanity. Volatile 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please why should we erase it Yuckfoo 23:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hundreds of people must have toured with Lawrence Welk. A nice story to tell your grandkids, but hardly encyclopedic. And the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is hardly anything of note either. -R. fiend 16:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and not that being on requested articles means shit or anything, but I doubt this was the Lauren Brown requested. The name brings up many hits, but this one doesn't seem to register. -R. fiend 16:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep WP:BIO, while not official policy, has this guideline for deceased persons: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" A "Hall of Fame" recognition, even in Nebraska, seems to more than satisfy the requirement. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Do any of us have any idea what the criteria for entry into the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame are? Or if it's even a legit hall of fame? If members of it are so notable why doesn't it have its own article? I'll note that googling "lauren brown" lawrence welk got me a whopping 6 unique google hits, only 2 of them relevant. Far from "wide", sounds liek a pretty narrowly recognized contribution to me. By the way, his son's in the hall of fame too. Where's his article? -R. fiend 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Nebraska Music Hall of Fame isn't the Kennedy Center Honors. But it is real and verifiable. And it establishes notability sufficient for Wikipedia. Google is not known for widely recognizing the accomplishments of people who did not make their contributions in the field of Linux development or pornography. I'll leave it to you to add Brown's son to the list of requested articles. Dystopos 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Not the Kennedy Center is right. From their website: "Long term goals include the establishment of a permanent home for the Hall of Fame to display memorabilia, instruments, photos, sound recordings, etc. of all Nebraska Artists". I take it that means they don't have physical presence anywhere of yet, which means the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is a basically just a website. And while Linux developers and porn stars are overly represented in google searches, a mere 2 google hits is miniscule for anyone and anything. I get more than that. -R. fiend 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Nevertheless, Brown's role did make a contribution and it is recognized and verifiable. Dystopos 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep "...with Lawrence Welk and His Champagne Music for over 3 years as featured soloist on records in California and on national radio broadcasts". [5] Soloists are notable. Kappa 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with User:R.fiend. JamesBurns 06:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable meatpacker. The sole piece of evidence for his "notability" is an amateurish website which claims to be a "hall of fame". I could put up a website and become a hall of fame too. Lots of people played with Welk, so let's list them in Welk's article and then break out the truly notable ones from there. If anyone finds evidence of significant notability from some sort of legitimate reference and I'll change my vote. Gamaliel 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G and Tabor. Quale 04:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nem0nic

nn forumcruft NatusRoma 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity/non-notable/nonsense. -- Natalinasmpf 04:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Many google refs, but most seem to be forum posts by the subject. Pburka 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all but the most notable forums. the wub "?/!" 09:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Garbage. Falcon 05:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

Vivienne Dick

Non-notable, vanity. Google only returns 519 hits. -- Natalinasmpf 04:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - And another thing...don't the rules say to use the what links here tool and if a page is linked from another than it's ok? Quit wasting time deleting everything and share some information. matthewjhale
- No, the rules don't say any such thing, since the same person who created the nonsense article could have also added the links in other pages. If her movies are listed on Imdb and she isn't, that makes me suspicious. Delete' until further proof is given. Rick K 05:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. She was included in the 1983 Whitney Biennial. Pburka 04:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ : I took the name as well as the name of every film in the article, and went through IMDB. I couldn't find either her name, or her attributed in any of the films that were actually available on IMDB. Also did a cursory glance through Google and couldn't find any sign of notability. Wikibofh 04:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep: The article now definitely establishes notability, and Wikipedia is not paper. Accordingly, I am changing my vote. (Oh, and good job DS1953!) Wikibofh 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- At least three of her movies are on IMDB: [6] [7] [8]. She's not credited, but not surprisingly since IMDB's entries seem to be rather incomplete for them. One of them even won an award. Also, she was included in the 1983 Whitney Biennial, which is a major honour for a young artist. Pburka 05:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I did find several on IMDB, but no mention of her. Lydia Lunch seemed far more notable (mentioned in the three you note I believe. Also, a "young" artist would not be directing a film released in 1979 :) Wikibofh 05:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Speaking of which, Lydia Lunch's self reported bibliography shows Vivienne as the director of several movies. I haven't decided if that changes my vote or not. Wikibofh 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: An artist directing a film in 1979 could very well be young in 1983 ;). Pburka 13:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- One of her movies is also listed on the All Movie Guide at allmovie.com. --Matthewjhale
Strong Keep. Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman has called Dick the "quintessential No Wave filmmaker." See my expansion of the article. Google and IMDB are often good tests, but I think in this case they have proved their own limitations. DS1953 06:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Some notability. Agree with DS1953. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete speedily. We let her in we have to let in every film school teacher who for two months of a decade had a public forum for thier documentaries in the 80's. It is clear.--0001 14:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per DS1953. Well done. --Un focused 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep: This is one of those areas that I always talk about, where Google will let you down. Even the most ephemeral porn star will have 5x the links on Google, but she will also have .001 of the actual notability. Avant-garde artists are very poorly served by Google. The article needs expansion, but the subject is worthy. Geogre 17:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well done DS1953 on article on notable avant-garde filmmaker. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and ponder the realization that a person named Vivienne Dick isn't an ephemeral porn star. Dystopos 21:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Does not appear in the Grove Art database so I'm not sure if she's an artist of any real note. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats why Wikipedia is better! --Matthewjhale

An astonishingly low standard for inclusion does not make this project better. Gamaliel 22:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, miseryguts. As Wikipedia is effectively infinite in size I've never seen the point in deleting anything useful and well-researched. We are now a primary source of information on this obscure figure. Hurrah! --KharBevNor 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish we could get everyone to share that opinion KharBevNor. I think any factual information on any topic should be accepted. While at the momment I'm willing to follow the current guidelines, I have yet to see an argument I consider valid as to why something should not be allowed in Wikipedia. --Matthewjhale

Keep -Vivienne Dick is well worth keeping. Her films have been widely screened in alternative art spaces and 'underground' cinemas and she is well known in these circles and avant garde music circles as well. I have seen plenty of mistakes on IMDB; it's not always reliable and are resistant to make corrections, so I wouldn't judge her by that criterion. TheEmissary 22 June 2005
Keep, notable. — mark ✎ 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 deleted as recreation of "Anarchism (anti-state)" --cesarb 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism (philosophy)

Yet another fork from User:Hogeye. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory) --Xcali 05:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can tell this was just deleted, so presumably speedy as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:14, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unneeded fork. Anarchism is protected. Is someone trying to bypass that protection? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This new pair of articles, "movement" vs. "philosophy", finally makes some sense as a statement of the actual distinction being argued over, unlike some of the other forked article titles. The articles should be edited in accordance with this distinction, so they become more different from one another (removing movement-specific stuff from the philosophy article and philosophical stuff from the movement one), and the main anarchism article made into a disambig page (merged with Anarchism (disambiguation) pointing prominently to both of these (not buried in a long list of schools of anarchism, etc.). *Dan* 11:16, Jun 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 speedy deleted as recreation of "Anarchism (socialist)" --cesarb 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism (movement)

Yet another fork from User:Hogeye. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory) --Xcali 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can tell this was just deleted, so presumably speedy as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:15, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete, we've already got Anarchism. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 10:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've been generally opposed to all of these forked articles on anarchism, many of which have titles that make no sense -- ("Anarchism (anti-state)"? As opposed to "Anarchism (pro-state)"?) -- but, for a change, this one actually serves a logical purpose. It discusses anarchism as a specific social/political movement, which is the meaning of anarchism that is intended by the various leftist anarchists around here. This is distinct from anarchism as a generic term for a variety of anti-state philosophies, which may or may not be part of this movement. If this article is kept, then both this and the Anarchism (philosophy) article should be edited in accordance with this distinction so that they don't remain near-clones of one another; stick to description and history of the movement here, without so much philosophy, while removing movement-specific info from the other article and including more on non-movement anarchist philosophies. *Dan* 11:06, Jun 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Dhrakos

Only three Google hits for this term, and two of these both reference the book "Greek Wonder Tales" by Lucy M. J. Garnett. Rick K 05:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like a hoax. -- Natalinasmpf 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Completely wrong. Ancient Greek didn't have /Dh/ for one thing. Geogre 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Btw 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete smells like a hoax. I've read a lot of Greek mythology and never heard of them. One wonders where Ms. Garnett came up with this. --Etacar11 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. On the 3rd link if you google for the term, it is said that "Dragon Δράκος Dhrakos". So the article may be factually wrong. Otherwise, it must just be an obscure term for Dragon in Greek. Any Greek speaker here? -Hmib 20:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Δ is the greek capital d, which would make it Drakos rather than Dhrakos. Implies 'drake' (aka dragonling or lesser dragon, depending on which mythology or fiction you're reading), but the lack of substance and lack of justification leads me to vote delete unless it's made more informative. --Firien 23:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I think they are implying that rho was pronounced [hr]. platypeanArchcow 00:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

BattleCorps

After weeding out its own hits and what I believe are unrelated items (the original author's site and a Sega game), I've got about 1000 hits. Alexa says it's got a rank around 450,000. I'd say it's just another web site. --Xcali 05:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When creating this, I was trying to follow the structure followed in the original BattleTech article, giving the various spinoff lines (MechWarrior, MechWarrior: Dark Age) their own pages. My apologies if this was considered bad form. —ATimson 06:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I looked in my World Book volumes, and this esteemed Encyclopedia saw fit to immortalize for posterity, the web sites of fans of fiction. Then I cancelled my subsciption.--0001 14:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Fanfic site, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 18:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a web directory.-Splash 02:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 4, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

One National Gay & Lesbian Archives

~300 Google hits. Alexa rank 5,000,000+. I'd say it isn't notable. --Xcali 05:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep (and send to cleanup). As their website says: "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives [ONE Archives] houses the world's largest research library on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered heritage and concerns." This is a notable archive of historical material that would not necessarily "score" well using either Google, or Alexa, especially since very little of the collection is online. It should be kept. BlankVerse ∅ 10:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, on notability grounds. --Scimitar 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I'm not against our having an article on it, but not if we can't assess its notability. Those in favor of keeping it, please give us some indication that the site's claims are true, that it has some traffic. The Alexa rank won't really lie in this case. It doesn't appear that, as a web site, it's particularly used. Geogre 18:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Here's a statement about its status at USC. There's a contact email address and phone number for a Lynn Sipe at USC. Seems straightforward enough. It's ridiculous to expec that an archive of this nature would have a high Alexa ranking. It isn't a popular media website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be trivial. CalJW 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep if the claims are true. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, trivially so. James F. (talk) 22:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There seems to be some confusion here. As I understand it, the article is not about the website, it is about the archives. My understanding has been that Alexa rankings are primarily used to judge the notability of web sites per se. The fact that the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library website has an Alexa ranking of 1,503,886 does not comment on the notability of the library, for example. --Tabor 00:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per User:BlankVerse. JamesBurns 06:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason for delete. Needs a bit of work though. AlexR 11:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Ryan Lackey

Entry appears to meet definition of a "vanity page", given tone and content. Mostly anonymous edits, probably being maintained by the person in question. 24.91.173.75 05:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Person appears to be notable, and it is not true that the page has mostly anonymous edits. Not to mention this page has been around since at least early 2002. Eric119 06:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment.
  - He's not even remotely notable; he's a college drop-out who worked a couple of jobs and attended a few conferences. He happened to manage an ISP that failed, which in and of itself would have never been heard of had it not been for his involvement in the whole disaster known as Sealand, which itself would have been unheard of had it not been mentioned in Wired, also nothing more than hype.
  - Sorry about the confusion on the anonymous edit bits, you're right. Side note- although we can't see history prior to 2002, I strongly suspect he was the author, and he's quite aware of its existence, having edited the page himself, and linked to it from his Wikipedia user page (which is where all this belongs)
  - The age of the page has no relevancy; it is still a vanity page.
  - The article makes claims which are unsupported (such as establishing Iraq's post-war internet infrastructure, highly dubious). Numerous mentions of OpenDBS, which has not been implemented(google for OpenDBS returns a 'coming soon' page).
    - So be bold and remove them, explaining the lack of verifiability in your edit comments and (if necessary) on the talk page. Uncle G 12:44, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  - The majority of links to the page are from Sealand-related pages, or articles which mention Sealand.
    - Degree of internal linking is not a good metric to use for this sort of thing. Uncle G 12:44, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  - The purpose of the article seems purely to mention his e-cash ventures (again, Vanity Page!)
  - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.173.75 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2005 Jun 20
Keep. Kinger414 06:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - the Sealand connection makes him note-worthy, at least while-ever the Sealand business continues to "bubble under" as, variously, a micronation with a geographical location, a data-hub, and an alleged scam. --Simon Cursitor 07:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep borderline notable. JamesBurns 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete, notability not established, and I just snipped links to his e-mail address. This is rather obviously written by Ryan himself. I don't see how being a microcitizen is notable. R adiant _>|< 10:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme haste. If the is encyclopaedic, recruitment firms have got piles CV's on thier desk we could be using to give wiki a better reputation than even 'World Book'.--0001 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Radiant. --Xcali 14:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
keep but please clean up too Yuckfoo 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep Has had noteable involvement in privacy, ecash and strange other ventures around. Worth watching, worth keeping. - Also note the activity on this in one day... maxinux 02:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep if there is a major cleanup to move a lot of the vanity content. I have tried an edit to consolidate around a simple descriptive bio and notable projects with hopefully less repetition, but it needs more. frankh 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I found the article useful, even though a bit of a stub... Cleanup. "He happened to manage an ISP that failed" (above). This is incorrect. Havenco is still operating and setting up new servers (I can personally confirm this as of today!). jebba 23:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I am the referenced party. I don't really care much either way, but this article exists mainly as a link from Sealand former HavenCo, and for Iraq stuff. I do support the edits to make the entry more encyclopaedic (which in this case is mainly making it shorter and more concise/factual). My edits to date on this article mainly consisted of changing specific details (like an old email address being updated), or other specific minor edits. rdl 20:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep He is all over the net. Somebody I would come looking to Wikipedia to find out about. Jeshii June 29, 2005 12:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Atlanta Torment

Two Google hits (both unrelated) for "Atlanta Torment", [9]. Unverifiable, Delete. JamesBurns 06:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Kinger414 06:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there must be tens of thousands of local amatuer sports teams across the globe. The last time I looked, encyclopedia's were not phone books.--0001 13:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: We're tormented enough without including rec-league teams. Geogre 18:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep though I only found 2 Google Hits, there were about 1,000 AOL hits, I think that's suitable. MLSfan0012
- Not true. Google has two hits that are unrelated. AOL search produces only one hit, not 1000, see [10]. Also why are claiming credit for articles as User:MLSfan0012 when that account's contribution history indicates only two edits? JamesBurns 05:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually that one AOL hit is in fact zero AOL hits. The website is a wikipedia mirror. JamesBurns 05:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable fantasy team. Megan1967 05:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, there are now three related articles on VFD:
None seem to be verifiable, and the only mentions of Outdoor Basketball Association on Google seem to be for some local Minnesota thing. I suspect the whole shebang is a hoax, and that virtually all the articles linked from Outdoor Basketball Association ought to be deleted too. sjorford →•← 12:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've now listed all the other articles at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Outdoor Basketball Association. sjorford →•← 13:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if it were realy notable, the arcticle would have content to support it. --Eoghanacht 2005 June 30 18:01 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

B.C. Navajo Nation

Zero Google hits for "B.C. Navajo Nation" [11] and "Basketball Club Navajo Nation" [12]. Unverifiable, Delete. JamesBurns 06:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Kinger414 06:22, 20 Jun 2005

Keep, needs more information...may be a typo error. If not a typo...it could be vanity.DCUnitedRock23
- user:DCUnitedRock23's only second edit. Megan1967 05:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, vanity...or possibly an attempt to try to make the red links in O.B.A. turn blue. If thats the case...Keep it then. MLSfan0012

(UTC)

- no contribution history by user:MLSfan0012. Megan1967 05:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
/me looks around for someone trying to change it to B.C.E. Navajo Nation... --Tabor 00:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable fantasy team. Megan1967 05:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See also several other articles at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Outdoor Basketball Association. sjorford →•← 13:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was The vote was 16/5/5 - I've found nothing worthy of merging to "exploding animals" as there's already a listbox on it... so I've gone ahead and deleted the pages. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

List of animals that explode and List of exploding animals

Redundant with Category:Exploding animals. Note that this was speedied and VFU'ed because it was considered an improper speedy. See the talk page for old discussion thereon. R adiant _>|< 09:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my vote is delete (yes, I know I created one of the lists). However, let's review the situation we have here: we now have one of the articles on VFD and VFU. At one point the list article was recreated with an angry blast at the administrator who deleted it, but I notice that Tony has undeleted it. So the VFU is now no longer valid, yet is still listed. I created a new article, which is now being voted on VFD. There is also a category for exploding animals, along with a template, which has an incorrect redirect template Template:Exploding mammals (my fault). The normal template is on WP:TFD. Accordingly, I have also been accused of posturing by User:Pcb21, who says I haven't helped make whales a serious topic of conversation, my article about Exploding whales (possibly) having eclipsed Sperm whale and Gray whale. I plead innocence!

It appears that whales and animals aren't the only things that have exploded here. It appears that the entirety of Wikipedia has gone, quite literally, mad. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Lists are useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I note that this page has just undergone a lengthy and detailed undelete process. It therefore seems odd to find it re-listed for deletion. Unless, of course, the Cabal don't like it.--Simon Cursitor 09:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, it is procedural to list an article on VFD if it passes VFU. This is because VFU is about process (this was undeleted because the process was deemed invalid) and VFD is about content (this may still be considered lack of content by some people). TINC. HAND. Radiant_>|< 09:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - In practice, VfUs are not just about process, they are heavily influenced by VFD considerations. 10:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) this remark was made by User:Kappa. R adiant _>|< 10:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless there are unusual circumstances, the last step of the undeletion process is to list the undeleted article on VFD. The reason this one was undeleted is a common one: It was argued that this was an improper speedy deletion, and that it should be subject to the full VFD treatment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I restored the thing as an invalid speedy. I ignored the VfU as it was superfluous--the article having been deleted without a proper VfD. This VfD is procedurally correct and should have been tried first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant with the category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, lists are never redundant with categories. Kappa 10:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes... "Lists are often redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.". Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - I've seen it :) Kappa 11:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with nomination. JamesBurns 10:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kappa is wrong. Some lists are redundant with categories. This is one. The distinction between "military uses" and "just your random animal exploding" isn't enough added value to justify this. (I'm not even talking about that hideous navigation box we also have). JRM · Talk 10:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete per Radiant. As for the keep voters, which one do you want to keep? The content of the two listed above is identical. Postdlf 10:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously one should redirect to the other, I don't mind which. Kappa 12:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge both into exploding mammal (which should be moved back to exploding animal). Category and list can co-exist (hey, that rhymes!) sjorford →•← 11:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge List of animals that explode into List of exploding animals. I don't see any reason for lists and categories not to co-exist. Why is it never the category that's redundant? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Because if it were, it would be on WP:CFD rather than here. R adiant _>|< 12:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
merge, redirect. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - the threshold for cruft is so low, I can't see how we can delete anything with real information. Guettarda 12:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge as suggested by MacGyverMagic . I never realized there were so many exploding animals out there. This opens up a whole new world for me! 23skidoo 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete How is the "Other" section (which will likely always be the largest section) useful or encyclopedic? If I shove an explosive into it, I can make just about any animal explode. --Xcali 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - The criteria for addition to the list should be something similar to those (currently) found on exploding mammal. No vote -- Jonel | Speak 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Xcali's wise note - as long as we're including all animals that will explode if stuffed with explosives, it might as well be List of animals; if not, it's going to be an awful short list anyway. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect to exploding animal, after that redirect to exploding mammal becomes the main article, as per User:Sjorford. Note: The original speedy was appropriate, as per the actual content of the article at that time. func (talk) 15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Delete this is silly. Dunc|☺ 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, though it needs a title change, since blowing up an animal doesn't make it an "animal that explodes" per se. --Tothebarricades 20:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Merge per MGM. --Randy 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with exploding animal, which should not, actually, be a redirect to exploding mammal which should, itself, be a subtitle within exploding animal rather than the main article itself. Tomer ^TALK 00:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete useless article, could be expanded to include just about every animal that could ingest my dynamite. Midster 02:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Everything blowed up real good betimes. This is just one of those "funny" lists. I'm sure they're enjoyable to write, but they're of no use in reading. We can have a category, or a list, but not a category and two lists. Duplicate material that should stay gone. Geogre 04:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete both - they are redundant with the category - Skysmith 07:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete its as sensible as List of animals that blink and List of animals that can lick their nose. ~~~~ 17:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given by others. Say, folks, did you know the Fascinating Fun Fact that you can take a live sponge, force it through a sieve with a scrubbing action (I see our article suggests the use of a blender), until it is decomposed into individual cells and becomes a tank full of discolored water, and the cells will gradually rejoin and reconstitute themselves into a live sponge again? Does that count as an animal that explodes? Or as an animal that cannot be successfully exploded? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That counts as an animal being forced through a sieve. *sigh* 80.229.14.246 17:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - List of animals that can survive being forced through a sieve ...
Delete. Lists are evil. --Conti|✉ 22:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment the original article was never redundant with the category and would be doing much better in this VfD
Delete. Redundant with category. — Phil Welch 03:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - for the people that are still voting delete, where does that leave exploding animal? Either vfd it, or allow the list to be merged to that page (where it belongs). sjorford →•← 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I just have to point this out, if no one else has. If this list is kept, shouldn't we add "Human"? After all, we are mammals, and therefore animals. And I'm sure many, many more humans have exploded than whales or bats or chickens combined. Just a thought. wikinick 30 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep, and nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

Baron Greenway

With apologies to the anonymous author, I have doubts about the veracity of this article, as the statement that the barony was created in 1927 conflicts with the date given at http://hereditarytitles.com/Page67.htm.
It is also unclear to me what encyclopaedic value the names of 4 (3 presumably deceased) Englishmen who happened at different times to hold an hereditary title have, especially as the present policy of the British New Labour (Socialist) government is to abolish all such titles. Simon Cursitor 09:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep If they're dead, they're harmless, in os far as we know that someone else must have written the article for them. Physchim62 16:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all peerage titles. If the article is incorrect, it should be fixed. See also Category:Baronies. -- Jonel | Speak 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep We still have articles on Kings of France I believe even though the French monarchy has been abolished. Maintaining a historical record is part of the business of an encyclopedia. PS New Labour isn't socialist, that's what's "new" about it, and it isn't abolishing the titles, just the hereditary seats in the House of Lords. CalJW 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, we have all Peerage titles. James F. (talk) 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Until recently, the holders of the title would have been eligible as members of the House of Lords so they would have been notable under this category. Apart from this, the first Baron presumably did something notable to earn the titles. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Government's not abolishing the titles at all, they just can't sit or vote in the House of Lords anymore. The titles will still be passed down generations. Ooooh, how Tony Blair would dislike being called a socialist!-Splash 02:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Given the above, I am content to withdraw the nomination. On two points of philosophical contention, that a man's ancestor has done something notable does not, IMHO, render his descendants till the end of time notable. Indeed, I can see an argument that, unless they do something notable, they devalue their ancestor to the point where his/her notability may be smirched. The instance of the 7th earl of Lucan springs to mind. Secondly, anent Splash's point, I would recommend that he wait and see before being so certain that the titles will still be passed down. Once the House of Lords has been "reformed" (read abolished and replaced by a Senate), the hereditary titles will cease to have any function. Moreover it is a moot point as to whether English titles will be recognised in teh new United States of Europe (once Sr.Blair has had it explained to him that Prime Minister is elective not hereditary). --Simon Cursitor 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge to Military slang. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Stupid O'Clock

Wikipedia is not a military slang database. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep, but only if it gets a damn good rewrite, soldier. Proto 10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Military slang in much condensed version. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. R adiant _>|< 12:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Mgm. --Scimitar 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Mgm, — RJH 15:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge Humourous, rather than encyclopaedic. illWill 15:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Mgm. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikitionary. That seems like the right place for it. Almafeta 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not just a term in the US military, btw!-Splash 02:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
If and only if deleted, BJAODN. — Phil Welch 03:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 19:09 (UTC)

The_Exiles

This seems like an advertisement. NymphadoraTonks 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advert for some "Woman-to-Woman BDSM" group. Delete, and maybe redirect to London Irish or exile. Dunc|☺ 11:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all advertisements. Redirect to Exiles (comics)--Scimitar 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertisement. --Etacar11 22:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep if cleaned up and expanded. JamesBurns 06:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Gung Ye

Incorrect information, 'Gung Ho' is from the Chinese for "to work together". Dictionary.com proves this. This user has tampered with other pages including writing a full "biography" in my user page. Speedy deletion? Kinger414 06:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The mention of "Gung Ho" makes me tend to believe user:Kinger 414 when he alleges that this is tampering. Unless verified delete. Or revert, if appropriate. --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Taebong, which contains quite a bit of information on the real Gung Ye. -- Visviva 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redir Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consenus --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Columbia Asia International Healthcare

Tagged as a speedy as advertising, and granted the article does read like advertising. However, I'm submitting this to VFD instead because hospitals are often kept, and there does seem to be information here from which a proper article may be extracted. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete seems to refer to branch of a larger Ho Chi Minh City hospital, which itself may warrant an article, but this medical clinic? no. But the fact essential health services are returning to post-war Vietnam is valuable.--0001 13:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, international hospital in a developing country. Kappa 22:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Lawncrest, Pennsylvania

Tagged for a speedy but appears to be a real place, so I'm listing it on VFD. Usually I would say "keep" without hesitation, but contained in the article is "Teens in Lawncrest spend their time hanging out and doing drugs." I am therefore a bit suspicious of the remaining content as well. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Cleanup all real localities, but edit any unverifiable content. Google showed me the map, so I am convinced. Xoloz 07:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup per Xoloz -Tadanisakari 09:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete completely. Does every suburb of every city on the globe need a wiki page? --0001 13:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - they don't need pages, but consensus has been that real geographic locations are worthy of pages if said pages are created. -- Jonel | Speak 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- and cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 13:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - If Lawncrest is just a neighborhood of Philadelphia, it should be moved to Lawncrest, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - as per neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Canoga Park, Los Angeles, California. --FCYTravis 17:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep, wikipedia would be better if it had pages on every suburb of every city on the globe. Kappa 18:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this one definietly Yuckfoo 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is a legit articleGateman1997 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep -FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Revision3 Studios

Tagged for a speedy as recreation of previously VFDed content. However the content of the original article was

Revision3 Studios is the company behind the videozines Systm (http://www.systm.org) and thebroken (http://www.thebroken.org). Kevin Rose, a former personality of TechTV (now G4 (television)) is one of the members of this company. Jay Adelson, former Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Equinix, Inc. (http://www.equinix.com), was recently named chairman and CEO of Revision3 Studios.

(with some links which I have not added here) This article is much larger. However, I don't really think the company is notable, so I will say delete. The original VFD discussion is here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whereas Google previously had a somewhat embarrassing total of zero hits, it now has 149. Ah, but it shows just six hits as representative of the whole lot, and these are blog entries, publicity announcements/puffs, etc. I'm underwhelmed. Delete. -- Hoary 07:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete once again... how many companies are registered across the globe? Come and get yourself immortalized on the web for free. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia--0001 14:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I created this article to merge information from Systm and thebroken. Formerly, the article for Systm was VfD'd, and called a "merge and redirect". It was redirected to Kevin Rose at the time, but that makes no sense, because he is only one-fifth of the team behind the series. Even if you don't think the company itself is notable, this article should exist for its information on Systm and thebroken, which are notable. --taestell 18:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An article should exist with information about Systm, either here or the recently deleted Systm article. --Knio 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Kevin Rose. --Mrmiscellanious 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An important company that produces many popular videozines with a very large audience. --Salvag 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm tempted to say that media companies presently producing content are definitionally worth an article if someone writes one. It can be very difficult to find NPOV information about media companies. --TreyHarris 17:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Salvag. —Mar ka ci 2005-06-22 T 17:47 Z
Keep. This article has info that does not belong in the Kevin Rose article. Personally I would say split into Systm but that page was already VFD'd and lost. Possibly merge The Broken into it, but definitely keep. --TexasDex 18:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Hoary. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 22:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Taking into consideration Hoary's view, I'm also considering the fact that this is needed in lieu with other articles. Hence, I'll sit on the fence, and maybe a bit to the side, with a weak keep. -- Natalinasmpf 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article has different information and refers to both Systm and thebroken which Kevin Rose is only a part of. --AyrtonSenna
Keep per taestell. --Randy 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, company has created Systm and thebroken, both of which seem to have a large number of viewers.--Matteh (talk) 03:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Systm and The Broken are notable and have a large viewing audience. I see no reason for deletion. It is not advertising. — Peter McGinley 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article was initally referred to the Kevin Rose article. Since Rose is not a whole or even a majority of the crew behind the studio, merging the two would be an inaccuracy. I see no reason to delete the article. Keep - Razer64 06:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This VfD has been up for eight days now... two-thirds (12 out of 18) of the votes are "keep"... --65.185.15.125 28 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)
Keep Systm got deleted and merge with Kevin Rose, however, this is a better place for it. I would further suggest that The Broken gets merged with this. Falcorian June 29, 2005 02:03 (UTC)
Keep. With the high numbers of reported systm downloads, this company has a decent impression. --Sepht 4:45, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC) ...added at 03:47, June 29, 2005 by 68.121.166.105
- Sepht, under whose name this vote was made (strangely, at the top, right in the middle of the preface by Sjakkalle), has a single contribution so far. -- Hoary June 29, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
Keep This is quite a popular company. In fact I logged on to Wikipedia today just to look up Revision3 MrHate June 30, 2005 08:02 (UTC)
Okay... This VfD is 10 days old now, and 70% (14 of 20) of the votes are "keep"... --taestell June 30, 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Keep I've checked out the videos from systm and would rate them as well produced and equivalent to standard television. I am also familiar with 2 of the guys from TV shows they have been a part of in the past. I vote for keeping the site. June 30, 2005 ........... comment added at 00:34, 1 July 2005 by 65.35.88.234

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge and redirect --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Ryoga's Sense of Direction

Tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user with "fancruft" as the reason. That is not a speedy deletion criterion (and some would argue that it's not even a deletion criterion...) Unsure of whether this expression is notable enough to be included or maybe merged in to Ranma 1/2. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Ryoga Hibiki or keep. Kappa 07:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Ryoga Hibiki . -- Lochaber 14:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Kappa. --Xcali 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Ryoga Hibiki - Jack Cain

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

Steve Poltz

Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. I have done no research as to whether this passes WP:MUSIC, but there are several google hits, and I suspect that he may do. No vote for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that Poltz indeed does pass WP:MUSIC, so I am voting keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. He appears to be completing a fairly extensive national tour of the United States [13]. That's sufficient for notability according to WP:MUSIC. Also, his CDs are available on amazon. Pburka 13:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this. There are plenty of forums for struggling musos to flog thier wares. This is an encyclopedia. Are my kids ever gonna turn in a paper on Steve Poltz, citing wiki as thier source?
- This vote by 0001
Strong Keep. He's rather well known, especially in Southern California and New York. He has toured internationally to support a platinum album with Jewel Kilcher, has co-written hit songs, has a fan club, and his musical style is unique. He's also appeared in at least one Music Video on MTV. If he doesn't match your criteria, I'd suggest you change it. It would be good to focus more on musical contribution rather than # of google hits (which are arbitrary and trend based I think.)
- This vote by 205.132.149.222
- 205.132.149.222 is me -> Alex Brennen
keep see All music guide. Dunc|☺ 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep was part of post-metal big acoustic break through in the USA of the 90's... Dave Mathews, Jack Johnson...
- This vote by 128.227.212.74
Obvious keep. Meets notability standards. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Easily meets the standards outlined in WP:MUSIC -- Keep

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

TTC McCowan RT Yard

Tagged for a speedy with the reason "this is not an article or even a stub. Please try again with something that we can understand.". I think the article is about some trainyard in Toronto. Unsure of whether that is encyclopedic. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. More can be said about train yards than about many stations. Alternately merge with the line (Scarborough RT) if there's no potential for expansion. --SPUI (talk) 09:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per SPUI. Kappa 10:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and either expand or merge into Scarborough RT (TTC) or McCowan (TTC). David Arthur 13:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per SPUI. -- Jonel | Speak 17:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge; probably all of the "TTC Yards, Garages and Facilities" articles should be combined into a single article or just a section under Toronto Subway and RT. (For example, I once worked at TTC Greenwood Yard, but I probably couldn't come up with anything useful to add to that article.) Peter Grey 05:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

Tribe of Mic-O-Say

Tagged for speedy by an anon, but not a candidate. Some sort of scouting association. Unsure of notability. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. Pony Express Council seems to be a subgroup of the Boy Scouts. Kinda notable. Camp Geiger seems to be a sub-division of Pony Express Council. Barely notable. But when it goes further down that that... unnotable. But otherwise has nothing wrong. -Hmib 08:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - if we had an article on Camp Geiger, I'd say merge/redirect to that. -- Jonel | Speak 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Noteable Billhpike 03:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Noteable subject of interest and gives further information into naming of Kanas City Chiefs. BMb8609 03:55, Jun 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This group is noteable within the scouting community. HOWEVER, this article needs editing. There is already a better article on Bartle, etc. This article should focus on Mic-O-Say, its purpose and history. --Emb021 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Keep Should be referenced among scouting groups. Move Bartle specific infomration to H. Roe Bartle Page. Naraht 2 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
Keep Interesting and important BSA history. ike9898 July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hector leano

Another page about another student. Googling suggests that this one really exists. He has deep thoughts, as carefully analyzed by one Ross Otto. Funnily enough, Google gives a grand number of zero hits for "Hector leano" "Ross Otto". Unverifiable. Let's wait till he's published some papers. -- Hoary 08:46, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable possibly student vanity. JamesBurns 10:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. I added his friend Ross Otto to VfD. --Etacar11 23:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nnanity. Looks like these two friends thought they'd have a go....-Splash 01:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Asela

Was tagged as speedy, but found some google hits to suggest he might warrant inclusion at Asela Indika. May be notable blogger. Abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- unless notability is established, or userfy if preferred. -- Longhair | Talk 11:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete My search shows 19 Google hits which is very, very, very low for a blogger. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. vanity, and crap vanity at that. Bluemoose 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Former United States

Author offers no detail about the novels: Badlands redirects to the geological feature, and Badlands (movie) has a completely different storyline. Article is badly written, probably a hoax. Physchim62 12:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Deathlands. Uncle G 12:55, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
- Comment: I found Deathlands later, but it doesn't change my view that Former United States is currently unsavable without a complete rewrite, if then. Physchim62 15:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deletewith prejudice. You want me to go to the library and tell you where every fiction novel ever written was 'set' and make a wiki page? This is out of control...all fiction stories should have ONE page only. You Lord of the rings fan will kill me, but this isn't a facility for setting up in perpetuity the niche knowledge of fans of fantasy stories. Go make a web site on the actual web no one's stopping you.--0001 13:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper so it has space to tell me where every fiction novel ever written was set. Kappa 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and possibly Merge with Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic science fiction or with the pages about the series of novels (if the article(s) exist). —Kjammer 18:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete/merge per Kjammer. humblefool ® 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete poor written fancruft. JamesBurns 06:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Delete. Lots of bad spelling and can go into the Badlands article. --Pc13 19:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Books about George W. Bush

Unencyclopedic list. the wub "?/!" 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Needs expanding but certainly encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Just now I trawled the Category: Political books and listed all those that dealt wholly or mainly with Bush or his Presidency. As most of the conservative writers these days tend to be writing about the twin evils of liberalism and Islam, this may give the list a somewhat lopsided appearance. There aren't a lot of articles about hagiographies of Bush around, that I can see. I suggest that this could be remedied by writing such articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As far as lists go this one is fairly useful. Pburka 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Legit and useful list - if your concern is POV, then list the right-wing books as well. The solution to bias speeched is counter-bias, not censorship. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:05, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Keep, allow for expansion. -- Lochaber 14:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, enough there to be useful, enough books about Bush to be encyclopedic topic. In most cases I would have thought "Books about X" belong in the article on X but in the case of Bush where the article is so long, a separate article is justified. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep but expand to more than a list of books, give both pro- and anti- and contrast their viewpoints, and talk about their social and political significance. Dunc|☺ 16:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. - This information should go on the George W. Bush article. This is why we have References/Further reading sections. --Tothebarricades 20:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. That article is rather large at the moment. It's probably better to have this list. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - just an afterthought - shouldn't this be a "List of..."; or if not, shouldn't the article delve a bit into the fairly recent phenomena of dozens of critical (and some laudatory) books being written about sitting presidents? I may be too young to speak wisely on this, but it seems to me the phenomenon only began when Reagan was in office. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:57, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Keep. Worthwhile spin-off of the main article. In some cases there are simply too many works to comfortably accommodate in an article's references list. I agree the list should include pro- and con- books to be NPOV. 23skidoo 22:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 23:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge contents into appropriate articles and delete. Separating the references from the article is a bad precedent. If an article is too large, the remedy should be to split up the article, each piece carrying appropriate references. An unannotated bibliography does not stand alone as an encyclopedic article. --Tabor 00:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly...I was just imagining having hundreds of "Books about" pages. Messy, messy, messy. There are many topics that have a more extensive literature than Mr. Bush (French Revolution, World War II, Chess?). It is indeed a very bad precedent, and I don't see why a long references section is necessarily a bad thing. --Tothebarricades 01:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: It seems unlikely that all these books are actually being used as "references" in the GWB article. Books that are actually used to verify facts in that article should also be mentioned there, but as I understand it this is a general list of books about George W. Bush, not even implying that anyone here has actually turned a single page. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete. Merge into relevant articles if someone has the energy. I generally dislike lists and prefer categories but this one would set a precedent for lists of books about everything, and there are books about everything.-Splash 02:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Why would this be a bad thing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Because if you want a list of books about George W. Bush or chess or sausages or whatever, go to Amazon.com. (other online and offline bookstores are available yadda yadda) the wub "?/!" 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ...or Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Amazon.com is great, but it has no ambition to be NPOV and I can't edit its pages. Kappa 22:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Amazon strives to achieve NPOV by balancing - which is an acceptable way to do things on the Wikipedia too. It does a more thorough job of it, and maintains its NPOV better by adding everything within a narrow remit (books only) with nothing taken away, reverted, blanked, scrambled or vandalized. Such flexibility is important in WP, as is a wider remit, but there's no need to duplicate other, far more authoritative and comprehensive sources. WP:NOT a web directory, and by the same token it should not try to be a ISBN listing service. -Splash 00:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- You just made that up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ummm....? Ok, it's not Amazon's stated policy, but they must surely try to get as many books to sell as they can and they don't seem to have a POV to push in the meantime. Was that what you meant?-Splash 02:35, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I meant that the statement "Amazon strives to achieve NPOV by balancing" was a fabrication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't suppose they do it as a matter of explicit policy, no, but as a matter of implicit final-result I'm fairly sure they're pretty NPOV. -Splash 13:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A very encyclopedic list, could use expanding though. Kaibabsquirrel 22:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to agreeing with Tothebarricades, I don't think that "about George W. Bush" is a specific enough topic to keep it from falling within category 2 of WP:NOT An Indiscriminate Collection of Information. As previously noted, "Books About George W. Bush" would make a great category, but as a list, it doesn't work because it doesn't type the book: are they purposefully pro- or anti-Bush, are they about one term or both, do they even address his Presidency at all or just his Governorship of Texas, do they address one specific policy/event only, etc? To even be a useful list, the list would have to get broken up, and I don't feel right voting to keep an article that'd have to become nothing but a categorized list of books under such an "umbrella" topic, especially not when that list's better placed in the George W. Bush article and best placed in the form of a category. The Literate Engineer 04:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but annotate the list with a short comment for each book, and remove all the redlinks. I think the Literate Engineer is wrong in saying this would make a great Category. The big trouble with Categories is that they can only list books that have Wikipedia articles about them. It couldn't include books of borderline notability: important enough to be listed, but not important enough to be the subject of a whole article. And, or course, it's even harder to anotate a category than a list. Face it, categories are totally useless for this sort of thing. Give me lists any time. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete.

Rowan_Cole

Vanity page. Page history contains some more useful material, but still borderline non-notable. Firien 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KEEP I totally disagree with the above. This page is an informative article on someone who has achieved much in Surrey Police. It's people like Rowan Cole who have helped their community achieve that deserve a page on this website, not merely those who are A-List celebrities. This page should not be deleted. remark by User:62.171.198.5
Weak delete, notability not established, WP:VAIN. R adiant _>|< 14:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP This page shows that many in the community have a lot of respect for Rowan Cole. He is a notable figure within his said community and to delete this page is to delete the work of the 'little man'. This is not a VANITY page but more one of what one person can achieve..(preceding unsigned comment by Trust2005 15:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)).

previous attribution removed by 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs), now reinstated. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. He's 17, and seems likely to have a future career involving the police. If he does something larger, later in life, absolutely include him. For now, I don't think he meets our notability requirements. --Scimitar 16:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete born 1988? Getting a few awards and serving as a police cadet is not sufficient notability for a 17-year-old. Few Google hits, mostly for other peole with the same name.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP Actually with regards to the above comment when seraching through Yahoo and or Google you get quite a few hits. This chap has done great things for his community and at such a young age, it is amazing and this article should be kept. unsigned vote made by anonUser:80.3.32.9 --Scimitar 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that he has made valued contributions; but on the other hand, so have millions of other people. I've done and raised a huge lot for the communities I've been in, supported by bundles of sporting and musical achievement; but I don't feel it's encyclopedia material. By all means, it's User Page material, but the work he has done, while useful, doesn't yet reach beyond that home town. Every single cadet team was set up by someone. I feel the wording there is a little harsh, but it's the point I'm trying to make. Eventually, I'll set up my own user page properly with a bio of sorts, but it'll be a user page rather than an encyclopedia article. --Firien 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity and/or non-notable. this news article was the only thing I could find on Google. His "achievement" is the equivalent of an Eagle Scout public service project. Good for him, but it's non-notable. PS Keep votes with IP addresses and no account ... don't count. Also, wikipedia is not a who's who of great people... otherwise we could list all our best friends and favorite uncles. MPS 17:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also pointing out that the first two keep votes are from IPs who have provided the material for the page in question. --Firien 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The site is meant to include information to help and advise people from all over, one does not have to have an OBE or Knighthood. Rowan Cole is a topic that has been researched and to delete this topic would deprive the hundreds on British Police Cadets whom wish to learn about the origins of its creation. Perhaps all that is needed is a rewording of the article!!!! In Britain history is very important and one of the things any cadet learns is their institutions history. Don't delete without thinking.unsigned comment made by anonUser:80.3.32.9. Sign your votes or comments with 4 ~ --Scimitar 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but if you're looking for the history of the British Police Cadets, you go looking under British Police Cadets. --Firien 17:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - You may not have known but each Cadet unit in the UK is created in a different way, so there needs to be seperate articles for seperate forces. User:80.3.32.9
    - So where are these articles, and why don't they link to or from the page in question? --Firien 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. CDC (talk) 19:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article presents a view of England today and what is achieved by British Police forces and the ability of modern democracy to prevail.unsigned comment from 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs) — P Ingerson (talk) 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP This article should be kept because this scheme that was created was the first of its kind. This means that to delete it would be depriving people of knowledge which is true. If we were to delete this we should ask ourselves why a lot of other articles are on this site. This artilce is extremely relevant because it is a scheme which has benefitted the public by people who are of my age. Teenagers today do not have an excellent image. It is nice to see that young adults or teenagers are trying to eliminate the "yobbish" image which a majority of the public hold today thanks to the media. Well done Rowan for a smashing scheme. I would also like to remind you that Rowan had won a "High Sheriff Of Surrey Award" For his contribution. The "High Sheriff Of Surrey Award" is one of the most prestigous awards to be one. I leave you with this one question. How many other people do you know that hold an award like that? We must remember that Rowan's contribution to the public is nationally recognised. Therefore because of it must be recognised on Wikipedia. unsigned vote from 172.202.180.114 (talk · contribs) — P Ingerson (talk) 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity and sockmagnet. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete kill th eocoskputppets. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, non-notable. --Tothebarricades 20:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Honestly, some of the above votes are a bit hyperbolic. "The ability of modern democracy to prevail?" If the new cadet model is so great and emulatable, why don't you write about it in a British Police Cadets article? You can tell us all about the differences between the different cadet programs, and communities *around the world* would benefit from your service to humanity. Maybe if you set a sufficient context regarding the cadet system, voters will realize how truly important and notable Mr. Rowan's actions were. MPS 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Firstly why dont we link this article to that and secondly one is not qualified to comment on other forces when one is only fimilar with Surrey. remark from 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs)
  - Maybe if you were more familiar with Surrey you would realize that it has "one of the lowest crime rates in the country" [14] and so the job of the police cadets there isn't that hard. Also, what the *heck* is a scheme? The article mentins it like fifty times. MPS 21:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - How dare you make that arrogant comment, perhaps it is because the Police and others working so hard that crime is low. You arrogant . ... remove that comment at once, you obviously have no idea what your talking about. As for the article it should stay. remark from 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs)
    - Yeah... no offense to MPS but that was a tad demeaning. But as to 80.3.32.9, please note WP:Importance item 5. I don't think that person has enough reach as of yet to qualify for his own article. Frankly, most 17 year-olds, never mind everyone else, haven't really had enough time to establish notability worthy of an Encyclopedia article. The awards listed also seem kind of generic in the sense that a lot of people have similar awards and there is nothing really to distinguish this person from the rest of society in general. There are a lot of unsung heroes out there that save cats from trees or volunteer their time to the community but that doesn't qualify an article for them. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      - You are saying I overstated the truth? You are saying I took a fact that is technically true and tacked on superfluous conclusions about its meaning and significance? I guess you are right that it should be removed... He who has ears let him hear. MPS 13:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment A quick skim through the history file shows that there are a set of IPs (User:172.202.180.114, User:80.3.32.9, User:62.171.198.5) and one registered user (Trust2005) which are providing 'all' the keep votes. Their contribution history shows that other than the first, all have been involved in editing the Rowan_Cole article, and the first itself has only made contributions to this votes page as of time of posting. While the "High Sheriff of Surrey Award" sounds impressive, and does justify the question as above "how many other people do you know that hold an award like that?" it still begs the question of what the award actually means? I can happily claim that I have Sterling Achievement Awards in the Field of Excellence, but by not providing any further information on any such award it becomes a shell. I would be happy to see a British Police Cadets article, especially if it contained information on how to set up something similar, or gave something more informative about the Cadets rather than what we see at the moment; if the item is notable or significantly informative, then that provides a base for relevant information about Rowan Cole. However before that article has substance the Rowan Cole article remains a vanity page.

Unless I am mistaken, an anonymous comment. --Simon Cursitor 13:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eek, a threat! I'm so scared! The police will come and get me! ...Delete, take it to a group that cares - like the local newspaper. humblefool ® 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I've never heard of him. Hiding 23:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable and definitely delete once they sockpuppet. Surrey would be ashamed as would the police cadets. Obvious next sentence omitted. -Splash 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as seems there seems not to be enough importance to this person and/or his actions to justify a Wikipedia article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable cadet. JamesBurns 06:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - possibly commendable person but also one of the many, not notable as of yet at the very least. Behaviour and hyberpole of "supporters" just worsens the image of the person concerned and is rather suspicious - Skysmith 08:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - You cannot delete this page. This page has only been on Wikipedia for a few months, and it would stupid to delete it already. The whole point of Wikipedia should be to have as much infomation as possible. In addition, Rowan Cole has done great deals for the community in Surrey and his Cadet Force has set an example for others across the UK. He has also recieved far more awards than most people do in their lifetime, and he deserves to be recognised. Wikipedia is not 'Who's Who', it is not meant to list only the rich, famous and those with MBEs after their names!! Deleting Rowan Cole's article would be like deleting the work of the little man!! acswanman
Note - The IP address which often features on this page is from a public computer. This means that it is more than one person who is adding comments, not the same person each time!
Delete - and adding info about him to as many other Wikipedia pages as possible, as at least one person seems to be doing, is not a good way to establish notability. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment the sockpuppets continue to add nnanity to Hazel Blears in an attempt to give the Rowan Cole page some links-from. Reversion wars are boring.
Delete vanity. As an aside I note that the IP who has been adding this to Hazel Blears has also vandalised my userpage a couple of times today. Morwen - Talk 13:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Qwghlm 14:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. He's got plenty of time to do something encyclopedia-notable yet. Oh, and also take a close look at Surrey Police Community Support Cadets and Surrey Police Community Support Students, both of which seem to have been created in order to support the existence of this vanity page. -- The Anome 15:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Morwen is being so hypocritical. She accuses Rowan Cole's page of vanity, look at her userpage. Does anyway care if she is a LibDem (poor her) or if she is an atheist. If she wants people to know that create her own website, no one on Wikipedia really cares. And she should get a life instead of deleting articles and parts of articles, shouldn't you be at work???

There is, of course, a big difference between a User page and an article. --OpenToppedBus - Talk 15:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's missing the point. Morwen accuses Rowan Cole of vainity, pot calling kettle black in my eyes. I have a feeling Morwen, OpenToppedBus and many others are just jealous they haven't done anything to warrant an article!!!!

Delete. Vanity. He's got plenty of time to do something encyclopedia-notable yet. Oh, and also take a close look at Surrey Police Community Support Cadets and Surrey Police Community Support Students, both of which seem to have been created in order to support the existence of this vanity page. -- The Anome 15:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I began a sockpuppetry dossier at User:212.85.12.211. MPS 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
- A 'sockpuppetry dossier'!!! Why don't you listen to yourself!!!!!
Note that many unsigned notes above are work of User:Acswanman. If he is connected to blanking of Morwen's user page (and he at least defends the act) that constitutes vandalism. Anyone blocked him yet? Those who have created a full userpage do not claim to be notable. And if I met this Rowan Cole right now, I would be very suspicious of him or at least mention these events - his "friends" do not exactly improve his image with these acts. Policeman's "friends" disrupting wikipedia? - Skysmith 16:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In this edit, [15], User:Acswanman goes as far as to delete a vote! Morwen - Talk 08:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:VAIN. Hall Monitor 22:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Surrey Police Community Support Students (which is being voted for deletion as we speak, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Surrey_Police_Community_Support_Students). Rowan is not yet notable outside this project, which has a history and a future outside of him (though the article as it stands doesn't really reflect this). Doing one cool (or in this case, sketchy) project doesn't make notability. Bubamara 29 June 2005 10:06 (UTC)
- Excuse me, make that a "merge relevant info into British Police Cadets". Bubamara 29 June 2005 10:15 (UTC)
After due consideration and a discussion with Rowan Cole, he has asked me to delete the page as he felt it made him feel uncomfortable and he also felt the page was premature. He also has asked me to pass on messages of thanks to those who voted to keep the page and to send also send his regards to those who did not. (unsigned comment by 80.3.32.9)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

Shiraz Party

This isn't so much a Vote for Deletion as a request for euthanasia. This article serves no purpose, it has no context, if anyone wants to keep it they should clean it up themselves. Physchim62 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Seems to be a genuine political party with some historic significance. See [16] for instance. Pburka 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete almost speedy with its lack of content. JamesBurns 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable. —Sesel wa 20:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Improper vfd nomination. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)

Breakup Day

Made up holiday with a spam link. After patiently waiting for anything to refute this view, now it's time to delete this. Awolf002 13:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete how can it's claimed anti-commercialization stance be achieved with 'stores selling anti-valentines day' cards? John Sands wins either way. --0001 13:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, neologism. -- Natalinasmpf 15:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Compare Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/St Skeletor's Day. Uncle G 16:09, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Weak Keep or Move to Wiktionary. I disagree with unofficial holiday, but the phenomenon does exist. Peter Grey 05:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was transwiki. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Ephemeris of Mercury, Ephemeris of Mars, Ephemeris of Jupiter, Ephemeris of Saturn

Is this absolutely necessary? Apart from being well over 200kb in size, it's just a (very long) table of the position of Mercury at various times over ten years. At best it's source material. Francs2000 | Talk 13:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I have combined these four separate vfd's into one for vfd efficiency, as the articles are virtually identical in format/content. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:02, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Wikisource. R adiant _>|< 14:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if Wikisource wants this, the formatting is a bit wanting. But transwiki to Wikisource anyway, and let the users there decide whether or not they want it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki, possibly to a book of astronomical ephemeris'. :) — RJH 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikisource. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks. The raw data (while interesting to some) are not sufficiently readable for an encyclopedic antry. Physchim62 16:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wikibooks is for textbooks and manuals, which this is not. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
According to Wikisource:What is Wikisource? Wikisource includes "Mathematical data, formulas, and tables" and "Statistical source data". Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Clean up and transwiki to Wikisource.--Jyril 17:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Format properly as tables (perhaps one per year for easier rendering) and t/w to Wikisource or Wikibooks. --MarkSweep 20:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Very useful, but sadly Wikipedia isn't the place for ephemerides. Transwiki to Wikisource and tidy up. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikisource after cleanup. JamesBurns 06:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Desperately needs tidying up. MacRusgail
- Ideally if the articles are kept, the data should be placed into tables rather than leaving as is. JamesBurns 06:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete all, add source of data to Ephemeris.--Kurando 28 June 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikisource (or Wikibooks, whichever will take it). There's a limit to how almanac-like Wikipedia should be, IMO. Bryan 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was BJAODNized. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

Wikipedia Addiction

BJAODN I change my vote to BJAODN. Havok 18:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — non-scientific "condition", or else a joke. — RJH 15:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Belongs in Wikipedia namespace, and I do think it's there already. Delete as fork (or redirect if you must, but RFD is opposed to cross-namespace redirs). R adiant _>|< 15:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Kind of obvious why. -- Natalinasmpf 15:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete belongs in Wikipedia namespace and we already have pages for wikipediholics. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
As per Radiant! and MacGyverMagic, we already have Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. No BJAODN. Delete. Uncle G 16:13, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
move to BJAODN and put redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic at the place (maybe with un-capitalized 'A'). — MFH: Talk 22:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. JamesBurns 06:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No BJAODN. Another page created with the direct intent of having it on BJAODN. Strong Delete. -ÅfÇ++ 07:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and add redir to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic--ZekeMacNeil 03:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge mention into Bluetooth and redirect. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

Bcommerce

Neologism, external link is to a student's BSc Computer Science project. the wub "?/!" 14:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Bluetooth. Kinger414 16:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether it’s neologism or not, it is developing into a new applied technology. Companies like Accenture have developed their implementation too.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Kefa

Not notable. r3m0t ^talk 15:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology, translations, and meaning of a name word is what Wiktionary is for. This is not the correct spelling of the word, however. Wiktionary would want the actual Aramaic word, not its romanization, which this article does not provide. Furthermore: This isn't the NPOV title for an article the "On This Rock" dispute, since it is a title that supports one particular side in that dispute. So this is not the place to grow such an article. Delete unless rewritten about the administrative region of Ethiopia. Uncle G 18:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, small transparent green stones used for purposes of divination are inherently encyclopedic. Kappa 19:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The meaning of the name word (which wouldn't be the English title for an article about such stones anyway even if what this article said were correct, since, as this article says, it's not the English word for such things) is a part of this article that's outright wrong. Basing a rationale for keeping upon it is, to use a particularly apposite metaphor given the subject, building one's house upon sand. Uncle G 22:58, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  - Darn. But some things have no English translation, in which case a non-English title must be used. Kappa 23:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm certain that English has a word for rock. ☺ If you want to see what this article is slyly getting at, see primacy of Simon Peter. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete agree with Uncle G. JamesBurns 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tickling in Cartoons

Original research. Also, very much not maintainable. FuriousFreddy 15:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Kinger414 16:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What FFreddy said.
Delete. Like they said. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. humblefool ® 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Richmond Hill Veterinary Clinic

Non notable advertizing. Physchim62 15:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I live 5 mins from that place, and it's not really worth a mention on Wikipedia. --Madchester 16:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Haha, Delete. Kinger414 16:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Put it to sleep. CryptoDerk 16:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, this is where they said my parents were bad people for wanting to put down our very sick dog :( Anyway, delete. Adam Bishop 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep, it's as notable as a school. must... not... get... schoolkeepitis. delete Dunc|☺ 17:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Recent edits are by Peter Mollard, who shares the same last name as the chief vet there. Coincidence? I think not. --Scimitar 21:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising and advise author not to be such a giveaway. It takes all the fun out of VfD.-Splash 02:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Some user added a refernce to the clinic in the Richmond Hill, Ontario article... which I subsequently removed. --Madchester 07:47, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

William P. Kephart

The best variation ("William Kephart") only gets about 300 hits on Google, and most of the top results are unrelated. I don't see how he is more notable than most other solders. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Xcali 16:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Physchim62 16:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dale Velzy

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Physchim62 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability to surfing claimed, unverified. --Scimitar 16:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete it's a copyvio from here [17]. JamesBurns 06:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge.FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Nate

Obviously not a speedy. If it's related to Jango Fett, it's about Star Wars, but the name and contents don't help in determining if it's canon. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, or go through and totally rewrite it. It is Star Wars, as far as I can tell, but it's in such bad shape it should be trashed and started over. If someone cleans up, let me know on my talk page and I'll change my vote. --Scimitar 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to the List of minor Star Wars characters--Scimitar 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I missed the Jango Fett ref when I tagged it. I'm still voting Delete, though. --Xcali 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The force is telling me that this is pretty non-canon - do you think anybody's actually named Nate in Star Wars? Delete as likely StarWarsRPGfancruft. humblefool ® 23:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 06:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as patent nonsense. --Simon Cursitor 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First of all, this is all 100% pure canon. Nate was short for "A-98," an arc designation. This guy was one of the main characters in The Cestus Deception, one of the Clone Wars novels. Merge to List of minor Star Wars characters-LtNOWIS 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Gasp, he's right! I still say delete and create an article for The Cestus Deception instead. humblefool ® 01:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kayure

Inconsistent history; text from a previous vandal. Suspected junk. Firien 16:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Bedbury

Vanity. Well, unless a precocious teenage prodigy really has solved the Palestinian situation and I've just missed it. — P Ingerson (talk) 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This article is actually quite painful. --Scimitar 17:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete yet more typical vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fantasy vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, he may have solved the problems of the world at Model United Nations but it doesn't make him notable. --Etacar11 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. They're always male, aren't they? Perhaps Wikipedia:Males should not be allowed to edit articles is in order... humblefool ® 23:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mauri Giovanni

An article in Italian about the guitarist of a local band. The article, the website of the band and a Google search do not establish notability, in my opinion. Sietse 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable and not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Elliott

Not notable, vanity. KFP 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. --Etacar11 23:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics

Useless Iuy 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - while speculative and seemingly a long way ahead, it is tagged as such and more information will come, there is already information on Denver possible bid. There is significant information already available on 2016. Article link: 2020 Summer Olympics - comment: nominated by User:Dafr who has no other edits. The nomination is not formatted quite correctly but I have not time to fix.--AYArktos 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Minor comment -- parts of this (esp re Denver) seem to me to be POV; other parts seem vaguely crystal-ball-ish, which I thought was a Wiki no-no. --Simon Cursitor 06:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge the possible bidders are verifiable information. And bids for the Olympics are always done far in advance. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
As much as I don't really like it, the 2020 Summer Olympics will be happening, so I have to vote keep. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. There are no actual bidders yet, only possible bidders, which is speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 01:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Harmless and Wikipedia should cover topics of wide interest, even if they are in the future. CalJW 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep We know for sure that the 2020 Olympics are happening. And JamesBurns says that comment for everything. --WikiFan04^{ß 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
I'd say keep. It's good to look a few Olympic Games ahead - 2020 will come around eventually, even though it seems a long way off now (but then, so did this year in 1990). I don't think we should be writing about the 2024 Summer Olympics for a few years though.
Keep. If the Olympics cease to exist we can delete it. — Phil Welch 04:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Straight from WP:NOT: "Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles. " --Malathion 2 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
Keep - Similar discussion at the GTA4 page. Guys, there are some things you can safely insert as place holder. It helps build the community of information on wikipedia. If there was no page, then people who may have useful information will be turned away. That's the last thing a small growing project like Wikipedia needs. There's a reason the {future} tag was invented. If Wiki didn't want speculation, the {future} tag would be a deletion device. It is not. However, I can see there are those who like to follow the rules to the letter. I encourage everyone who voted delete, and all former elementary school hall monitors, to go find all {future} tags here and tag them bitches with VFD to death. (p.s. I might do it if no one else does as a protest against the silly crystal ball rule) --Muchosucko 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
Keep -- The Olympic Games are a recognized event, and even though 2020 is still 15 years away (as I'm writing this), there is a reason why people are talking about and/or planning for an event of this magnatude. Maybe an article such as the 2032 or 2036 Olympics – which are still years away – are not suitable, but I agree with Muchosucko. [[206.72.11.46 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)]]
Keep - lots of info will happen soon CoolGuy

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was deleted FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)

Beer Can Chicken

copyvio of ISBN 0761120165. Straight deletion since this recipe should be in wikibooks if it was not using copyright material. Theo (Talk) 17:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep the non-copyvio, non-recipe part. Kappa 18:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all copy-vio recipes. --Scimitar 18:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio, should be dealt with there. I added the copyvio tag, put on copyright problems page. Wikibofh 18:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 06:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Indirect grilling. Having considered this further in the light of Kappa's astute recognition that it is not all copyvio.—Theo (Talk) 08:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Helivator

Was tagged as speedy and sounds like vanity but no one is deleting it. They do have an entry at Allmusic guide. What should I do? (Abstain) - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You list it here, of course. Delete - article itself says "unrecognised". humblefool ® 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete very short article with little or no context. -Splash 02:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity page Billhpike Billhpike 02:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

S. Dhanabalan

Was tagged as speedy, but no one seems to delete it. I'd like to have some input from the general public to see what to do. I abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 18:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I updated the article (slightly) to point out that he is a Singaporean politician. Needs a bit of work, but otherwise perfectly fine article. -Hmib 20:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only an initial? Doesn't this guy have a first name? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Sigh, doesn't anyone know anything about southern indian names? Dhanabalan is his first name. S. is the initial of his father's first name (Suppaiah). S. Dhanabalan is the correct way to specify his name, assuming you don't take an anglo-saxon view of the world!
As strange as that might sound, it seems that "S Dhanabalan" IS his full name. See [this link]. It's an official Singapore government website. -Hmib 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Why did you think it was worthy of speedy deletion in the first place, seeing how it was verifiable and NPOV, and given a source? In case you didn't know, this was a very highlighted issue during the national press conferences, I mean, I don't go around tagging American political events and rallies for vfd or speedy delete now do I? And about the names, its the result of translation from his ethnic name...can people stop presuming things? Let me guess, 2 or 3 other people will suddenly charge and vote delete too, knowing nothing of the fact that this is a key case where authoritarian abuse goes scot-free? This was a highly controversial and heated point in Singapore's history, in case you did not know. Can you please check google and check the presence of sources before marking it for deletion next time? -- Natalinasmpf 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I moved the page as per correct name. Please respect actual and reputable sources, unless something happened overnight I don't know about, suddenly it has to be documented by a server in the West in order to qualify. -- Natalinasmpf 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, please. Mgm listed it here so that it didn't get speedily deleted without discussion, and furthermore didn't vote on it himself. He just wanted to see what we all thought. It is now clear that the consensus is to keep this valuable article. --Scimitar 22:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear- keep. --Scimitar 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but I find it hard to believe that "S" is a name in any language. Sometimes you need to shout a name... Kappa 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Aha! "Dhanabalan, who doesn't disclose what the S is for in his full name..."[18] Kappa 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Famously, see: Harry S Truman Xoloz 06:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this one too please Yuckfoo 23:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Definite Keep. I'm all for proper VfDs as the next man, but really, the person who originally tried to speedy it (not Mgm, I hasten to say), could have Just Googled it and prevented this rather pointless discussion. --khaosworks 08:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
keep --Vsion 04:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mr Tan 17:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 28 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Doctor cowie

Delete. Non-notable, malformed title, written partly in first person. Jyril 18:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Btw 18:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, sounds like it was written by one of her students. No notability evidenced in the article. --Etacar11 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lots of notability mentioned. She excelled in all her school exams and graduated with a PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.147.164 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2005 Jun 21
Delete. Non-notable. --Canderson7 17:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
It is noted many times that she posseses invaluable experience and knowledge in the field of chemistry.
- Unsigned comment made by User:172.202.147.164 -- Wikibofh 18:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm not a member so I can't sign the comments. Its not like you can post a signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.14.232 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2005 Jun 22
- Anyone can sign xyr own posts on talk pages. Uncle G 15:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE! This is an invaluable source on the renowned chemist Dr Cowie, and a lasting tribute to a woman unfortunately recently diagnosed with breast cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.165.83.216 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2005 Jun 23
- Wikipedia is not a memorial for tributes to people with breast cancer. Uncle G 15:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Neil Antin

Assistant location movie on an obscure movie. NN. silsor 18:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete him and his siblings; they're all nonnotable. (And how two siblings could be born five months apart is beyond me.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe they had different mothers? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Or adoption, or she lies about her age.(unsigned comment by User:206.201.180.226)
Delete. Although Lost in America is not an obscure movie (it has a respectible run back in the day, & merited a review on NPR), I find it hard to justify an article on someone whose most notable achievement was "assistant location manager" in a movie -- any movie. (A check at Internet Movie Database fails to uncover any other achievements for Antin.) What next -- articles on "personal assistants" to all of the stars in The Matrix? -- llywrch 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete family vanity. JamesBurns 06:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete but not the siblings. One is the star of a current tv show, one is the founder of the most famous burlesque show in the USA and one was an actor in several large movies in the 80s.(unsigned vote by User:206.201.180.226)

Delete Agreed, not the siblings.AriGold 19:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Don't forget to sign your votes with 4 ~. --Etacar11 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Sorry, Hogeye. Golbez 01:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-socialism vs. Anarcho-capitalism

One of User:Hogeye's 27 fork pages so that he could get his bias into wikipedia somewhere. It's a copy of another useless page, Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism. Can something be done about this user? --Tothebarricades 18:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Highly POV. Comparison is irrelevant Barneygumble 21:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV forks. JamesBurns 06:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete // Liftarn 07:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as the comparison is completely obvious. Falcon 05:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirected. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)

Retentionist

rebundant with Use of death penalty worldwide unsigned nomination by 500LL (talk · contribs)

Delete. Not only a poorer-quality version of another list, but is written in a POV/ inaccurate manner. (It specifically says that this is a list of countries who use the death penalty for minor crimes, and inclueds the US. Last I checked, drug traficking, murder or treason were not considered minor). --Scimitar 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Use of death penalty worldwide. — Gwalla | Talk 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Use of death penalty worldwide. First Google hit is Amnesty's website dealing with term. WP:NOT a dictionary, usually, but this does appear to be a proper concept and the article as-is isn't a dicdef.-Splash 02:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Move definition to Wiktionary. List is subjective and/or meaningless without a definition of 'ordinary crime'. Peter Grey 05:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete and DO NOT redirect because even if this term is actual, it is clearly a loaded one and therefore WP should not even acknowledge that it exists. Falcon 05:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure I get your reasoning there. It's one thing to be unbiased; it's another to deny that biased terms exist or have meaning. — Gwalla | Talk 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result was No Consensus. CitiCat^♫ 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janner

neologism - only sources UD Will ^(talk) 07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep grudgingly - this is definitely not a neologism, however this article does have absolutely no sources, which could be rectified, but will require someone going to a bookshop or library.Stevebritgimp 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki — while I agree with those above who say this is not a neologism, it seems unlikely that enough research has been done into the accent/dialect to be able to create a fully sourced article with content beyond that suitable for Wiktionary. --Safalra 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep not much to go on, but I'll check this in the library on Monday. I'm only 25 miles from Plymouth so they may have something. Totnesmartin 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: No luck at my small-town library, somebody would have to check in Plymouth itself. Totnesmartin 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article has been transwikied. I've tagged it in case its now worthy of speedy delete. Moonriddengirl 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've denied the request for speedy deletion. I'd rather see the article kept if it can be sourced properly which, apparently, seems to be a bit of a challenge. On the other hand, some of the content (in particular concerning the evolution of the term) is clearly inappropriate for Wiktionary but would in fact be very much suitable for Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a basic book reference to the meaning from Cyril Tawney, who is/was a credible authority. Gordonofcartoon 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. Now referenced and is an accurate article. MurphiaMan 06:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all 4. CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

S.W.M., Theology of Sanjan, The Theology of Sanjan and Sanjan (religion)

~~Two~~ ~~three~~ four articles on a tiny religion based in the San Fernando Valley and its founder. Not notable/promotion/vanity. silsor 19:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. --Xcali 19:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --WAvegetarian 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Based on the user's past contributions (User:24.126.43.134), he is likely the founder or member himself. The name seems to be based on the Sanjan community article this anon wrote. Delete. --Scimitar 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --W i k i a c c 19:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is B. Mcfarlane, a disciple of S.W.M.. It is correct, this is the computer from which myself and other followers often use. Before considering deletion, please contact me at {removed because of unprecedented exposure to this page} There are other followers who can testify in its defense. unsigned edit by 24.126.43.134 (talk · contribs)

If your friends want to argue against the deletion of these page, they should do so right here. silsor 19:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is S. Halifax, another follower. Please do not delete. We are a small but growing sect that desires exposure. unsigned edit by 24.126.43.134 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The Wikipedia reports on things that are notable. It is not a place to create publicity. --Xcali 19:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
STRONG Delete nn and ne, especially in light of preceding quote. This site is not called Wiki-Proselytizing. There is an enormous, well established network of places to "spread knowledge" of little know sects and and products; it's called Advertising. Kevin/Last1in 19:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Theologycruft and a sockmagnet. — P Ingerson (talk) 19:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What they said. Wikipedia is not a PR-wire. NTK 19:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Halifax. I have taken back my previous assertion. We do not wish to advertise, but understand that Wikipedia is place to come for answers. If one hears talk of Sanjan on the street, this is a wonderful place to come for answers. More defense is on its way. Give us a chance, we are not looking for money, or even followers.

Further, please excuse earlier vandalism by this IP. Teenagers have access to this computer and have been reckless.

unsigned edit by Bndr McFarlane (talk · contribs)

Comment - clarification of my 'Stong Delete' vote, using approved Wiki shorthand from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion: Theo-cruft, ne, nn, POV, promotional, advertorial, Wikispam, too secret. That's like half the list of good reasons to delete an article, especially in light of the author commentary. Kevin/Last1in 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Why would a "highly secretive" group desire publicity on WP? --Xcali 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - why are "McFarlane" and "Halifax" editing from the same account? silsor 20:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The exact pillars of thought are known only to followers, though we understand the concern and have and can continue to adjust the articles accordingly. We dont desire publicity. Halifax has access to this computer as well.

unsigned edit by Bndr McFarlane (talk · contribs)

Comment - They are a "small sect that desires publicity" but they "do not wish to advertise" and "are not looking for money or even followers"? We can have an article about this group when there is anyone talking about Sanjan on the street, besides the one or two people apparently behind it. NTK 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Basically, non-notable. While I can sympathize with your group's desire to be known, there are too many small groups for each to be notable. Also, a secret group cannot rightly have an Encyclopedia entry about it, now can it? -- Cabhan 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
here is a signature for you nitpickers--Bndr McFarlane 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
deleteDunc|☺ 20:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

do not delete these pages. i am a follower of the religion of sanjan, it is real. do not be ignorant. please do not delete.

SANJAN IS REAL!!!! I BELIEVE!!!! DONT DELETE!!!!! unsigned edit by 64.60.54.131 (talk · contribs)

Sanjan, though it has not yet been recognized by congress as an official religion, is in fact, a real religion, as has been outlined by one S.W.M. according to his spiritual vision. To delete the articles on Sanjan is to undermine the spiritual beliefs of said S.W.M., as well as every other follower of Sanjan. Do not delete Sanjan. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
Sanjan is a real religion. I am a devout follower, and it hurts to know that there are people trying to delete the pages that mean so much to me. Do not delete, believe! unsigned edit by 69.234.196.100 (talk · contribs)
Yes. Yes it is quite a religion. What I see in the sanjan followers is no different then what i see in christian and jewish followers. This religion is a way of life and if you take this away from these people, you are essentially stealing their soul. Thats how you get terrorists... unsigned edit by 71.129.48.32 (talk · contribs)
Comment: There's a big difference between Sanjan and Judeo-Christianity. It's a case of sheer numbers. Over 1/6th of the world's population is a believe in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Removing a Wikipedia entry steals someone's soul? Hmmm...I must remember that when removing vanity articles. Okay, who deleted the article on Al Qaeda? That must be what caused the September 11 attack. --Xcali 20:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The previous five anonymous voters have <5 edits, and all in Sanjan related articles. I would suggest either sock- or meat- puppetry, and point out that the existence of the religion is not being debated here; rather it's relevance to Wikipedia and the world as a whole.--Scimitar 20:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i have heard of sanjan and i know people that follow. unsigned edit by 207.200.116.6 (talk · contribs)
- Comment: User has a history of vandalism. --Scimitar 20:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would kindly like to point out in response to Xcali's comment that Judaism and Christianity began as small faiths as well. Sanjan is one of the fastest growing belief systems in America. I have already addressed the vandalism issue, and find it utterly irrelevant that the gambols of a 14-year-old nephew on this machine be connected to this highly serious discussion.--Bndr McFarlane 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Counter-arguments seem to suggest that deletion of the article will destroy the religion... in which case, there will be nothing to have an article on... in which case, there never should have been an article... in which case, there should not be an article now. (Note: this vote is now from the future, when there is no such article, from when it was/will be cast backwards in time). -- BD2412 ^talk 21:03, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Where exactly do counter-arguments suggest that deletion of the article will destroy the religion? Sanjan will remain strong and growing whether or not the article exists. The question is whether or not you want to undermine and show a complete lack of respect for the spiritual beliefs of others by deleting the article. The issue is freedom of religion, plain and simple. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
You're free to have your religion. You're just not free to place an article about it in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Xcali 21:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: True, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all started small and grew over thousands of years into major forces in world events. ~~You should probably check back with Wikipedia in 3900 years, 2010 years, and 1490 years (respectively) and resubmit your article.~~ {struck with apologies for the snide tone.} At this point, it is still non-encyclopedic, POV and advertorial. Also, as to the "freedom of religion", Wikipedia is NOT a US government institution, it is an international collective enterprise; it has specific rules which detail what kinds of material are appropriate. The reason that your articles are on this page is so the worldwide Wiki community can collectively determine if they meet those guidelines. Kevin/Last1in 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the comment about "check[ing] back with Wikipedia in 3900 years, 2010 years, and 1490 years" to be offensive and an insult to my intelligence, considering that, as far as I know, no human could possibly live this long. Perhaps you should save your jokes and sarcasm for amateur night at your local comedy club, or maybe even to impress some ladies at the pub. Otherwise, your apparently witty comments have no place in this serious discussion. In addition to this, I fail to see how the articles are non-encyclopedic, POV or advertorial. However, the articles are informational, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wiki has any policy prohibiting information. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Xcali 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would also suggest that if you took offense to those comments, you need to develop a thicker skin. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, and your religion gets no media coverage anywhere, as far as I can tell. Feel free to prove me wrong. Now, because WP:NOT a crystal ball, we can't peer into the future and see if someday you might be important to many people, because right now you evidently are not. Thus, an article will be only written if and when your religion becomes noteworthy. --Scimitar 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
wow, my little articles have sparked quite an exciting discussion, for better or worse. thanks for the support, for those who have been supporting, and even for the anti-Sanjan responses, for your continued interest on this topic. --Bndr McFarlane 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: No-one here is anti-Sanjan. We're just anti-articles-about-Sanjan. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so far we know that Wikipedia is not a) a soapbox and b) a crystal ball. I might also point out that it is not c) a state of mind or d) a toaster. The list of what Wikipedia isn't could go on and on. Unfortunatley, what Wikipedia is not, is also not relevant to this conversation. Please define "noteworthy," because I know a great deal of people who consider Sanjan to be very noteworthy indeed. unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)

Comment In a way, it's up to each user of the Wikipedia to define it for themself. There are guidelines, but in the end, they are just guidelines, not rules. The Google test is one popular method. --Xcali 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I respect your opinions, and appreciate your support, user, but the purpose here is not to perpetuate arguments. If the Wikipedia team choose to be unresponsive to (or even prejudiced toward) our burgeoning faith, they have every right. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's true, and if the tides of the modern age swell against us, then we must continue to look to the skies with or without the knowledge of the online community. --Bndr McFarlane 21:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand, and I apologize for my increasingly hostile responses. I just get so upset with this complete lack of respect for our faith, the articles of which have as much a right to be here as every other article on Wikipedia. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
- Please explain this right. I don't understand it. silsor 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- What about your lack of respect for the Wikipedia, its community, and its "beliefs"? --Xcali 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Right" was perhaps a poor word-choice. I simply believe that if you are going to delete the articles on Sanjan than you might as well just start deleting everything else as well.unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
- If I didn't respect the Wikipedia, then I wouldn't be here arguing for these articles in the first place.unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
  - Comment: Please respect Wikipedia by signing your comments 69.231.58.181. Thank you. --Durin 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Clarification: Wikipedia is neither for or against any religion. It is non-denominational. However, Wikipedia strives only to include information that can be verified by independent sources. Since I can't find any, and its adherents here have provided none, I have no choice but to support the removal of the articles in question. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the religion, which are in fact non-existent. --Scimitar 22:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i recieved this message in support from a user: "User talk:24.126.43.134 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

please save. i believe. i really believe." --Bndr McFarlane 22:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My name is Tomas, and Sanjan has saved my life. I tried Christianity, Judaism, even Zen buddhism, but it wasn't until a monk at the Zen Center of Los Angeles referred me to the religion of Sanjan that i found something that really spoke to me. unsigned comment by 68.66.102.239 (talk · contribs)
Independent sources, please. The beliefs of anonymous individual adherents (or even non-anonymous ones) have no bearing on the discussion. --Scimitar 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's back up a bit. Most Wikipedians (including Jimbo in his Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance post) feel there are two essential elements for any encyclopedic article: Verifiability and NPOV. Is it possible to create a Sanjan article that passes both tests? IMHO, you cannot write one that passes either. The religion is "secret" and "exclusive", so verification is only possible by referring to Sacred Texts (a tautology), or by deferring to adherents (which violates objectivity). Since only adherents will be able to effectively edit Wikipedia articles, POV is inescapable. Until such time as Sanjan becomes a discernable, well-known influence in society or a topic of wide public discourse, I do not think encyclopedic articles can be created. PS: The list of things Wikipedia is not is found here. Also, I am not anti-Sanjan. I have as much respect for your faith as any other; I just have no faith in the encyclopedic value of your article. Kevin/Last1in 22:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
in response, the post "i have heard of sanjan and i know people that follow. unsigned edit by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs)" from this anonymous user, who is obviously not an "adherent", gives an objective verification of Sanjan's relevence. --24.126.43.134 22:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- - But the comment of an anonymous poster is not Verifiable evidence. How can we verify that he/she/it(?) was telling the truth? — P Ingerson (talk) 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Something just doesn't feel right about deleting this article... let it sit for a few months, let the articles evolve a bit, and revisit this one later if necessary. We could probably do with merging/redirecting the articles. (I don't know about that copied/pasted text in there, though. Do religious texts count as copyvios?) Almafeta 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why does it not feel right to delete something for which we have no secondary sources whatever and is completely unverifiable? Delete. Uncle G 23:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable nonsense. Gamaliel 23:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Vanity, hoax, near-nonsense, unverifiable, self-promotional, excessive sockpuppets: pick any you like. "an obscure school of thought that involves rigorous sky-watching and, by some accounts, cannabis use" pretty much says it all. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Even without the sock-puppets, it's advertisement/self-promotion. --Etacar11 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. To counter the arguement about the christian/judeo thing: If Wikipedia had existed at the time of christ, we wouldn't have had an article on him either. Wikipedia doesn't care how enlightened you are, how groundbreaking your religion is, or even how much you beg. What we want in an article is some objectivity, some encyclopedic worth, and a healthy slice of humble pie. I see none of that here. humblefool ® 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is this very animosity that christ recieved at the hands of the Pharisees. do some self-realization before making assumptions. Sanjan is spreading fast; even established underground hip hop artist McTimbo now looks to the skies. --24.126.43.134 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who? Isn't "estabilshed underground" an oxymoron? --Xcali 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Christ and Christians faced animus due to their beliefs. IMHO, you are facing resistance from people who are unwilling to see an objective encyclopaedia hijacked to provide free advertising for your organisation. Animus, if any, seems directed towards your commentary in this forum, where you persist in disregarding the mores and customs of this community. Note that all "deleters" used valid Wiki criteria and formatting for their posts; all but one of the "keepers" did not (suggesting, not proving, that active members of this community are not impressed with the encyclopaedic value of these articles). Just an opinion. Kevin/Last1in 01:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wrt Almafeta better to delete the article now and allow it back in if Sanjan still exists in 5 years --202.173.129.184 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete!!! My eyes!!! Now let's put it this way - I start a religion called the Theology of Abrakadabra the Benevolent, rush-produce a 'sacred text' on the magnitude of "in the begginning god cr8d da haevens and da eath", claims to be a reclusive religion that I want everyone to know about. Someone put my article on vfd. Would it survive? - In other words: Non notable, vanity, POV, and I'm afraid, a bit Looney Tunes. (But that's just my personal opinion). -Hmib`

Delete vanity verging on nonsense (I will go their hell if I must). The point made about Christ not qualifying for an entry at the time he was preaching in the temple is an insightful one here. -Splash 02:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with our posts, but to mock us on the order of a cartoon show is humiliating and a sacrilege. We are deeply offended by this disrespect.--24.126.43.134 02:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am awaiting the righteous wrath of thy god, Abrakadabra the Benevolent. Delete! Delete! And again I say DELETE! -Hmib 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongest Delete and block recreation from obvious vandals. Xoloz 06:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, church vanity. JamesBurns 06:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete per User:Scimitar and User:Last1in. Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable and strive for NPOV. Unless independent sources can be provided this isn't going to happen. We can't even proof Sanjan is growing at the rate you state. Note: People, please be considerate and don't mock with someone's religion. Witty vote comments don't belogn here. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Strong strong delete. Cultcruft. Ban those responsible. — Phil Welch 03:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - A Google search for "Sanjan religion" (no quotes) returns 827 sites. As far as I can tell, they seem to refer to a kingdom of Sanjan, which is a part of the Zoroastrian religion. That said, I believe that your religion exists, and I believe that you follow it closely, and I believe that to you, it is your religion. I also believe that those who are mocking you are wrong in doing so. However, it cannot be argued that your religion, due to secrecy, cannot be verified in regards to any information that we put down. Its notability to the general world is not significant (again, I quote the Google search). I (and I hope we) are not anti-Sanjan, merely anti-unnotable articles. When your religion has grown and is more notable for an encyclopedia, I have no doubt that an article will be allowed. -- Cabhan 17:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)

The Spores

Non-notable band. "The Spores"+Biribauer gets 14 Google hits. Their website is pretty impenetrable, but it seems they've only played regionally, mostly in California, and their recordings seem to be self-produced.—Wahoofive (talk) 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete (unsigned vote by Chairboy)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What does that article even mean? Haikupoet 01:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Staple (band)

This is an advertisement for a likely non-notable band. As a quick googling shows, the text is lifted straight from the band's promotional biography. Since this is not noted in either the text or the talk, this probably a copyright violation as well. NTK 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn band vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyright problems is along the corridor, three doors down. Uncle G 00:24, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that. However copyvio usually presumes it's worth having an article on the topic to begin with. VfD moots copyvio, so there's no sense in bothering with researching the status of the text or rewriting it if the article should be deleted for being promotional, non-notable bandcruft. NTK 08:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite. This is not band vanity; however, the person who made the article copied it from the Solid State Records website, which does make it sound like band vanity (it's more actual label vanity =P ).—Sixteen Left 02:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep but rewrite done - was working on categorisation Paul foord 2 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Alfonso R. Quiroz

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

Beef (music)

Slang dictdef, bad title. This article has nothing to do with music; the only connection is its use in hip-hop and rap. Incidentally, the term is not rap-specific the way, say, "phat" or "bling" is: the use of the word "beef" as a slang term for "hostility" or "grudge" is pretty old (the OED gives a citation from 1889, and a Damon Runyon quote from 1932). The slang definition is already found at wiktionary:beef — Gwalla | Talk 19:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Simply wrong. Any useful information could be merged elsewhere. NTK 19:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above. --Tothebarricades 20:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, an article on disputes in hip-hop would make very interesting reading (I could write the eighties section of it myself), but this stub doesn't do the job. If anybody wants to collaborate on such an article, leave a message for me on my talk page. The bridge is over.illWill 20:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duh. I should have checked - hip hop rivalries is a great article, so redirect to there.illWill 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Hip hop rivalries, no merge--FuriousFreddy 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge content to Hip hop rivalries but then delete without redirect since noone will search for it with the brackets. I suppose it would have to go on a disambig page if we keep it.-Splash 02:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "merge and delete" is invalid. After a merge, the redirect must remain to preserve page history per the GFDL. — Gwalla | Talk 03:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I said merge content, not just merge. I mean, if someone's feeling brave enough, they could extract the relevant sentence-or-so of this article and put it in Hip hop rivalries.
  - Fair enough. I think, though, that there really isn't any content here to merge that isn't already covered in hip hop rivalries. — Gwalla | Talk 21:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, I'm probably inclined to agree, although I must admit to being a little vague on what the GFDL says about these kinds of things. The same sort of effect could be achieved by someone 'rewriting' in their own words the text they wished to merge if the GFDL gets spikey.-Splash 00:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete disputed information, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete the point that this term is broader than music and already appears in other dictionary entries is sufficient to delete this article. --billlund 04:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

Bahamas Shrimp Wranglers

Non-notable team (6 Google hits for the string) in a (amateur?) league that I can't verify exists. --Xcali 19:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I did find Google verification, although it was tricky. (Search string "Bahamas Football", then searched on results for "Shrimp", then had to look at the Google cache at http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:T1-eRz_NEhUJ:www.bahamasfootballassoc.com/team.html+Bahamas+Football+shrimp&hl=en&start=1 & found them listed for the Grand Bahama Football League 2003/2004 season.) Unfortunately, "non-noteable" is not a good reason to delete, so unless you can find good reason to list Grand Bahama Football League for VfD, it's a keeper. Sorry. -- llywrch 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at the actual website, it seems to me that both the team and the league are not notable. It doesn't seem much different than the amateur leagues that form through out the world. I know of several leagues and teams at my local park district. They're great and all that, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Xcali 04:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - If that is your final answer, then when can we expect GBFL & the related articles to appear here? -- llywrch 22:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I was going to wait to see how this turned out first. I figured there's no sense in wasting time on those if this is kept. --Xcali 20:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems noteable, as what llywrch says. It should be kept. LAGalaxyRock72

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedied as test FCYTravis 5 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Sample article title

Seems like a test page to eventually create St Andrew's College. Mindmatrix 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is in copyvio. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else marked this for VfD but it was never posted over here. Looks like teachercruft. No reason given, no vote. Kelly Martin 20:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete

Unsigned vote by User:Chairboy (really this time :) Wikibofh 20:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Vote by Kelly Martin -- Wikibofh 20:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

The above is NOT my vote. I specifically cast no vote in any of these VfDs. Kelly Martin 20:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. When looking at the history you were the only one other than myself to edit. I'll check again and correct. Wikibofh 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Adding other teachers for this school to this VfD Wikibofh 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, please--Scimitar 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~or Merge~~ with DeSales_High_School where I believe they are teachers. High school teachers, unless they have done something unusual, are non-notable. Wikibofh 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: They are already in the high school article. No reason to create individual articles simply to avoid red-links. Don't make them links. Changing my vote accordingly. Wikibofh 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete The teachers are already mentioned on the page, and putting their bios in isn't appropriate for the high school or for their own article. --Xcali 20:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Allowing this level of cruft for every single high school in the world would be the death of Wikipedia. Gamaliel 21:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity, borderline vandalism since user has been warned. You (Talk) 21:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Temted to speedy them all, but I'll wait. I blocked the anon adding them for 2 hours as he didn't seem to care about the warnings and kept on adding. Shanes 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: What's the record for most articles in one VfD? --Xcali 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)`

Well if User:Shanes hadn't so precipitously blocked the anon (I'm kiddng!!! :) we could have set a new one. :) Wikibofh 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: I picked up the Paul Riker one and then found these. I've now redirected the Paul Riker VfD to here. --Durin 21:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice Do not merge into their unnotabel schools. Dunc|☺ 22:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, non-notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:09, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete non-notable Billhpike 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete the lot. I saw these appearing at the time and wondered what would happen to them. -Splash 02:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Bob Burns? Delete. Vanity. Ted Mullen? Delete. Vanity. Scott Redding? Delete. Vanity. Joan Gallagher? Delete. Vanity. Jeff Henderson? Delete. Vanity. Kathryn Pray? Delete. Vanity. Brian Pedraza? Delete. Vanity. Tammy LeClair? Delete. Vanity. Beryl Tracey? Delete. Vanity. Doreen DeSain? Delete. Vanity. Stan Prazkowicz? Delete. Vanity. Joe Dan Tipps? Delete. Vanity. Mike Thomas? Delete. Vanity. Kathy Theimer? Delete. Vanity. Paul Riker? Delete. Vanity. Dagmar Nearpass? Keep- oh no, scratch that, I meant to say, Delete. Vanity. ~~Truly this is disgusting.~~CanadianCaesar 02:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, biting the newbies isn't very pleasant to see. Kappa 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, sorry, but they said it was a vandal, not a newbie. I'm still kind of new myself. CanadianCaesar 02:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - It was a little of both. It was a newbie who turned into a vandal when he didn't stop after being advised that what he was doing probably wasn't appropriate. --Xcali 03:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, vanity. JamesBurns 06:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of them. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vote transfer the following votes are brought in from the debate on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cindy Costa (by Xcali):
- Looks like your basic high-school teacher vanity page by some student. Delete as nnanity. — JIP | Talk 11:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Delete all the others too, as nnanity. — JIP | Talk 14:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Student vanity. - Longhair | Talk 11:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete — and the same editor ([User:129.44.238.198]) is creating many other similar pages, for example Brian Pedraza, Kevin Rhinehart. Bill 12:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity --mtz206 12:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Christ, I knew the school articles would lead to something like this. Delete, and someone do a cleanup on DeSales High School. It needs it. -R. fiend 16:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of them, nn student vanity. --Idont Havaname 21:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity, all of them. --Etacar11 23:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of them. Teachers coming after schools. - Skysmith 09:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, since schools are notable, teachers and individual Quiznos shops are too. No vote. — Phil Welch 03:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete This guy Bob Burns doesn't seem famous in anyway if he really is a strong cleanup is what I would say GeneralTY39
Delete Wow. Just... wow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was transwikied. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

Nesh

Dictionary definition, short, orphan — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikitionary. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yorkshire, UK, slang adjective word for someone who feels the cold.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Transcendence (guild)

Vanity page? Gibberish? Who knows?! 84.92.39.130 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:51, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Speedy delete, but has apparently been transwikied already.-Splash 02:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: No doubt about it.--Adoniscik 23:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As a side note, are anon users allowed to nominate articles? Keep it here, though: I second the nomination.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Clef (disambiguation)

No point in disambiguating to pages which don't exist.—Wahoofive (talk) 20:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A brief Google survey suggests that a page on Cross Language Evaluation Forum should exist, and the creation of this disambig suggests that the creator intends that it will. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:51, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Keep as above. Kappa 22:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above. --Scimitar 22:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment even if Cross Language Evaluation Forum is a legit article, this should just be a dablink from Clef, not a separate disambiguation page. The French translation is already mentioned in Clef and doesn't apply to the acronym.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good disambiguation page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Jane Barton

Incomprehensible gibberish. I gather she's an academic who likes researching Aristotle. Lovely. Notability is not even remotely indicated here. Scimitar 20:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: She's apparently the "Wellcome Trust Post-doctoral Fellow" at Oriel. James F. (talk) 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, lecturer at an elite university. Kappa 23:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails the professor test. Got her PhD in 2003, so is certainly less widely known and less well-published than the average college professor since she's not been around as long as the average. Lecturing at a Uni isn't notable, and even at an elite Uni, it is no statement of anything in particular since grad. students can be asked to lecture. Being a "Wellcome Trust Post-doctoral Fellow" indicates that this is probably her first (maybe second, but unlikely in just 2 years) contract after her PhD (DPhil, technically). She's also not listed on the College's staff page so appears not to have been awarded a College fellowship to go with her Wellcome Trust one. -Splash 02:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- She's a lecturer, not a just grad student. Kappa 10:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I meant that being a lecturer doesn't establish notability because 'anybody' can be asked to do it.-Splash 11:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There seems to be a somewhat more notable Jane Barton in library science [19], but even that's pushing it. Give her a few more years to make an impression. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep if expanded. Marginal notability. JamesBurns 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep might well be expanded if she's new, give a few terms to make a decent contribution. Couldn't find fellows list of Oriel College.
- She's apparently not a fellow of the college, she doesn't get a * on this page: [20]. Kappa 10:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The link I have to College staff doesn't list her at all. This is presumably because she's so new, but if she was at all notable, they'd have made sure she had a mini-bio on that page along with the rest of the staff. She's going to need years before getting close to being "an averge college professor", unless her PhD was utterly incredible — this seems unlikely of they'd have given her a College Fellowship. -Splash 11:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Congrats on the rewrite. The article I read was much worse, and this one is no longer incomprehensible gibberish. I still don't think she passes the AP test though. --Scimitar 13:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Echobrain

Was tagged as speedy. 440 google hits ("Jason Newstead" Echobrain). No vote at this time. Wikibofh 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. One sentence long, no claim to notability, and no relevent information. --Scimitar 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable band. JamesBurns 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Polikaka

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Millionaire

Speedy nominator said; "Patent Nonsense--looked this up on Google and can find nothing on this". I found several links on Active Worlds, but doubt it's notability. Please advise. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the auditions section in which they asked for players as advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I can't verify this, and I can't peer into the future, either. Can I borrow Wikipedia's crystal ball? Wait, you don't have one, because WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. --Scimitar 21:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Try awnews.org, articles by GSK. There, you'll find validation of this.
Did you guys even think to read the word "UNOFFICIAL" in the article? I guess not.
- Unsigned comments by User:24.251.120.250. — Phil Welch 03:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest, then, that we wait until it is "OFFICIAL", before having an article about it. --Scimitar 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - look at the last couple of sentences. It's an online thing, run by some evidently capable graphics programmer. It isn't notable by virtue of its unofficiality, and is probably an ad too (albeit with the unusual omission of a link).-Splash 01:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising for a non notable online game. JamesBurns 06:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete The article won't be "official" because it won't be on the national airwaves. If you want, I'll even give out a photo or two of the set. I'm a friend of the guy who wrote this.
- Unsigned comment by User:24.251.120.250. — Phil Welch 03:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Delete. — Phil Welch 03:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete for patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 01:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article 239

Primary source material. Apart from being badly titled and badly Wikified, this article is just an excerpt from the text of the Treaty of Versailles. The full text of the Treaty is already available elsewhere, but it could be posted to Wikisource if someone wanted to do it; it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Russ Blau (talk) 21:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource takes treaties at Wikisource:Historical documents. As per nominator, Delete. Uncle G 00:34, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete - it doesn't belong here.-Splash 01:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 06:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Strength Party

Notability, notability, notability. Also unverifiable. No Google hits for a political party generally indicates that we don't need an article on it. Scimitar 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Experience of the Wikinews:Results of 2005 British Columbia, Canada General Election coverage convinces me that any real political party, that fields any candidates at all, will be listed on Canadian election web sites. This one is not. Delete. Uncle G 00:41, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G.-Splash 01:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe that even the most obscure political parties have a place on Wikipedia, but since I can't find any evidence of this on on Google, I have to vote to delete as unverifiable. Ground Zero 02:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Could be vanity (has party ever fielded a candidate?), could be hoax. Certainly unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable vapour party. --Death phoenix 14:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

Previous AfDs for this article:

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Human thermodynamics

Someone tagged this as a speedy because it's got the same name as recent vfd deleted content, but this text is IMO significantly different. I'm bringing it here to see what the community opinion is before acting. Please be sure to read the text and not just vote based on the previous VFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Phrase only gets 14 google hits, but it might be one of many terms used to describe a similar concept - in which case, I might vote to keep if it made sense once translated into something more easily understandable. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete I'm inclined to dismiss this as patent nonsense. At best, it's original research and original speculation tacked on to the name of a paper by Libb Thims (name of the journal in which the article appeared would help with verifying that) and a misapplication of thermodynamics (closed system, people, closed system). No, I take it back, that's not at best. At best, this isn't original research and speculation, just a really sloppy presentation of non-notable pseudoscience. The Literate Engineer 01:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. I read the text, and I understand the material. It is well-disguised nonsense. It is, for the most part, basic thermodynamics (badly presented, should be in LaTeX) that is dealt with just fine by other, dedicated articles. See, e.g. entropy, free energy. Note that these terms are standard thermo terms. Then, the article goes off the rails and says things like "wherein a man M meets or collides in time with a woman W over the substrate surface called ‘earth’ to form a bonded relationship" which is nearly patent nonsense and it goes down hill from there. The website looks professional, to a point, and claims they have a PhD - I reckon it's an elaborate hoax. Further the Google hits deal with the perfectly good topic of human thermo in terms of "how do you keep people cool" and "what sort of ways do humans lose heat/warm up" etc. It's subtle, but I reckon it's nonsense.-Splash 01:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's different than the last article, but "different" does not mean "better" in this case. --Xcali 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I am the author. I understand everyone’s inherent frustration with its content, i.e. the application of reaction mechanics to one’s own life. It's emotionally-confusing to point the microscope at oneself. However, let me ask this: in human life, do we all agree that bonds are broken and bonds are formed? If so, why is it that we cannot find one semblance of an article related to human bonding in Wikipedia written in the format of chemistry, in spite of the fact that numerous Laureates have spent decades working on such a premise (as shown by all the quotes)? Maybe I should search under ‘witchcraft’, ‘mystery’, ‘glue-all’, or maybe ‘Romance Novels’? According to Merriam-Webster, an ‘encyclopedia’ is defined as: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Is this or is this not an encyclopedia? By definition, thermodynamics is the science of energy transformations. By definition, human thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics. If I was a random person curious as to whether or not thermodynamics is applicable to human life, I would be extremely content to find such a straight forward article. As Wikipedia is such renowned worldly encyclopedia, I would certainly expect it to have some content in this direction. P.S. human systems are ‘open’. Check your facts. --Wavesmikey 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm aware human systems are open systems. My understanding is, though, that the second law of thermodynamics, referenced in this article, from which Gibbs free energy, also referenced, is derived applies primarily to closed systems. I admit, open systems do exist and can be described with thermodynamics; nonetheless, their application to group dynamics is a major stretch, and modeling human relationships on them involves all sorts of unstated assumptions, for instance that a state function (like Gibbs free energy) even applies. Or that they're spontaneous. My skepticism of this article is heightened by having looked at the site linked to from the Thims reference and noticed it firmly on the pseudo- side of fringe science. And, since Thims seems to be the only actual researcher in the field of "human thermodynamics", the article now strikes me as unverifiable. I stand by my vote, thus ends my comment. The Literate Engineer 04:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Creative and original, but not scientific or encyclopedic. Thermodymics isn't meant to describe human relationships—and there is little evidence to suggest that this is a notable pet theory. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- - Thank-you for your rebuttal; let me clarify the situation. Yes, the second law applies to ‘closed’ systems. However, Gibbs free energy change ∆G does not apply to ‘closed’ systems. The Gibbs free energy change ∆G represents the minimum ‘work’ exchanged by the system with the surroundings – hence we are discussing ‘open’ systems. On a positive note, I do sense there to be a consensus forming to ‘close’ this article. Thus, let me ask our wise panel the following: What is the scientific name of the ‘force’ that holds a married couple together in ‘bonded’ matrimony? I’ll give you a hint: there are only four choices: 1. the strong nuclear force, 2. the electromagnetic force, 3. the weak nuclear force, 4. the gravitational force. There’s a 25% chance you’ll get it right. --Wavesmikey 06:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as cruft. Xoloz 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete entirely non-encyclopedic, non-notable fringe and original research. Bambaiah 06:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Patent nonsense/original research. Not an encyclopedia article - delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Summary: as we are all in such a fine consensus, might someone guide me to a better, more-notable, more-encyclopedic, less-fringe, less-cruft article on the thermodynamics of human life – which is by the way, if no one has a clue, the animated interaction of matter with energy. If we want something more scientific – there’s always the paranormal section at Barnes & Noble. --Wavesmikey 07:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry, no; I don't believe that thermodynamics is any more relevant to human life than to anything else. We don't have an article about thermodynamics of vegetables or thermodynamics of chairs, do we? - Mike Rosoft 10:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Very funny!!! However, if you were, for a moment, to expand on your narrow-minded view and do a search at Amazon or Google, you would find articles or books on: biological thermodynamics, atmospheric thermodynamics, black hole thermodynamics, economic systems thermodynamics, relativistic thermodynamics, chemical thermodynamics, finite time thermodynamics, molecular thermodynamics, classical thermodynamics, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, equilibrium thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics, psychological thermodynamics, open systems thermodynamics, gradient based thermodynamics, etc. Nice jab though. Any other pleasant comments? --Wavesmikey 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you could give us links to the journal papers you have published, or that have been published, on human thermodynamics in the sense in which your article uses it, you could probably close the discussion in your favour. It would also help your case if the article included considerably more information on your theory rather than a repetition of basic, undergraduate thermodynamics — can you add some good thorough science and externally verifiably references to your article? The references you give are very old and do not deal with your work, and quoting a bunch of romanticising famous people doesn't really count.-Splash 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The paper in question, which as we see is very controversial, has been encompassed into four soon to be published textbooks on human thermodynamics; see: HT Books. However, I am not the only one working in this direction – check the links. For the moment, possibly to help clear up the air, let me give a tutorial:

First, generally speaking, the science of thermodynamics began in 1824 when Sadi Carnot published his analysis on heat engines. The heat engines of his time were steam engines, where wood or coal was burned to create heat. The heat was used to boil water to make pressurized steam. The controlled release of this steam was used to drive a piston. The cyclical movement of the piston was used to turn pulleys to lift water out of salt mines in Europe. Hence, Carnot defined work as ‘a weight lifted through a height’.

The ‘system’ in question here is the chemical reaction: coal + oxygen --> carbon dioxide + water. Through this exothermic reaction, energy goes off in two parts: (1) work and (2) waste. Coal is predominately comprised of hydrocarbons. The simplest of hydrocarbons is methane [CH4]. When methane burns with oxygen we have the following reaction: CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O. In simple language, first someone ‘sparks’ reaction. Second, because of this ‘spark’ the methane and oxygen molecules develop an intense desire to ‘react’ with each other. Third, through the process of this reaction these two molecules are ‘transformed’ into new molecules. Forth, heat is given off, owing to the fact that these new molecules have reached a more stable configuration.

Now, unless this is the dark ages, which I’m assuming it isn’t, I’m going to presume that we all agree that humans are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons bonded via photon exchange – just as our simple water molecule is made of 10 protons, 8 neutrons, and 10 electrons bonded via photon exchange. Thus, as we see, heat engines are nothing more than systems containing ‘chemical reactions’. Next, given a mass composition table of a human, such as is found in John Emsley’s Nature’s Building Blocks, we can calculate the empirical molecular formula for one human and from this a molecular formula. If you do the calculation, you see that the entity called ‘human’ is actually a twenty-six element molecule.

So, the elaborate superficial phenomenon of two humans bonding in an intimate relationship is simply put: ‘a Chemical Reaction’. Here, two molecules bond, energy is given off; some energy goes to waste, some to purpose. If anyone finds this to be pseudoscience than perhaps ignorance is bliss. To ask again: is human life a chemical reaction or not? If it is, then what we have here is straight textbook science. If human life is not a chemical reaction, than yes this presentation is incorrect. My reason for posting this article, is with intentions for that 15-year-old person out there who may possibly search Wikipedia with aims to find some semblance of a scientific article as to why human life works the way it does. Thanks again. --Wavesmikey 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment This is not really the place for that kind of thing. It belongs in the article and I maintain that this is almost entirely basic, undergraduate theory that is profoundly unoriginal. Anyway, you referred me to the book. That isn't published and it certainly isn't a journal paper so it has little or no credence at present. I don't need basic thermo repeating, I need you to provide evidence. In the meantime, I continue to think you are elaborately hoaxing and I'm not taken in.-Splash 17:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Reply If you want evidence, pick up any Physical Chemistry textbook and look up ‘Gibbs free energy equation’, the description you will find is: the Gibbs free energy equation can be used to measure the spontaneity of any chemical reaction. For corroboration reference: Emory University Chemistry Professor David Hwang’s analysis on the subject: Human Bonding . Thank-you. --Wavesmikey 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we take discussion of the concept to Talk:Human thermodynamics. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is some standard thermodynamics interspersed with (unsupported) original research about human interactions. If you removed the human interaction bits you would get stuff that duplicates other thermodynamics articles. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete what is correct is a duplication of material in other articles (See Category:Thermodynamics), the rest is duck science, OR at best. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Physchim62 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Second Comment. How many times do I have to listen to the phrase: ‘elaborate hoax’? Why would I spend countless hours mentally-constructing this article, writing this article, cleaning this article, confirming its encyclopedic coherence, consistence, and validity with numerous well-educated associates, re-writing bits and parts of this article based on these consultations, and then adding this article to Wikipedia only to now waste countless more hours debating over the obvious clarity and scientific-validity of its content with everyone here? So far the only person to have made proper informed criticism is BD2412. The name ‘human thermodynamics’ functions as an umbrella term to encompass all of the following variations:

‘Human Thermodynamics’ - name choice antecedents:

1. Physical Chemistry – Gibbs [1876]

2. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics – Prigogine [1977]

3. Complex Systems Thermodynamics– Sychev [1986]

4. Ecosystem Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [1995]

5. Open Systems Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [1995]

6. Economic Behaviors Thermodynamics – Nordholm [1997]

7. Biophysical Chemistry – Cantor & Schimmel [1997]

8. Thermodynamic Evolutionary Theory – Gladyshev [1997]

9. Modern Thermodynamics – Prigogine [1998]

10. Equilibrium Supramolecular Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

11. Equilibrium Hierarchical Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

12. Local Supramolecular Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

13. Chemical Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

14. Macro Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

15. Hierarchical Thermodynamics of Heterogeneous Systems – Gladyshev [2002]

16. The Thermodynamics of Life – Schneider & Kay [2005]

17. The Thermodynamics of Biology – Schneider & Kay [2005]

18. Gradient-Based Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [2005]

19. The New Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [2005]

20. Human Thermodynamics – Thims [2002-2005]

Such semblance is needed so to bring unison and exactness to this barrage of present-day randomly-used verbiage and terminology (as shown above). Thank-you: BD2412. And I suppose all of the above researchers are duck-scientists? Regarding ‘duplication of material’, you are confusing ‘reproduction’ with honest efforts to conform with Wikipedia’s style protocol. Regarding ‘original research’, do twenty variations on the applications of thermodynamics to human life, as above, count as original or a branch? I feel like I’m battling a stream of robots in ‘attack’ mode? Is this true? --Wavesmikey 21:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third Comment. Regarding the remark: ‘standard thermodynamics interspersed with human interactions’, if you are expecting some framework of thermodynamics grandeur to explain human life – don’t count on it – human life is no different than hydrogen life – or guanine life – or Coenzyme A life – their interactions all obey the four laws of thermodynamics – as does everything in the universe. To encapsulate this entire idiotic debate let me quote from Arthur Eddington:

 The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the     
supreme position among the laws of Nature.  If someone points out to you that your pet theory 
of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equation—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s 
 equation.  If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do 
    bungle things sometimes.  But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of 
        Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it 
                but to collapse in deepest humiliation.      
                                       Sir Arthur Eddington - English Astronomer [1882-1944]

Thank-you. --Wavesmikey 22:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Additional Comment: To clarify further, please study the link Human Thermodynamics History which contains a full discussion on all scientists related to the development of human thermodynamics. Also, please study the link Human Thermodynamic Glossary which contains a full dictionary of terms, diagrams, reaction mechanics, etc., related to the thermodynamics of human life processes. Thank-you. --Wavesmikey 15:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense / non-notable original "research". The supposedly forthcoming books are a possible hoax: if you look at the book covers of the supposedly forthcoming books, they all display the same ISBN, and it is a number that is already in use by a different work. --Tabor 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Response: your over-inflated intellect combined with your haughty-perception on reality is a ‘hoax’. Thank-you. --Wavesmikey 13:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Summary. If need be we were to modify the article such to terminate all connection to that of Libb Thims, the article will stand verifiable based alone on those works as:
- David Hwang’s Gibbs Free Energy & Reaction Mechanics - applications: Click
- Frank Lambert’s Activation Energies - applications: Click
- Eric Schneider’s Second Law - applications: Click
- Ilya Prigogne’s Dissipative Structures - applications: Click
- Georgi Gladyshev’s Supramolecular Thermodynamics - applications: Click
  - Presently, Wikipedia has no articles of representation in these directions. Thank-you: --Wavesmikey 07:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Response: as stated, the books by Libb Thims are ‘soon’ to be published – hence, the ISBN numbers are ‘mock’ numbers for (temporary) display purposes only. Furthermore, the framework of content in the article has nothing to do with these books – those principles presented have all been said-and-done. Thank-you. --Wavesmikey 09:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lastly, seeing as how we’re all so eager to discard this article as a ‘joke’, and seeing as how we are all so cerebral in our understanding of scientific-validity, can anyone name one falsity in the given article? Done!!! --Wavesmikey 11:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Original essay. The author of this article would be better off spending his time publicizing his ideas rather than polluting VfD with his verbose and poorly-written arguments, or Wikipedia with his verbose and poorly-written articles. — Phil Welch 03:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they're so badly-written; I think they're just nuts! :) Xoloz 05:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete again. Original nonsense. jni 29 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus in VFD, but only 101 unique Google hits, many unrelated, makes me delete FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

Vampire Phantasm

Non-notable webcomic, started this year. — Gwalla | Talk 21:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Xoloz 06:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep if expanded. JamesBurns 06:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good google results 2000+ hits. Started by a chronic vandal. Undecided. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

George Comics

Non-notable webcomic. Started this year, has only 49 strips, Alexa rank 4,759,608, no other claims to notability made. — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, their "current level of promanance" seems a little low. I'd say nonexistant. Delete. humblefool ® 23:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable comic. JamesBurns 06:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

IndieTits

Non-notable clip-art webcomic. Has only been in operation since April. — Gwalla | Talk 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. The RSS feed on LiveJournal, for instance has a comparatively large number of subscribers (1586 on this page), and google tests (indietits comic) come up with 500 or so- not sure that passes comparatively though. Schissel : bowl listen 22:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep. Tricky. A two person comic would not normally pass, IMO, but if this one has managed to attract apparently international attention and has thousands of subscribers in a matter of 2months, maybe it makes it. I might revise my vote, though. -Splash 01:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. -ÅfÇ++ 07:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, per Splash --Badlydrawnjeff 13:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's a Questionable Content side-project. QC has a huge readership, and a lot of them read Indietits. Not really doing any harm here. --KharBevNor 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's a Questionable Content side-project. QC has a huge readership, and a lot of them read Indietits. << ahem... ditto. --Tedzsee 11:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Anti-Elvis

Apparently a reference to a song of very limited notability. I would normally speedy this, but it has already been speedied and recreated by User:Kmweber before. Kmweber has also been vandalizing the articles for Michael J. Fox, Joan Rivers, and Elvis Presley, treating the contents of this song as if it were fact; he labels these edits as "spelling corrections": [21], [22], and [23]. Delete. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I originally tagged this for speedy (actually, as{{nonsense}} which was technically overzealous, but the difference is academic in terms of effect), but the author lashed out so I decided to leave it, but made it clear that I would VfD it at some point. I didn't get around to it yet, so many thanks to DropDeadGorgias for doing the honours.-Splash 22:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Martg76 22:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've heard this song! Delete and slap the creator about the spamming into the other articles as clearly bad-faith (spelling correction?). humblefool ® 23:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should have been speedied, but the ~~vandal~~ creator objected, apparently. The string of odd edits comes after a long history of what looks like good-faith contribution. Did someone get a hold of this user's password? AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although this does refer to the very notable song "Elvis is Everywhere" so to call the song source non-notable is incorrect. Maybe a reference can be tossed into Michael J. Fox that he is referred to in this song, and "Elvis is Everywhere" is notable enough to be mentioned in any article that discusses Elvis references, but this little stub doesn't cut it. Thankyuhverymuch... 23skidoo 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mojo Nixon, thats where the mention of the song belongs, so do the same to memes based on it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

120k

Not encyclopedic. And far, far too long. Probably a copyvio from a publication. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Massive unwikified spamvertisement. Unfortunately, obvious spam like this is not speediable. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Let's self-help ourselves to a better future by deleting this article. humblefool ® 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An unrivalled opportunity! You can improve your Wikipedia within minutes, in your spare time and from the comfort of your own home! No advance payment required! Just click here. Uncle G 00:59, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete ad. Pity Google doesn't seem to find a copyvio or we could mute it in the meantime. -Splash 01:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and in the meantime I am going to be bold and edit out the contact information as inappropriate content. DS1953 02:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not at all encyclopedic content, also badly written, I couldn't even stand to read it long enough to find if there was any material worth salvaging. Peter Grey 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

Yaguarete

I was about to edit this when I realized that "Yaguarete" seems to be Spanish for "Jaguar", and the article confirms this. In other words, it's duplicate of jaguar and I doubt it has any mergable information. Golbez 22:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to jaguar. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:53, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Comment. Jaguar in Spanish seems to be Jaguar. -Hmib 01:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My bad, it is indeed yaguareté. In that case, delete, as wikipedia is not a dictionary; redundant article. Could certainly add more stuff into the existing Jaguar page and it doesn't have yet. -Hmib 01:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete article duplication. JamesBurns 06:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, we don't need redirects for article names in the wrong language. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicate of jaguar. The name origin may be interesting to include there.--Nabla 16:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Onlytzaras.com

delete - Not notable, low google count, most of the very few links into this site are from blogs(also according to google), low rank on alexa, wikipedia is not an index of the web, the site that this is a parody of is not on wikipedia so even a merge isn't viable -- pcr^talk 22:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Chairboy 22:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ross Otto

Vanity, non-notable, appears to be a college student, see also Hector leano. --Etacar11 22:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete rubbish, vanity etc. -Splash 01:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep Vote count does not appear to display a two-thirds majority, and from reading the discussion there certainly does not appear to be a consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Aetherometry

Current Tally: Keep: 19, Delete: 27, Merge/Redirect: 0

Registered users whose history began significantly before this article's creation:

Tally: Keep: 14, Delete: 12, Merge/Redirect: 0

Attempt to count by Dragons flight June 28, 2005 21:33 (UTC)

So, either way it's a majority against keep: "20 to 15 is 57% against on votes that don't count. whereas on the votes that count 13 vs 12 is 52% also against." Helicoid
- True but our policies do not allow deletion based on a majority vote. We need consensus. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 28 June 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax. Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia, and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever? Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. [24] If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and the world as a whole. Delete. Natalinasmpf 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly change of vote (I'm not sure yet). It is our noble mission indeed for mankind to make sure such theories get a proper critique, such that this article may always be cited in opposition to this theory to prevent people from being duped into believing this stuff for once and for all. If it's that notable, then such a theory in danger of cheating people must be addressed with the proper truth that this doesn't go well with actual science. -- Natalinasmpf 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the noble mission... those restless children "at the head of the columns come to purify the future with the arrogance of youth. Nothing is as foolish as the righteousness of innocents With automatic weapons and a gospel of truth" - Justin Sullivan

UPDATE: I will vote Keep for now, although I might change later. I think it will be best for mankind in general if the flaws and shortfalls of aetherometry are shown. -- Natalinasmpf 23:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's flaws and shortfalls by peers who know enough to understand the subject if they studied it. It is not imaginary flaws and shortfalls by anyone who dreams of getting them by osmosis. Is it not ticklish, though, that the votes to keep Aetherometry in its presently miserable state are coming from its enemies who admitted to have never heard of the subject?209.29.93.57 00:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All right, since you say you can't follow my comments if I split you paragraph, I am leaving your paragraph intact above and putting my comments down here.

Natalinasmpf: Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax.

FrankZappo: Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Wikipedia stuff. Exempt from ordinary laws, or what? And this is the guy that talks about "notifying the authorities".

Firstly, you address me wrong. How is it slanderous? From once glance, it looks very likely, considering how many violations with accepted quantum mechanics it has. I think many Wikipedians will be inclined to agree with me. I can call it a hoax if I want - at least I'm not making up some newfangled theory, presenting it as valid without peer review, asserting its truth, then trying to scam people out of donations. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf: Its certainly not notable either. It undermines the professionalism of Wikipedia,

FrankZappo: Wow, the professionalism of Wikipedia? This is the guy who calls others a "petit bourgeois"? Show me an ounce of professionalism in the current "discussion" of the Aetherometry entry.

Petit bourgeois was an eye for an eye remark. You should well see the context. Oh, citing hypocrisy (which I doubt it), is a logical fallacy.

Natalinasmpf: and would contribute to the ignorance of the masses by corporate propagation of snake oil material.

FrankZappo: Isn't it slanderous to refer to people's work as "snake oil" without any factual basis? And where does this "corporate" come from? Aetherometry now has a corporation? Wow! Who knew? - But doesn't that mean that it has hit the Mainstream and is worthy of inclusion in that Mainstay of Professionalism, the Wikipedia?

Looking at the company and "labs", the Correas has set up, it looks like those companies that goes around selling miracle pills, only now in the field of energy. How is slanderous? This is an encylopedia, I am accusing it of being snake oil. In contrast, I'm not making fraud, either. If its a corporation, it becomes commercial spam, not "hit the mainstream". There are plenty of corporations out there selling pseudoscience.

This is an example of a gratuitous slander by a person that sounds like an admin and states that this is an encyclopedia so he or she can freely accuse and without any evidence, by the way, the Correas or anyone else of selling miracle pills. In being gratuitous and free, the aggression itself is not to be construed as a fraud. It is no proof that the administration of this Wikipedia is fraudulent. But is not proof sufficient that its claim to impartial knowledge is false? I thought that admins should stand back and let the 'people' who know and want to contribute get in. How could a good start entry have become so threatening to Wikipedia?209.29.93.57 00:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf: Also, notice how half the terms it links to are red, probably signifying it doesn't have any empirical scientific concepts whatsoever?

FrankZappo: I am sorry, this is only my <27654th edit, but already I know that red has nothing to do with a concept being empirical, it just means that nobody thought of including it in Wikipedia, or that the name in the link does not match the name in the Wikipedia entry. I noticed, for example, that "material body" does not seem to have an entry in the Wikipedia, and yet I think you would agree the concept is quite empirical.

No, when there's overwhelmingly a lot of red links, its not that "no one has thought of including it", it means its such overwhelmingly a neologism, the very theory of Aetherometry is not basing itself on "previous concepts", like it claims (from Tesla et al) - its fabricating its own. Most fundamental particles have already been included, if you want to theorise that some of these fundamental particles have a new property, link their name, and call it "massfree" and whatnot, go get a cyclotron, or tracers and show evidence of it - after all, neutrinos themselves were discovered to have mass by their oscillations. That is empirical. Coming up with new particles one hasn't verified and presenting it as truth isn't.

Natalinasmpf: Its also not NPOV, and the presentation likes to present all its allegations as truth, rather than alleged evidence, even the most respected articles on quantum mechanics don't go to that extent (by noting paradoxes, and admitting their own flaws with the current model), which this article doesn't do. Very misleading presentation, and the introduction is skewed as well. Also, discounting entries marked as irrelevant by google itself, it only has 196 google hits. [25] If we let it stay on Wikipedia any longer its going to be extremely counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia and the world as a whole.

FrankZappo: Yup, I noticed this past Tuesday that the world started a descent into hell, and now I know why. FrankZappo 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's a very dark view on things, but yes, this scientific super-answer needs to be deleted post-haste. User:Humblefool 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete total b.s. Anti-gravitons? kinetons? Come on. --Etacar11 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh I just wanted to comment, I'm not against the idea of anti-gravitons myself, but the article seems to accept the premise of them without peer review, and assertingly, and without the fact that *gasp*, that's only a hypothesis and an unresolved model, so hence... -- Natalinasmpf 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, seems like a notable pseudoscience with 4,680 google hits. Google doesn't say anything about relevance, just similarity. Kappa 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But only 53 hits in Google Groups, see my comment below. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. 4,860 google hits is kind of poor for a scientific concept, don't you think? Compare quantum teleportation, and its google hits of 118,000 [26], which in itself is scientifically radical, but at least not a commercial hoax. And reduce that 4,680 hits for Aetherometry to 196 - most of it is just repetitive commercial spam, not actual scientific nor popular discussion. -- Natalinasmpf 00:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "4,860 google hits is kind of poor for a scientific concept, don't you think?". No, in fact 100 google hits is plenty. Kappa 00:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Hey guys, the Google count went up, it's now at 5100 hits! That's an almost 5% increase in notability, in only 4 days. 66.217.179.112 17:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Actually, it was me, I forgot to log on. OldPatrick
- Quantum teleportation is a bad analogy as that is a term used to describe a widely accepted and experimentally demonstrated process in quantum mechanics whereby the quantum state of one atom can be transferred to another over small but macroscopically significant distances. In that context, it is not at all radical. Oh, and for the record, I suspect they are zealots (true believers of what they are saying) rather than hoaxers or commericial scam artists. Dragons flight 01:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am going to hate myself for saying this, but rewrite. This is psuedoscience, quackery, and great number of other unflattering things, but unfortunately, I believe it is notable quackery. The Correas and followers have, through determined effort, managed to insinuated their ideas into thousands of websites [27] [28], and written multiple books, "research papers", and essays. They really do have PhDs supporting their work (though a list of the fields of study of those PhDs might be entertaining). Perhaps most importantly, this is not the first time I have encountered aetherometry. If it is something I have heard of before by chance, then odds are it is sufficiently widespread to be notable (lord help us all). That said, the version of the article that is ultimately kept needs serious NPOVing, in addition to stating the opinions of these believers, it needs to state the mainstream objections, and comments from critics such as [29]. Honestly, I rather hope this is deleted, but I can't really support that. Okay, now that I feel icky, I'm going away. Dragons flight 00:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I just looked up the Wikipedia entry on pseudoscience. It says that a theory can be recognized as pseudoscience by these characteristics:

by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments
by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (and the more egregious the violation, the more likely); or
by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

Now, I've read everything that the Coreeas have published, and I have to confess that I cannot figure out which of these characteristics Aetherometry is claimed to possess. What exactly is the basis for you calling it pseudoscience? I mean, you can call it anything you want, I am sure, but if you are trying to be truthful to boot, then what are your criteria? 66.217.179.112 17:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) That was me too. OldPatrick

And we're supposed to take you on your word? Just because they asserted a theory in a book doesn't make it correct. I don't see experimental evidence anywhere, other than claiming they have it (ie. I don't see reports where it was reproduced in say, a scientific journal, verifications et al), a scientific paper cited, (rather than just an advocacy website, ie. in pdf form, complete with verifiable addreses which one can contact), with page and line number cited...oh yes, it does violate Occam's razor. It has failed to submit results to rigorous peer review, as well. Mind you, I would have severely bashed Einstein as well had he tried to assert his theory of relativity as fact without submitting them to rigorous peer review first. But fortuately, he did. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, if Wikipedia simply does not want articles about scientific efforts that have not been published in mainstream journals, why not say so to begin with? As far as I can see, nobody ever defended Aetherometry by claiming it was accepted by the mainstream. Why all this broohaha? I suspect that if the original author had just been told to begin with, "Look, this has not been accepted by the mainstream, so Wikipedia is not a place for it", he or she would have withdrawn and nobody's time would have been wasted. And no, you have no idea whether or not Aetherometry violates Occam's razor, because you have no idea what experimental data it is trying to explain. And the results have been available for peer review for at least 4 years now, so the statement "it has failed to submit results to rigorous peer review" is not accurate either. OldPatrick 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point. We're not even sure of these "scientific efforts" are notable. Wikipedia does not have to include articles about every single attempt to try to find some "free energy" source in the world. For example, Stephen Hawking has his entry on Hawking radiation existing because 1) it was notable 2) it is sent through peer review, even though its very controversial, and only 70% accepted by the mainstream (as a figure of speech). It may submit results for "peer review", but unless it suddenly accumulated enough review to verify it as evidence (like results reproduced over and over again, documented, and resubmitted), then its not "rigorous". "I have no idea what experimental data it is trying to explain"? If you mean the original information here, yes I do, unless you want to be Helicoid and allege that "I haven't read the material". - but if you mean because the results haven't been published, then duly right, it shouldn't be here if its not going to be verified anyway. Unless you're Helicoid's sockpuppet? -- Natalinasmpf 19:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have not read the material. That's a fact. Pretty obvious too.209.29.93.65 09:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- You do not understand actual science. That's a fact, pretty obvious too, with your blind fanaticism to the subject, and the failure to cite actual sources, and your self-contradiction in numerous posts. -- Natalinasmpf 09:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As Natalinasmpf notes, only 196 unique Googles. Non-notable pseudoscience. Delete without prejudice against recreation iff it can be shown that this is a notable crank theory and the article is written or re-written to convey that idea. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 00:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment See also Adams motor. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep as Neologism: For no other reason, the term should remain as an article. Re-written, yes. However deletion of an article, if only a concept, is truly UN- encyclopedic.... and perfectly UN- scientific. This very discussion around VfD, should return to the "discussion" page right behind the word's article itself. People who post a banner like this would be much more constructive to the effort of article editing and encyclopedia creation, if your words both Pro and Con were kept closer to the article itself. Not in this far off corner, removed from healthy debate. Everything said above has a real and undeleted place in Talk:Aetherometry. Why not try it sometime, instead of effortless deletion? On very good "authority"; WikiPedia is not running out of cyber-storage-space to have 10K words written about Aetherometry. Would one of you like to offer an explanation of the word as simply a concept? (Ya'll sound like some Microsoft ninnies who thinks "00" cost too much in memory space. Have you heard? There's plenty of room for even this CRAZY article) - Anon who can prove it. — (Unsigned comment by 68.110.237.166; user's 8th edit.)
- Neologisms aren't encyclopedic. And while, in general principle, I agree with you that articles ought to be considered for their subject rather than their content, allowing this hoax masquerading as valid science to remain is a disservice to the reader. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Hoax masquerading as valid science?" How would you know? Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV. FrankZappo 20:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ironic. That isn't a personal attack, nor being uncivil by the way. Its a perfectly legitimate allegation. Stop trying to evade the argument. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - Neologisms aren't original research unless contributors actually make them up themselves. Kappa 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - If you see the talk page, the original contributors seem to be brainwashed follo...oh sorry, I mean "employees" of the Correas, who are contributing material to this article, and with all the snazzy (but meaningless terms). -- Natalinasmpf 02:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep the main article (which needs to be shortened and NPOVed) and delete all its spin-offs. --Rlandmann 02:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Keep - Issues on which I would readily change my vote: (1) Neologism: is there another term that accurately enfolds this theory? Please don't respond with "hoax" or "pseudoscience". If there is such a term, I'll change my vote to Merge. If not, it is self-consistent (if dubious) theory with no other reasonable title. (2) Is this original research? If so, delete it under that. (3) Why Vfd and not NPOV Dispute Tag? It sounds as if there is a legitimate discussion going on (enough right here to keep a talk page happy). If the overwhelming tide is against the theory, post the (verifiable, peer reviewed) rebuttals and change the lead to accurately reflect an NPOV. (4) "Dangerous", et al: If we delete all of the pages that reviewers would call "dangerous" and "crank", or that "undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia", the Christian Fundamentalists and the Humanists alone could cull 99% of the project, since about everything one believes is "dangerous" in the others' view. Happy to change my vote for a strong argument on any of these, but right now the debate above does more to prove why we should KEEP the page than why we should delete. Kevin/Last1in 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Changed to Keep20050624/2256z
Oy, Keep per Dragon's Flight. Notable pseudoscience needs to be debunked, even if it gives me a headache, and it can't be debunked without being defined. Xoloz 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, for the reasons User:Dragons flight gave. Delete the daughter articles, and a massive re-write of the main article would be mandatory for keeping. And it will be PITA on my watch list all the time thereafter. Sigh. --Pjacobi 06:57, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Changed to delete. It may be relevant enough to get an article some time, but the current article is worse than a blank sheet of paper, for writing a NPOV treatment of Aetherometry. --Pjacobi 16:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Keep notable pseudo-science. JamesBurns 06:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. -ÅfÇ++ 07:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Will be a complete waste of time. William M. Connolley 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I don't know where you deletion-mavens are coming from, but it sure ain't from actually studying the stuff. I have been reading the Correas' research papers ever since they first started publishing them in 2001. As is clear to anybody who actually takes the trouble of reading them, it is most certainly solid scientific work, is absolutely fascinating, and most likely a lot of it is correct (and, like with any new science, a lot of it may also be in error). I think the number of Google hits is a pretty poor criterion for judging the merit of a science, no? One would imagine that a "community encyclopedia" would be precisely the place where new scientific ideas coming from outside institutional science would find a hospitable home, and where people could come to learn about them. What's the point of having a "community encyclopedia" if all it does is self-censor itself to look "respectable" in the eyes of the mainstream? I am very happy that somebody finally took the trouble to write a Wikipedia entry for Aetherometry. Definitely Keep. Patrick.
Delete. Changing my vote after seeing what is becoming of this article. OldPatrick 19:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 66.217.178.48's first edit. --Etacar11 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also (I hardly need to add, but I will anyway): wiki is most definitely *not* a friendly home for new theories. If the theory has no home outside wiki, it doesn't belong in wiki. William M. Connolley 18:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  - Same old Patrick here (with his second edit). I am not sure what you mean by "has no home outside wiki". Aetherometry has a huge webpage, with something like 50 monographs publicly available on it. It certainly is not a homeless stray in need of a home, you know. What I meant was that one (or at least old Patrick here) would expect a "community encyclopedia" to be hospitable to non-institutional science. As far as I can see, though, even the Assume good faith policy was bypassed in this case. I'll do the three twiddles this time. Patrick. 66.217.178.106

You misunderstand. "Community encyclopedia" does not mean "lower standards". In this case, Aetherometry doesn't even fit the bar. It has to be a notable theory, first, and even more if its pseudoscientific and Wikipedians have already pointed out great gaping holes in its logic. It is hospitable to knowledge that benefits the community and the international reader. Generally, something informative. Something counter-productive like Aetherometry doesn't fit the goal, because its sheer lack of notability doesn't even seem to justify its existence. And if it were notable, the encyclopedia's job is to give an NPOV look at it. Even if survived, the page has to go under tremendous cleanup, and to represent the theory as probably very unlikely. -- Natalinasmpf 22:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgive old Patrick here, but I am beginning to suspect that you are confusing Aetherometry with something else. Either this, or I seriously missed something. What are the great gaping holes that the Wikipedians have pointed out in the logic of Aetherometry? Could you list them for me? Also, I have to confess that I thought the original article was a lot more informative than the one that's there now. And I would think that a theory that results in a number of actual, working, new energy technologies would be a good candidate for something that benefits the community, rather than for something that should be called counter-productive. And I am curious about this statement that "its sheer lack of notability doesn't even seem to justify its existence". You mean only notable things have a right to exist? Poor old Patrick, I better go get myself some notability, otherwise I can't justify my existence. OldPatrick 18:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're missing the entire point. Better to say nothing, than to say something which might lead people down the wrong path. As for the "great gaping holes", it conflicts with quantum mechanics because it doesn't attribute some of the phenomena described in aetherometry to a "massfree/massbound" model, but something entirely different. I also note there isn't any clear correlation and compatability with the uncertainty principle either, and also a failure to cite, proper, verified evidence (ie. not a web page on an advocacy website, but an actual scientific paper, page by page, line by line)....emphasis - SPECIFIC paper, SPECIFIC page, SPECIFIC line. As for the "original article being more informative", its disputed: that information is horrendously wrong, or at least allegedly wrong, so I don't see how it benefits the community. It has to be NPOV'ed first, making wild claims just because it fills up the page doesn't make it "more informative". If I made a page about some snake oil product and proceeded to insert 200 kilobytes of information how it could benefit mankind, does it really benfit mankind? Oh, you're totally wrong on one count - "existence" - existence of having article. You're right, you better go get yourself some notability, or you can't justify your existence of having an OldPatrick article. Whoops, I see that article you created about yourself was already deleted. See Wikipedia:autobiography.

Delete. Self-publicity. -- The Anome 21:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete,~~ self-promotion and original research. If I were convinced that aetherometry were an important and well-established theory/discipline within the perpetual motion, free energy, and "overunity" community, I'd vote weak keep and cleanup. However, using my "ratio of Google Web to Google Groups" test, I find a big discrepancy between the seemingly impressive 5000 hits in Google and the meager 53 hits in Google Groups. On most topics, Google Groups will have 1/5 to 1/10 the number of hits as you get on a Google Web search. However, Web hit counts are easily and frequently inflated by "search engine optimization" and vigorous self-promotion. Google Group hits can be inflated too, but few promoters bother because it is harder and of little economic importance. Now, the USENET newsgroups are veritable hotbeds of discussion of nontraditional-science, fringe science, and pseudoscience. "Tesla" gets 175,000 hits in Groups. "Homeopathy" gets 20,000. "Perpetual motion," exact phrase, gets 63,900, and "Overunity" gets 1760. In this context, 53 hits is a very small number and suggests to me that aetherometry is not accepted as a standard theory within the perpetual motion/free energy/overunity community. Will change my vote if someone convinces me otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Changing vote to: Merge and redirect to Aether~~. I decided that I'd ask Tim Harwood what he thought, since he attempted to build a kind of Adams motor. He has not convinced me that Aetherometry has much standing within the community that believes in the Aether sensu H. Aspden. But he argues the Aether is an important enough theory to merit some coverage in Wikipedia. I accept that. But we do have such an article, and it is Aether. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article "Aether", as distinct from luminiferous aether, as distinct from aether drag hypothesis as distinct from aetherometry. There is a tremendous amount of material to read on all of these. Merge? How? TTLightningRod

Changing vote (again) to Keep in present form. Now a good short article about borderline-notable pseud
Delete. Original research, neologism, not notable, advertising, vanity, kookery, you name it. There's so much wrong with this article it's not worth trying to clean up. --Carnildo 23:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dpbsmith: As I read, and try to edit, I do not see a clear assertion that aetherometry is held as "perpetual motion/free energy/overunity". If it was, I would agree that it is vastly marginal to science, and even pseudoscientific. What I would then suggest, is that the subject may be a worthy field of study for not claiming "free energy". Therefor your search analysis may lend more weight to simply a fringe science trying to find its rightful vocabulary. (our job as wikipedians) your thoughts? TTLightningRod 00:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Compare and contrast aether with vacuum energy. Unlike aetherometry, quantum mechanics asserts that vacuum energy on the whole is a closed system - if it contributes "matter" to the physical universe through virtual particles, stuff like black holes for example, require expenditure of energy in order to separate the virtual particle pairs. This ends up not producing any energy. It seems that aetherometry, while not explicitly being a "free energy" science, asserts that there is a source of energy easily tapped into, or far more available than it really is. -- Natalinasmpf 01:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. My reason is that there is a clear demand for an aether page from a section of the WIKi community, and we seem to go through posting, VFD, on a very regular basis, on this subject. I just think the constant VFD is getting boring. Timharwoodx 00:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable kookery, original research, vanity. Quale 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, pseudoscience, yes; but it's a decades old accumulation of stuff, mostly connected with other pseudoscientific trends that are ongoing and have been for decades, that is, Reich, Free energy, aether theories, etc. and there are articles on these if only to warn/inform the readers of what they are, and place it in the historical scheme of such things. "Aetherometry" may be an obscure name, but the effort behind it is massive, (if only 2 people) and I suspect it will keep popping up in various places (in the wider culture of the net), so better to have something about it that is balanced (ie, after the rewrite). It's not your flash in mind delusion, but rather a long standing one. IE notable. cf User:Dragons flight comments. (I also think not impossible they may stumble on something new and valuble, but fear they will be too ignorant to recognize it as they rant on about the aether and their persecutions.)GangofOne 08:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you guys considered actually informing yourselves on this stuff before you start voting one way or another? So far, you don't seem to be able to tell the Aether from theories about the Aether, science ficttion from science, a "kind of Adams motor" from any other "kind of" Adams motor, one Aether theory from another, an Aether theory from cold fusion, and your ass from a hole in the ground. I propose that the article should be kept at least until you self-appointed editors have read it and educated yourselves. FrankZappo 15:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second edit of User:FrankZappo. And may be classified as personal attack. And I've read enough to bang my head against the monitor, see Talk:Aetherometry. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I am sorry, did I miss something? I don't see a single piece of evidence in Talk:Aetherometry that you have actually read through the article, let alone tried to understand it. All I see are counts of Google hits, statements about how a degree in molecular biology is irrelevant to work in biophysics, and other deep ponderings on that same level. Where, as they used to say in my youth, is the beef? FrankZappo 16:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a single piece of evidence supporting Aetherometry either. Sorry, citing the Correas work doesn't count, because that's basically a piece of work citing itself as a source. Tried to understand it? There is nothing to understand - this work contradicts itself so much I highly doubt it, especially with its definition of "energy without inertia". I cite logical arguments discounting YOUR evidence, and as such that counts as evidence as in such. Perhaps you should also think about the fact that many Wikipedians work in similar fields, and have as much authority to discount the theory as the Correas do to support it? -- Natalinasmpf 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that what you wrote above seems totally confused. If you want evidence for the claims of Aetherometry, then you have to start by reading through, and understanding, the experimental and methodological work that lays down this evidence - in exactly the same way as people wanting to understand Faraday's claims had to start by reading, or seeing demonstrations of, Faradays experiments. How else would you know, about any scientific endeavour, what it is that is being claimed and why? And no, people who know nothing about Aetherometry do not have any authority to discount it. Aetherometry represents the result of over 20 years of painstaking experimental and theoretical work. One does not gain "authority" to make any judgement about it simply by virtue of "working in a similar field". The only authority comes from studying the work, reproducing the experiments, thinking through the theoretical claims, etc. It is no different with Aetherometry than with any science. You're being silly. FrankZappo 19:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it slanderous to call people's work a "hoax" without any factual basis? Weird goings-on, this Wikipedia stuff. Exempt from ordinary laws, or what? And this is the guy that talks about "notifying the authorities". FrankZappo 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have factual basis, Aetherometry, can't be true: this view being supported by the scientific community at large, and I already have given many reasons why its implausible, noting that it lacks peer review. Slander? Hardly. It is very likely a hoax, and trying to get the law on your side? Ironic, considering how this is a fraud and a scam to cheat donations. Oh, you address me wrongly. -- Natalinasmpf 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

careful. makeing legal threats on wikipedia is against policy.Geni 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All that you have a factual basis for is saying that Aetherometry is not recognized by the scientific community at large. This is absolutely not a basis for concluding that it is a hoax, a scam, or a cheat. First of all, aetherometry could be largely correct, but has not yet been recognized as such. Secondly, aetherometry could be largely or totally wrong without being a hoax - there are a lot of erroneous scientific claims being worked on inside and outside of scientific institutions all over the world, every day of every week. Science progresses through error, you know. You have absolutely no basis for the claims you make, and you are defaming the reputation of people you know nothing about, simply because somebody put up an entry about their work in the Wikipedia. this just doesn't compute.

More interestingly, you seem to have an ignorant and naive view of the "scientific community" and of "peer review". Do you really think that the process whereby official science pemits something to "pass" is not permeated by politics and entrenched interests? You should read some case histories of how the so-called "peers" in scientific institutions treat those who try to think "outside the box". Do you know that Halton Arp has been banned from being able to do work - or even enter an observatory - in the US? Do you know that Eric Laithwaite was ostracised by his "scientific peers" when he made experimental discoveries that did not jive with the official theories of rotary motion? Examples abound, but of course they don't get much talked about. Even the Wikipedia entry for Halton Arp has been cleansed of all "controversial" material. I would recommend, however, that you educate yourself about the realities of the "scientific review" process before you put it on such a pedestal. FrankZappo 20:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Even though the article remains in near complete shambles no small thanks to a number of so-called wikipedians with a demonstrated hostile point of view against the very first word. (The edit history of these three pages tells a very clear story.) The main body of the attempted article appears to have much to say if only legitimate nondeletionist edits could proceed.

To agree or disagree with the theory, concept, idea, model, experimental findings, reference material and cross checkable links to a multitude of third party citations (the "holy" peer review); that is not the job of wikipedia. To confirm that those components are included, (which they clearly were in this case) is the job of wikipedians if they would merely read the content. (even should they now have to read the deleted portions saved in the history)

What I find far more striking to the last 24 hours, is that several people, well spoken and initially extending the polite "assume good faith" tact, by going to great length to address howling accusation of "hoax and charlatanry", as would seem humanly possible. Not one, or two but several people have attempted to work upon the main body article. (Again the edit history shows) A steady, and tirelessly unproductive effort of comment-less deletion and belittlement. Little more than a few capitals and commas, compared to the real effort performed by the initially polite individuals. Now? It's an all out brawl, resisted at length by the initial posters and straggling but real support, for an article simply entitled, Aetherometry. TTLightningRod

Natalinasmpf's arguments have convinced me to change my vote... to Keep. I still think the concept is hokum (ala Cold fusion or even the Sokal Affair), but ask Tesla, Galileo, and Darwin about "peer review" as applied to new areas of science. More importantly, take a good long look at the career of Wegener before assuming a theory is unworthy of interest because YOU and the mainstream scientists you learned from don't like it or find it "implausible". He died in ignominy thirty years before the "mainstream" realized he was essentially correct. For a physics version, try Murray Gell-Mann, whose Eightfold Way was "widely considered self-evidently nonsensical." Vote keep if you believe in quarks. Kevin/Last1in 21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of voting keep myself. I voted delete before because I wasn't sure the article could be salvaged. I just need it to be represented NPOV - and mind you, for every 100 fringe theories there are, only 1 of them are bound to be fruitful. Peer review just picks them out. Its just the way things are. It was just at first glance, it looked awfully like a hoax and commercial spam to me. -- Natalinasmpf 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The clean up notice should stay in place until the article meets Wikipedia criterion. Perhaps even a disclaimer type of notice at the beginning would help allay the angst felt by many at Wikipedia about this subject getting coverage here. "Note that the following article is considered too speculative and on the fringe by a significant portion of Wikipedia participants, and was nearly deleted for that reason. It is in process of being brought into conformity with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and other encyclopedic criteria. -- Sterlingda 23:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'm all for having notable crackpot theories in but this isn't notable. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough notable crank theory. They should establish themselves elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Natalinasmpf.-gadfium 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you're behind the times. Agreeing with Natalinasmpf doesn't mean what it used to, you know - it now means that you're on the verge of voting "keep". Get with it, man. Also, what happened here? Three slam-dunk "delete" votes in a row! Did Connelley go and bring in reinforcements? Maybe I'll go and see if I can bring in my uncle Bob to vote. OldPatrick

Depends. I haven't changed my vote yet. Oh, its not that "Connolley went and brought in reinforcements" - for goodness sake, its on the front of the votes for deletion page. Maybe you haven't seen: Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 20? Being a community encylopedia, you shouldn't be surprised if a whole host of other people turn up. There's nothing peculiar about three delete votes in a row, either. Bringing in your uncle by the way, its called a sockpuppetry. -- Natalinasmpf 07:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm Helicoid, the poor devil responsible for this storm, this vote, and I have not voted yet. How do you tally my vote, if I vote to keep my entry or any reasonable fac-simile, but vote to delete the pure vandalized abortion that now stands on the altar of sheer aprioristic intolerance in this Wikipedia? Does NPOV say it is 16 to 10?Helicoid 04:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you would be voting Keep. As for whether its "aproristic intolerance", I find that quite funny, considering that other professional encylopedias would have rejected your entry in the first place. You really take things for granted. Unless you happened to be desperate to advertise your views? OH NO! It backfired didn't it? You originally wanted this for a niche to publish your views, well guess what, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Maybe you can go to Wikicities or something, instead.-- Natalinasmpf 07:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, topic is of no significance. Wikipedia is not a platform for crackpot theories--nixie 14:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. What the hell. --Alterego 19:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh brother. Now - look at that! -Aetherometry has become a "belief system". There is just no end to the entertainment, is there. When I voted to "keep", I didn't vote to keep whetever idiocy you-all choose to spout into the article, I voted to keep an article that provided accurate and cogent information on what Aetherometry actually is, not on what any Tom Dick and Harry may think it is. So here is my vote, spelled out:

Keep and work on it; otherwise , Delete. FrankZappo 21:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that the indefatiguable and multi-talented Connelley took it upon herself to actually edit, and emasculate, another person's comments. I thought editing another person's comments was a wikipedia "community" no-no. But since it is not, I will start happily practicing it. Meanwhile, here is the actual vote of the above user, before Connelley "edited" it to suit his fancy:

Keep the original article and work on it; otherwise , Delete.

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Got that??? Words mean specific things, you know.

Now, off I go to edit other people's comments. 165.154.24.194 00:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simply unbelievable how mr. connolley also is irresponsible. An administrator who censors a user's text and freely alters it because of an emotional reaction to the term wikipediafascism in the title? Wow, that's naked power! Where is the rule of law of this democracy that protects that user, the sameness in treatment, the no abuse of power?? Let's hear it! loud and clear, mr. connolley. Fascism, people, is how this kind of behavior was called in my young days. It is not Wikipedia that will change its meaning. Nor laws which will correct it. Only courage will. I propose that connolley do the right thing: muzzle himself and step down. Assume responsibility. i guess that he will not do that until someone will report him to the higher authorities. could one ask the anarchist to do this too, report connolley to the higher authorities? No factotum sharing? Just repugnant abuses of power!209.29.93.65 04:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you vote delete. Ironically, although you termed it fascism, you realise it seems the other way round. It has become a belief system, unless you back it up with unverifiable sources. You take things for granted, you realise that even Encylopedia Britannica would not accept your article, so who are you to condemn us? Idiocy? Is that a personal attack? Just because the original author wanted the article to be that way, doesn't mean the article is going to stay that way. The original article was so full of POV and unsupported statements, the text had to go - we may put it back when you help us NPOV it. Furthermore, no one "owns" an article", and how an article is shaped is decided by the community, not one person. Ironically, "accurate and cogent" information is not what your article is, considering how it conflicts with a whole host of accepted scientific theories, which I am sure most Wikipedians and scientists (such as WMC) will agree with me on this point. I'd advise you not to credit Wikipedia for that article you have on your own server - that's Helicoid's "~~brilliant~~ prose", which has been rejected by the community unless its NPOV'ed. Not what any "Tom Dick and Harry" thinks it is? Well, we're a wiki, and by standard deviation we thus shape it into a good article, and not the word by ONE user, but by a community. -- Natalinasmpf 22:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

..... right, you've just about got it all down to one user..... oh wait... I'm here too. When it comes to historically destructive users, I now know at least one name to put on that list. "oops" TTLightningRod

I'm referring to those users who want the article in its "original pristine" state - ie. the first edit of this page - the one he linked to (but WMC removed because the url was inappropriate). You DID agree to NPOV the article, so you don't count as one of them. -- Natalinasmpf 23:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A final suppression of Aetherometry by five administrators at least, all admittedly ignorant of Aetherometry, all highly biased (the bias of power??). Interesting how they deconstructed Helicoid's text. There was nothing left of it in a click. Same with Helicoid who has been muzzled until the vote is over. Nothing left. What is the vote for? To give the appearance of democracy? What you call a vote on a submission that half-way through the vote is trashed and replaced? The triumph of the barbarians. Vote to Delete. And vote to Delete the 5 administrators for sheer POVness (or is it POVerty?). Where's the page for that? 209.29.93.57 23:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

209.29.93.57 is the user's first edit.

Below is asked suppression of what? Suppression of the right to free speech of Helicoid on the last day of a rigged vote by supposedly unbiased admins. Suppression of the original contribution by Helicoid so that the vote had no bearing on anything even mildly intelligent and informative. Suppression of the original text without foundation, knowledge of cause, legitimate reasons, because of an overt refusal to consult the many links that were given. Suppression of any effort to be constructive. Suppression of knowledge on the basis of inadmissible bias - intellectual bias, scientifism (false interpretations of institutional science passed off as real ones), scientificity (false and grave misrepresentations of a theory, a model, etc, with total disregard for facts and the contents of the material), discrimination of minoritarian thought, outright put down of minorities, admitted and verified ignorance. Suppression of facts. Suppression of records. Alteration of records by admins and minors. Suppression with extreme prejudice.209.29.93.65 05:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suppression of what? I recognise the danger of Orwellianism, et al, but you're pretty ironic as this is a free encylopedia mandated by the community. Furthermore, Aetherometry has very little notability, and you're lucky we even tolerate this article in the first place. If this article is to exist, it needs to be NPOV'ed as that is the spirit agreed on by the community. Its not "Helicoid's text", its an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Its a place to publish facts. No one owns an article. Have you read the disclaimer? "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Its a community encylopedia, to be improved by anyone, according to the NPOV policy. Helicoid? Muzzled? He was blocked for 24 hours, not until the vote was over, and only because he violated the 3 revert rule, stampeding over other people's editing rights. The vote? Its to decide the consensus. It can be appealed, or brought up later, and it isn't absolute. Oh, I'd advise you not to make a personal attack, either. What "bias of power"? Each Wikipedian is supposed to act like an administrator - just that the power is granted to those who have proven themselves not to be sockpuppets, vandals, etc. Do you get the idea of what a wiki is? Its supposed to be IMPROVED, so it could be kept. Do see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. It is not "suppression", in the meanwhile, because it is DISPUTED whether it deserves to have its own article or not. If you don't want it to be suppressed, work within the framework. We can't acknowledge it as truth - that is not "suppression", that is going over the top with some theory that even Encylopedia Britannica wouldn't accept. If you really want to base all your conclusions on one vfd, well, who am I to force you not to? Perhaps you should actually take a look around, and realise how Wikipedia works - the idea is to judge by consensus of the community, and I hardly call that "suppression". -- Natalinasmpf 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh delete already and be done with it. Unbelievable. A true case study in how "democracies" secrete lynch mobs. Makes me puke. And yes, this is my first friggin' edit. I am probably somebody's popp sucket. 165.154.24.194 23:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A lynch mob? We're simply following the NPOV policy, so I do not think this is a "lynch mob". Perhaps you're unhappy your view isn't represented, but in order to do so, since your view is a minority view, it has to be represented as such, whic seems fair. We have to remove the prose concerning extensive theories of aetherometry because they haven't been verified and they assert themselves as truth. What you can do, is help represent claims as claims, and fact as fact, and then perhaps it seems less like suppression. Can we agree that most of what the Correas are advocating are claims that have not been fully replicated to warrant a recognition of it as fact? -- Natalinasmpf 23:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that the Britannica was the Wikipedia standard. But is the standard of Britannica to declare something into a belief system "unless you back it up with unverifiable sources", as you wrote above? Kinda doubt it. Fishy, no? How much of a community encyclopedia is Wikipedia when 5 admins and a Chihuahua become judges of what is or not (1) factual (is the original submission factual? which is different from:is its content factual?), (2) peer-reviewed or peer-tested or not, (3) worthy of mention, (4) worthy of study, (5) a science, a quasi-science, or a falsification, intentional or not? A little humility on the part of admins in dealing with the situation would have been the smart move. Suppression, falsification of records (as in Talk), addition of scurrilous pages, muzzling ("each Wikipedian is supposed to act like an Administrator..." - a good joke when power is stacked by a very visible policy of suppression), destruction of texts, rush to judgement: not very smart. Not to mention the Wikipedia policy of removing gratuitous slander of third parties.209.29.93.57 23:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is not the proper place for a serious article about anything. The overall quality of "information" in the Wikipedia is appalling - as is inevitable with a publication whose editorial process encourages incompetent people to "boldly edit" and muck with the work of people who are more knowledgeable. Who in the world would buy a print encyclopedia whose editors did not recognize that every subject has its experts, and that those experts are more qualified to convey knowledge about their subject than others are? But if its "Wiki", then suddenly a free-for-all can have the pretensions to being a "professional" and "reliable" source of knowledge. Delete, delete. It's embarrassing. 199.232.231.114 03:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, POV pseudoscience lacking references. Alphax ^τεχ 08:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Delete. It's obviously impossible to have an intelligent article on the subject when every nerd with a computer and his brother thinks he/she has something to say about a subject without having the slightest clue what they're talking about.. Just take a look at the pages of these 'peer editors'. What a calamity! It's the brave new knowledge of wiki idiocy and a page on Aetherometry indeed has no place here! I agree, 199.232.231.114, whoever you are. Delete, delete ,delete4.233.123.87 09:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its obviously impossible to have an intelligent article when every single pro-aetherometry fanatic and his or her acquaintances thinks he or she can substantiate a questionable theory about physics without having the slightest piece of evidence to cite....just look at the web pages of these "scientists". What a calamity! Its a brave new knowledge of the era founded by the Correas and all their snake oil vending! -- Natalinasmpf 09:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are a sick puppie, an out-of-control petty despot - back to gratuitous slander! Only happy when putting down others - which this time ain't working, hum? But why don't you stop your lamentations and friggin' vote Delete. Have the courage to delete. Reverse your reversal. You don't seem to know whether you're coming or going, muchacho.209.29.93.65 09:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, slander? Hardly, its a perfectly legitimate statement. I have seen nothing from you except religious devotion to your beloved Correas and prompt rejection if anyone dares criticise them, to the extent of calling it "slander". This is vfd for a presentation of reasons to delete or keep. I can change my vote if I want. -- Natalinasmpf 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And there you have it. Mr. Natalinasmpf once again, displaying his irrepressible, obnoxious POV. Why don't you try to be honest, just once in these pages. You've been on a campaign to slander the correas from the get go, and here you come again with your snake oil stupidities. Just vote for deletion. It's obvious that you'll never be able to treat the material in an impartial manner - your POV screams from one end of this discussion to the other. Has it occurred to you that it's more than mildly fanatic to consider yourself on a noble mission to save mankind from the clutches of aetherometry without having the slightest idea of what Aetherometry might be? Silly little boy. 4.233.123.165 09:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course its POV. Its a talk page comment. As to be on a "campaign to slander the Correas from the get go", I never heard of them until five days ago, and I simply question their credentials because of my OPINION that this theory is bunk. Oh, I'm afraid that by addressing me, you severely jumped to conclusions. Its not that I "don't have the slightest idea of what aetherometry is", because aetherometry is nonsense, as much nonsense as Sollog is. That is my opinion. I'm not producing it in the article, but I deserve the right to make such an opinion known on this talk page. Fanatic to be on a noble mission, I consider that a good thing. A religious devotion to an unsubstantiated theory, no. Criticise me because my attitude, but not because of my nationality, race or age, you bigot.-- Natalinasmpf 10:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In five days a young zealot mind was formed? No, it took at least 14 years for its unconscious to form, is that not so? Is Wikipedia the place for fanatics with a noble mission? I guess so.209.29.93.65 10:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What did you think Wikipedia was for? Profit? No. Its to provide an encylopedia to the world. A noble mission. Zealotry? Ironic, considering your lack of verifiable sources. To this date none of you (Helicoid, Patrick, you and all the people who registered and "arrived" days ago not to contribute to Wikipedia, but to push POV) - has provided a verifiable source. Unless you provide a verifiable source, all my statements are valid. Do you brand me with those who type in AOLer? Is that it? Talk about an open mind. -- Natalinasmpf 10:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very well then: opinionated POV, zealotry, unwillingness to inform oneself , fanatics of any sort on so-called noble missions should have no place in any forum purporting to be concerned with knowledge, information and learning. But you could at least have the courage of your obnoxious convictions and vote to delete.

Unfortunately, just because I have a POV on the issue doesn't mean I can't contribute. Nearly all Wikipedians have POV's with similar zealotry, probably even you, on any case, concerning any subject. I am not making a personal attack against any other Wikipedian: I reserve the right to criticise the theory if I wish, its perfectly legitimate. Its a point of view. That's the whole point. Everyone has a POV - but that's on the talk page. I did not bring this into the article space. As for "unwilligness to inform oneself" - I have duly informed myself, and I have viewed the advocacy websites. You can't assume "I haven't read the material" just because I disagree with you. It appears this is out of spite. Funny, "I have no place", but you want me to vote delete? Do make your mind. I am not changing my vote unless you provide me good reason to. -- Natalinasmpf 10:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Who do you think you're fooling? It looks like not even the ABC of Relativity you knew, let alone that of Aetherometry? Can't somebody be done with this obsessive character just by closing the darn vote? Isn't it past time? It appears that whether the entry goes or stays is now in your Heliogabalic-anarchist hands. Go for it. Have no fear before God, sonny.209.29.93.65 10:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so arrogant to presume I don't know the "ABC's of relativity"? As for closing the vote, it takes an entire week to decide. AS for "whether the entry stays or goes", that only happens if I happen to be a vote swinger (ie. its a close count), not because I commnand the votes. Who do you think YOU are fooling when you assert aetherometry has been substantiated? Obsessive character? Ironic. -- Natalinasmpf 11:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. My favorite quote from the one who appears to be the major wikibureaucrat (Natalinasmpf) is: "It has become a belief system, unless you back it up with unverifiable sources." I'm perplexed: was that a Freudian slip, or did he really mean that? If you want verifiable, go read Experimental Aetherometry Volume 1 - lots of detailed experimental data there (and you can easily verify it by relpicating the experiments). However, if you'd rather continue to believe that laboratory electroscopes can produce energy from nothing, you won't be interested in the results. 199.232.231.114 03:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Woops - forgot the 4 tildas in the previous post. Please forgive me. 69.17.136.204 21:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Freudian slip? Do tell me - a book written by the Correas is not a third party source. Its a reference no doubt, but its part of the aetherometry advocates in itself, not checked by third party scientists. As for "producing energy from nothing" that's ironic, although it doesn't explicitly say so, by claiming your "philosophy from Tesla", you are indeed looking for some alternative new free energy source, that is dubious at best. A book isn't a scientific paper, either. Unless other scientists took it upon themselves to peer review it. And for the umpteenth time, you address me wrongly, but I guess lack of common sense and a sense of what science is leaves you perplexed. Experimental Aetherometry Volume 1, unless you can cite me page number, line number, and reviews by other scientific journals, page number and line number included - its not verifiable. You can't say, "oh, I have a source at so and so, so I don't need to cite" - ISDN number, page number, line number - and oh, a bookw written by the Correas does not count, because they do not cite third party sources. Do provide me with an experiment of something reproducible. In fact, instead of filling the article with nonsense on how you think the universe works, give us the outline of detailed, reproducible experiments, and then tell us how that is evidence. It would be most appreciated. The best thing about you aetherometry proponents is that you claim, "I have sources, do you really want me to cite them to you"? And then we request, yes, we want those sources cited, page number/line number - and you don't provide. You evade the question, and rather continue attacking us. Logical fallacy - maybe you don't have anything to provide. Of course, I want to say its nonsense. I'm not saying its nonsense on the article, so I am not violating anything. But since you're so uncivil, I see no reason why I should exercise caution either. -- Natalinasmpf 18:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of the lesson sank in with you, no? After all you have grown 1 year older, you're now 15, and your wikipage no longer says that you are an extremist anarcho-communist who is not a bolshevik! All overnight miracles. You say you're now a social-libertarian. You might yet become an aetherometrist, who knows? The fervor will not help, but the determination could. Alright, young Natalinas social libertarian: what are you doing, man? Don't you want the entry deleted? Think about all the work that you and your administrator friends are going to have to do just to keep up with the entry's...er, accuracy? Helicoid.

You're nitpicking. My birthday was in May. I was born in 1990. I am therefore 15, I just forgot to update. And I'm still an anarcho-communist, although I don't see how that matters. If you see the article on anarcho-communism, you can clearly see its part of the broader libertarian socialist movement. I don't see how this is relevant to aetherometry though. As for being an aetherometrist, at the moment, I just have a piqued curiosity for something I very much doubt the credibility of. Until of course, you can provide me with actual sources. As for "all the work", we take pride in work. We just don't want inane, inaccurate and biased articles such as the "original article" you so claim -- Natalinasmpf 20:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guess you're old enough to vote but ignorant enough to know that libertarian is not spelled liberterian. And your dense enough not to realize that Mallove was a libertarian, that the influences on the philosophy of Aetherometry are "libertarian". Anyway, we have seen you act when your curiosity (obsession? Fanaticism? Zeal? Fundamentalism?) is piqued. I still have not heard your apologies, your retraction, nor seen your vote to delete. Who cares, no? Anyway, it is pleasing to see you change labels and remain self-same. Helicoid.

It was a typographical error. As for being "dense", Mallove is libertarian indeed, but not libertarian socialist. And the "philosophy of aetherometry" has nothing to do with it. Unless you're inventing something like the crackpot of Nietszche's Will to Power (a lot of people disagree with me on that point, but they don't prosecute me for defaming Nietszche, now do they?) who thinks a novel model of science based on the presence of energy can spurn its own philosophical ideas, I hardly think libertarianism and aetherometry are related to each other. As for apologies and retraction, I will not budge. I will remain steadfast in my opinion. The decision to vote keep or delete is based on whether the article can be salvaged or not. Unless you want to resort to legal threats to enforce my retraction of the stance. -- Natalinasmpf 22:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Natalinasmpf's remarks regarding "the crackpot of Nietszche's Will to Power (a lot of people disagree with me on that point, but they don't prosecute me for defaming Nietszche, now do they?)"

No they don't. Of course, Nietzsche's been dead for some time now.... while those other people you've seen fit to slander aren't, but it probably goes a long way to explain why the Wikipedia Nietzsche page is in the perfectly abominable state it's in. Don't tell me, you did your google due diligence again... Ah if not you, perhaps it was some of your google jockey cohorts.4.231.170.117

Abominable state it's in? Except for possibly reverting page blanking vandalism, I haven't touched that page. So what if the other people I criticise aren't dead? Is it slander? No. Does making it viewable on a public forum make it slander? No, because its a perfectly legitimate statement to state that such and such is a snake oil vendor, if given limited credibility. Google "jockey" cohorts? Yes, we coordinate edits together with the other tens of thousands of regular editors here, but if you want to call of them "jockey cohorts", go ahead. -- Natalinasmpf 22:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- So irresponsible you are, Natalinasmpf, that you cannot even admit to a spelling mistake that you made several times in the previous day. Dysneyland libertarian socialist what-have-you, you have the mind of a Stalino. Helicoid.

Spelling mistake? Do you really want to nitpick over that? Let me remind you that your grammar isn't so up to standard either, and in fact worse. Should I cite you the history? -- Natalinasmpf 22:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're no wonder child, you know: the lesson is this: you're so stubborn as to not even accept responsibility for YOUR OWN spelling errors. I will gladly accept responsibility for mine and anything else. Even be banned before I call a cop on you. Now that's fortitude. That's the difference between being juvenile (or infantile) and being young in the mind. Get that? Helicoid.

What? I wasn't the one who called a block on you, by the way. I was in school when you were blocked. Mel Etitis blocked you on his own accord. As for "accepting responsibility for my own spelling errors", as I have But I see you've evaded all my other points on this issue, including sources to cite. Way to go. Your sockpuppet, 209.29.93.65, that is you - contributed some edits with gross grammar errors including omission of the definite and indefinite articles, and severe misspellings. Perhaps you should check the aetherometry article history? Typing "libeterianism" is a subconscious bad habit, not a spelling mistake. -- Natalinasmpf 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Before any industrious admins engaged in "tedious housekeeping activities" descend upon me to delete my comments, I would like to claim the same courtesy from them to express my unabashed POV for deletion, as has been extended to their most dubious 'editors' to express theirs. I would also like to say to TTLightningRod, as I cast my vote for STRONG DELETION that it looks to me like you're definitely in the wrong forum here, mate... As far as I'm concerned it can't come down fast enough. I did, however want to tell you, GangofOne and 209.29.93.65 that I was following all your careful and painstaking work last night with some interest and enjoyment - only to see the demolition derby move back in - led by the Katefan0 of beer girl fame and little Radioactive boyscout from you-know-where. Ah yes, and then came the fastidious victorian ladies tea party suffragettes on their way to clear the good names of Tesla and Einstein of what, remains, I'm afraid, entirely opaque. This purifying activity is pure burlesque It would seem to me that a person with your intelligence definitely needs to find another home for his activities. I have run this by the kittens who, as you may imagine, concurred. I encourage you to do the obvious - vote to delete! 4.240.78.145 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh, what a joke. It would take every minute of every day of somebody's life to keep this article from constantly lapsing into senseless drivel by the hands of these self-appointed "editors". I don't know who had the brilliant idea of putting it up, but if it was an experiment, it seems to me it has run its course. DELETE. Wildboar 23:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. -- Natalinasmpf 23:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senseless drivel? Self-appointed editors? Oh you mean people like Helicoid right, who think they "own" and have "authority" over the article? Oh, see what a wiki is. Its "self-appointed", but given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Of course Helicoid and friends want to be the sole contributors to the article. -- Natalinasmpf 23:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I voted already; but just in case it was unclear: I vote to delete, now that the original submission was suppressed (can still be found at [30] driftline; that's Wikipedia Fascism, at the home of the Deleuze and Guattari archive!) and trashed, and it is plain that even what now remains of the entry is little informative. It certainly explains NOTHING of the theory of Aetherometry or the accomplishments of the Correas, Mallove and their friends and collaborators. It sucks. So I'm glad to see that a majority of Aetherometry sympathizers have managed to get a majority for DELETE. Make my vote count: DELETE. Sorry, no more lessons. Ha and shut up fake anarchist-liberterien-suckyoulist expert in demolition and tantrums. Time for thumb sucking. Helicoid

I don't get it, Helicoid. Aren't you the author of the original article? If you want it taken down, why do you have to vote? Can't you just request that it be taken down? 165.154.24.119 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Did you read the disclaimers? Did you read the bottom box below when you clicked "edit this page"? No one owns the article. As of currently, all this information is under the GFDL. -- Natalinasmpf 23:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accomplishments? The problem is that whether they are accomplishments are not are contested in the first place. If you want to explain the accomplishments of the Correas, then do it neutrally. Do it with referenced sources. The original submission can still be found in the first revision of this article. How can it be "suppressed"? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. The concept is that an article is never in a "static" state. It wasn't suppressed, it was improved. And sometimes improvement requires removal of unsubstantiated claims until they can be supported. As for "ha and shut up", it very much shows your desperation and sheer helplessness. -- Natalinasmpf 23:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article itself has disappeared as of the following entry in its history log: 23:24, 24 Jun 2005 Karada (trimming right back to what, I hope, we can all agree on) The page, however, continues to exist as 3 paragraphs. Now that the article has been disposed of (2 days ago) without the completed vote, I strongly recommend removing the page itself. Natalinasmpf - Since you didn't get the Freudian slip, I'll give you your long-sought-after unverifiable source: If you go to the main library in the city of Tashkanapor on the planet Kandalor, you'll find all the sources you could dream of. How's that for 'unverifiable'? Just take my word. Guess you haven't yet figured out the function of peer review in our anarchistic world. Now, DELETE the whole page. 69.17.136.204 23:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User's third edit. -- Natalinasmpf 23:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is in progress. It is not the final article. What happens is that you and your friends are so hesitant to cooperate, that the article is not moving anywhere. All you do is throw personal attacks around. And giving me an unverifiable source is completely opposite to what I asked for. I asked for a verifiable one, not an unverifiable one. Take my word? Its YOUR evidence that's in question. And you think you have the arrogance to be the sole one who wants to delete, along with you and your sockpuppeteering friends? This is a community encylopedia, not the Correas' encylopedia, and never had to submit to the fascist authority of aetherometrists. I can see how you are so paranoid though, you originally wanted to come here to propagate your hoax but now it has horrendously backfired and you are about to get a notable reference to put it in a light you'd rather not. Indeed quite the hypocrites when you accuse me of fascism, because its the corporate - fascist, propagation you aetherometrists have been trying to propagate all along. "Aetherometry is libertarian"? My foot. -- Natalinasmpf 23:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Improvement" by Natalinas, Mel Etitis, Knott, etc (the admin gang) is rather apparent. Natalinas, you make me cry of laughter. But the improvement will not stand for long as the vote is to delete (every abortion should be deleted). What good reasons can you make to keep? Only fools would bother with your kind. But let's say that I'm a fool 'coz I needed a taste of your kind of democracy, power, intelligence, goodwill, sharp wit, independence from authorities, knowledge, accuity, just to remind me of how lousy mao-maos (that's stalinist-maoist fanatics) are. Ah, and how fascism is indeed, even today, the dearest secretion of leftism. Wikipedia: the fascism of leftist majorities of administrators desperately trying to control the content of culture and knowledge, and monopolize meaning. NPOV certificates available! Apply to Karada, Jacobi, Connolley, etc! Factotums wanted! Preferably self-styled anarchists and underage! Apply to Wikipedia (Google too?). Helicoid

Good reasons to keep? Well, since you all voted keep at the start, and have proven me how notably dangerous and how false, this kind of "science" is, I vote to keep to inform readers of the truth about aetherometry, and include scientific critique of it when I have time. Unless of course, you want to cooperate, make aetherometry look better, and generally treat other editors with respect, I could change all of that. I bet the millions of others that hit this site each day are "fools" as well, I guess. Fascism is the secretion of leftism? Pardon me, but it's rather the opposite, Bolsheivks and Mao - and all of them - they were "right-wingers" who purposely hijacked the communist ideology for their state capitalist gain. Mao Maos? That's your kind, not mine. Its the kind aetherometrists seem to be made out of, to denounce constructive edits as "suppression", while masking their own suppression of their opposition as "vandalism and ignorance". Truly platonic, I can see. Majories of administrators? Are you insinuating that the hundreds of thousands of contributors, millions if you count legitimate anonymous contributors are all part of a grand conspiracy? Unfortunately, it seems that's what aetherometry is in fact, how ironic. A plot and a scam to try to suck the unwitting reader into its plutocratic grasp. "Underage"? Unfortunately, age does not define validity of contribution. As for asserting your authority over the article, how fascist as well, you want it to be deleted, simply because YOU, as an individual, can't stand it, and you want to assert your pro-fascist ideology over everyone else, and condemn constructive editing, and project that would undermine your power based on ignorance. -- Natalinasmpf 23:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinas, you as qualified to "inform readers of the truth about aetherometry" as I am to write a treatise about sea cucumbers. And are you threatening Helicoid that unless she cooperates, you are going to "make aetherometry look bad"? That's what it sounds like: "Unless of course, you want to cooperate, make aetherometry look better, and generally treat other editors with respect, I could change all of that.". In other words, you're threatening that if Helicoid doesn't "cooperate", you will spread lies about Aetherometry. Nice goings on - all brought to us by the Spotless Wikipedia Team. And isn't it rather ignoble to vote to keep an article out of hatred for its subject matter? Man, you are one demented, pathetic mush-brain. 165.154.24.56 00:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from writing a treatise about sea cucumbers. You can go ahead, and you won't be stopped. Other editors will correspond with you to check your facts, if you are civil. I'm not threatening Helicoid: because since I do not advocate aetherometry, without his correspondence, the article will be more critical of aetherometry then it should be. If he wants to avoid that, then he should contribute constructively. In order words, I'm not going to spread "lies" about aetherometry, because aetherometry isn't verified in the first place. If I say it isn't "rigorously peer reviewed", and Helicoid isn't there to try to provide sources to prove otherwise, then Helicoid's possible correction will of course, not be present. Ignoble to keep an article out of hatred for its subject matter? Hardly. It's my view, and there's nothing wrong with my vote. It's an opinion. Its hardly being a mush-brain for doing so, perhaps out of spite, but then again, that's eye for an eye, isn't it?

I'd also advise you to know what "fascism" is. Fascism is when the corporations control the state, and wealth rules everything - a plutocracy - and seeing how your scamming of a corporation of aetherometry runs, and your attempts to silence valid opposition on a free encylopedia to your claims, you aetherometrists are hypocrites. State-capitalism like Bolshevism and Maoism which appears aetherometrists love so much, and tute as their "philosophy", and tries to poison the meaning of what anarchism and libertarian socialism is, is a form of fascism. Libertarian socialism is the antithesis of fascism. But then again, you people base your success on fanatical devotion and ignorance, don't you? -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, the little smidgeon wants power! Helicoid.

So ignorant about the roots of fascism, little mao-mao. Perhaps the future dictator of Singapore? Helicoid.

Irony++, considering that I'm staunchly opposed to the authoritarian PAP. "Future dictator of Singapore"? As for you, "future successful snake oil vendor", I suppose? If anything, I discourage absolute human rule. -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Me too! Especially absolute human rule of thumb. 165.154.24.56

Way to miss the point. -- Natalinasmpf 00:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- So young and yet already so advanced in lagging behind, it's more NPOV.209.29.97.147

- Ad hominem, by the way. Doesn't affect whether aetherometry should be kept or not. As for "lagging behind", you must be quite the conclusion-jumper if you can assert it all from one post. Your paranoid behaviour, and constant ironically, childish attempts to assert your authority, including with all your sockpuppets, over the article is indeed quite fascist. -- Natalinasmpf 01:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KEEP well, they are -- unsigned comment by 70.58.91.15

deleteGeni 00:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what are we deleting or keeping? can anyone answer that?209.29.97.147 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, oh yes, I can explain. Listen carefully. We are deleting or keeping a Web page. Its title is "Aetherometry"; that's fixed. Its contents, on the other hand, can at any moment be arbitrarily generated, degenerated or modified by anybody who knows how to use a web browser, irrespective of whether or not they can tell the actual science of Aetherometry from a bottle of gin, can form a grammatical sentence, or have any interest in any even vaguely related subject. And if past experience is any guide, they do this at the rate of an edit every five minutes or so. There are a lot of people with browsers out there.... 165.154.24.56 01:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're arguing against the concept of wiki, do see Wikipedia:Replies to common objections, specifically the section marked "Letting arbitrary Internet users edit any article at will is absurd", and its rebuttal to that objection. It isn't "arbitrarily generated" - just as nonsense can easily be put in, it is even easier to remove, considering that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Ironically, YOU - who can edit anything, and could edit that article to be improved right now, are talking right here, and wouldn't be given a voice otherwise. You wouldn't be able to say that this was an "actual science". Britannica and CNN and everywhere else would not listen to your comments. Oh, Wikipedia receives about 40,000 edits each day, so it isn' tabou tan "edit every five minutes or so". Whether or not they can form a grammatical sentence is irrelevant - it can be corrected. Unfortunately, ironically, Helicoid can't even do this properly. So how are you to criticise? If anything, they are at most typos from replies being typed out in haste. I love how Helicoid includes parantheses everywhere, that acutally muck up the paragraph flow. You obviously don't get the concept of what a wiki is. Its peer-reviewed in itself, and far more credible than your crackpot of an "Infinite Energy" "scientific journal".

• DELETE, DELETE, DELETE, DELETE. Natalinasmpf - this is the most shameful behavior I've ever seen on any forum. Disgraceful. Did someone say that the hope for this planet lies in its youth? Well then. Abandon hope all ye who enter here. 4.224.210.129

Its hardly disgraceful. Ironically - your behaviour, discriminating on the basis nothing having to do with character or the actual suject is sheer bigotry. Is it "shameful" if I reject something because its credibility has not been proven? -- Natalinasmpf 01:32, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. What is shameful and disgraceful is the way it was done. You-all could have courteously approached the original author. You could have thanked her for her contribution and explained to her that scientific projects not described in mainstream literature were subject to a special procedure for establishing credibility. You could have informed her, upfront, exactly what kinds of proofs of credibility were required and in what form. If the original author could not, or did not care to, furnish the requisite proofs, the matter would end right there, the article would be deleted, and everybody would have parted on good terms. If the original author could furnish enough acceptable proof, the next step should have been to give her general guidelines about how to make the article itself accepatble - and then let her, and/or anybody else knowledgeable about the subject and cooperating with the original author, make the changes. And after that you-all, and everybody who cared about knowledge and information, should have participated in protecting the intergity of the information in the article from subsequent distortion and falsification.

That is the way anybody worthy of the name "encyclopedia editor" should have acted. But none of that was done. Instead, the article was immediately, and without any basis, treated as if it had been submitted in bad faith; the author was treated with derision, contempt and condescension; both the author and the scientists whose work was described in the article were subjected to slander and defamation of character; and a kangaroo-court proceeded to ride haywire on the subject without knowing anything about it, and to replace the article with ignorant derisive crap. That's what is shameful and disgraceful. And even more shameful and disgraceful is that none of you people - you PJacobis, you William Conneleys, you Natalinas', you Mel Etitis' (sounds like a disease), you Karadas', you Guettardas - don't feel any sense of shame about it - no, to the contrary, you feel a sense of holy righteousness. It's exactly like a Stalinist party rally - I know those rallies, I grew up under Stalinism. But let me tell you, there are already enough Stalinist encyclopedias in the world - Stalin himself was a great Encyclopedist, you know. We don't need another one on the Internet. 165.154.24.56 02:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ceasefire. I had some negative and wrong misassumptions about aetherometry, more of concerning the people behind it, than the science itself, which I still doubt. Now, I'm also worried that you have misassumptions of Wikipedia as well. Now I want to ask, why did Helicoid submit this article in the first place? What did you hope to achieve? I am in the process of typing up a lengthy, semi-apolegetic discourse, which of course my stance of it as a fringe science will not change, nor my stance that it needs more peer review and is probably wrong in many areas, although probably insightful - that will not change. But I really hope we can be civil, and to cooperate and rule out the kinks. Now for one thing, I am going to retract some of my previous statements about aetherometry. But that is only if you can agree that some of the behaviour (from several IP's) concerning civility need to change. I'll come up with a full reply later. -- Natalinasmpf 02:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Natalinasmp. It's a mystery to me why you made such ugly assumptions in the first place, but it seems to me that a full, written public apology and retraction of the slanderous and libelous assertions you have put forward regarding the Correas and their work, in this forum, is the least you could and should do - and I trust you intend to put that in your full reply? 165.154.24.56 04:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No see, that is the thing that made me think you people were authoritarian and tended to be fascist (although you argue I am and you are not) - you "demand" a full written public apology, and call it "slanderous and libelous". The concept of slander and libel is something invented by authoritarian leaders who can't stand a tarnished reputation and can't stand criticism, and business leaders who are afraid to lose their precious, precious monetary gains. That's fascist. The political opposition in my country are all silenced because the government prosecutes them for slander and libel, and silences the students too, if they try to make any public critique of the government. That's the thing I can't stand. The moment you say its "slanderous and libelous" - I immediately think you are as politically decadent as my government. A good scientist merely shrugs off these claims, or rebuts them with cool. Now, I have agreed to apologise for some things, but I will not do it because you demanded it so, or you asked me to. I do it because this is a comment of my own accord. I'm not doing it because "its the least I should do" - but rather, because I want to reconcile this ugly battle that never should have happened in the first place. I admit I was wrong on some counts, but no its not a "full retraction". Gosh, that sounds a lot like what the Church wanted Galileo to do, wasn't it? -- Natalinasmpf 04:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Natalinas, you're right, it seems that this entire storm was really unnecessary. it's good at least if it made you realize the biased identifications that one is taught to make and how wrong they turn out to be. maybe that's why the extremes are said to meet, why authoritarians and radical libertarians have something in common. one might hope that that is not putting up with bullies, even though each has different bullies in mind. more commonly, what they have in mind and in common is the brutal exercise of power.209.29.168.136 28 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)

delete. Never had a chance nor the interest to observe the inner workings of wikipedia. Never consult it because it's useless. Just know that neither Britannica nor any other encyclopedia for that matter, nor any academic, nor librarian nor educator, nor anyone actually interested in a subject would give it the time of day. I must admit it was a surprise to me though to see just how shockingly bad it really is. Yes delete this article from this looney bin. Absolutely. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. KS

Delete - Movie the article over to wikiinfo as per GangofOne's suggestion. 4.249.39.163 05:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For all you peer-review worshippers
Abstract: "A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science."

Talk about fascism. Peer review is a way to regulate bias and prevent an abusive "authority" (ie. like the Church in the past) from springing up and taking assertion. What do you have to regulate bias then? Meditate on the manner? Appoint a dictator over science? Hmm? Note, I'm sure even aetherometrists agree that peer review is generally a good thing, since when was it not? I mean, you do share papers with each other, no? - Natalinasmpf 05:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep if anyone cares at this point. There's still a chance to reconstruct the original article in a way that situates Aetherometry against comparable mainstream theories, so that at least the reader can grasp the relations and differences and decide whether to find out more, or forget about it. I've read plenty on the subject, and I'll help edit, as long as everyone treats the subject with some respect. Pgio 28 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Delete - It's patently obvious that the pjacobi-noble-mission dwarf squads have nothing better to do all day with their time than waste everyone else's. Who has time for these endless idiotic edits and ill-willed smears? Move the article to wikiinfo where bright people who aren't too terrified that others might choose to think can go talk about it - and not spend their precious time endlessly swatting flies. 4.225.215.117 28 June 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Change vote to Keep article in its current form. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL June 28, 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

June 20

Doghouse Comics, User:IceKeyHunter (neé Kris Montello), Cloud109, and John Flanagan

List of animals that explode and List of exploding animals

Ephemeris of Mercury, Ephemeris of Mars, Ephemeris of Jupiter, Ephemeris of Saturn

S.W.M., Theology of Sanjan, The Theology of Sanjan and Sanjan (religion)

Bob Burns , Ted Mullen, Scott Redding, Joan Gallagher, Jeff Henderson, Kathryn Pray, Brian Pedraza, Tammy LeClair, Beryl Tracey, Doreen DeSain, Stan Prazkowicz, Joe Dan Tipps, Mike Thomas, Kathy Theimer, Paul Riker, Dagmar Nearpass, Kelly-Klaybor-Smith, Kevin Rhinehart, Cindy Costa