● Home  

● Random  

● Nearby  



● Log in  



● Settings  



● Donate  



● About Wikipedia  

● Disclaimers  



Wikipedia





Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 9





● Project page  
● Talk  


● Language  

● Watch  

● Edit  


< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
  

< July 8 July 10 >

July 9

edit

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

The result of the debate was removed already. Woohookitty 07:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AetoliaMud

edit

Promotion, not-notable, copyvio (cut and past from the link provided at the article. Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Imperian

edit

I believe this is not a notable MUD, sounds like a promo to me. Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a user request. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:10 (UTC)

User:Cognition/gallery

edit

At 01:48 on July 6 my userpage was vandalized. [1] Afterwards, this "gallery" was created. I do did not want this page created, and I do not want it in my namespace. Delete. Cognition 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

This should have been listed for speedy deletion (user subpage nominated by user). Have deleted it as such. Don't want to get into a debate over the best place for the location of this, but it would have been just as viable having it as a separate page rather than as a main user page. Grutness...wha? 9 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
It's been speedied. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry about the procedural mistake. Cognition 9 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
It's ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Afro-Mexican

edit

Article has been merged into Afro-Latin American#Mexico. There is no article for Latin Americans so there is no no reason to separate this group out, let alone have several articles about them. If Afro-Latin American survives it's Vfd it should be merged, otherwise deleted SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Keep. If you are planning to delete Afro-Latin American then Afro-Mexican would be lost. There is a group for Latin Americans which is the Latin America article itself. There is an article about African Americans so an article about Afro-Mexicans is well justified.

Keep. or... merge all the articles in only one about black outside africa.

You don't have to merge the two articles because they don't talk about the same topic, one talks about people with African descent in Mexico the other one about people with African descent in Latin America. By your own argument then Mexico should be merged with the Latin America article?

I would argue that the Afro-Latin American article needs the Mexican bit to make it a full article, otherwise it is too bitty. If that article survives I will start a Latin American article preciselty in order to stop what I see as the insidious rascism in the way this topic is being treated (starting with the name). BTW Mexico is a part of Latin America, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

SqueakBox, So, we must delete the article about US, and England because there is an article about anglo-saxon?. Of course not, We are speaking of very diferent things. Latin-american and hispanic are cultural terms, withouth regard of country or race. The history of black people in Mexico is very diferent from the history of Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, or Brazil. Honestly i see to option, or have an article on the history of black people outside africa, that would include subchater regarding each contry.. or keep with indepndient articles, like afro-american, afro-cuban, afrom-exican , etc. I found the clasification of "afro-latinamerican" too artificial.
The hispanic article is about people in the US. BTW I haven't accused anyone of rascism. We should not veer away from discussing rascist attitudes on Wikipedia. Please don't try to censure that, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
True, the hispanic is about people in the US, so was Afro-Latino and you merged it into Afro-Latin American which is about people in Latin America. You didn't accuse anyone in particular but wrote "Comment. Latin American redirects to Latin America. If Latin Americans aren't deserving of an article for what reason do we need an Afro-American article. Sounds rascist to me, SqueakBox July 8, 2005 18:39 (UTC)" at the Vfd page. I assure you nobody is trying to denigrate Afro-Latin Americans by writing an article about them. --Vizcarra 9 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)


It was certainly Menim that made me aware of this series of articles on Afro Latinos. I haven't actually read Menim, though I have fears (perhaps misplaced) that it is an example of the US accusing Mexico of rascism. Which seems a bit off to me. Who are the Americans (or Brits) to criticise other cultures. I think the name Afro is very patronising as the Afro-American concept is purely American. If you want to write about stratification in Mexican society it would be a good idea to create White Mexican and Indigenous Mexican, SqueakBox 17:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles about indigenous Mexicans (Azteca, Mayas, Chichimecas, Olmecs, Mixte, Toltec, [[Yaqui], Totonac, Tarascan, etc.). There aren't many about White Mexicans (only one, Chipilo, that I'm aware of), so you are free to write it. --Vizcarra 17:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By indigenous I meant something that covers the whole indigenous experience (of stratification etc). And I may start an Indigenous Latin American and White Latin American article if these survive the Vfd, SqueakBox 17:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as an attack page. FCYTravis 9 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Matthew tong

edit

Vanity. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 00:15 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The UK Board

edit

Delete. A bunch of people from some game forum sitting around and talking about it in Wikipedia article space. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Lord Patrick 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirecttoStone Cold Steve Austin. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stonecold

edit

Seems to be a hoax. Googling for "stonecold" seems to be hopeless, getting a bunch of wrestling crap. However, the UK govmnt mapping site[2] can't find anyplace named "stonecold" or "stone cold", and "butskill hill" gets zero google hits, and just butskill gets nothing relevant. Niteowlneils 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I relent. I'm sure that Northern England is a fine place, full of good people, and I won't put Northern England up for VFD.  ;) Thanks for all the helpful comments, and sorry for starting a side discussion. I just meant it seemed like an odd way to describe a real town -- like saying "Las Vegas, Western US" instead of "Las Vegas, Nevada". --A D Monroe III 20:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a signpost for stonecold last weekend. It's a couple of miles from Todmorden. Never been there though.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Victor augusto nieto righetti

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wang ba dan

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign language dicdefs, of which this is an example. Already been transwikied. Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 01:15 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tewu

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign language dicdefs, of which this is an example. Already been transwikied. Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 01:16 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Guitar weaving

edit

Delete. dicdef at best. Friday 9 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Goldeneye Level Citadel

edit

Besides being a copyright violation of [5], the article isn't encyclopedic at all. Nothing really worth salvaging or merging to GoldenEye 007 IMHO. K1Bond007 July 9, 2005 01:53 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wigamog inn

edit

Not notable, not encyclopedia content Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 9, 2005 02:09 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 19:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Guo

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign dicdefs! Already been transwikied. Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 02:14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Country_boy

edit

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic (although it is kinda funny) Roy 9 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

David tunney

edit

Vanity page, to accompany Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter branigan. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

82.42.84.82, 83.70.29.12, 83.71.69.213, 212.2.172.137, 212.144.219.142, 213.202.167.112 and has been vandalizing User and User talk pages of Joy Stovall who submitted the vfd. —Tokek 22:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Lopez

edit

Note: This article was listed on VfD on July 9, but (despite some discussion) got no votes either way except for the nomination itself. Although that may technically justify deleting the article, I am re-listing it in the hopes of getting a broader response. -- BD2412 talk 19:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(original nomination and discussion follows)

Spam. Stilgar135 9 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Question. Spam? By what definition? And why? Granted, the article is a stub -- and I can rectify that, if that's the only problem. Otherwise, I'll likely vote against. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 9 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
Spam probably isn't the right word; vanity would be better. If she is notable, and you can write a good article about her, then that seems like the right thing to do; but seeing an empty page with only a name, measurements, and a link to a personal site definitely makes it seem like a vanity page.
I would agree with the vanity part. It looks like Kikki Daire would be the same boat, but I did work on that before I called it a night. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can turn it into a good page, more power to you. Stilgar135 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gypsysoft

edit

Looks like forum trivia. Gazpacho 9 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Present day fashion

edit

This doesn't seem redeemable, and is for the most part covered in other articles. sparkit (talk) July 9, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. And yes I moved it to BJAODN. Woohookitty 07:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Gun

edit

It's obviously a delete, but is it BJAODN? Gazpacho 9 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.Woohookitty 06:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Websites

edit

Redundant of Content management system. sparkit (talk) July 9, 2005 02:57 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doorway Productions

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk idiots

edit

I've tried finding this group on the net, with limited success. According to the article it is a released artist, but "Drunk idiots" Chris Loop only gives 21 Google results [6]. Unless notability can be established i'd suggest delete. Hedley 16:38, 26 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Li lonp

edit

Player characters in MMORPGs are not notable. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 06:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Krievins and Erika Krievins

edit

One of the first things I did as a baby Wikipedian was to put this one up for VfD. Of course, I didn't know what the heck I was doing so it never actually made it's way to Vote for deletion. At any rate, the article covers a pair of non-notable identical twin actresses. IMDB lists two appearances for them, one uncredited. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

* I don't think that a single walk-on guest appearance on the X-Files meets the necessary standard of significance :) Fernando Rizo 17:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deven

edit

This is the definition of a name and it was listed on the page for "Articles Needing Wikification" - of what? -Cadahada 9 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nadro

edit

This was marked for speedy deletion but I moved it over to VFD because I need more opinions on this matter. The user who marked it {{db}} says that this person is a hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 9 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Discounting all unsigned votes and votes by brand new users, the results were 20 votes to delete, 2 to keep. Postdlf 21:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Dudes

edit

Discussion/Votes

edit

Not particulary notable. Channel 31 is public access, and spends a good part of its programming time showing aquariums of open fireplaces. The same user has also added these guys to List of magicians and Magic (illusion) as notable magicians (in between David Copperfield and Harry Blackstone, no less). Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

Comment: Also see this VFD for more of the same. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I reviewed all the info I could find on the subject, unfortunately, it's mostly self-promotion, that I found on the web, links on shopping sites pointing to their "unused" website. If at some time in the future, these guys become syndicated, then it may warrant an article. There is not enough information or content to support an article for a public broadcast channel show. As for the socketpuppets, I kind of feel bad, new user, getting their first article Vfd'd, and asking friends to help. Hard way to learn, but hopefully with more time on Wiki, will learn the rules and develop some good research and editing skills. I remain at delete. <>Who?¿? 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then what IP address(es) did you use to make "past edits". --Madchester 04:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

9 July 2005 10:08 (UTC) This is the user's first edit besides their own user page. See [9].

comment: the user I want to believe... has been making random deletions to edits made to this page.[10]
  • On channel 31 right now is "On The Couch" and they are doing a special on the Espy Hotel. Never heard of it? That's because it's about two kilometers away from my house and it is a (really bloody fantastic) pub where mostly unsigned (but really bloody fantastic) bands play. After that is "Vasili's Garden", another good show, I like that Vasili, He sold me some good tomatoes this year, his nursery is like four blocks from my house. Who is he interviewing tonight? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, that's Cosimo, he literally lives right across the street from me! Small world, man. (This, by the way is all completely true, I was watching it before I decided to come in here and write this.)
  • I watched Rove on 31 back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I thought his show was great on then and it's shite now that Dave is gone. But if someone had put a Rove article up then, I'd have nominated it for VfD. Rove, you may have noticed, went on from channel 31 to do something else. And no one found his "31" roots important enough to add to his page until your edit of 12:57, 9 July 2005.
  • So when you guys sorry, those guys, go on to win a Gold Logie (as voted on by the reader of TV Week magazine) I'll vote keep.
Oh, I smell black forest. I'd better wrap up. AMagicianStoleMyPantsOnceAndNowIHateThemAll 9 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
Just a note, I agree with the previous persons comment about the user interface. You people could get help with this. You should start with approriate exception handling and deliver useful error messages to the end users. Just a helpful tip, one should spot the difference between personal attacks and up to date comments from apparently qualified yet frustrated colleges, it all helps.Tomcat1 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

!!Tell you what, I'll let you know this is in English to and I am currently wearing red sox and a blue t shirt! (Vote and comment by IP 61.68.248.83, his first edit [17]).

Now it makes more sense. Since their official site is down, the Magic Dudes are trying to use Wikipedia for free promotion and webspace, neither of which are allowed. --Madchester 05:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
From the four references, if we are even talking about the same thing, could be mirrors of Wikipedia. Many have popped up, so looking for stuff is hard. Plus, most of the mentions the Magic Dudes have to here refer to this vote. Plus, since most of the stuff you mainly copied from is from their website, that is where the vantity/promotion aurguement kicks in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE REWRITTEN: Hope nobody minds, but I read all the comments, read the cries for help and looked at all the links. All rumour, promotional type material and awkward history has now been completely rewritten. The article now only talks about what the Magic Dudes HAVE achieved, deletes reference to any potential vanity material (i.e. their DVD which they may or may not have produced themselves) and diminishes the emphasis on their starting role on Channel 31 and instead emphasises that this was were they started, not where they are now. I hope that this appeases both camps (i.e. KEEP and DELETE). I don't know why anyone else didn't think of this before they tried to discourage all the newbies.

p.s. After reading some of the previous vote comments, I feel we need defined specific selections to choose from that will put a Delete or Keep vote in a specific category. These statements should also be verified by a trusted third party as accurate and relevant before they are published here.

It's interesting how a Google Search only reveals "The Magic Dudes" stores, but never a show of the same name. --Madchester 15:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I reported the pic for a possible copyright violation earlier today. --Madchester 19:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Crouser

edit

Standard-issue vanity page for a webcartoonist whose name has a whopping 0 Google hits. Kill it with fire. DS 9 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Merge with thesis. Woohookitty 05:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis Statement

edit

Not encyclopdeic, quasi dictionary entry. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha Galaxy

edit

Look, I love my MUD but it doesn't merit inclusion. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

I don't understand how the other MUDs listed do merit inclusion. --69.204.180.100 9 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
Then if this one is deleted, will the others be deleted too? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)
Not only is this the only one marked for deletion, there's a whole Category for these to be listed. I feel that this request is a little off the wall. --69.204.180.100 9 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
Carrion Fields is listed at VFD, I just put Imperian on VFD. BTW, I vote delete for this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
  • Some MUDs are notable, but most aren't. Just like some people are notable, but most aren't. If you are knowledgeable in the field, you could go through the category and nominate the entries about unremarkable MUDs here. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:22 (UTC)
This might help you decide - it's in the "alpha stage" meaning that the link doesn't even work. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
The server (arthmoor.com) is down due to an ISP switch for a little bit. --69.204.180.100 9 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cardavenue

edit

Not notable/Advertising. Google: 1,850 hits, GoogleNews:0 hits, Alexia Ranking: 1,590,361. Gee, and I was in favor of including the top one and a half million websites, so this one just misses out. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 02:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Eakian (character)

edit

Minor character from a minor movie, no possiblity of (worthwhile) expansion. This user is notorious for creating pages for tiny characters. See also WP:FICT. --InShaneee 9 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was already edited to become a disam page. Woohookitty 06:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because

edit

WP:WINAD. This is an incorrigible dicdef. An article about "because" could never be more than just about the word (etymology and such). Already at Wiktionary. Delete. Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 05:19 (UTC) Keep disambig. --Dmcdevit 03:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lejban

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign language dicdefs. Already been transwikied. --Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 05:23 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aboratory (band)

edit

Standard Band vanity. The 50 000+ Google hits are all for typos of "Laboratory". DS 9 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beast-man

edit

Some kind of strange derogatory neologism. Google picks up 23 hits for "beast-man mentality" so I don't think it's worth transwikiing to Wiktionary. And even if this is legitimate, WP:WINAD. Delete. Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 06:09 (UTC)

Delete, assumptuous, non-notable, and I don't recall Aristotle saying anything related to this. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)

Delete. Unnotable academic concept, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 15:38 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boxfive

edit

Very nice guys, I'm sure, but fails WP:MUSIC Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Enyimba

edit

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was: "Biased, uninformative, poorly written". POV substub about a club (it doesn't say what kind, but I think it may actually be a soccer team) that has won competitions in Africa. — Gwalla | Talk 9 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MySAP All-in-One

edit

Sigh. Advertising text dump. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 06:25 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mann (word)

edit

This is a grammar article on a dictionary definition linked to no other pages. I created this article in response to a protest that Mann (military rank) didnt speak of the origin of the word. The disambig page Mann now deals with this issue. This article has no hope of expansion as it is a simple definition -Husnock 9 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zetacreations

edit

Delete Not notable. Spamvertizing. -Ichabod 9 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 05:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hasty pudding

edit

This is a recipe, albeit one connected with Harvard's famous Hasty Pudding Theatricals. Since the Pudding is notable, I'm not sure what to do with the pudding. I confess to having wondered how to make it; on the hand, recipes don't belong here. When confused, I turn to smarter people for help. Xoloz 9 July 2005 06:58 (UTC) Changed to Keep the rewrite, see below. Xoloz 02:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My pleasure. That rupture thingy is part of the original article/recipe - I'm trying to find out where that came from. My mother told me not to eat raw bread dough for similar reasons. Didn't happen. --Mothperson 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, but I'm not smarter. I'm just more obsessive-compulsive. --Mothperson 14:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving - Unbiased Biography

edit

Essentially a POV fork of David Irving. Concerns about that article should be expressed on its talk page. NatusRoma 9 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. All of that for a no consensus. :) Woohookitty 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe model

edit

New rationale

edit

New rationale for deletion: As there seems to have been some confusion as to what valid criteria for deletion are, I think it only appropriate to lay out some legitimate reasons the article should be deleted that are not given in the initial nomination:

  1. While some of the article's contents deserve to be in Wikipedia, the attempted consolidation of a wide range of concepts from normal astrophysics to crank science is plainly original research. There is no single "Electric universe model" that exists. Rather there are a lot of ideas about electricity in the universe that the article claims to be about.
  2. There is a book called "The Electric Universe" that was published and arguably could have a page in Wikipedia. But this is not a page about this book.
  3. Nor is this a page about plasma cosmology or the various Electric star ideas of Velikovsky. Instead it is a clearinghouse of these and other pretty much unrelated topics -- a disambiguation page that was made up.
  4. The page is basically a POV fork that organizes information culled from the internet to push an agenda of attacking mainstream science while keeping a lot of uncontroversial material that is unrelated to the agenda (a type of Ignoratio elenchi)
  5. There is precendent for deleting such original research articles. See, for example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation anthropology.

Arguments about whether the idea is pseudoscience, whether this is the "cutting edge", or whether the present paradigms are wrong should have no bearing on whether any article is in an encyclopedia or not. We're here to describe ideas that exist, not to judge them. Individuals' feelings about a particular subject are irrelevent. That's the essence of NPOV as I see it.

--Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    1. As far as I know, while I have included "normal" astrophysics, I have not included any crank science. Sure some consider Velikovsky a crank, but all the article mentions is that he believed electromagnetic forces were more significant in the universe, as did Birkeland, Juergens, and others.
Whether there is or isn't crank science included is beside the point. The problem is that the article is original research and a new conglomeration. Joshuaschroeder
    1. Correct, the article is not about the book of the same name, but that is no reason to delete in itself.
The point is that while there may be justification for the book to have a page, the "model", being something that doesn't exist except in the mind of the author, doesn't have any justification for a page. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The page is very much about plasma cosmology since it is the foundation of the Electric Universe model, in the same way that the Big Bang theory is "about" astronomy. Velikovsky never had an electric star theory, though Ralph Jeurgens did; it was based on the astrophysics of Hannes Alfvén, which makes it a directly related topic, as are all the others.
This is not a correct argument as pointed out by Joke on the plasma cosmology page, serious advocates of plasma cosmology do not have any relationship or hold to the ideas of Velikobsky and electric star proponents. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The article does not attack mainstream science, in the same way that the Big Bang theory page does not "attack" religous, or non-standard cosmological points of view. Indeed, the article criiticises no-one, and no other theories.
The design of the article is to POV fork from legitimate scientific and pseudoscientific articles. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. However, if the article is considered to fall too closely into "orginal research" or "pet theories", then it goes. Ian Tresman 13 July 2005 19:00 (GMT)

Old rationale

edit

A slightly hesitant nomination. The article admits it is a protoscience, I am just asking for opions as to how far it ventures towards pseudoscience. Perhaps all it needs is an appropriate "controversial" boilerplate. -- RHaworth 2005 July 9 07:53 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an explicit policy against original research and this article qualifies as that. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to say that this article represents "emerging" knowledge. It is mostly hodgepodge of facts, ideas, and internet websites. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua it is only 12 days old! As for "facts, ideas and internet web sites" - well pretty much every Wikipedia article has those, and they aren't illegal. I do agree though with the gist of your comment that the article has a long way to go before it could be called "comprehensive" or "high quality", but if it gets deleted, it will never be given that chance. Your comment is fine as a criticism, but not as a reason for deletion.--Bongani 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This users 4th edit-Splash 9 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Hi Splash - if Stephen Hawking had made my comment, would you be pointing out it was his 4th edit? What's the relevance? --Bongani 19:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The relevance is that registering usernames for the purpose of voting on VFD — or making it seem like you're doing so — is frowned upon. We've had to deal with too many sock puppets doing the exact same thing. This, of course, does not change the significance of your argument, but please keep this in mind when voting on VFD.
    And yes, if Stephen Hawking had voted after making only 4 edits, we'd be saying the same thing. --Ardonik.talk()* 08:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK - I understand the reasoning. My first edit was October 2004, my name is Mike Stuart ("Bongani"), my contact number is +27 11 485 2036, my email is mike@rainbowsa.co.za. And I am not a sock puppet. (I have not edited much yet on Wikipedia, but am a frequent browser of both article and talk pages; I also run my own Wiki on skills development] in South Africa, and am the editor of the Skills Development Guide and National Training Directory publications). --Bongani 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ardonik said it exactly. I did notice that your edits were spread out, but just occasionally an account is compromised (or a user goes off the rails). Seeing as your vote is evidently in good-faith and the rest of the VfD does not seem to be overflowing with sock/meat puppets, I imagine (but don't promise — that's for the closing admin and there is some funny stuff going on at the bottom of the page) that your vote will be counted along with the rest. -Splash 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a misrepresented article. There is no such thing as an "Electric Universe model". There is only a bunch of websites and a book with the title "The Electric Universe". Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are parts of this article that can be saved, but the article itself is about a nonsubject Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fast growing non-subject': Moritz's Google search mentioned just above which yielded 500+ results for "electric universe model" 10 days ago, now yields 973 results, an increase of 194%. Will we decide to delete a topic on Wikipedia that represents a fast growing field of interest just because it offends mainstream science? I personally would not have a problem with it appearing under the heading of "pseudoscience", if that makes the mainstream science people feel more safe, but lets not censor the information from being available to the public. --Bongani 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to grant Ian Tresman the benefit of the doubt as to his good intentions (his webpage indicates that he's a really cool guy), but I don't think the article's creator should get a vote, really, because creating the article can be considered a vote in itself. I've read this. This is a mishmash of unconnected observations and extrapolations from long-outdated hypotheses (Birkeland was dead by the time fusion was discovered, wasn't he?), leading to unwarranted conclusions and largely-unfalsifiable claims - and citing Immanuel Velikovsky, even if only as an inspiration, is never a good thing. Specifying that "(they) would not necessarily have endorsed the EUModel themselves" is a nice touch, though - plausible deniability. Science likes new ideas. Science loves new ideas. And finding a hidden connection between two observations which had previously been thought completely unrelated is always really cool. But here, there's.... nothing. Yes, electricity is important in the universe, but this isn't really saying anything. DeleteDS 9 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

As an example, one can find more articles relating to Electric Universe topics in the journals of plasma physics, than in the journals of cosmoslogy or astrophysics, where one would assume they would be extremely relevant. I believe this is due to the fact that there are some very powerful scientists with a vested interest in protecting the theories which they themselves have contributed to building up. And these people are exactly those who typically form a peer review board. People like Kristian Birkeland and Halton Arp are often viewed as heretics by cosmologists that perhaps find electrical forces an unwelcome element in their elegant equations.
Scientists will, and do, admit that their entire theoretical framework has been based on a flawed premise if you show them a good reason. There's a story about an old scientist attending a conference, listening to a speaker, and then approaching the man afterwards and saying "Thank you! I have been wrong these past twenty years!" To quote Carl Sagan, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." Give us a good reason to accept the Electric Universe model, and then we'll see. Also, "very powerful scientists"? What planet are you living on? And "heretics"? Do you think people are going to get burned at the stake for this? Excommunicated from the laboratories?DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.
I think I will skip the historical examples. Although at the moment we don't seem to be burning our heretics, we certainly do a good job at exiling them. And I don't define power only at the scale of certain world powers. Science certainly has its hierarchies and its own internal power structure.
Among our contemporaries, we could start with Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons - one of the examples that actually made it into the world's media mill.
(you mean the frauds?)
OrHalton Arp, mentioned in my original posting; ask him why his office is at the Max-Planck Institute in Germany...
The world of medical research is a rich area to look at when looking for exiled scientists, below just a couple of the better known:
[Jacques Benveniste], [Peter Duesberg]
Jacques Benveniste's work could not be replicated, even by his own coworkers - and that's just the more straightforward ultra-dilution work, and not his "digitized antigen" idiocy. You're citing an experiment which was at best tangentially related. And the Duesberg hypothesis is bullshit. It'd be great if it wasn't, but it is. Not the best comparisons for a proponent to make.


And whatever you do, don't get labelled as an anti-Darwinist:
[John Davison]
Read his page - both his sad story about what happened to his salary (and he seems to have labeled himself an anti-Darwinist), and his manifesto. It tries to be good science, but it's not. Just like the Electric Universe model, oddly enough.
Or a too independent scientist:
[Ted Steele and others] [Jeff Schmidt]
Jeff Schmidt got clotheslined by office politics that had nothing to do with science. The link you supplied doesn't explain much about Ted Steele, although that seems to be corporate bullshit which had nothing to do with science.
Anyone with a bit of curiosity can find lots of examples, and I don't think it would serve any point in this particular forum to follow this argument further.
It seems to me that the argument isn't that we shouldn't cover nonsense, it is that this particular bit of nonsense represents original research. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant you that.
Scientific talent also falls on a Gaussian distribution curve and for the majority at the mean, those outside two standard deviations can appear as unacceptably different. Human nature, being what it is, will be prone to attacking the “deviant”, particularly if the individual is not a member of an established group. jd 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Science picks and chooses, based on what works. Weird new ideas are accepted if they work, which means not just "making sense relative to other pre-existing ideas", but "making sense relative to the observed facts".
I trust people can still remember the response Alfred Wegener received from the eminent Lord Kelvin and Sir Harold Jeffreys regarding Wegener's hypothese of continental drift. Wegener perhaps hadn't been able to postulate a workable mechanism, but the experts of the time were more than happy, often through vehement ridicule of Wegner, to throw the baby (idea of continental drift) out with the bathwater (lack of a workable mechanism) instead of taking the time to consider the matter with any seriousness, delaying the paradigm shift until Vine and Matthews landmark 1963 paper unleashed the floodgates.
And you know what? Although mocking him may have been cruel, as long as Wegener had no idea of how continental drift could work, rejecting it was right. The mere fact that the maps fit together nicely wasn't enough. He later turned out to be correct, a mechanism was suggested for how it could happen, various other consequences were predicted which were tested and proven right, and once those' things were done, Wegner was vindicated. And remember - just because Wegner was mocked, and later turned out to be right, that doesn't mean that other people who are mocked will turn out to be right also. 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course I agree with your statement in bold. However, one should hope that an idea could be published and soberly considered even in the cases where the author hasn't gotten it completely correct the first time through. Mockery is in many cases designed to discredit the author and kill the argument so that others become hesitant to become tainted by association. jd 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
By letting the ideas of the electric universe remain on Wikipedia, one can only advance the real cause of scientific research by allowing people access to ideas which might lead to other ideas and could, one day, trigger the next paradigm shift within the field of cosmology. Julie Dyer 10 July 2005 11:15 (UTC) [Note: this vote is by 83.94.159.146, who has already voted, above. These are her only two edits to wiki - William M. Connolley 12:11:22, 2005-07-10 (UTC)]
  • Note: this is totally incorrect. The previous post was written yesterday by a friend of mine staying at my place. She even used another computer, but I guess your system picks up the current DNS of my router, which functions as a firewall. Julie Dyer 10th July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
I don't understand the comment noting that I have not edited earlier, does this imply that my contribution is not as serious as others? I often use Wikipedia as a reference, I have a particular interest in this subject matter, and was inspired to contribute. With one vote. Incidentally, not as a “sock puppet”. jd 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read the VFD debates much, then. VFD, by being more "democratic" in nature than the rest of Wikipedia, is far more vulnerable to abuse - and thus, we regular contributors become wary of total (and almost-total) newcomers voicing their opinions here: how do we know that they're genuinely interested in the topic, instead of being buddies of the article's creator? Answer: we don't, and can't.

{Although I've contributed more than one comment here, I'd just like to ascertain that my vote (for delete) is only counted once.DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment says it all for the rationale as to why this article should be deleted. "That people have considered the Electric Universe" doesn't make sense as an argument. People "consider" a lot of things. and it isn't suprising that they consider electricity and the universe together. That does not mean that there is such a thing as the "Electric Universe model". See, for example, the VfD on creation anthropology. This article was deleted because the author developed it as an amalgamation project from a number of different people who "considered" creationism and anthropology. The same standard should be applied here. This is an article that was developed as a clearinghouse of a whole slew of ideas that relate "electricity" and the universe. Many are unrelated to each other. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, even though this stuff does not have the necessary recognition to avoid the "original research" flag, I feel that both the age of the theory, and the considerable body of seemingly scientific research that relates to it, should preclude it from this rule.
The article makes it seem as though the theory is old simply because it refers to well-respected scientists who happened to do research in plasma physics. Birkeland, Spitzer and Langmuir did not advocate for an "electric universe" in the sense implied in the article, notwithstanding a quote where Birkeland muses about the possibility of electrical stars. The current theory of stellar fusion is more a part of their legacy.
I would vote to keep the article if it were to be an article about a historically interesting, discredited and disowned theory of Velikovsky. As it is, it is more of a catalog of electromagnetic phenomena in the universe, many of which are widely agreed on by mainstream physicists, and no description, except in the introduction, of how the electric universe "theory" differs from mainstream physics. I think that is because there is no theory, other than the primitive one advocated by Velikovsky and his acolytes. The rest is mainstream physics or plasma cosmology is at least a genuine alternative cosmology, albeit one that is not generally seen as coherent or well-supported. –Joke137 19:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment does not come even close to a justification for keeping the article. The Pioneer anomaly is not a free license to make sloppy articles about made-up subjects.
That's not what the article is about. The article is a hodge-podge POV-fork meant to distract from physical cosmology. Perhaps you could elaborate on your rationale? Joshuaschroeder 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua - I am curious how you know that the intention of the article is "to distract from physical cosmology"? Or is this an assumption? --Bongani 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt quite a bit with people who advocate various ends of plasma cosmology in my work with cosmology. There are a few in the fringes of this group who are so far out there that anything that sounds like plasma cosmology gets included in the Electric Universe including legitimate research and fanciful meanderings of Velikovsky. As I have said, the Electric Universe itself is a book and one that basically follows the same line as this page (that is to attack mainstream cosmology), but this is not an "Electric Universe model" by any strech of the imagination -- it's only a book. Nevertheless, there are those people who follow this line of pseudoscience rather closely and do have the deliberate intention of attacking physical cosmology for whatever reason (mostly because they hate the Big Bang model). The content of the article speaks to this motivation as it states very radical conclusions from some very mundane observations and some very strung-out descriptors of Velikovsky, etc. to tie the whole thing together. The article is written from the perspective of a person from this internet community of "Big Bang skeptics" who likes to think that if they can attack from as many "points of view" as possible, it will lend credence to their ideas. Joshuaschroeder 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect

After several recounts I think we can acertain about 5 merge votes, 5 non-puppet keeps, and 39 deletes. Even though this rules that it should be deleted it has already been redirected to Mushroom Kingdom (noting lack of "The"). This is a harmless redirect so closing as "Decision was to Delete, but already Redirected." Of course if someone wants to go ahead and delete it anyway feel free. GarrettTalk 02:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mushroom Kingdom

edit

It looks like non-notable vanity of a fansite, but it's hard to discern the facts from the language it uses. Therefore, I have nominated this to decide. Paply 9 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

  • This user's only edit.-Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
Yes, but if we kept on that criteria or the vote was modified that way, then it would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and sockpuppeteering guidelines. Insulting? I SPIT on your website. Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 07:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have 4733 edits. [31] -- Natalinasmpf 07:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's first edit. -Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • That is nice, but you should add something meaningful to the discussion particularly as it relates to how encyclopedic the article is as this is potentially weighed most heavily around here in determining the outcome rather than just the raw count of Keep or Delete, as votes are not necessarily treated as numerical. Please explain why you believe the article should be kept other than that you are a member of a community or chatroom specific to the site featured. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  • Your forum misunderstands the procedures of Wikipedia. This page makes clear that admins can and will discount votes of brand new users . This is uniformly done in such clear cases of new users coming along specifically to support/oppose a particular page. Even if your keep votes overwhelm the delete votes, it will still go if you are all brand new, or fairly new users (or anon IP addresses) with such a clear agenda. You would do better to spend your time establishing the notability of your forum in the article in legitimate ways. -Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
(this was added by Blu Aardvark; forgot to sign diff)
Can you come up with a worse logical fallacy? You're making a circular argument. You fail. -- Natalinasmpf 07:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To TMK users welcome to Wikipedia. From looking over the site it looks frequently updated and visited by a regular crowd. Your site may be of significant value for those looking for information related to the topic, but Wikipedia has a threshold of inclusion that is not yet satisfied. Real world or virtual, no matter what, Wikipedia seeks entries on topics that are verifiable (i.e. Externally commented upon). We maintain this standard to help preserve the integrity of information. If the article is made of original research then only insiders will be able to work on it. At its foundation, Wikipedia fuctions by the ability of visitors to verify and challenge the info published. I hope you understand why we editors seek to remove this entry.

Regards, lots of issues | leave me a message 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it ridiculous people are challenging very basic information. What dummy would challenge that a chicken's egg yolk is yellow, or that 1 + 1 = 2, or that humans breathe oxygen. Challenging that The Mushroom Kingdom's status equivalence to IMDB is the epitome of idiocy. We are the first site listed in Google for "Mushroom Kingdom", this empirically proves the equivalence 100% Vadir 01:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the entry asserts only basic claims, and the Google evidence convincingly verifies the site's coverage as comprehensive, however, there is no mechanism by which Wikipedia can approve of only limited development of an entry. If editors agree to keep this entry, then like all other entries, there is the expectation it should eventually be expanded out of stub status, which will undoubtedly spill insider knowledge into the article. Against the Wikipedia inclusion standard this is a largely unverifiable subject matter.
And - This is just an online encyclopedia - there's no great value in being an article and there's no need to equate removal as an insult to your site's pride.
Regards, lots of issues | leave me a message 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To other editors:The outcome of this vote is clear, please don't escalate with any new barbs.

lots of issues | leave me a message 02:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is adding the link to Nintendo countable? Nintendo and Mario are synonymous with most non-gamers. Inker 8 04:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Never mind. I'll ask my questions in the chat room. Inker 8 04:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be a channel mod if I win the second lottery. Angel XXX 04:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amend Also amend a protect to the vote since page is at high risk for recreation if deleted. Jtkiefer 07:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, you need to use your heads. Apparently, I found a loophole. They won't remove the link if it was already there. Ha ha ha. I'm getting the modship. Oh, and Eclipsed I can't wait to silence you for two weeks. lol. While you're all adding your one link a day or every 12 hours, or whatever hoping nobody will notice, I've already got several links that are untouchable. I am da man. Yeah! Only a genius could have figured out something this unremovable and untouchable loophole. Bow down to my leet genius. Cool Jared 07:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Jared, but all of your additions, except to this page, have been reverted. Dare I say, Pwnage?Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 21:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Parsons

edit

To be replaced (Move) with its original content (Now Dave Parsons (Jazz Musician) and create a dablink instead of the disambig. page. Please note that this has nothing to do with the copyright issue on the page Md7t 9 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT. All votes (apart from nom) were a form of keep, 4/6 wanted a redirect or merge. Since very little content to merge, I took it that the redirects would be happy with that. -Splash 20:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Birchum

edit

We don't need individual pages on each Crank Yankers character. DooMDrat July 9, 2005 08:33 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT. Duly done. -Splash 19:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Higgins

edit

We don't need individual pages on each Crank Yankers character. Trying to nip this in the bud before someone makes pages on every other character. DooMDrat July 9, 2005 08:32 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kirshenbaum

edit

Although the article is now the kind of thing that would obviously be a candidate for speedy deletion, it has become so via various edits (some of them transparently silly) from an original that would not have been a candidate for speedy deletion but instead looks like an unverifiable vanity page. It's not particularly easy to decide the version to which I might revert this, so I'm not reverting. Even at its best, though, I say it should be deleted. -- Hoary July 9, 2005 08:51 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Summarised my thoughts exactly. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. 11 to 7 for delete. Not good enough and there ARE other lists of "songs about..." Woohookitty 07:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft

edit

Of little to no encyclopedic value, and generally unnecessary. --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 09:08 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing innuendos

edit

Unmaintainable, of questionable value in the first place. That is, no one would ever be searching for this information. --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Delete. POV, unmaintainable. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that begin with non-music

edit

Same reasons as all the other lists I've nominated, but this one is even worse in that it makes arbitrary exceptions and makes up an arbitrary definition for "music." A lot of music I listen to would be considered entirely "non-musical" by the author's definition. --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Delete. Never going to be NPOV, non-encylopedic. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Semi-Christian metal bands

edit

Nonsense. Delete. Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Nice article. No reason to consider it nonsense. I also changed it to be more neutral. Keep (i'm the original creator of article) -- Unsigned comment by 130.234.178.75

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kdvd dvd disks

edit

No citation, sources et al given. I'm not sure whether it's verifiable - if it does it might look notable, but I am calling this vfd to ask for consensus. For now, I will abstain. Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, ignoring the flock of anon astroturfers

The Illuminus Organisation

edit

This page is of spurious content, seems to be part of a wikispam/wiki-advertising attempt, and does not appear to be worth an encyclopedia entry. This entry seems to refer to the blog at http://www.illuminus.org.uk/, which seems to be a "hacking"/beginning computer programming blog created by people who cannot spell. The site seems to be unimpressive and authored by people who don't seem authorative or notable in the subject matter, and the organization does not appear to be regognized as notable by anyone else, according to a Google test and a glimpse at the Alexa entry for the site. I suggest deletion for this article. Perhaps noteworthy as evidence of a possible effort at wikipedia-based advertising for this organization is the attempted addition of a link to this article under the "See Also" section of the The Illuminati article. Samrolken 9 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)

NOTE: The "Don't Delete" votes above by anonymous were all made from the United Kingdom, the home of the webpage in question. Also noteworthy is that they all voted the same "Don't Delete" vote, which is never used by wikipedia community members who vote to keep a page. For this reasons, these votes appear to be sock-puppets.


Thankyou. :) (comment from anon user:80.192.242.42. this anon has posted only to the article and this VFD - Skysmith 09:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emogoth

edit

Non-notable, hoax. Looks hopelessly POV as well. Delete. Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oxsoralen

edit

Not my nomination. Nominated for speedy by Natalinasmpf (talk • contribs) for being "pseudoscience and advertising". smoddy 9 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrillaware

edit

Neologism. Such kind of software may correspond to some sort of reality, but the words "Guerrillaware" and "Guerillaware" are rarely used so far. Edcolins July 9, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio, already deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Youga

edit

Non-notable. Copyvio [33], as well. Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Monkey hanger

edit

Hoax, non-notable. Neologism, probably unencylopedic. I mean, google reveals only 800 hits or less, so I'm slightly suspicious. Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual health

edit

POV, subjective, not an encyclopedia entry. DELETE 9 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Delete for the same reason as Ombudsman. SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koomaster

edit

The article goes against the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" philosophy. It's the biography on someone of no significant notoriety or achievement

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Lotfi

edit

The creator keeps removing my speedy tag - so here it is - probably a borderline speedy anyway --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Molaei

edit

This is clearly vanity. I'd like to speedy delete it, but last I checked that's not a valid reason for speedy deletion. The author seems to have difficulty leaving the delete notice in place. -Aranel ("Sarah") 9 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. – ABCD✉ 21:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Scherer's Greatest Hits

edit

This is a VfD concerning

Unbelievably, this is a yet another VfD concerning articles created by User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs

They are advertising spam concerning Zillions Games.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content.

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/EvenMoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 10. The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had failed to previously notice the IPs in use. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

There is also a related VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions of Games

User:Andreas Kaufmann tracked this particular group down. ~~~~ 22:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage hook

edit

This seems like a confusingly generic term and one that looks Googlebombed to death by adult link farms. Perhaps there should be three separate stubs in place of this article?

—Ghakko 9 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

What would be the names of those three articles? --Easyas12c 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
At first the article was titled nose hook. It was on nose hooks and had also some information on mouth hooks and the general term face hook. When I added the rest it seemed that separate articles for all of them would have made the articles very short. They also seemed to be easier to explain as a whole. I'm not sure, if bondage hook is a good name. --Easyas12c 9 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
It's okay to have short articles. After all, that's what stubs are for.
By the way, I thought it was a nice write-up. ;-) I just thought the name was a little confusing. —Ghakko 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 19:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arambilet

edit

Non-notable, vanity. Unverifiable. Google reveals a total of 0 whopping hits. Delete. Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sex magic

edit

If anything, neologism, POV, probably pseudoscientific, a hoax...non-enyclopedic, shall we say? Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Rajan

edit

Non-notable, google only reveals 271 hits [37], Wikipedia is not a place to store your resume. Delete this, and the redirect this too. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure they are too notable organizations, though. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
Comment. 6300 google hits for IAS, which is pretty high for a specialist organization in a non-Western country. It also seems to be known as the Indian Arthroscopy Association". Pburka 9 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
Further comment. But a president of it? The IAS is borderline-notable, but an elected president, even less so. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Do not delte : I think this page should stay. Wikipedia, in additition to carrying articles about topics, should also include details about prominent personalities. (Unsigned vote by 203.101.44.171 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom

edit

POV rant, not to mention factually inaccurate. Delete. Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Do not Delete - faithfreedom.org is accurate, and contains relevant factual data on Islam.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tiffey

edit

Thy name is vanity. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 14:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty and righty

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howard Bright

edit

We may be seeing this young man's name here in the future, but he hasn't had a chance to accomplish much just yet. Currently a vanity entry. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Asian Cup 2007

edit

Clearly this will happen if the Earth does not fall into the Sun. However, until it does happen, please see WP:NOT for why this should go. ADB 9 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Bible verses

edit

Intro

edit

This is a VfD concerning the principle that

This VfD more directly concerns Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18, and John 20:19

Note. This VfD DOES NOT concern John 3:16orJesus wept.

These numerous articles are not intrinsically noteworthy, and should be coalesced into bigger articles such as those listed at List of New Testament stories.

They also violate Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources as they contain between them the full biblical text, which is already present in several translations and languages at Wikisource:Religious texts.

The specific merge suggested is that proposed by User:Uncle G, namely

Note, the Matthew 1 verses were already as subject of a prior VfD - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, which had 14 votes to keep, 19 votes to merge, 2 votes to keep/merge, and 8 votes to delete (+1 to transwiki). This was declared to have failed to reach consensus by the closing admin (although the delete votes and merge votes are effectively the same thing, making a 2:1 majority to merge).

To avoid the problem of consensus not being clear, please vote merge rather than delete if you do not feel the verses deserve individual articles.

Note:this is a VfD. Those voting merge per above would be those who agree to the above merge. Those voting only merge are not, they simply agree that there should be some sort of merge.

~~~~ 9 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Votes

edit

Please leave comments in the comment section for clarity of the vote.

My feelings on this have not changed, I'm trying to embrace the need for consensus. I underestimated the depth of feeling this topic would engender. brenneman(t)(c)

Geogre 19:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USER HAS ALREADY VOTED ~~~~ 11:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the above user has 1 previous edit - almost definitely a sockpuppet ~~~~ 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Governor of Ohio or each US Secretary of the Treasury, or a list of asteroids, are seperate articles is because they are noteworthy in their own right. Matthew 1:9 is not. ~~~~ 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sockpuppet (and had to look up what the accusation meant). I just joined as a member, although I have been doing minor edits anonymously for a while. I found these verses on a random article link, voted on a previous VfD on this topic (my first vote), and was sent a message asking me to vote on this VfD. (I don't know how to send a message to another User, hence this edit back to User:-Ril-). I am not opposed to merging in some other manner (say by blocks of like verses in a given book) or transwikiing them to an annotated Bible, I just think Uncle G's suggestion is too crude an instrument for merging these as they currently stand. If there were a Geneaolgy of Jesus article established, for example, I can see a later vote to split it in two, into a Matthew version and a Luke version. Ruhrfisch 17:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
You have 3 edits at the current time, 1 is the previous vote you mention, 1 the vote above, and 1 your comment above. You have 0 edits to articles 0 edits to other VFDs 0 experimental edits 0 edits to absolutely anything else. Further, your comments above feign a need to learn how to edit, despite your ability to produce the edit User:-Ril- without copying the whole signature ~~~~, and a feigned lack of knowledge which nevertheless indicates that you know that users can have messages sent to them. Indeed, your speech is classic "I am definitely not a sockpuppet, signed --sockpuppet". This is the perfect example of sockpuppet behaviour.
I am aware that I sent you a message to vote, but I did that to everyone else as well whose vote may have indicated that they supported Uncle G's proposal, of which only part covered the previous VfD, and thus they had to vote again, here, for it to cover all of his proposal,, and I wasn't paying careful attention to sockpuppetry at the time. What is notable is that you made edits between those two times, and you still have 0 edits not related to this VFD or the prior one. ~~~~ 22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I signed up as a member to vote on the original VfD (and not to be called a liar). I am new to Wikipedia but I have been doing html for 10 years and started doing it with a line editor, so copying the first part of "[ [User:-Ril-" and adding two square close brackets "] ]" did not tax my skills too much. I like Wikipedia and joined to vote on something on which I had an opinion. I have now set up a User:Ruhrfisch page. As usual I forgot to sign in when I did it, then did so with a later edit, so you can check my home ISP number and see I have made other edits (like the description of the photo on the Cologne Germany page or adding the word chemist to the Primo Levi page lead sentence). As a new user, I can see why people complain about nobody joining if this is what my simple votes get. I repeat, I know about messages from other users because I was sent one, turns out by my new friend User:-Ril-. Thanks. Ruhrfisch 23:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
User:-Ril- says "your speech is classic "I am definitely not a sockpuppet, signed --sockpuppet". This is the perfect example of sockpuppet behaviour.". I would say this is classic sockpuppet paranoia. Amazingly enough, both sockpuppets and real users deny that they are sockpuppets when challenged, so it's a Catch 22. Perhaps in future -Ril- could just cite the edit history and let the closing admin decide how much to weigh the vote. Kappa 00:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand the above discussion correctly this is what happened: User:-Ril- asked User:Ruhrfisch to vote here, despite the fact that Ruhrfisch had made only one previous edit, because on the basis of the previous VfD he expected him to support the proposal to merge. Ruhrfisch however changed his position and voted keep, causing -Ril- to challenge his vote - because of a lack of previous edits - and accuse him of being a sockpuppet. Wow. David Sneek 17:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I asked everyone to vote here who had voted a certain way on the other VfD simply because their vote appeared to be for a suggestion (Uncle G's) that actually covered more than just that VfD, so if they wished their indicated wishes at that VFD to be carried out in full, it would be necessary for them to vote here as well. I.e. everyone whose vote was technically, or appeared to be, for a wider vfd than existed at that point, but was covered by this vfd. This included Ruhrfisch. Since issues touching on ideology like this one are intrinsically liable to attract sockpuppet votes by people of that ideology, I have been checking out votes that could be such sockpuppets, discovering Ruhrfisch to be amongst them. ~~~~ 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps a good time to point out the Wikipedia tradition of assuming good faith. While we need to be vigilant about sockpuppetry, it must be done with a measure of balance and compassion. Tobycat 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I truly pity the sockpuppets. ~~~~ 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not are they more important to you, but are they more notable to knowledge. I.e. does Matthew 1:9 merit discussion in an encyclopedia. Note that I wrote encyclopedia and not bible commentary. ~~~~ 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But wikipedia isn't a commentary. It is an encyclopedia. ~~~~ 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been discussing the ambiguity (voting to keep in general but merge into larger units) of the above vote with the above user, and they have said (see my - ~~~~ - talk page) that the above vote is to be understood as a vote to merge non-notable verses, but to keep notable ones. ~~~~ 21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that accurately represents my view: I think it is very hard to determine a priori which Bible verses merit articles. For example, a seemingly trivial verse might merit an article on the basis of controversy over its translation, or Kabbalistic significance, or for being the sole occurrence of particular Hebrew or Greek words in the Bible, or for alluding to a person or event for which we have non-biblical evidence. I personally am not interested in looking at the list of individual verses listed above to see if any of them merit inclusion. I think we need to form a policy on this, and I think VfD is a blunt instrument with which to do so. With respect to such a policy: I doubt that every verse of the Bible merits an article (though probably every chapter does); I think there would be a range of sane policy here. Certainly, though, not every verse deserves a standalone article: at most, some should be redirects to larger, more useful articles. I think that making them redirects has the merit of making less likely the re-creation of trivial articles in the future. As a vote, any keepormerge with redirect will satisfy me. I am opposed to deletion of the material, open to its consolidation, and—in the event of such consolidation—weakly inclined to support the retention of the existing titles as redirects. If this is too complicated to count as a vote in this VfD, so be it. As I said, I think we need to form a policy on this, and I think VfD is a blunt instrument with which to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... I believe the policy says something about "mutual respect" and welcoming newcommers. I'll remove my vote if it's not allowed. Anyways it's not a democracy, so it might be better to just add support:
The division of verses is quite arbitrary and wasn't originally part of the bible anyways. Each being so short, separate entries turns Wikipedia into an annotated list of quotes. Davilla 17:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should leave your vote, but it will probably be discounted by the closing admin. There is nothing preventing you from commenting, but votes from users with under 200 edits, and less than 1 months edit history, are usually treated as suspect. While this unfortunately cuts out any newcomers, it also cuts out Sockpuppets created to sway a vote. ~~~~ 19:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes more sense. I've seen those allegations thrown persistently. In that case, is anyone else voting here from an ISP in Taiwan? Davilla 20:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Please avoid regurgitating the discussion previously held at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses.

Please note that the above rationale was amputated from my vote. It was not a separate comment, and I consider this an abuse of the VfD process which explicitly states that the rationale should go with the vote, and is perhaps more important than the vote itself. By moving my rationale away from the voting section, other voters are encouraged not to consider the reasons for previous votes. At best this vote is highly irregular.... -Harmil 9 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
Abject apologies. No Offense intended. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
Please read the discussion previously held at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, and not that that, much more limited proposal ended in lack of consensus. -Harmil 9 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
This comment of mine was also moved, and its current position is wildly innapropriate (I was not responding to Aaron Brenneman, but to the opening text in this section. This move also seems to be inspired by a desire to change the flow of conversation for the reader, and render comments by those opposed to the merge far less coherent. At this point, I simply must join those calling for the invalidation of this VfD. -Harmil 9 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Actually, that was me shooting myself in the head and the toe at the same time. (This is easy with your foot in your mouth, by the way.) The refactor I apologised for was the same one that pushed this comment down, if I understand your objection. I blame the drugs. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for jumping to conclusions. I retract my comments which were based on rash assumptions about the move that I could have resolved for myself by looking at the history. Thanks for explaining -Harmil 16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I second the above objection). This proposal is also too crude. I agree that All Individual Bible verses are not automatically noteworthy enough to have seperate articles. But some are - and I might argue some of these are. I also think that some of these verses should be merged into articles on the passage or chapter they concern rather into Ungle G's suggestions. This proposal is too detailed for a yes/no vote. Unfortunately I can't see any way round considering each verse (or group of verses) individually on their merits. So, although, I'm broadly in favour of merging - I will oppose this --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

This is a tough call. Certainly Wikibooks would do well to have an annotation project, especially since their current "The New Testament" is up for speedy deletion. However, I'm not sure that I see how or why that would preclude WP having an entry for the verses which have been influential (just to pick a random example, let's say Matthew 3:1, introduces John the Baptist, and has some interestingly controvercial wording). WP might xfer to the Wikibooks articles as authoritative (if they were), but ultimately, I think the major verses need to have encyclopedic coverage. -Harmil 9 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have both projects. The Gospel of John: Chapter 1 is vastly different from a page like John 20. We also have an entire project dedicated to cataloging species. Does this mean we should begin mass deleting our biology articles? - SimonP July 9, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
Point taken. After the transwikifying, I would then not object to Wikipedia-appropriate articles -- concentrating on the historical significance of those relatively few notable verses, rather than reproducing the text and giving religious interpretations of every verse -- being re-created over here. (Agree with Geogre below that this would often take the form of reference in another article, rather than an article specifically devoted to the verse.) Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
SimonP, the major difference being that there is a huge body of factual information to be presented about biological entities. I don't believe explaining or commenting or annotating Bible versus has the same weight as factual information, and I don't believe the verses themselves are factual in the same sense. You are comparing actual apples to religious verses about oranges. DavidH 01:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I stated in the intro that Jesus wept was not being threatened whatsoever by this VfD ~~~~ 11:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The end result would be roughly the same, but would leave notable articles like Matthew 3:1 intact. My first-pass approximation of criteria for notability would be: a) there is substantial disagreement among scholars about the importance, wording or meaning of the particular verse b) the verse introduces an important person or place for the first time c) the verse involves a direct quotation from a major person or entity d) there is any sect which bases its differentiation on the verse e) the verse's text is commonly (or was historically) used outside of biblical context (e.g. "eye for an eye", "turn the other cheek", etc.) -Harmil 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is the comments section not the votes section. ~~~~ 08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a comment. I'm sure the closing admin can figure out what's happening. -- Grace Note


If that is a vote, could you possibly move it to the votes section to make it clear to the closing admin? ~~~~ 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think Uncle G's choices are due to guesswork as to what the titles of articles at List of Bible stories refer to. They look like they probably need tweaking a bit. ~~~~ 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably what Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible is for. I have mentioned this project at least 4 times in the last month when people raise the question of discussing a unified policy. It is informative that the WikiProject is still static, and no-one has joined it to discuss unified policy. Since this is the case, I am forced to question the motives of those suggesting this must be discussed elsewhere first. ~~~~ 22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then lead us in posting there! I agree that that is a much more appropriate venue for this discussion, but I only see one edit that you've made to the talk page. Since you have started this discussion, please start it again in a more proper venue. Moreover, instead of impugning the motives of others, please assume good faith. I, for one, haven't seen everything you've written, or followed every link you've bracketed, so I've missed most, if not all, of the four other times you've mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Now that I know that it exists, I await a revival of this discussion at that more fitting venue. NatusRoma 05:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't joined the WikiProject, and nor has anyone else. It needs members to have discussion. The members listed have been there for ages and seem to have faded.~~~~ 22:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that neither one of us has joined the WikiProject at this point. You have nominated all of these articles for Deletion or Merging on VfD. Please take the first step on WikiProject:Bible. NatusRoma 00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already have - I added the related note on the WikiProject talk page. ~~~~ 19:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I seek a discussion, not a poll. I seek a consensus, not a majority. NatusRoma 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the survey regards the inclusion of source text in Bible chapters, and has nothing to do with the nature or the existence of articles on individual Bible verses. NatusRoma 21:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the English wikipedia that others do not suffer is that there is a large systemic bias favouring the views of fundamentalist Christianity. This is merely because a large population of the English speaking world, and particularly of en-wikipedia is from the US, a very large % of which (compared to the remainder of the world) is composed of fundamentalist Christians. Since the other Wikipedias are mainly composed of people who do not edit the en-wikipedia, it is difficult to balance this systemic problem. The only real solution is to take questions like this to all wikipedias at once, and consider only the total vote over all of them (admittedly this has problems with duplicate accounts), however, there is not yet such a procedure for issues stemming from systemic bias predominantly affecting only one wikipedia. ~~~~ 22:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • nod* So it's probable that the English wiki is going to have a full copy of the Bible on it, but the book of Mormon, the Koran, the Talmud, et multiple cetera, will be 'not notable enough' for Wikipedia.  :/ Joy. Almafeta 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its a shame we can't split the english wikipedia into US and non-US versions (which would also be pointless - controversial articles would be edited by parties from both versions, since both can read and write english). Maybe this will cease being an issue when Spanish becomes the US national language. ~~~~ 19:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is truth in what you say. Not that all supporters of "keep" on this VFD are American or evangelical or even Christian. But we are at a time, especially here in America, when a loud minority feel compelled to insert the Bible, prayer, and religious symbolism into absolutely everything. We can't have science without the Bible, we can't have politics without prayer, we can't have courthouses and public squares without the Ten Commandments. It's obvious that these articles are questionably encyclopedic and could be perfectly handled in Wikibooks or the previously mentioned annotation project, but some people won't rest until Wikipedia is thoroughly innoculated with every word of the Bible. Their Bible, that is. I'd like to see them fight as hard for all the holy books of every other important world religion, but I won't hold my breath. DavidH 02:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like for all its purported "freedom of religion", the USA has become the most fundamentally Christian country in the western world. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DavidH would you care to provide any evidence for these accusations of bias? Kappa 11:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the minority that's creating problems here is not the one that attempts to put the Bible and religion into absolutely everything it possibly can. It's the one that attempts to eliminate the Bible and religion from everything it possibly can.
unsigned comment
Note that I am suggesting to merge the articles. This is quite different from eliminating them. Please read carefully rather than jump to conclusions that are easy for you. ~~~~ 17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I wanted to see Christian people saying "they can't take our faith away" and otherwise acting like martyrs, I'd read the letters column of our local freebie newspaper. — JIP | Talk 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding another point addressed above, there's a misleading idea being presented here that educated Americans have some fundamental bias in judgment that means the population of the enwiki somehow cannot be trusted to determine rationally what is encyclopedic. This is, naturally, not the case, and does not seem to me the sort of "systemic bias" we should be addressing. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:44, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
  • If we wish to be seen as unbiased, we must address all systemic bias. ~~~~ 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Ril-, you haven't made a credible case for Christian fundamentalism in any way influencing the keep voters, and you misrepresent not only the voters who disagree with you but the whole issue by implying that fundamentalists would even like to keep these articles, which are based on works by scholars representing a historical-critical and philological interpretation. In fact, the only person in any of these votes clearly representing something reminiscent of Christian fundamentalism, User:Wesley, voted "delete", claiming that these articles inevitably would be dominated by "atheist 'academics'".[38] --Uppland 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urm, Wesley is Greek Orthodox. I'm not really sure how that counts as fundamentalist? ~~~~ 22:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote "something reminiscent of Christian fundamentalism", and I'm sure you realize that it doesn't make any difference exactly which church somebody belongs to, as the significance lies in the opposition between a historical-critical analysis of the biblical texts and one primarily serving to uphold the dogma of the church in question or of Christianity in general. The articles we are discussing here are clearly in the former camp. Don't you agree? --Uppland 22:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wesley's edits don't really suggest a fundamentalist attitude either.
  • The articles shouldbehistorical-critical but they aren't.
  • Having the articles individually serves the purpose of Bible study, concordence, and commentary, but does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. ~~~~ 08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reason for putting "systemic bias" in scare quotes is that I don't think any systemic bias exists that is relevant to this vote.
  • Systemic bias probably accounts for the lack of comparable articles on the Koran or other similar books. Commentaries on the Koran are less likely to be understood or read by English speakers, because they are not in the language and because fewer English speakers are Muslim. This is what I would describe as systemic bias, stemming from exogenous factors like the allocation of research by languages, etc. For the enwiki, creating articles on the Koran is simply harder. The Wikiproject, by advertising and finding qualified people, can help remedy this problem.
  • On the other hand, here we are trying to determine whether these articles are encyclopedic (or propertly organized). You are claiming that because many of us are Christians, we somehow cannot do this well. But there's no clear reason why this would be the case. Christians, like anyone else, are fully capable of rationally assessing an article and determining if it should be kept or deleted or merged.
  • Not when it comes to their own holy book. Likewise for Muslims and the Quran. But for other things, I agree. If we were discussing, for example, if individual flavours of cat food merit their own articles, it doesn't matter a toss if the voters were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Cthulhu worshippers. — JIP | Talk 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if they were in charge of marketing for "cat foods inc.", then it would be a different matter. ~~~~ 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your viewpoint is that for both sides, it destroys the notion that we are having an intellectual discourse. Instead, we are all consciously or unconsciously voting based on our religious beliefs. On the contrary, I believe that the vast majority of the voters here are making votes based on a rational assessment of the issues, perhaps informed by different notions of what is encyclopedic and so on. I think an individual can come to a rational conclusion regardless of his race or religion; I think a group can come to a rational conclusion regardless of its demographics. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
N.b. it's a blanket merge rather than a blanket delete.~~~~ 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer TALK 03:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
While the result is fairly clear, we need to wait until a user who has time to remove over a hundred VfD headers comes along. - SimonP 04:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It still ought to be possible to closed the VfD, and even to announce the result, before dealing with the articles themselves.NatusRoma 05:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the result is fairly clear, the result that is clear is that there is no consensus. I have added up the votes, and the amount of votes to keep the articles is slightly less than those to do something else with them. The difference is negligable, however, thus requiring the VFD to remain open to gain consensus. A result of no-consensus, would just cause the VFD to be re-opened immediately after closing, to determine consensus. It will be re-listed on VFD if it fails to achieve consensus in the next 4 days (as it will drop off the VFD backlog at that point). N.b. consensus is generally regarded as 2/3 majority, or at least a noticable (as opposed to by 1/2 votes out of 60) majority. ~~~~ 06:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with you. The vote is CLEARLY opposed to deletion, therefore the VfD should be closed. There is a great deal of support for transwikiing to a currently non-existent project, but that does not minimize the fact that there is a grand total of FOUR patently "delete" votes. I move that the nominator be assigned with the task of removing the VfD notifications, and that interested parties be invited to constructively commence formation of the widely supported biblewiki project. My guess is that most of those who voted in favor of transwikiing thereto lack the technical expertise to actually accomplish such a transwikiing (myself included), but that once the project were up and running, that the superfluous material would happily disappear from the WP project to its more appropriate home. Meanwhile, stalling in order to try to gain more and more votes is patently ridiculous. How long do y'all plan to leave this open? It's already going on 2 weeks. A month? 2 months? 3? 4? 18???! Close this already, and let's move on to constructively address the clear consensi: (a) do not delete and (b) start biblewiki (or whatever). Tomer TALK 07:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but this VFD was primarily about merging the articles rather than deleting them. The vote is required to determine whether consensus is to keep the articles as individuals or to merge them together or move them somewhere else. What is being VFD'd is their individuality. I.e. I put their individuality up for deletion. Merge, transwiki, and delete votes are all agreeing that they should not be individual. There needs to be consensus as to whether they should exist seperately in wikipedia (rather than eslewhere - e.g. WikiBooks) or not. ~~~~ 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. The technical expertise required to transwiki is to add a {{move to WikiBooks}} tag to the article. Someone who is able to transwiki it will them perform the transwiki after a week or so. ~~~~ 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah...I noticed that it's more about merging that deleting...I still think the whole kit 'n caboodle should be transwikied—but it would be inappropriate to send it to wikibooks or wikisource. If someone knows how to make wikibible, I'll be more than happy to help remove the VfD tags on the articles. That said, I still think it's ridiculous that the VfD is still open. Tomer TALK 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Wikibible would be a book amongst Wikibooks. There is already a project there. I think it's called Wikibooks:New Testament ~~~~ 17:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote summary so-far

edit

The exact totals so far (as of 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)) are

Discounted
Vote breakdown
I.e.
  • Abstain x 2
  • Keep as individual articles x 32
  • Don't have as individual articles x 34
  • Either x 3
Overlapping Totals
I.e.
  • Abstain x 2
  • Keep as individual articles x 35
  • Don't have as individual articles x 44
n.b. this second grouping includes overlaps (e.g. "merge OR transwiki" = "merge" x 1 + "transwiki" x 1), so some votes counted twice

~~~~ 07:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments continued...

edit

Some parties have opened up a further discussion at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. ~~~~ 08:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletebyJni --Allen3 talk 21:10, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Benyamin jaffery

edit

Not notable, vanity, sandbox Bollar July 9, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Was speedy deleted. Bollar July 9, 2005 15:43 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinless Wonder

edit

Described in text as "short lived" internet phenomenon. Gee, not many of those going around. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Katsoulas

edit

Vanity. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 16:12 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Zombies

edit

All the information presented here is already present at zombie, sufficiently summarized as Zombies in film, causes of zombiism, etc. There's really no need for every zombie movie/video game to have its own subarticle for its specific zombie type. Inanechild 9 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frictional Affects of Hurricanes

edit

Firstly, it's using "Affect" incorrectly where "effect" belongs, which just starts casting doubt on the whole thing.

The article describes a steering effect due to friction on hurricanes that I can't verify. NOAA certainly hasn't put anything about it online. The Hurricane Dennis example is completely wrong as its track past Cuba was about as straight a line as one ever sees with tropical systems.

A combination of original research and incorrect factual statements that can't be salvaged. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WebMotiva

edit

probable vanity page, suggest Delete. Note user name and contribs: [contribs] Dvyost 9 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

José de Arimathéia Otto

edit

Likely vanity page as per WebMotiva, suggest delete. Dvyost 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 21:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This call was Suspiciously made

edit

Before voting, readers are asked to please read the chronology,

Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof.

That comprehensive post also includes a relevant subsection titled,

Suspicious "Spatfield" called for "Vote for Deletion" of Anti-polygamy article.

(For just one quick proof of why "Spatfield" is suspect, see here.)

Also, before voting, please read the subsections at the bottom of this page here too.

Through it all, please also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy. Just because more anti-polygamists are willing to cast their votes to delete because of biased anti-polygamy POV, that does not mean that their votes really address the issue or properly serve Wikipedia.

Researcher 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Anti-polygamy

edit

I find this article to be POV and it's very premise is non-sensical to me, Anti-polygamy does not sound like a good title for a "debate" on polygamy. Furthermore, no other pages currently link to it. spatfield July 9, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Anolder version of Polygamy has a link to anti-polygamy. I deleted the link for the reasons mentioned here. Nereocystis 17:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my great frustaration, Nereocystis is caught here lying yet again. What they have just said here is simply not true, and they know it. Nereocystis is totally out to oppress as shown in this post they made on 19:12, 18 July 2005 and I pointed out their extreme aggressiveness this very day in my subsequent post 19:42, 18 July 2005. Not only was Nereocystis caught lying in those other posts, but they are clearly lying here too about their supposed concern for the oppression they are doing against me and their supposed desire for anything "fair." It is my hope that people will not further assist Nereocystis's hostile anti-polygamy POV and agenda. The current dispute with that anti-polygamist should not be exploited to hastily delete the anti-polygamy article. That article was offered as an NPOV solution to end the abuse and solve that other dispute. (See the other section here about that.) So deleting the article interferes with a possible resolution of that dispute. If the anti-polygamy article does get deleted because of such false exploitation, there will be nothing "fair" about that whatsoever. Despite their little game of suggesting an "extention" of the vote another week, and the admission of expecting no more votes to change the current vote-tally to "Kept," the revealed lie in the linked-posts also reveals how aggressive they plan to be to exploit that deletion in furthering their abuse. So, Nereocystis knows there is nothing really "fair" about deleting this article at all and that they have no desire to stop oppressing me or stop preventing all my obviously-valid edits. To say otherwise is clearly just another lie. It is my hope that the abuse will come to an end and that valid posts can once again be made to the polygamy and anti-polygamy articles in Wikipedia. Researcher 20:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your input. The article is a brand-new work-in-progress. Only one day after the article was originally created, hostile anti-polygamist Nereocystis made a post on the anti-polygamy TALK page there hinting for someone to call for it to be deleted. This call for deletion was way too quickly and suspiciously made. Regarding size of the article, it could very easily and quickly be filled up to a large article. If anti-polygamists would spend their time building up the anti-article instead of craftily trying to hide their agenda by trying to destroy it, they could quickly help it reach that size. Pro-polygamy responses would then further add to its size. (Plus, the current polygamy article so already too large. When you try to edit that whole polygamy article, the red-font warning tells you it is alrady too large. So, the time really is now to make that separation to the anti-polygamy article. Researcher 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nereocystis himself called for the extension on the vote - do you think further extension would be a fair compromise? I would change my vote to "keep" if this were a bit more in-depth and fit in better alongside the main article, and from what you say, all that needs is time and effort. In the meantime, I don't think we have consensus to resolve the issue. Explodicle 04:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your input, Explodicle. Actually, Nereocystis is not being honest about that. It is one of their tactics, much like a politician smelling possible victory (such as with likeminded anti-polygamists voting their way), trying to come out in front of the final result and pretending to be gracious, when they certainly do not mean it. A couple months ago, I had had to "out" Nereocystis as the anti-polygamist they are. At that time, they were pretending to be "pro-polygamist" as they were committing sneaky vandalisms to actually destroy the polygamy article. They also frequently make obfuscatory claims that are obviously untrue, as seen here where they claimed that a clearly obvious NPOV statement is somehow POV. regarding enlargement, I would be glad to enlarge the anti-polygamy article. But Nereocystis aggressively removed the link to anti-polygamy from the polygamy article a day after its creation, so no one else knows it exists in order to build it further. When I tried to restore the link, the rv'ed it again. Lately, Nereocystis has been plotting daily with new ways to destroy the polygamy article, so much so and are not giving me a chance to even catch my breath. Lastly, there are some things on the currently too-large polygamy atricle that could be moved to the anti-polygamy article. But considering that Nereocystis rv's every edit I make, no matter what, I can only expect to see my edits to build up the anti-polygamy article rv'ed too. As shown at the top of this page here, the very call for this "Vote for Deletion" is, itself, highly suspect. That suspect person who created this call for VfD has not posted anything in Wikipedia since last year. All of a sudden they make this call for VfD and only this call? Very suspect. So, with all that, I do not really believe that any extension is all that much of a fair compromise. This suspect call is just another abuse being heaped toward me in a not-yet-resolved problem with Nereocystis. (I was actually trying to help resolve the problem by creating the anti-polygamy article in thefirst place.) I would certainly be glad to enlarge the article over time, with help from others who can find the article. But that will take time. I need Nereocystis and their hostile anti-polygamy POV to be prevented from destroying every work I do and every single edit I make. They now aggressively act as if they "own" the polygamy article and have created numerous problems indeed. That last issue is really the heart of the problem here. I am hoping to have it resolved so normal editing can resume. I also hope my response here has been helpful for you. Thanks again. Researcher 01:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please copy the text from the polygamy article into the anti-polygamy article, but don't delete the original from polygamy. This will allow people to see what you envision as the anti-polygamy article. Nereocystis 17:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever personal grudge you two may have against one another is none of my concern. I'll keep an eye on THIS article and THIS article's history, and vote solely based on what I see there. Explodicle 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I don't have a grudge against him, just a desire to discuss the article itself, and not be subject to personal attacks. Nereocystis 20:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For NPOV, the difference between neutral term vs. non-neutral POV agenda/debate MUST be Separated

edit

When I started the anti-polygamy article, I did so with the full invitation for anti-polygamists to add their views there as well. That was the point, actually. So, I had only started the anti-polygamy article, but fully expected others, including anti-polygamists, to bring their views there too. If anti-polygamists thought it was too POV there, they were welcome to build upon the article (not delete or destroy) and to simultaneously await any pro-polygamous response too. Instead, however, anti-polygamists who are afraid of their agenda being so exposed in such an open debate of their itemized presented arguments and tactics like that have responded by trying to hide and undermine that altogether. This very "vote for deletion" page is a pure example of that, anti-polygamists trying to prevent their agenda from being so exposed because they are not confident enough that their views and exposed tactics will be able to "win" their debate. Instead, they want to hide behind the seeming "authoritativeness" of directly infesting the neutral anthropological polygamy article with their POV and mis-information.

It is, of course, fully expected that anti-polygamists would oppress a minority by wanting to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning about the tactics and debate about anti-polygamy. Like I just said, they want the "freedom" to misrepresent polygamy as if authoritative rather than have their debates exposed for what they are.

Again, it must be understood that Polygamy is a neutral term but anti-polygamists continue to infest the Polygamy article with their POV. Nereocystis has repeatedly been outed as a hostile anti-polygamist on the Polygamy TALK pages. (Anti-polygamists have further tried to hide those "outings" by "archiving" all the evidence about the "outings." As well, an ANON editor deliberately tried to hide the evidence I had recently presented about what anti-polygamists did to my original version of the anti-polygamy article, by removing the specific segment of evidence from the TALK altogether!]) Therefore the outed anti-polygamist Nereocystis is here attempting to appeal to a hostile anti-polygamy POV majority in order to prevent the real issues from being exposed.

Anti-polygamy is obviously a non-neutral agenda. To obtain true NPOV in Wikipedia, polygamy should not be infested with the obvious POV of anti-polygamists as has been happening.

Instead, for true NPOV throughout the issue, anti-polygamists can have a place at the anti-polygamy article to itemize their agenda points and views by putting them in the more appropriate anti-polygamy article. Then pro-polygamists can also list their refutations of those items. That way, both articles are truly NPOV.

In that way, the neutral anthropoligical polygamy article can teach Wikipedia readers what polygamy really is about without the distraction of the agenda of anti-polygamy POV. If the Wikipedia readers want to also see the anti-polygamy view and debate, then they can go to the anti-polygamy article and get that information too. (When I created the anti-polygamy article, I created an immediate explanation and link to it on the anti-polygamy article.) Wikipredia readers should not be distracted with the agenda of the anti-polygamy POV and propaganda, unless they seek it directly.

What I have created with all this also allows true NPOV on the anti-polygamy article too. As already explained, anti-polygamists can place their reasons for their agenda and pro-polygamists can respond. Balance, NPOV. In the same way, pro-polygamists can point out the tactics of anti-polygamists and anti-polygamists can respond. True NPOV.

Polygamy is the neutral anthropological term. Anti-polygamy is the non-neutral agenda and debate. True NPOV accross the board.

In addition to the NPOV issue, the polygamy article itself is already too long. Whenever one makes an edit to the full polygamy article, they get the red-font "too long" message. The reason that the polygamy article is too long is because it is too infested with anti-polygamy agenda. So, by moving the agenda and debate to its own anti-polygamy article, the length can be kept within Guidelines.

Lastly, the POV of those wanting to delete or prevent this solution is easily observable as hostile anti-polygamy POV itself. To refuse to allow the anti-polygamy article, as the needed solution to the anti-polygamists destroying the polygamy article, is the same thing as a KKK majority refusing fairness and NPOV to African Americans on a Wikipedia article about African Americans. It is the same thing as contining to allow KKK editors to imply all the worst ideas against African Americans as if authoritative rather than allow their POV agenda and debate be openly exposed for review of all Wikipedia readers.

So, for true NPOV, article-length, and true fairness to an oppressed minority, a legitimate encyclopedia must separate the neutral anthropological term of polygamy from the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy. Anything less than that is bigoted POV and has no place in a legitimate Wikipedia.

Researcher 13:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Why not just Build the Article?

edit

Rather than vote to destroy the article, why not just follow the Wikipedia policyofbuilding upon the current anti-polygamy article instead? It was created as a work-in-progress and yet it is being called for deletion before it even had a chance to grow. Researcher 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Benson

edit

Vanity/non-notable --TheParanoidOne 9 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.

Daves Railway Photos

edit

Non-notable --TheParanoidOne 9 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Christopher Strange

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharma Frontiers

edit

The article on Pharma Frontiers seemed like an ad or directory listing, searching for the company's name turns up 40 hits on Google. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Magneta Lane

edit

"Magneta Lane are an up and coming band hailing from Toronto, Canada." A band that is up and coming would seem to not yet be notable and not merit inclusion. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (had already been done). — Trilobite (Talk) 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's derivate

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Yua

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Suffering

edit

Delete - standard nn band vanity. TheMidnighters 9 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Udo Prambs

edit

Vanity, nn.-- BMIComp (talk) 9 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Seselwa 19:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberta Togo

edit

9 Google hits. Allegedly a political formation in Togo, but it seems to be only a blog with two posts that has not been updated since March. —Seselwa 9 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Holliday Troll

edit

Are random internet trolls are notable? I think they are not. --Mysidia 19:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was invalid vote. Needs to be on the copyvio page. I will move it there. Woohookitty 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Müller-Schott

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 06:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etkin arun

edit

A stub in Turkish about a music-related subject. It has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for over two weeks and it has not been translated. My suggestion: interwiki to Turkish Wikipedia and delete. Sietse 20:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the 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 Transwiki to wikicities and redirect. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Avatar World

edit

Nonencyclopedic, unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Also copyvio from Distant Horizon. Purplefeltangel 20:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied for a Avatar wiki on wikicities. If it is created, then this may be closed. Howabout1 Talk to me! 15:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schweinhund

edit

WP:WINAD. Another foreign language cussword dicdef. Delete all foreign dicdefs. Already transwikied. Dmcdevit 20:28, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 22:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sassenach

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign dicdefs. Already transwikied. --Dmcdevit 20:31, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gädda

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign language dicdefs. Already been transwikied. --Dmcdevit 20:32, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famh

edit

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign dicdefs. Already transwikied. --Dmcdevit 20:34, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hexa Strike

edit

dicdef of an attack in a video game. Delete. Thatdog 20:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo On

edit

Hard to describe, but it's certainly not encyclopedic RoySmith 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote signed by Blinkstale appears to have been actually made by User:67.169.16.216. RoySmith 14:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee LPMud

edit

Not notable, vanity. Delete Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amber palekar

edit

Vanity. --Canderson7 21:07, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzles the Snugly Little Puppy and Grumpy the Cat

edit

Non-notable web comic. Been around since last year, but has only 44 strips and no Alexa rank. I'd like to thank a sockpuppet on another webcomic deletion vote for bringing this to my attention (via the old "but you have articles on these non-notable comics too!" argument). — Gwalla | Talk 21:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Vote is not for it per se but it is in other places on here AND it's been transwikied. Woohookitty 06:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even money

edit

This is a dicdef, and I can't honestly see how it could possibly be expanded. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khaki-Man

edit

Non-notable defunct webcomic: lasted 4 months with a grand total of 11 strips. No Alexa rank. — Gwalla | Talk 21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carried by the Wind

edit

Non-notable webcomic on indefinite hiatus (in other words, defunct). About 35 relevant unique Google hits for "Carried by the wind" webcomic -wikipedia. — Gwalla | Talk 21:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By The Saints

edit

Non-notable webcomic. No Alexa rank, about 9 relevant unique Google hits for "By The Saints" webcomic -wikipedia — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. High quality artwork, backed up by detailed historical research.
  2. Good script, plotting and characterisation. The author also has a good ear for dialects.
  3. Labour of love. This comic is obviously its creator's pet project, therefore he's certain to stick it out to the end no matter what. Lee M 17:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic climatology

edit

Transwikied dictdef. Obscure enough article name that I don't see the need to redirect to Climatology, so Delete. Eliot 20:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing the proceedure here, I'd like to add my vote to be counted or not. The article theme is not obscure, per se, but somewhat meaningless, climatology being the study of periods much longer than synoptic weather patterns. Delete. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 20:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph E. Duncan III

edit

Delete. Wikipedia is not America's Most Wanted. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:23, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pletal

edit

Delete. Article for some sort of pharmaceutical that reads like ad copy. pletal gets 447 unique Google hits, not all relevant. If Wikipedia needs an article for this drug, this isn't it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:29, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment on copyvio possibility; I don't think it is. SOME of the text appears to be a direct cut/paste from this FDA resource [42], which means the text is in the public domain. --Durin 22:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; With the above in mind, and agreeing with TheCoffee below (except on copyvio status), I change my vote from abstain to keep. --Durin 22:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CajunBot

edit

Non-notable. --Tothebarricades 23:09, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish prayers and blessings

edit

Source text, no intrinsic encyclopedic value. Delete or transwikify to Wikisource. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT. Duly done. -Splash 20:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nights Dawn Trilogy

edit

This page is poorly constructed, lacking in information, contains poor spelling and poor grammar, and is a duplicate of a better article located at The Night's Dawn Trilogy. The title of the page in question does not even match the title of the trilogy.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabanadian

edit

Delete - Neologism, 0 Google results unfortunately TheMidnighters 23:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with TheMidnighters --InformationalAnarchist 23:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Fox

edit

Non-notable wife of a non-notable author who has spammed the Wikipedia repeatedly with vanity articles about himself. (I just speedy deleted his article again yesterday; this has been going on for a year or longer.) A Google search on Bertha Fox turns up very little; the only other article that linked to it was Pier Dominguez.Ardonik.talk()* 23:35, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quacked

edit

Delete Advertising. Also fails WP:WEB with an Alexa ranking >400,000. --Durin 23:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irusha

edit

Hoax (apparent). 'Lover of tomatoes' is suspicious. Can't find google confirmation of king of Sri Lanka Irusha either. RJFJR 23:52, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kjorteo

edit

This page never served a purpose other than the amusement of the friend of Kjorteo who thought that Wikipedia was like UrbanDictionary in that you can make entries for your friends in the name of general silliness. Kjorteo himself strongly objects to this page, fearing a vanity page on Wikipedia would reflect poorly on him if one were to suspect him of making it, and is the one behind its most recent edit and the VfD process. This article should be removed entirely. 68.35.130.224 00:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ColoradoZ 00:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

NOTE: Additional pages have been added and linked to the Shawn Mikula page. Also, the page has been further edited and an attempt has been made to de-vanitize it. 128.220.29.140 16:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Excessively voluminous discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Shawn Mikula. Text of all votes retained. Do see full discussion for context, and for very extensive arguments in support of the page presented by usernames User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, User:70.16.2.172, and several other anons. Dpbsmith 01:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Vote complete - article deleted

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiera Ward Aka T-BaBy

edit

Delete. Vanity/non-notable unsigned artist. 68.166.32.19

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_9&oldid=1081092278"




Last edited on 5 April 2022, at 07:58  


Languages

 



This page is not available in other languages.
  

 Wikipedia


●This page was last edited on 5 April 2022, at 07:58 (UTC).
●Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.


●Privacy policy
●About Wikipedia
●Disclaimers
●Contact Wikipedia
●Code of Conduct
●Developers
●Statistics
●Cookie statement
●Terms of Use
●Desktop