Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4

[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 Delete. Essjay · Talk 09:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery Maxton

[edit]

Vanity, non-notable Chuck 00:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 09:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

College algebra text book

[edit]

Worth a read, unverifiable story, nn book, delete but poss BJAODN --Doc (?) 00:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Its a book, seems fine to me (unsigned vote by User:Numba1xclusive - 14th edit - all on VfD)
A book with 5 differentiated googles --Doc (?) 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was redirected because it was a literal copy of an existing article. - Mgm|(talk) 01:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mighty Mouse (Cartoon)

[edit]

Carbon copy of Mighty Mouse by anonymous user. Nothing links to it. —Tokek 00:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to List of Mississippi county name etymologies. Done. (FunkyChicken's vote is invalid, but also implies a merge.) -Splash 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mississippi Counties Names Etymologies

[edit]

Delete Useless list, information repeated in the individual county entries. Frühstücksdienst 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small Brown Bike

[edit]

Delete Not notable. Band vanity! Frühstücksdienst 00:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 09:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Luna class starship

[edit]

Delete A page for a Star Trek starship class that was never seen or even mentioned on-screen and exists only in Star Trek novels (which are considered non-canon by Paramount). AlistairMcMillan 01:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

BTW Only one other page links to it. And I believe a lot of the content is speculation. AlistairMcMillan 01:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm... which editing conflict? AlistairMcMillan 02:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Memory-Alpha doesn't have an entry on the Luna class, which just proves my point that this shouldn't have an entry here. AlistairMcMillan 03:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-canon Star Trek, and is Star Trek minutiae really encylopedic? 03:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-canon fancruft, which is the lowest variety of fancruft. Lord Bob 03:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even if this was not actually mentioned on screen: mention in a novel is plenty, Star Trek is notable, and includes novels on the subject, since they are able to list about 10 Luna class vessels, it seems the subject is not so minor: whether film producers consider something canon is an arbitrary distinction, about whether Hollywood thought it was most expeditious to pay attention to certain topics in building their own stories, and there are many things that might have not appeared on screen which would still be notable. You have a point about possible speculation in the article, but that is more of an editing matter. If the subject was mentioned in one of their books, it obviously has some meaning in the Star Trek universe. --Mysidia 04:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About the ten Luna class vessels, they are just mentioned in a throw away manner. They do not feature in any of the novels in any significant way. We know nothing about the other Luna class vessels aside from their names.
And please understand what I mean by saying Paramount does not consider the novels canon. If they produced a movie or tv series tomorrow, they would not hesitate for a second to contradict anything in one of the novels. They have already contradicted numerous novels in a number of very significant ways. AlistairMcMillan 05:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being merely officially licensed, not canon, is not automatically a criterion for deletion. If this was someone's fanfic, I'd vote delete, but some of the books are notable. — JIP | Talk 05:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every other time a non-canon starship has been added, it has been deleted. AlistairMcMillan 05:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
So if I wrote an extensive article on, say, David Gold (Star Trek), who has a major role in pretty much the entire Starfleet Corps of Engineers series, appearing in each of the about 50 or 60 eBooks, it would be summarily deleted as non-canon? — JIP | Talk 06:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be merged into Starfleet Corps of Engineers, if I had to guess. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only familiar with the situation with starship related pages. Sorry can't answer your question. AlistairMcMillan 08:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being present in a published Star Trek novel (in contrast to fanfiction) does give some "officialness" to this, whether or not it is endorsed as canon by Paramount, so this article is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If it's in novels published under the official license that's good enough for me. If it contains speculation, remove that, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:37, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it ain't on film, it ain't canon: let Memory Alpha do it. --Calton | Talk 15:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This class of ship may not be from the show cannon, but it is from the expanded universe cannon and is the class of ship of Riker's new starship. Worthy of it's own entry as it was implied in Star Trek Nemesis. I also take issue with anyone who says this is "fancruft" as the novels are not fancruft.Gateman1997 17:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, make articles for the books; widely distributed, published novels are notable. On the other hand, objects mentioned in passing in those novels tend not to be notable. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, most of the articles associated with the Harry Potter books, including Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry should be deleted as well.Gateman1997 19:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely different. The Harry Potter books are written by the person who created Harry Potter. The Star Trek books are not written by Paramount. Paramount does not take their content seriously or make any attempt to incorporate it into their own Star Trek productions. If Paramount did make a series about the Titan, there is a good chance they would design a new starship class of their own for it and completely ignore the Luna class which was invented by their licensee Pocket Books.
  • Merge and redirect per Plutor. It isn't fanfiction, and although it isn't canon (as opposed to Star Wars, where EU material is canon), it's notable enough to be included on this list. The list is more helpful, anyway. --Scimitar parley 18:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's because I had a few beers, but I tried that and it's hilarious. -R. fiend 02:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. Funny without the beers. Schmucky, you devil. Apologies to all keep voters... ;P --Etacar11 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting -- to vote to delete because you can make the "keep" votes funny by speaking them in a silly voice. And they say there's no Cabal. "Vote early -- vote often !!" Simon Cursitor 07:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DE-LIST. Essjay · Talk 08:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

List of jellyfish who have stung notable people

[edit]

WHITE DAWG DOES NOT APPROVE. NO ARTICLE MAY BE CREATED WITHOUT WHITE DAWGS PERMISSION. BrowardBillionaire 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy de-list. Bad faith nomination. JesseW 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
de-list and BJAODN this VFD --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy de-list Note the link above is a redlink. --Mysidia 03:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? I mean, speedy delist and BJAODN. White Dawg can be stung by a jellyfish, for all I care. --Titoxd 06:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would approve of a list if any notable people were stung by known notable jellyfish Williamb 06:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 09:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

USS Bonaventure

[edit]

Delete Page for non-canon Star Trek starship. Aside from that the content is copied almost verbatim from the Star Trek wiki http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bonaventure AlistairMcMillan 01:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and nothing links to it. AlistairMcMillan 01:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with Star Trek or the Star Trek-related pages on here, but Paramount disregards everything except for the actual live-action movies and TV series (Star Trek canon), and so far on Wikipedia we've stuck to that standard. AlistairMcMillan 02:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Which would be fine except that Paramount provided major quantities of material for the Star Trek Fact Files which certainly extend (or attempt to, depending on your veiwpoint) canon. And how do the Chronology and Encyclopaedia fir in to your 'canon' definiton ? --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"My canon definition"??? Please find an expert on the subject and ask them how Paramount defines canon. Or read our page on the subject, Star Trek canon which you can see I haven't touched. Anyway... the Fact Files, Chronology and Encyclopedia are not considered canon BY PARAMOUNT. AlistairMcMillan 07:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
With respect, you have misinterpreted by typing. I was referring not to your personal definition of canon, but to which of the various defintions of 'canon' (whether ST or otherwise) you choose to subscribe. Paramount may own the copyright on ST, but there are aspects of the show which vary in canonicity. One example is the sehlat -- canon for the word, not (as understand) for the animated version. --Simon Cursitor 14:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need non-cannon Star Trek material. (I would suggest it be copied to memory alpha, but, apparently, it came from there. (Sheesh, 2nd edit conflict with Alistair...(i.e. the second time that both of us were trying to edit VfD at the same time - not a disagreement about content or anything else) JesseW 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (Edited above comment to clarify; JesseW 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Non-canon Star Trek, and is Star Trek minutiae really encylopedic? 03:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more non-canon fancruft. The Enterprise, this fictional starship ain't. Lord Bob 03:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. It's copied from Memory Alpha, and all work on Memory Alpha is covered by the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license, a license that is incompatible with the GFDL. --Carnildo 22:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 09:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mark V SOC

[edit]

Not quite a speedy (although nearly everything else this contributor wrote was), but still not an article. Perhaps if rewritten from scratch we might have something, but I'm not sure. -R. fiend 20:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In cleaning up old vfd debates I have come across this one and no-one has voted one way or the other. I am re-listing it therefore under today's date. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Substub, substub, go away. Come again when you've more to say. JesseW 02:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect' to U.S. Navy SEALs and add half-sentence based on website. Septentrionalis 02:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Searayman 14:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its a keeper!! I just added a bunch of new informationa and a picture, and will be addeding more as this is my favorite boat in the whole wide world and the United States Navy SWCC are kick ass!

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 default to Keep. If anyone would like to renominate this and impose better organization, please feel free to do so. Essjay · Talk 09:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Fray (Internet forum)

[edit]

Neologism and non-notable entry. The reference does not seem to justify it's own entry as it pertains to a relatively small group of people. - JogCon 02:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author (though it's a collaborative effort of several Fraysters), I respectfully disagree. The forum's readership is non-negligible, numbering in the thousands. It also has a number of regular contributors whose work is featured prominently alongside the articles by paid contributors.--70.33.127.116 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an interested observer, I beg to differ. I think it's at least of equivalent interest as the Slate entry and more than a score others also to be found on this site. I say leave it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.173.82 (talk • contribs) 03:06, August 4, 2005

  • Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a webguide. EvilPhoenix talk 03:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


"non-notable?" -- begging your pardon, but you do have other entries of similar nature and it's, at a minimum, at least as interesting.

I can't see how a 3-day internet hoax merits a Wiki yet a 10-year old site that has been an incubator for developments in the internet is somehow inherently unnoteworthy. The idea of Wiki used to be that experts could craft a summary of what something is and why it's significant. Give us 48-hours and you'll have a wiki entry equal to Greenlighting or Dracula 3000--70.33.127.116 03:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Geoff[reply]


For future reference, please sign your vote using the ~~~~ text so we know who is speaking. Also, this page is for votes only to Delete or Keep, not to argue any one with a different viewpoint. - JogCon 03:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

discussion is encouraged on VFDBorisblue 11:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And I'm arguing anyway. Reluctant as I am to give BotF any more exposure than it has (imagine Thai beaches 15 years ago), I humbly submit that you might want to give the interested parties some time to put a coherent article together in appropriate wiki style before deleting the current effort. You can always delete it later, if you judge the entry to be of little merit. It might not hurt to have a look at BotF before passing judgement on its worthiness for wiki-inclusion. And consider BTC News http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/ spawned by Fray regulars, one of whom now attends White House Press Briefings. It's not an inconsequential site. DC

I apologize to all regular wiki users for my inadequate understanding of both the mechanics of the site, and any breach of etiquette I may inadvertently commit. I am the original author of the entry, it is a collaborative product of users from the Slate forum, our goal is to ultimately create an informative and helpful article for the sake of all interested parties (we estimate this to be a non-negligible number of people), and with a few days (and help from any interested parties, whether Fray-users or not) we hope to accomplish that task. I also apologize for being argumentative, but Wiki's documentation itself claims: "If you are the author of the article, you are welcome to join in the discussion, make your case, and vote like everyone else." I am attempting to do exactly this - to make a case for the importance of this information and for preserving the page long enough for users to develop it into an objective source of useful information. I admit the first stirrings of the entry are underwhelming, but feel it would be a shame to strangle the entry in its crib.--70.33.127.116 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into main Slate Magazine article. May be of some note but does not merit its own article. Junkyard prince 04:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not every forum deserves an article.Geni 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not encyclopedic.--nixie 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am a part of the BoTF community and as such vote to allow us to be given sufficient time to put together a suitable wiki-formated/wiki-friendly article. Several hours is simply not enough time to put this together as we would like to represent our forum which does include, as noted by Geoff above, some very notable people and their accomplisments, certainly with more to come in the next several days. Gypsy
Preceding comment by User:Humanbeing, which is incorrectly listed in signature as User:HumanBeing, who joined Wikipedia on August 4th, and so far has made three edits. EvilPhoenix talk 08:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any article that uses the word "blogosphere" without a trace of irony. (Oh yeah, it's also a non-notable forum.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry is encyclopedic regarding online forum history; somewhat arcane, sure, but Slate itself is well known and its attending forums are also well known. BotF is essentially the backbone of this entity, and therefore deserves notation. - SwingLowSweetDeej 07:41, 4 August 2005 (PST)
  • Keep: Just as notable as the parent webzine, if not more so. CosmeticIrony 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This was interesting. I’ve taken a little time to review wiki’s attempts to address the many issues that plague it (and other open forums like BotF), and it looks like they’ve done a good job. Still, the speed with which the wiki familiars put BotF up for deletion is evidence those guidelines are somewhat unfamiliar to, or ignored by the wiki familiars who would sooner vote for deletion then satisfy their supposed encyclopedic curiosity and learn what it is exactly they’re deeming non-notable. But although I’m a BotF regular, and the one who suggested this article, I vote for deletion. Not because BotF is non-notable, but because the wiki familiars who’ve apparently resigned their contributions to voting to delete articles they fail to appreciate have done an effective job of discouraging BotF’s authors from pursuing the endeavor. Wikifolk, you’ve wielded your power to the desired effect. Your fiefdom is safe. Have a nice life. BOTF 16:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There really is no reason why you can't present something encyclopedic on a first edit when it comes to something that has been around as long as Slate Magazine. However, if the idea was to merge all of the relevant information over to the Slate Magazine article, that would be more appropriate. I just don't see how an acronym for a sub-forum is just cause for an encyclopedia entry. And don't think that a VFD is an attempt to insult the author OR the topic of the article. It is defenitely not so. - JogCon 19:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you know, I imagine what I’m about to say will break some wiki etiquette rules, so stop reading now if you don’t want to be offended. I guess what is getting me is you really don’t know how ridiculous you sound. Honestly, I came here to write an article on BotF, not argue its merits with someone whose expertise appears to be PS2 and its accessories. Mind you, I’m not criticizing your obsession. On the contrary, mine (BotF) is as pathetic, if not more. What I’m getting at is this: I’m not going to suggest JogCon be deleted even though I feel about it the same way you apparently feel about BotF. So why am I not devoting myself to getting your article deleted? Because I’m sure it’s relevant to someone, so what business is it of mine? Other points:
        • a) You clearly don’t have any idea what BotF is. You do, however, seem to know the ins and outs of placing a VFD on an article. So, why am I not surprised you’re partial to your VFD? If I didn’t know better (and I don’t) I would guess you’ve taken to using VFDs as a means of getting attention.
        • b) The fact of the matter is, a VFD is detrimental to the article. Why would someone devote their time and effort to an article that begins with, “This article is being considered for deletion…”? That’s your doing, and you did it before you even knew what it was you deemed “Neologism”. But then, that says it all doesn’t it. You have no idea what it means, prefer it be meaningless as an excuse and for good measure, want to deny others the opportunity to recognize what is of apparent interest to its contributors.
        • c) Lastly, so I’m clear, I am an expert in not only BotF, but the vagaries of all the types of people who find their little niches in the internet. In other words, I know exactly what you are JogCon, and I’m done feeding your appetite for attention. It is sad though, that you would burden the great idea that is WikipediA with the responsibility of quenching your desire for validation. You have power here JogCon, the power to judge, and you live for it. You’re a sad spectacle and a sorry excuse for a wiki ambassador. BOTF 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For someone criticizing another person for supposedly wanting attention, you sure went out of your way to attempt to insult me in as long of an elitist rambling as possible. I reiterate that the VFD was not an attempt to insult the author, the topic of the article, or by extension, it's user base. If that is how you feel, I am truly sorry as it was never my intention to do so. However, I do stand by my original word that an acronym for a sub-forum is not encyclopedic. I have attempted to be as civil as possible. Had it been that everyone voted to keep the article, then so be it. My opinion would be overturned and that would be the last of it. You can feel free to put a VFD on any article you want. That is your right as someone who can access the board. However, I do respectfully request that you leave personal arguments and insults toward my character out of this matter. That is rather uncalled for. And the fact that you resort to such remarks is further proof that you do not know me as you have suggested. - JogCon 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That’s not long, and certainly not as long as possible JogCon, and not by any standard much less BotF standard. And yes, I got personal, but it was called for as you effectively shut down the article without giving it a second thought. I mean, really, don’t you have anything better to do than to stomp on other people’s ideas? Sure, you’re civil, and if I had a power equal to the VFD you slapped on BotF, I’d slap civility right back at you. But I don’t. All I have are these words, and no, I’m not going to return the favor and put VFDs on all your articles. That’s your lesson in civility JogCon. You were thoughtless, and the damage is done. Live and learn JogCon, so the next time you get the urge to slam a VFD on someone’s work, think twice and consider the only reason you think it doesn’t belong is your own prejudice. And yes, you’re right, an acronym for a sub-forum is not encyclopedic. And thanks to you, you’ll never know it to be anything else. Now shove off, you won, be a good sport and let the loser have the last word. BOTF 22:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hint to JogCon: your objection - that we felt compelled to use the acronym (because an earlier stab at a clearer title was speed-deleted) has a simpler remedy than deletion. It's called "Moving the Article." You are very defensive about your VfD, despite your protestations to the contrary. Yet none of your arguments are rooted in Wikipedia's deletion criteria, and - had you not killed it - it would have been rather easy to assemble an article explaining the larger significance of this particular site that would have been relevant to those interested in the relationship between certain internet forums and political issues. Memo to the general public: The word "encyclopedic" means "comprehensive." Describing the existence of things is an "encyclopedic" endeavor. Censoring the description of things which exist is the opposite of encyclopedic.--Geoff-LA 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have already stated that a previous article that was previously posted was given a Speedy Deletion tag (and it seems to have gone through, although that explanation has not been explicitly confirmed). Don't you think that's justification enough? You've reduced this to a petty, childish argument. This is NOT about winning or losing. Regardless of what you may think, I take no joy in "stomping" on your or anyone else's work. It has been and still is my opinion that "BotF" on its own, is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. The reason I put the VFD tage rather than Speedy Delete tag on it was because I don't feel I need to be the sole voice on the matter. I wanted the opinions of other Wikipedians. You still seem to be speaking under the assumption that by putting a VFD on this entry that I was attempting to insult you. I don't know how many times I must explain that this is simply untrue, but if I must keep doing so, I will. So like I have been saying, if what I did came across as a personal insult to you or your user base, I am truly sorry. If the article deserves to remain on Wikipedia according to other users (and more importantly, the admins) then so be it. It won't hurt me at all to see the page remain, as I will understand that it's remaining in the view of the "greater good" so to speak. So I will ask you again, politely, keep the personal insults aside. It does nothing to benefit your argument. I did not "kill" the page, as Geoff-LA suggests. It can still be edited and improved upon (and in fact, doing so could very well re-inforce your argument of why it belongs). - JogCon 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the matter of winning and losing, you win. The speedy delete tag (if that is what happened - another user tried before I decided to help by grabbing some unused real-estate) might only indicate that someone with less restraint flagged it (i.e., the actions of wiki-users are not perfectly co-extensive with objective merit). Nobody here has claimed that the VfD tag was an insult. We've claimed that it was inappropriate (because the VfD is not grounded in the criteria for deletion that constitute Wikipedia policy), that it has a chilling effect on the development of the article (because the original authors no longer have an interest in completing the article), and that it is ludicrous in light of the pre-existing content of the Wikipedia. In all likelihood, Slate's Fray has more unique viewers per day than Dracula 3000 has had at all. This alone should make it more significant in its field (the internet) as your own entry is in its field (cinema). You did "kill" the page, as I suggest, and we are inviting you to take pride in this fact. At this point, you are not arguing the merits of creating an article describing the pheonomenon which is the Fray - but rather dodging and weaving in self-defense because you don't seem to like the fact that you've made a very negative impression. This article wasn't about you, and it still isn't about you. You'll have your way on the question of this article's lifespan. It's beyond reason to ask that the people you've censored also respect you.--Geoff-LA 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, to me it is not (nor has it ever been) about winning or losing. That is not the view I take on Wikipedia. If that's how you choose to take it, then that is your choice. The reason it seems that some people have taken the VfD tag as an insult it comments that have been about attacking me rather than the issue at hand. I can't see how someone would just up and insult me without having previously felt offended. All that had to be done was to plead the case, and be done with it. I am not "dodging and weaving". I still stand in my original position that "BotF" on it's own seems like a weak article on it's own. My stance has not changed and I have only been returning posts because of the attacks on my person and not on my actions. Please do try and understand this. - JogCon 00:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How have you been insulted? Because we've examined your own contributions to the Wikipedia and compared it to ours? If that's an insult, it would seem you have very low self-esteem. If your previous entries are inherently more meritorious of description than the Fray, then there would be nothing insulting at all in our confusion over your standards. As for whether someone "wins" or "loses" - you've asked that this article die, and you're going to get your wish. You win. What more do you want? Why the need to keep interjecting your own emotions into the discussion.--Geoff-LA 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Here are but some of the personal attacks that have NOTHING to do with the article on hand. "...you really don’t know how ridiculous you sound", "You clearly don’t have any idea what BotF is", "I would guess you’ve taken to using VFDs as a means of getting attention", "You have no idea what [neologism] means", "I know exactly what you are JogCon, and I’m done feeding your appetite for attention", "You’re a sad spectacle and a sorry excuse for a wiki ambassador". You mean to tell me that none of these are personal attacks? - JogCon 00:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What makes those personal attacks? From the listener's perspective you do sound ridiculous (for the reasons elaborated). Do you have an idea of what BotF is? If you do, do you suppose you've demonstrated that fact? Have we, or have we not, been forced to discuss your sense of aesthetics instead of a phenomenon we consider of material interest to thousands of people? Do you understand what a neologism is? I always thought a personal attack was "you're a stupid fucktwit." It seems by your standard any unflattering assessment of your behavior counts as a personal attack. But your behavior has been, quite frankly, outrageous. Why should your victims pretend they've enjoyed it? Why aren't you satisfied with the fact that your objection has been acted upon, and that this article is now dead? From my perspective (and I would bet from BOTF's too) your interest in trumpeting your own opinions rather than discussing the object which we attempted to wiki indicates that this isn't about The Fray, but is in fact about you. Given that this is your apparent topical preference, it's pretty hard to discuss the matter at hand without making reference to your behavior. Nobody I've seen from the Fray has asked you to stop saying anything you're saying - despite the fact that you've significantly misrepresented both the topic which was being discussed (The Fray) and the motives of the people seeking to discuss it. --Geoff-LA 03:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I fail to see how "You’re a sad spectacle and a sorry excuse for a wiki ambassador" is not a personal attack. I never once tried to make this discussion about me. In fact, I've tried several times to re-iterate that this page is for discussion of the subject matter in the article and not of the people who edit it. In fact, as I recall, it was someone else who brought me into it in a personal matter. In fact, even after such attempts to attack my character, I have still tried to reach a resolution, only to be met with a very rude comment by BTOF about me, rather than the article in question. "Dude, get a grip and shrink your head down to size." is what I received in response to my attempt to help resolve this issue. The fact that my behavior is "outrageous" should have no bearing on the discussion. Never was it my intention to make the discussion about me in any way. I felt the information did not justify it's own entry, posted the VfD tag to allow other users to voice their opinion ABOUT THE ARTICLE, not about me. In fact, if BTOF hadn't called me a "sad spectacle", it never would have been an issue. Remember, I didn't bring myself into this discussion on a personal level, the two of you did. But if it somehow helps you justify the article's legitimacy by insulting and blaming me, then by all means continue. Remember, I didn't bring myself into this discussion on a personal level, the two of you did. Thanks and have a great night! - JogCon 03:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Well, gee. What kind of ambassadorship do you think it is to drive off new users because... what? What have your arguments been? That the thing which was trying to be discussed was a neologism? Even if the point's conceded, it's grounds or renaming, not deletion. That "There really is no reason why you can't present something encyclopedic on a first edit when it comes to something that has been around as long as Slate Magazine."? What kind of reason for deletion is that? There were half a dozen authors! How on earth were they supposed to get it write on the first edit? That it's "not notable"? Well, it's obviously "been noted" - an easy claim to refute. You haven't advanced any substantive claim that couldn't be knocked down with a flick of the little finger. So, what is this? It's your personal opinion acting as a proxy for objective merit. Given your personal assessments of what is objectively meritorious, calling your fitness to judge in this matter seems pretty damned obvious. YOU don't think it's important, so you wanted US to explain its importance to YOU. If you didn't want to get personal, you could have flagged it and come back in the morning to see whether we were describing something of importance to you. But instead, you threw a big fat red flag on the field so we'd come over here and have a chat with you. It's absolute thuggery, and it's a direct product of your behavior. If you want to understand the objective merit of the forum as a wikipedia entry, just follow all of our cites to the Wikipedia deletion policy (which you apparently are under no obligation to read or respect) or refute our explanations of its historical significance with something resembling a cogent rebuttal. All I see is a man who really wants to be talked about, and is pretending quite badly that this is somehow something else--Geoff-LA 03:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • But again, that is all your opinion and is not relevant to the article itself. I also see that I am not the only one holding this opinion. The discussion never should have been made about me. I've tried to turn the conversation away from me, but since you and BTOF insist on making it about me, I will concede from this discussion. I'm not sure what's worse. The fact that your best argument is that I haven't read the site and the Wikipedia policies (which I have, in both cases), or the fact that you consistently say I'm craving attention, when the only reason I am being singled out is because the two of you have chosen to do so. I still hold the same opinion I have since the very beginning. But since you refuse to discuss the point at hand, I feel I have no other choice but to end this line of conversation right here. So have a good day. Best of luck with your article. And next time you disagree with someone, make it about the points they make rather than how you feel about them as a person. - JogCon 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Hey, I'm feeling charitable this morning. You've been pretty dishonest throughout this discussion, but I'll give you another chance to prove your sincerity. Tell me clearly: Why are 3rd-rate horror movies more important to Wikipedia than boards with tens of thousands of unique users? Tell me clearly: Why have you kept talking so much if you haven't changed your mind? Tell me clearly: Where in the Wiki deletion policy are the grounds you've provided for deletion? Tell me clearly: Why do you insist that your interlocutors have any interest in saving this article, when they've both voted to delete it?--Geoff-LA 16:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge what may be worth with Slate. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Opinion of the original author. The emergence of the internet is a socio-political phenomenon on par with the development of the press - and early innovators such as Slate's Fray will ultimately be recorded for their role in its permeation. Certainly, the Fray has been an engine for the dissemination of political ideas and has already begun to transform the nature of news media. It may not be a Gutenberg Bible, but it is arguably an Ottaviano Petrucci.

It's a shame that Wikipedia has become such a failure of its own vision. The wikipedia presence of Something Awful or Slashdot clearly shows that the demotic approach to deletion is rife with hypocrisy and hostility - i.e., relevance is defined by interest to subsets of internet users, rather than by significance to the culture at-large. I was willing to try this article on the proviso that the experts would contribute, but having to waste time defending the topic's very legitimacy, when it passes every formal criteria listed on the site's guidelines for inclusion ([verfiability] included) has thrown a damper on the willingness of anyone to work on it.

So, happy trails to all of you. Closing Thoughts--Geoff-LA 21:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Slate Magazine. The Fray and BotF are a part of Slate with no notability other than their connection to that notable web magazine. Therefore, it doesn't need its own article. Now... *rolls eyes* Why must you people take VfDs as a personal insult? And why do you think everything in the world deserves its own article? I know everyone wants their place in Wikipedia, but remember that Wikipedia is an giant encyclopedia, and so topics need to be of around the same notability as would be required by an encyclopedia. Anyway, by the logic of the creators of this article, the forums of any web site listed in Wikipedia should get their own page. And yes, I'm aware of Something Awful forums and Something Awful, but there's notability outside of the main site for them (the SA forums regulars have, in the past, engaged in forum invasions, attacked other websites, etc.). That having been said, I would still say they need to be the same article. A part of something that is notable is not, in and of itself, notable. And, uh, just because notability isn't an official criterion, it's a de facto one. Entries must be important and encyclopedic. Notability is part of being encyclopedic, IMHO. I won't address the comment of bias except to say that I personally believe that SA and Slashdot are at least as recognizable as Slate's forums, if not more so. --FreelanceWizard 22:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't it make sense to write the article first, then determine the proper way to link it back to the article on Slate magazine? The Fray is, at a root level disaggregated from the main site. It has its own search engine and its own mechanics. It also has its own history. Instapundit, for example, is a direct off-shoot of the Fray and its format largely inspired by that set out by the forum of Slate magazine. Given the horde of imitators that this website spawned, and their growing influence in the political discourse, it has a legitimate claim to some independent significance which would - if discussed directly in the Slate article, muddy the content of that article. The problem with the VfD slap is that it throws a pall over the process of authorship. A number of Fray users are prominent attorneys or involved directly in national politics and are uniquely qualified to discuss its effects. But, we've found the VfD notice kills the discussion. That's not a personal taking of offence - it's a chilling effect inherent in asking an individual to invest time and energy into writing an article that is clearly marked as "waiting for deletion"--Geoff-LA 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really convinced that blogging and forums are really a solid part of the political discourse (my humble opinion, others almost assuredly don't agree ;) ), and I really don't see why mentioning the forums in the main article would disrupt the article. That having been said, I think you do have a point insofar as other web site forums get their own separate pages (I cite Something Awful as an example again -- hell, it has its own category). It seems reasonable by way of precedent that The Fray -- not BotF, but The Fray itself -- should be given similar treatment. My vote, however, is based on the fact that I don't like the precedent, and I don't really see what's added by having an article about a website, then a long article about its forums and their culture, then a long article about things the people in the forum do (Slashdot trolling phenomena), ad infinitum. If the big aspect of a site is its forums, make a discussion of them into the majority of the article. If the forums are an adjunct to the site (such as, say, the Bob and George forums), say the web site has forums and be done with it. I don't think it serves Wikipedia at all to go into vast detail on forum culture for every forum. The arrangement of a forum, the levels of users, the cost of membership -- all of these are external link material and not sufficiently important for putting in an article proper. So, my vote stands, but I hope you understand better now why I voted that way. I'm trying to change what I consider a bad precedent, even though I think you have a case for keeping the page as things are right now. I also don't think my position is a violation of WP:POINT, because my goal isn't to disrupt things but rather to provoke discussion. ;) --FreelanceWizard 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be fighting the tide, but to say that an historically significant online forum (BotF is that, even as itself) is not worthy of mention in an online encyclopedia is at best hasty and at worst elitist. As a long time participant in BotF, I do not take personal offense in JogCon's initial VfD, but I think his action hasty and ill informed. The page was up for something like 30 minutes when his VfD request came up, and while the matter is not decided, that fat page header immediately gives any reader the wrong idea about the page. Also, you state recognizability as a quality for keeping the page. The Fray gets around 10,000 posts a day and is directly associate with the Washington Post. --SwingLowSweetDeej 23:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. We’re not taking the VfD as a personal insult. Is that how it looks, or is that how you’d like to see it. Either way, it doesn’t matter. The issues with the VfD are: a) As your comments clearly demonstrate, the issue being debated in not the topic matter the authors originally intended the article to address. The VfD was issued within an hour or so of the articles inception and based on the barest of information. Clearly, if the VfD happy wikiperson had show a bit more patience, he might have found is initial objections to the entry were baseless. b) The VfD effectively killed the collaborative nature the article required if it was to be accurate, objective, and complete. You honestly have no clue as to the nature, depth and particulars of BotF and what it represents. The work that would have informed you so that you could talk about it intelligently was stifled by the VfD. For example: You suggest that forums raiding one another makes them noteworthy. Trust me in that raiding another forum is not only problematic in that it stinks of groupthink, but it’s quite frankly beneath BotF. c) This is an esthetics issue really, but the VfD block at the head of the article really does kill it. How can anyone be expected to judge the article on its merits, if it supposedly merits an obtrusive and off-putting warning at its head. Now I’m new to WikipediA, but is seems to me that the process of VfD could be done a little more subtlety. I’m sure you are familiar with all the elements of a wiki-page and don’t need a neon sign to tell you that there is a debate as to its relevance. Lastly, this whole idea that you should know something exists before it warrants entry into an encyclopedia is just absurd. Are you literally telling us that you never read an encyclopedia entry that educated you? The point being, if you knew as much about BotF as that which you find sufficient to justify the inclusion of other more well known to you forums, you’d change your tune. But then, maybe not since I see from your page that you have a penchant for merging. BOTF 23:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • BOTF, would you perhaps consider toning down your aggressive stance and dropping the personal attacks? You are the reason I mentioned the insult issue, because you very much seem to be taking it as one. ;) I'm not opposed to seeing the content in Wikipedia. I am opposed to it being its own page. There's a world of difference there. Yelling at other editors isn't going to help reach a consensus, and really doesn't help your case, IMHO. --FreelanceWizard 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we don't seem to be making a lot of headway in either direction (BOTF and I both seem to be stubborn in our ways), let me try a different approach. As the author, how would you feel about expanding the article to include more than just "BotF"? To merge it with the Slate Magazine article, seems more ideal. But if it were to even just expand the article (like another person suggested), to include the entire section known as "The Fray", rather than one small portion of it, would be more than satisfactory in my opinion. I'd love to resolve this issue with the author and the others involved, but would greatly appreciate doing so with being attacked on a personal level. The sooner we can get this resolved, the sooner we can retract the VfD and all be on our merry (or not so merry) ways. - JogCon 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel compelled to note that the article was working towards a description of the Fray as a general phenomenon. The authors merely felt boxed into staking a unique term applicable to the site, because - hey, we're new here and it wasn't clear how to dodge the censorship of wikipedians long enough to get the article started. Once happenstance forced the terminology on us, the introduction had to clarify the relationship between the parts and the whole (which the article as it exists does). Also, given what I know of the man going by "BOTF" on this page, your invitations to finish the article are wasted. We're not going to be able to get our authors to contribute to the page with the VfD tag at its head, anymore than we'd get a roomful of guests to sit down and stay if we had a fresh turd sitting on the coffee table. There's precious little interest in satisfying your criteria, and more than a little annoyance at having been asked to consider the merits of your interests over the merits of the topic originally envisioned.--Geoff-LA 00:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You actually expect me to compromise with you over an article that you have yet to read (since it hasn’t been written), on a subject matter that you willfully have no knowledge of and of which I and my co-authors are the authority? Dude, get a grip and shrink your head down to size. BOTF 23:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the stance you wish to take, then so be it. I've tried to reach a compromise so the VfD could be removed and you would be appeased, and in the process make an article that better justifies what is in my opinion a proper encyclopedia entry. But I can't force you to cooperate. You keep bringing up the "fact" that I have no knowledge of the subject matter. I personally don't see the relevance in this argument, especially considering you have NO idea what websites I choose to browse. - JogCon 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I see you’ve “quoted” me in your profile. A bit disingenuous and self-serving without a link, no? BOTF 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm sure it's not a surprise to anyone here, but the keep votes all seem to be coming from people whose only edits have been to the page in question or this VfD. I suspect that's probably why we're seeing this "us versus them" mentality (short of the violation of the no personal attacks guideline); the BotF people want to see their article stay, and the Wikipedians don't seem to. I want to make a plea for sanity here -- given the way the admins work, I think it's unlikely this article will stay if the discussion continues how it's going. So, could we start discussing compromise and consensus, as opposed to aggressively demanding that the article stay? Historically, votes from users who have a vested interest in the article, or who are new to Wikipedia except for the article in question or the VfD, are discounted. If you want the content to stay, let's talk about how we can make it stay. --FreelanceWizard 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend envisioning it as an opportunity to have some useful dialogue with people coming from a different point of view. The votes of several BotF users has been to "delete" and the intention to finish the article is pretty much dead. Your suggestion of a compromise is welcome, but at this point it's largely irrelevant, because there are widely differing levels of commitment to Wikipedia itself between Wiki-users and Fray-users. From the perspective of the Fray, it is in no way diminished by not being included within the Wiki, whereas the Wiki is diminished by failing to include a socially significant phenomenon (recognizing you'd disagree about its significance). Thus, the discussion is taking place at a more meta-level. Why would the users of a site dedicated to developing an "encyclopedic" repository of knowledge (in the word's sense, not in the Wiki-neologism sense) have such a vested interest in preventing the description of things which exist? Also, I think closer attention to distinguishing between "argument" and "attack" would be appreciated by the Fraysters. --Geoff-LA 00:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, Geoff-LA, BOTF is in fact engaging in personal attacks, and seems to be, in my opinion, taking this VfD as a personal attack. However, I agree that that's probably not a distinction worth making at this point. ;) In any event, the current stance of Wikipedia, as far as I've been able to discover, is that things must be more than just extant to fit in here. Everything2, for instance, is a great example of a Wiki-like system whose goal is to cover everything that it possibly can; Wikipedia wants to cover things that it considers, by consensus, of great import. I don't entirely agree with everything it does, certainly. I don't think Something Awful deserves its own category, as I've stated, nor do I think, say, every anime series ever made should gets its own page. In that sense, I'm what one would call an exclusionist. I try to avoid taking POV (in the Wikipedia sense) positions on the significance of things, though. My vote was based on my opinion that web sites in general need to be very notable to make it here, and that their components have to be just as if not more important if they're to get their own pages. Since that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion and I'm comparatively new here, I don't try to pick fights on these issues, but when the perspective of the community is requested (as on, say, a VfD), I try to make my position known.
        That having been said, let me suggest a few things here. It's clear the Fraysters want the article to stay, and I think it could be useful information if it's as notable as is claimed -- and I think you do have a good case for that, for reasons I've already stated. After stepping away from the computer for a bit, I think the best compromise here is to go the way of the precedent. The BotF article should be turned into The Fray, expanded to talk about the forum and BotF, and linked from Slate Magazine, possibly while adding a category for the magazine itself. As a second option, we can let this go down as it is, in which case everyone loses -- you don't get the notability of being in Wikipedia (not that you may care, but let's say you might ;) ), and Wikipedia loses out on some information content. I'd hate to see sour grapes over what amounts to a technical "where should this go" issue end like that. Finally, of course, the VfD could be retracted, but I doubt that's going to happen.
        Out of curiosity, does my first compromise idea seem feasible? I don't like it, but I'm willing to compromise to improve the quality of the site. --FreelanceWizard 00:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel you've been quite reasonable, and it's an excellent suggestion of a compromise. It's looking like Deej might have an interest in salvaging the article, which could very well be the beginning of some beautiful peacemaking between two obvious peacemakers. My own guess is that even that article will be slapped by its own VfD tag - which is to say I have a pretty dismal view of Wikipedia in general. I do think you're wrong about the Wikipedia's purpose, in that my own encounters with your founder's arguments on the standards of inclusiveness seem to suggest that his only considerations are verifiability and NPOV, the first of which the Fray possesses, and the second of which we were certainly trying to get to. My impression from what I've seen of the debate is that "notability" in the Wiki-jargon is a pretty ugly concept - masking either impressions that Wiki's job is to emulate the encyclopedias it was designed to revolutionize or (as in JogCon's case) that "notability" is a function not of inherent significance, but of the personal aesthetic preference of individual Wiki users. I'd urge you to consider a less-exclusionist stance on the grounds that people who know about an awful lot of things aren't going to contribute, if their first encounter is anything like this--Geoff-LA 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • BOTF, Geoff-LA, I concur with turning this into The Fray and I will committ to expanding the entry. I will only do this if you both agree, please respond here.--SwingLowSweetDeej 02:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn forum. The keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the length of comment required to defend it on VfD. -Splash 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is changed to Rename to The Fray, which will be linked to Slate Magazine and will cover a larger area about this forum, in keeping with the compromise and consensus reached above, as well as the precedent set by Category:Something Awful and other such things. Further commentary is welcome, but please, admins, take our good faith negotiation into account and let's see if we can get a good page here. --FreelanceWizard 04:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we see the article before deciding? It can just be written straight over the top of this one (retaining the VfD tag). I'd like to know what the new article says before deciding to keep/delete it. -Splash 04:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN forum. The less articles about petty internet communities I see every time I click Special:Random the better. --Dv 11:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic forum. Wikipedia isn't a listing for every community on the web. KevinGovaerts 13:58:31, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- not notable/spam. Incognito 14:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonsensical 'blogspam'. There are (unfortunately) thousands of blog communities that nobody cares about. --Timecop 14:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to state for the record that I have edited articles marked for VFD more than once, and have even edited such articles after I voted to merge them into another article. If an article that I had a personal interest in was marked for VFD, it would make me work harder on the article to prove its worth. --Pagrashtak 14:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to state for the record how impressive that is, and how proud of yourself you should be.--Geoff-LA 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geoff-LA, I offered that comment not as a statement of pride, but as an opinion to counter BOTF's opinion that a VFD effectively kills an article. However, I thank you for the compliment, undeserved though it may be. BOTF, I do take your point about the scarlet A, by the way. --Pagrashtak 20:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With specific reference to Pagrashtak’s comment: I don’t doubt that wikivets are a bit more accustomed to the wiki-idiosyncrasies in that they recognize a VfD, not as a scarlet letter, but rather a hurdle/challenge. I’ll grant that, but WikipediA should take note that wikinovices do see it as the equivalent of a red letter “A”. As I mentioned elsewhere, perhaps it could be noted a bit more subtlety, and as this experience suggests, new articles could benefit from a two week to one month grace period during which an article can be refined in order to ensure any subsequent VfD vote/debate is properly informed. In general, and as Geoff has noted, the “debate” from our perspective is no longer about whether or not BotF belongs in WikipediA, but rather a discussion about WikipediA’s narrowing standards as a consequence of the ever-increasing idiosyncrasies of its aging community (broadly speaking). As FreelanceWizard notes, there is an “us” verses “them” dynamic to this debate. I submit however that it is the WikipediA community that lacks objectivity in this matter. To that end, I’ve gone ahead and copied this debate into a post in BotF. Assuming the topic garners debate, I think that in the BotF community you’ll find a variety of opinions as opposed to the WikipediA community’s apparent unanimity. BOTF 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A month is unlikely to make your forum more notable, unless you all decide to commit group suicide or somesuch. — Dv 18:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
We tried that but couldn’t get everyone onboard. Of course, your very presence here makes your “personal insult” more than a bit hypocritical. Unless, of course, you’ve somehow managed to excuse yourself from the reasoning that finds members of online communities like WikipediA worthy of your scorn. BOTF 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A great big thank you to Wikipedia for their notable contribution to the study of Belly button fluff--Geoff-LA 18:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. DragonTat2

Delete. as a BOTF regular, i beseech you wikigods, please, in the name of all that is holy and just, delete the BOTF entry. as i perused your six-part pikachu tractate or your even more elaborate explorations of the rim job and the Mandalorian War, i became increasingly convinced that not only is this probably not the best showcase for BOTF, but that no sane person would voluntarily come within 100 furlongs of you freaks or anything you consider "notable." --locdog

I'd wager that more people play Pokemon, are fans of Star Wars, or engage in unusual sexual practices than visit this forum. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, some of us may (or may not - I'm not telling) do all four. DemonFromHell 19:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. World's longest VFD vote in history. Keep, rename to The Fray and ensure NPOV sanity rules. The first Google hits for "BOTF" have nothing to do whatsoever with any Slate forums, thus it's unlikely anyone's going to search for that. FCYTravis 21:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And in agreement with Travis Strong Keep as per compromise above. Even if the final article were non-notable when rewritten, it should at least be a redirect to Slate Magazine Septentrionalis 22:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The BOTF is but one small forum in a much larger venue. It is more filled with personal attacks and social chit chat than with serious commentary. JConnor 23:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename to "The Fray".--JPotter 16:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Renaming it, 'The BOTF,' will carry no insurance that the article will actually be about The Fray. The author will still feature only one or two forums. JConnor 24:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? – Changing my vote from Delete, but really, I shouldn’t get a vote since I’m hardly objective. Change to “The Fray” seems fine to me. Curious, but what is the policy on “case in point” examples? It seems to me that “The Fray” would be a worthwhile “example” in a number of articles (1., 2., …, 6., …). Wouldn’t WikipediA’s “The Fray” article be a good pointer to the actual topic being referenced in these other articles. Another note: this VfD being a good example of what makes The Fray (BOTF) unique, especially if FCYTravis is correct, “Wow. World's longest VFD vote in history.” BOTF 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you shouldn't get to vote, then why are you voting? Isn't that basically admitting to a bad faith vote? —Dv 19:35:27, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Well, I initially voted to delete, so the keep was in part designed to nullify my original vote. You’ll also note I qualified my keep with a question mark (“?”). I did this to show that it was more of a question than a vote. Finally, I said nothing about having no right to try and influence the vote, which is what I was doing. Please understand, my thinking on the subject has evolved over time. Initially, I was excited. That excitement was met with a VfD. Knowing BotF as I do, I assumed the VfD was enough of a deterrent to my hoped-for co-authors, that there was little point in pursuing the article. As far as I was concerned, the VfD then turned into a debate about WikipediA’s policies and procedures, and in particular for me, how those can become tools of abuse by juvenile wikifolk in pursuit of quasi-celebrity. However, the article has progressed (albeit slowly thanks to the VfD) enough that I’m now revising my initial assessment of the VfD. Suffice it to say, I now believe if “The Fray” article survives this VfD, it will ultimately become a highly cross-referenced and constructive addition to WikipediA. p.s. I know we’re not supposed to engage in personal attacks, but I find your petty comments in this VfD rather counterproductive, so if there is any question as to why I am responding to you at such length, it is so I can attempt turn the net negative of your pithily remarks into something constructive. BOTF 20:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop your view of mental and moral superiority over everyone else. You possess neither. Only your last vote is counted, so this keep vote of yours does not "nullify" the delete vote. You will also note thatthe first GNAA vfd is larger than this one, hence invalidating your initial point, which, indeed, wasn't valid in the first place. One of these days I shall also inquire why you choose to write WikipediA instead of Wikipedia, but this is not that day. —Dv 09:19:23, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Look, someone else mentioned the VfD being the longest bit, not BOTF. Also, I bet you would be surprised at his/her intelligence, by the looks of things. Also, how long have you been around here (re the WikipediA thing)--SwingLowSweetDeej 13:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a Fray regular I can tell you that BOTF is not representative of the "best" of anything let alone the Fray, maybe at one time but no longer. Imo, it is unworthy of a mention on Wikipedia.--Frayette 21:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep.

Delete. We have enough useless, non-encyclopedic articles about internet forums already. Recury 02:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good luck with that Lil' Penny article, Recury, and good show on open mindedness; <facetiousness>you're a fine Wiki frontpiece.</facetiousness>--SwingLowSweetDeej 02:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. but i don't like the botf title -- "The Fray (Internet forum)" is better. Fufthmin 02:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Good god, it is less of a strain on the servers to keep it, and besides plastic.com, slashdot, or M11 Music !!!? As for the argument that it makes sense to delete something because you haven't heard of it, well that would rather defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. Or should we delete say Ghazal because someone hasn't heard of it? Yasth 04:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? —Dv 16:52:13, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Keep. I really don't care how it's kept or where, though I prefer a Fray entry rather than the narrower BoTF, for there are several frays as notable - though more focused - for fine writing and insight as BoTF. Say I'm a little too imaginative, but to me Wikipedia is akin to the genesis of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Local Earth Edition. There's something fundamentally important about this encyclopedia beyond what I see the "deleters" recognizing: accuracy and legitimacy are crucial, yes, but so are interest and utility, and so all-inclusiveness should be its raison d'etre. The objections to inclusion of this article are notable for their personal subjectivity and narrownesss of vision. Narrow is most assuredly not what Wikipedia is designed to be, which is why the whole world is writing it, and why I expect Wikipedia to eventually contain an entry for everything on the planet that can be known. -- Montfort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.22.126 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-09 08:46:29

Please, for future reference, read the article before offering your vote, because you clearly did not do so this time.--SwingLowSweetDeej 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering some of the entries that make it into this publication, I find this VfD page to be just about the most hysterical thing I've ever read in my life. Kinda what we might expect to see in the Vogon equivalent of Wikipedia.DemonFromHell 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This VFD is not meant to be perceived with hysteria. Perhaps you are experiencing the effects of psychoactive drugs —Dv 16:52:13, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • My friend, if you miss the humour in all of this, you might need to take some of those yourself. I'm having a hard time believing it's not a brilliant parody of two online communities posturing before a declaration of all-out war.DemonFromHell 17:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Florida (see Fark) The fact that a patently self-serving page, from a non-entity (Cyrus Farivar) gets a keep result - twice, and the length of this thread over what should be a no-brainer (using CV's vanity page VfD as a good example for comparison) make it clear that while a noble endeavour with good intentions, Wiki is more suitable as an example of how to kill a good idea with endless revisions and marginal thinking. Time can die a slow death in so many interesting ways on the internet, but this verbal volleyball aint one of 'em...m1key 14:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deej is to be commended for taking the time to define BOTF, which is a worthwhile organ as far as its inclusion in an entry for Slate (and Slate Fray) --Splendid_IREny
  • Merge with Slate (magazine). --Michael Snow 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No different than the articles for Portal Of Evil and Something Awful, imho. Hooper_X
  • Delete&Merge. Doesn't merit entry of its own, but summary should be merged with Slate entry, imho User:Mark Madsen
  • Merge with Slate (magazine). Notable enough for inlusion in article about parent site, no more. Alphax τεχ 09:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Slate (magazine). Neither article is overly long, and both are more complete with the other, so a merged article would be a better one. Jonathunder 14:46, 2005 August 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 MERGE to Unreal Tournament. -Splash 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Telepunt

[edit]

Was nominated for speedy for neologism. That's not a valid WP:CSD, and the topic isn't a typical neologism, either. I don't think that it's encyclopedic, though, so I vote to Delete Pburka 02:58, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 12:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

CalWIN

[edit]

"a state-mandated computerized information system to automate eligibility determination and some case maintenance functions for specific county-administered social services programs in California, including CalWORKs, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, CAPI, General Assistance, and Foster Care."
I don't really think that's very significant. EvilPhoenix talk 03:25, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 12:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif

[edit]

Dump of a Pakistani court brief, not an article.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vorax

[edit]

This page makes no effort to cite a reference or even allude to what fictional context the subject belongs to. Google search for "Vorax 'reptilian race'" culls no hits. The implication that these reptilian aliens are hiding out on Earth disguised as heavy metal bands is good hint that this is a hoax. Sorry David Icke. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Internal Family Systems Model

[edit]

Pure advertisement. 128.112.24.137 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. humblefool®Deletion Reform 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal bodyguards

[edit]

adds nothing to already excellent bodyguards article 128.112.24.137 03:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. After slogging carefully through that, edit by edit, I make it 22 valid delete votes, 11 12 (see talk page) valid keep votes. Not a consensus by my well published standards. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection

[edit]

This has been created by a single user as if this was accepted Wikipedia policy; this seems to be ad hoc rule making and not really justifiable without community consensus. I don't really think this "Wikiblower protection" idea can be just left in the article space; consequently, I suggest deletion. NicholasTurnbull 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - page was created in response to something posted on a user page. Wikipedia policy is created by concensus, as far as I know. Rob Church 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article and will somebody please repremand Ed so we can lay this to rest? humblefool®Deletion Reform 03:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Instead allow consensus to develop. There must be a policy to protect whisleblowers. It ought to be official policy and not just-another-aspect-of-the-good-ol'e-boys-network. (Full Disclosure - I am the Initiating editor) Benjamin Gatti
    • There's no such thing as a "good ol' boys' network". There is an "old boys' network" of alumni of prestigious colleges who refer to one another as "old boys," and there are "good ol' boys", who are Southern rednecks, but those two groups don't have much in common. Just a nerdly observation. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I've seen pages start like this before. It's not pretending to be an official policy or guideline, is it? I don't see the harm. Friday 04:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Directly contradicts WP:POINT.Geni 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if you want to develop a consensus, do it on the talk page of the appropriate policy page. Tempshill 05:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a valid and serious proposal and should be discussed as such, rather than VFDed/RFDed. That said, I am opposed on the grounds that I don't believe it should ever be necessary to perform a breaching experiment in order to call attention to bad policies. Assumming every delete vote can also be read as an oppose vote then this doesn't seem to have much traction as potential policy and before long we should probably just mark this as {{rejected}} and move on. Dragons flight 06:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I support the basic idea of this policy/guideline, but it needs to be explicated further before anyone can meaningfully support it (or oppose). In particular, we need to figure out how it should relate to WP:POINT. I've been part of a number of consensus-based communities, and in each one I have noticed the occasional need for sincere members of the community to unilaterally break things down. Without unilateralism and disruption of a constructive kind, it is sometimes impossible for the community to move on. I fear, however, that the distinction between wikiblowers and pointmakers can be made only in hindsight. -- Visviva 08:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 10:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hey, why was this re-listed? -- Visviva 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless - almost a violation of WP:POINT in itself. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (Pardon me for revising a bit here, as I've been filled in more on the situation) I was responsible for the de-listing. I don't have any opinion on the page itself; my concern was that if it was an attempt to propose a policy, it should be accorded the courtesy of assuming good faith and allowing it time to develop consensus. Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion indicates that a wide leeway should be granted to the Wikipedia namespace. Policies are created in the project namespace and gather consensus there; the nomination seemed to me to say "It hasn't gathered consensus yet, so it shouldn't have Wikipedia: in front of it" which does not conform to our way of doing things. Considering that there was significant interest here in the proposal (both for and against), I felt it should be considered in line with policy-proposal policy and not VfD. At this point, if it is a legit proposal I would suggest the creator move it to userspace and seek consensus there. I believe we all would agree that deleting legit policies is not how we do things (for example, a VfD on NPOV would not result in Wikipedia adopting a different POV policy). If it's not legit, then it should be deleted, and the creator should be warned against similar acts in future (particularly because it not only violates NPA, but confuses the heck out of the community). -- Essjay · Talk 11:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just so you know - Noone has any idea what you just said. I moved it to Project Space because the word really has no meaning outside of the project - it is not the kind of word you would expect to find while browsing an encyclopedia. You're suggesting Userspace - which to me sounds like private space - and therefore the same as no space at all. If policies start - they have to start somehow, and under the general rules of Wiki engagement - they just start - there is no magic starting policy, or starting namespace, wiki is wiki - grok that. Benjamin Gatti
    • How is the community confused? It's legitimacy has nothing to do with the intentions of the author - it has to do with the acceptance and support of the community. There is some support, some opposition, and some "This can't really be happening." The first two I respect. Benjamin Gatti
      • If any other user is confused by my comment, please let me know and I'll be happy to fill you in. -- Essjay · Talk 05:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The proposed 'policy' seems to be solely for condoning violations of WP:POINT. The proposal itself seems to be getting awfully close to trying to make a WP:POINT, too. If anyone wants to modify WP:POINT–or gut it completely–then make the proposal on that page's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable performance art. Nandesuka 12:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cannot exist until it exists, otherwise its a violation of WP:POINT. -Splash 13:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why people are using WP:POINT to support a delete vote. One could just as easily consider putting this up for VfD to be a disruptive way of making a point. Looks to me like people voting delete here as a way of expressing disapproval not of this page, but of Ed's deletion. We already have plenty of places to discuss that. Why not keep this deletion vote focused on the matter at hand? Friday 14:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, people suggest that this proposal runs foul of WP:POINT (since it basically states that people should be protected from being censured if they do something intentionally disruptive in an attempt to bring perceived wrongs to the public's attention). That is almost by sheer definition the opposite of WP:POINT. It also started out as a personal attack against Ed Poor, which is very inappropriate for a 'proposal'. Radiant_>|< 14:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • This may well be a valid point. But surely the way to hash it out is not simply to delete the page. There are existing policies that are sometimes at odds with each other, so I don't see how that's grounds for deletion. What's next, someone putting the VfD on WP:IAR? Wikipedia is inconsistant in many ways, so far we've been living with that. Friday 14:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, not only does this proposed policy directly contravene WP:POINT, it also is redundant with WP:IAR. Finally, it seems to have started out as a personal attack (WP:NPA), giving us a hat trick of good reasons to expunge it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article was never a personal attack - While I reserve judgement as to whether the alleged harms of VfD are porportional to the harm of a 5 minute burp - the purpose is to promote a lawful justification - and to argue against a meritocractic resolution, or a hyprocritical hierarchy in which those at the top are above the law. Please stop misrepresenting the article as a personal attack (which itself is a personal attack because it maliciously maligns the author) Benjamin Gatti
          • Wikiblower protection only applies when the interuption is less egregious than the graveman. It is far from inviting a free for all, and calls for a qualitative comparison of the facts - and not for a qualitative comparison of those involved. It is fairness. Benjamin Gatti
  • Strong delete: Contravenes established Wikipedia policy, could lead to users' personal feelings or opinions being used as basis to protect grudge edits. Such a Wikipolicy would set a dangerous precedent: Anybody who feels that they have a "lawful justification" to disrupt the proceedings of wikipedia would be allowed to, under this guideline, and even congratulated for doing so. jglc | t | c 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just delete it. [Shakes head in disgust] --Calton | Talk 15:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per dragons flight. The page should make clear that it is not currently policy (and apparently does not have much support), but I don't see how this satisfies the deletion criteria at all. Brighterorange 15:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confused and poorly named attempt at policy creation. When I see the word "Wikiblower", a number of possible meanings come to mind, and "whistleblower" is not terribly high on the list. Also, the proposal seems to equate whistleblowing with unilateral action that may violate rules but is nevertheless constructive. This is already covered by Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Real whistleblowing is reporting inappropriate actions taken in secret, unilateral or otherwise. --Michael Snow 15:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like some others, I am confused as to whether this is really a legitimate and serious attempt to make policy. Assuming it is serious then, while I'm (so far) opposed to this policy, I think it deserves a chance to develop before we just delete it out of hand. I've yet to be involved in developing a new policy (just tweaking old ones) and perhaps this is the wrong mechanism for doing so. If someone can explain to me how this violates normal policy creation procedures then I might be inclined to change my vote. If on the other hand this is really just a backhanded swipe at Ed, then while I can not condone Ed's actions — I think what Ed did showed a profound disrespect for the entire Wikipedia community of editors — I also can not condone using such methods in response. However I'm willing so far to assume good faith, and take the authors statements at face value. If I were to become convinced otherwise, I would also change my vote to delete. Paul August ☎ 17:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • The policy page does not appear to have been created in bad faith, so keep as a historical record and mark as a rejected policy. --Carnildo 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only you can prevent meatball:ForestFires. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not really seeing the point of this page. Xaa 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First, it is not policy, and yet it is name space. Second, it is WP:POINT. Third, it is totally inaccurate (see Ed Poor's own words about why the nastiness occurred, so this would-be ally is, in fact, entirely misinformed). Fourth, namespace does not obey the same rules as article space, and the deletion guidelines do not quite apply there, but they fail to apply there the same way that copyright fails to operate in China. It is merely courtesy to even have a debate, as anyone could simply speedy delete the article (and I nearly did so). Fifth: NAME SPACE IS NOT A PLAYGROUND. It is not where you go to whine. It is not where you go to plot. It is not a place to express your inner self. The creator has his user page for that. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to even think about things like whether his faith was good or bad: it is an article that is wholly inappropriate for namespace. Geogre 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Vote for deletion has been instigated by one NicholasTurnbull, quickly supported by one Rob Church - both of whom failed to disclose that they are engaged in an arbcom petition against Ed Poor - that is that they clearly Oppose the policy. The Vote for Deletion therefore is evidence of exactly the kind of Harm Ed Poor was revealing - that is - items are being voted for deletion by vested parties as a means of censoring ideas with which they take exception. (preceding unsigned comment by Benjamin Gatti 21:03, 4 August 2005)
That has what to do with which? Geogre 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated policy that people disclose their involvement with a page they have put up for Deletion. These two did not, thus the page exists in violation of the rules. Benjamin Gatti
And did Ed Poor write this page? And has Ed Poor endorsed this page as a summary of his case? Is there any reason to suppose that one's position on the one matter has any relationship whatsoever to the other matter? Has the author of this article been retained as Ed Poor's counsel? Would it be possible to want to give Ed Poor a hearty handshake and a laurel and still think that this page is neither appropriate nor properly placed? Again, your comment is a non sequitur that really multiplies causes unnecessarily, at the least. At most, it's an attempt to claim immunity from inquiry by impugning the motives, ethics, and rationality of others. Geogre 23:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the present arbcom case has any bearing on this matter; it is unrelated, as far as I am aware. The RfArb is about Ed Poor's conduct, and I cannot see the "Wikiblower protection" policy has any connection whatsoever with the issues raised in that arbitration request other than your own citing of Ed Poor in the policy article. Therefore I consider I have nothing to disclose. Please explain your reasoning to me; I have no interest in bias regarding the deletion of articles, and would appreciate your feedback. --NicholasTurnbull 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
So Howabout you explain why the two names in the Arbcom case just happened to be the first two names on this VfD - random chance right? What kind of morons do you take the rest of the world to be anyway? Of course this has to do with the arbcom case - that where the policy is to be tested. The policy exists to provide a rational case for non-sanction Ed Poor because he is entitled to Whistle-blower protection. Your Arbcom case appears to be that he _Should_ be sanctioned - that's fine - but deleting the counter argument is in poor taste. And you failed to follow policy so you're certainly not setting an example, but then at 17 I wouldn't expect you to set an example - have fun - I applaud your participation learn from the process and do good. Benjamin Gatti


  • Delete and scowl nastily at editors involved in attempting to VFD this VFD, showing a total disrespect for the wikipedia community. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly oppose the policy but this is the wrong way to get rid of it. ~~ N (t/c) 01:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Kill it with fire. Nuke it from orbit. Whatever. I don't even care what's in the article, the behavior of Benjamin Gotti has been absolutely reprehensible. And the first line in the article states "suspend the rules" - isn't that what Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for? So even if it's not useful in the least, it's also redundant. --Golbez 03:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Whao there cowboy - slow down on the personal attacks. Deleting a community article because you take issue with one of its editors is seriously in bad taste. It's not a question of what - its a question of how. Benjamin Gatti
    • You should talk about "bad taste". --Golbez 17:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This proposed policy is in direct opposition to WP:POINT, and WP:POINT is a much better policy. Would-be "Wikiblowers" should not disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. --Metropolitan90 05:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this shotgun policymaking. NatusRoma 06:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep refine and make it a featured article. Wikipedia cliques seem eager to quelsh dissent and would have us join a community where people are bullied into "joining" a concensus, rather than one where concensus is not reached until all dissent is addressed. As a new publication Wikipedia is rife with censorship, plagiarism, advocacy and some downright racist mythology. A policy to protect whistle-blowers would serve to balance the influence of an authoritarian leader who claims that everyone who ever appealed to him for review of administrator's decisions was a "complete and total ass". WizUp 09:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    WizUp's second edit. Radiant_>|< 12:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. — Asbestos | Talk 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. - What he said! Hipocrite 14:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. — DJ Clayworth 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the proposed policy. Vote it down in the poll there. VfD is not a way of getting rid of policy proposals. DES (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was not originally, in fact, a policy proposal. It was rather a statement that such a policy already existed, which it does not, and never has. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that the Proposed tag wasn't up at the start of the vfd, but it was placed there shortly after, and before the majority of these votes were cast. I think the "policy" is absurd, but I believe that it would set a bad precedent to delete serious proposals, even ones where good faith is in question. For the record, the proposal can be voted on here. — Asbestos | Talk 10:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of good faith. Given the timing of this "proposal", it seems overwhelmingly likely that this is merely an attempt to ex post facto excuse the atrocious conduct of deleting VfD without consensus. That is not a good-faith reason to propose policy. --FOo 23:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should assume good faith unless we have proof to the contrary. Also you might want to consider the possibility that you are perhaps misreading the situation. It seems to me if there is any lack of good faith involved, it is more likely to be that it is a sarcastic attempt to castigate Ed, rather than to justify his actions. But who can really say? Also there have been several authors working on this, and they may have different motives. For example I see no reason to think that Visviva is being anything other than sincere. I think it would be best if we left the authors and there supposed motives out of this, and let the proposal speak for itself. Paul August ☎ 14:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - policy should be just tagged a proposal and the usual steps followed. If it's rejected by the commnunity, that will be highlighted. Dan100 (Talk) 12:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a silly, pointless WP:POINT violation. Plus it embarasses me personally. Ben, please get off it. And put yourself on zero revert parole before the arbcom does it to you. Sheesh. Uncle Ed 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Votes on the policy

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection/Voting

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrick Lim Jieq

[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 04:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete keep. There were four valid votes to delete and two valid votes to keep. I earlier miscounted the keep votes as one only. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tango.info

[edit]

nn site, with alexa rankings helpfully included. humblefool®Deletion Reform 04:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]
Alexa traffic rank
[edit]

rank: 365.000, reached after only 9 month of start of service.

365000 is a rank that WP itself only reached almost exactly these 9 month ago [7] .

Additional the number of websites increases steadily (August Report of NetCraft) If Wikipedia wants not to prefer big sites but rather the top XY percent, the allowed traffic rank number has to be adjusted steadily. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding characteristics
[edit]
  • free data download at http://open.tango.info
  • multilingual structure (other large tango pages are either in english, spanish or german)
  • detecting same pieces of music on different CDs, important for DJs and collectionists, because there are so many different publishings with different quality levels.
[edit]

High rankings for tango related searches in google:

google search position domain search term description
Pablo Veron tango 6/8 festivals.tango.info dancers
Roberto Herrera tango 7/8 festivals
Sebastián Arce tango 8 festivals
Ernesto Famá tango 2 eng.tango.info musicians
Rodolfo Biagi tango 8 eng
Francisco Canaro tango 18 eng
Enrique Rodriguez tango 5 eng
Roberto Firpo tango 8 eng
germany tango 11 eng countries (english names)
chile tango 3 eng
Belgium Tango 3 eng
france tango 15 eng
united states tango 3 eng
sweden tango 10 eng
russia tango 2 eng
poland tango 4 eng
polska tango 1 pol countries non-english
deutschland tango 19 -
italia tango 1 ita
España Tango 3 spa
portugal Tango 4 fra
nederland Tango 13 nob
tango festival 12 festivals special
tango festivals 2 festivals
tango festivales 4/6 spa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

DeColumna

[edit]

46 Google hits, all of which are apparently "DeColumna" as a last name - I'm not 100% sure what the topic of the article even is, but it appears that it is "DeColumna" as a last name, which I sincerely doubt is notable. Junkyard prince 04:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

X Technologies Europe

[edit]

Unencyclopedic. "X Technologies Europe" has zero Google hits, and for a software company that look rather odd. An article on its "best known by" product has been deleted recently. Nabla 04:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-verifiable, probable non-notable or future speculation; if a computer Operating System is notable, then its name and its maker's name should turn up at least something on a web search. --Mysidia 04:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sharon Interfaith Youth Leadership Program

[edit]

Non-notable high school extra-curricular program in a Massachusetts town of 17,000. Tempshill 05:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Diarrhea song

[edit]

$Delete. Not-encyclopedic. KevinGovaerts 14:00:33, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

  • C'mon. Let's not be prudish here. The song is an entity unto itself, and I remember it from film (Parenthood?). I'm no academic but I am educated, and I was glad to see those silly lyrics here. I'll show them to the kids. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, and what separates it from Encarta/World Book/etc? It's worth noting that the word "diarrhea" was not listed.
posted by 24.13.167.59 Nateji77 12:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Diarrhea wasn't listed? Nateji77 12:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion requested by sole contributor. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Ruckus

[edit]

Seems like advertising. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 05:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added by User:172.170.10.179. — JIP | Talk 05:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to argue the responses. I just want this deleted. We obviously made a terrible mistake by starting a project page for our project. Even though, I'm sure there's 100's of other pages about game projects and other such things. Let me end by saying though, I had no intention of using this as advertising space. I and others were under the impression that Wikipedia was a place where anybody could contribute information about a project. I know, there wasn't much information on the project page, at the moment, but we were new to this, and just getting started. Anyway, I just want this to go away because if anything, this is negetive attention for the project, which we don't want. Mods, please delete this. — GG_Mike | Talk

http://www.freshmeat.net/ is the source for information on ongoing open-source projects; I'm sure there are similar places for freeware and shareware projects. --Carnildo 23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. One delete vote discarded for lack of edit history, but including it would not have altered the outcome. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahbash (Lebanon)

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Богословие

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks (since july 16) without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was written in Bulgarian; I am told that all the valuable content from this article was subsequently merged into the corresponding (previously existing) article in Bulgarian wikipedia. Also, here is a note from Bg:User:Borislav: "Богословие and Теология have same content, 2/3 of which is already in Theology. In my opinion all three articles (+Атеизъм) can be deleted. --Borislav 07:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)" - Introvert talk 20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gitzz

[edit]

The article is a promo for a non-notable company website. The authors username matches the name of the business owner. I vote delete. Tobycat 05:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Via alley

[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a commercial website. Brought to us by the same user who created Gitzz. It's advertising spam. Tobycat 05:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Common_Archive

[edit]

"Nonsensical, hypothetical proposal" 128.112.24.137 05:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per above. EvilPhoenix talk 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can tell us what a common archive actually is instead of just mentioning prerequisites. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wouldn't it just be an archive that is common to something, such as the Wikimedia Commons? 13,600 Google hits. [8] suggests notability, so I'm adding {{context}} and will abstain from voting until I know more. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now that the context is known, I'm voting delete. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand, I am one of the authors. Please do not be to quick to dismiss this entry. The Common Archive is a framework that is being developed within the Wikipedia environment in order to demonstrate how temporal location can be used as version control. The term Common Archive is used as an expansion of Creative Commons but it is not the same. It combines temporal information with geospatial co-ordinates to locate any kind of digital material within a datascape. As for being 'hypothetical nonsense', this seems to indicate an unwillingness to conseder new ideas. Perhaps this user should read the Wikipedia manifesto. User: Simon Pockley 11:43, 9 August 2005
Vote originally made by 128.184.132.11 and later modified by signee. Simon Pockley has 25 edits, 21 of which are to this VfD or the nominated article --Allen3 talk 14:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand, I'd also be grateful if you did not delete this article, 'the' or 'a' common archive is an important concept utilising ubiquitous computing, unlimited storage, geospatial awareness and the collaborative nature of wikis. It's definitely not nonsensical and only hypothetical if you consider the concept to be not fully formed... which adding this page to the 'delete' pile and stopping us from expanding on it (we were going to over the next week or so) doesn't allow us to do. Stay of execution please. User: James Farmer 10:56, 5 August 2005
User has 4 edits, all to this VfD or to the nominated article --Allen3 talk 14:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Remember, Wikipedia is not original research. If you are "developing a concept" as you say, there are other places to do it. The way to do it is not to create an encyclopedia article. Sdedeo 06:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concept is already fully developed and in place, we're not developing it here... we're writing about it. We could, of course, go and write it up and then post it here in it's entirity... but is that the way Wikipedia works? I have to stress again that this isn't hypothetical and as for nonsensical, well, that's very much a matter for persoanl considersation. I suggest that if you really want to proceed with deletion you are quite clear about eactly why this need to happen and that that requires discussion. The reasons above are not adequate. --James Farmer 00:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the very least, you should have a few references to mainstream mentions of the term "common archive": newspapers, academic journals, etc. You say it is related to the "creative commons" license, but a google for common archive and CC together pulls up nothing remotely like you've described. Again, this is not the place to post new ideas that you've had. Sdedeo 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete baring any expansion on what this really is and why it is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Berkely Prawn

[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unverifiable article about a place that isn't even properly described in the page. Delete. Titoxd 05:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The place is Berkeley, NSW. Uncle G 07:20:44, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, the article isn't about the place, it's about a statue. This bit is rather suspect:
    It is said that the Prawn holds special powers, and is able to protect the children of Berkeley, when they hold their traditional Berkeley celebrations.
    These celebrations take place from the hours of 3:00pm, to 9:00am almost every day, consisting of parades down the main street of Nannawilli, and wining and dining of kebabs, fish and chips, and immense amounts of alchohol, such as goon bags. Once the residents of Berkeley become intoxicated, they begin the sacred ritual of dancing around the Berkeley Prawn.
    Evilphoenix 2005-08-04 09:27:59 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 09:54:00, 2005-08-04 (UTC))
  • Delete as nonsense. No such event. One Google hit [9] for unrelated page. Capitalistroadster 11:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as likely hoax, and unverified. JesseW 22:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

BurnSubvertDestroy

[edit]

Sounds like another non-notable band, violates naming conventions anyways. Delete. Titoxd 06:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Merge and redirect seem fine to me. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball_Slang

[edit]

This page needless duplicates the "Baseball slang" page. This is not to be confused with this page which is entitled "Baseball Slang". This page is not formated as well, nor contains as much information as the similarly named other page. The other page is properly linked with List_of_baseball_jargon. Only one page needs to exist, and it should be the other page. 70.106.208.134 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. There are two discounted votes (one keep, one merge). The remaining keeps and merges are almost even, and if I count Carnildo's second choice it doesn't change things. There are obviously places this can be merged to so I don't count IByte's second choice. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Servant

[edit]

I can understand articles on more popular Yu-Gi-Oh! cards; this is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. KramarDanIkabu 07:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't personally understand articles on any Yu-Gi-Oh! card. EvilPhoenix talk 09:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article establishes notability. Kappa 12:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a a freaking card. Fancruft. --Calton | Talk 14:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into something on Yu-Gi-Oh; if no suitable location can be found, then delete for all I care. --IByte 15:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, (though don't ask me where!) It does establish notability when it mentions its infamy for its weakness. It still doesn't deserve its own article, but with a bit of clean-up, it could certainly fit somewhere else. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cardcruft. If neccessary to prevent the result of this VfD debate from being "keep, no consensus", this vote may be interpreted as redirect or merge if doing so would produce a consensus. --Carnildo 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Precedent: Even Magic: The Gathering's Power Nine are all in one article, and they're some of the most famous cards in TCG history. A weak, common card such as this, then, has no business getting its own page, and its non-notability means it probably shouldn't be merged with anything. -- Grev -- Talk 03:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • But your 'precedent' supports a merge. It sounded notable enough for a mention when I read it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon. This deck contains one of the more notorious cards....
  • Merge. I am the original creator of this article, and my intention in creating it was to show SS's noteriety for precisely the reasons you mention - being a weak, common card, but not just that - for being the weakest of them all. SS is famous among fans of the game for being the extreme on the lower end of the spectrum, and thus has notability enough for a mention. Your points are well taken, however, and the above plan seems to be a good one. Masterdramon 18:11, August 5,2005 (HST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 14:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Suckerpunch Training

[edit]

This website does not appear to meet the proposed standards of Wikipedia:Websites. Its forum has 1800 members, and the article suggests that only a few hundred of these are real. It also does not appear to have been the subject of any significant press coverage. I'm not sure if I'm using Alexa correctly, but as far as I can tell it has no measurable page rank at all. Therefore, delete. -- Visviva 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this worthless piece of trash.

This vote made by Mole Man. It is the user's 11th edit --Allen3 talk 14:21, August 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 --Allen3 talk 14:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Teen Ireland

[edit]

Vanity. Sarge Baldy 08:33, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 14:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Roflpopper

[edit]

Neologism with exactly 1 Google hit. Do not Transwiki, instead just delete. -- Visviva 08:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied vanity. humblefool®Deletion Reform 18:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgunsteve

[edit]

This page is merely a vanity page cheese-cube 09:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

EGM NGR

[edit]

Non-notable off-topic forum, and the article as-written has no encyclopedic content whatsoever. What it does have is lots of personal attacks, though, and keeping it will probably attract more. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

John 17

[edit]

Page contains nothing but the text of the chapter according to the KJV Pilatus 09:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied under speedy deletion criterion A7. Article included personal information inappropriate for encyclopedia (full contact details). - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Amith

[edit]

Simply a vanity page cheese-cube 09:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wrath of the barclay

[edit]

Not notable. Forumcruft. -- Karada 11:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wikicities or something? Although it might be forumcruft, it is a useful explanation for over 3,000 forum users so there must be a place for it somewhere.--Caverider 13.50, 4 August 2005

  • Strong Delete. Forumcruft, not notable. Alexa rank 2,972,997. In response to the poster above, it would make far more sense for the forum to host its own list of trivia and in-jokes than to foist it on WP or Wikicities. Things like "Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt Gary Holt (a typical post by Hong Kong NCFC fan XXL16)" obviously are only of interest to those who post there, and are neither interesting, important, or understandable by anyone else. As for the "3000 forum users" bit, the article itself states that there aren't really that many, and that many of them are sockpuppets (see the third in-joke part). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, we've moved it now so you can delete it ifyou really want to *huff* :(.--Caverider 14.38, 4 August 2005

  • Delete, I agree this is not notable (particularly in its current form). I wouldn't have a problem with a smaller entry just describing the site but I suppose that that's just going to end up as a stub. --Zootm 12:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rolandas Kalinauskas

[edit]

looks like a vanity page Martey 11:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Numbers wise, it's 3d–5k, counting Barleycorn as a keep since I am going to move it to Egyptian American. Note also that the nominator does not appear to have responded to the rewrite (but that does not discount the vote). -Splash 23:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Americans

[edit]

Mistitled verification-challenged vanity by User:Amoun-Pinudjem, or, more likely, a hoax. No Egyptians can trace their ancestry to the time of the 18th dynasty. Despite the claimed accomplishments, I can't find anything with a Google search. Uppland 11:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

RK series planes

[edit]

This page is only related to Rolandas Kalinauskas and was created by the same author. I suspect that it is a vanity page. Martey 11:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But move to full name as suggested. -Splash 23:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H. İbrahim Fırtına

[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but may be notable general. Has odd letters in title and is in all caps, but that's not a reason to speedy. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 15:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Per kristian hansen

[edit]

Not an automatic speedy, imo, though the link provided doesn't glean any results on a search for his name and I can't find anything about this guy from a Google search. Francs2000 | Talk 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Tynan

[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion but not a candidate since "local councillor" is an assertion of notability. I don't really know if this politician is notable, so I will abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jolt Forums

[edit]

nn-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 12:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gladeyes

[edit]

Look like nice bunch but not famous yet. Agentsoo 12:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're on their way and they've been doing a lot of work. They are quite well know in New Zealand. Bob Bob Bob 2005-08-04 12:31:09 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 12:40:28, 2005-08-04 (UTC))
  • They sneak into WP:MUSIC, having gone on a nation-wide tour of New Zealand, but I'd like to see this verified. 565 google hits. Reluctant Keep. Meelar (talk) 14:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, they're reasonably well known in NZ. But I think the band members' entries need reviewing -- FP <talk><edits> 15:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as WP:MUSIC -- Capitalistroadster 18:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep just barely notable. --Etacar11 00:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:MUSIC -- Steve325 4:38, August 5 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as the initial vote for deletion was made in the earliest stages of construction - the page was far from completion. I'm new and this is my first attempt to write anything - please grant a little patience. -- Gorgo d 06:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC) according to edit history
  • Keep, they've released an EP album, and have 556 Google hits (474 from New Zealand).-gadfium 08:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Keogh

[edit]

Singer from the Gladeyes, see above. Agentsoo 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sparkling Stars of the Studio Era

[edit]

Delete. This seems like original research, and perhaps copyvio. Mmmbeer 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Christos Massalas. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. 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 15:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nhils Dercher

[edit]

Probable hoax, doesn't google, Rakovism was deleted as hoax Martin (Bluemoose) 13:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood Musical:History and Themes

[edit]

This is original research and probably copyvio, like the previous two. Mmmbeer 13:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hanneman

[edit]

Delete. Inaccurate, uninformative and unencyclopedic. --Ian Pitchford 14:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in the Pre Conquest Americas

[edit]

Consisted of original research, since removed. Now meaningless. If someone can write something meaningfull about the subject, a new article could be produced. -- Egil 14:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. recently updated Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)dispute is in mediation


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in the Medieval East

[edit]

One of a substantial number of articles by the same user that consists of original research of no value. Egil 14:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.
"research that consists of collecting and organizing information
from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged.
In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected
from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research,"
it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
  • No vote as of yet. This appears to be only an (unwikified) list of the names of units of measure, presented without info about what they measure or where they were used. Not sure I grasp how this is original research, assuming that the use of these units can be verified. Better these than Satan's SI system. Leaning towards cleanup and keep. Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

dispute is in mediation

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 18:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in the Modern West

[edit]

More by same anon user, who creates content faster than we manage to cope. Btw, these pages are not linked. Egil 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Burning of books?

[edit]

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed
by a competent administrator who will probably decide
what to do with the articles based on their overall content.
You have made a number of false statements about them
which a competent administrator will probably pick up.
You have claimed they are original research when the articles
cite sources that are in their fifth printing and
in some cases date back to classical sources.

References

[edit]
ArchaeologyColin Renfrew
A History of Seafaring George F Bass
The Ancient Near East William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar
The Epic of GillgameshTranslated by Andrew George
The Ancient Near East James B. Pritchard
Bahrain through the Ages,
Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice
Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula
Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem
Mesopotamia 10 The Sumerian Language Marie-Loise Thomsen
Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East" Michael Roaf
The Archaeology of Ancient China Chang
The Arabic Alphabet Nicholas Awde and Putros Samano
Gardiner Egyptian Grammar § 266 for names of Egyptian units
A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egytian Raymond O Faulkner
Ancient Egyptian Antonio Loprieno
Atlas of Ancient Egypt Baines and Ma'lek
Egypt's Making Michael Rice
Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs, Gillings, chapter 20.
Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture
Somers Clarke and R. Englebach
InSearch of the Indo Europeans J. P. Mallory
Rivers in the Desert Nelson Glueck
From Alpha to Omega Anne H. Groton
Our Latin Heritage Hines
The Ten Books on Architecture Vitruvius
The Geography Claudias Ptolemy
The History of Herodotus
Old Hittite Sentence Structure Silvia Luraghi
The Rise of the Greeks, Michael Grant
A Field Guide to Rock Art Symbols of the Greater Southwest
Alex Patterson
The Historical Roots of Elementary Mathematics
Lucas N. h. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient
The World of Measurements H Arthur Klein
Norman's Parrallel of the Orders of Architecture R. A. Cordingley
The Medieval Machine Jean Gimpel
The Atlas of the CrusadesHJohnathan Riley Smith
The Plantagenet Chronicles Elizabeth Hallam
Medieval Warfare H.W. Koch


You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables
You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere
which is far from the case because they are comparative tables
which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit
values on the same page that you removed by putting them
on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them
in a table form for comparison
What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before
you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you
are afraid of discussing their content.
Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of the page
You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing
by culture rather than measure
On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so
Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version
which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

I seriously doubt it will be deleted as I can see that others
are now aware of your activities

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the
votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement
of the administrator what action if any should be taken
particularly when the page is just being created and is still
being actively worked on every day it would be the normal
policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly
polished and perfercted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. Two votes were discounted because the user accounts were too new--one for delete, the other for keep. User:Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) changed his keep to delete in the end, making it unanimous. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age

[edit]

More of same. This table and article is original research, and essentially completely without value. The same IP user created loads and loads of similar material. Egil 14:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be an unfinished attempt to create a table comparing the value of different named units in different cultures. Probably needs to be restated in familiar units, wikified, and otherwise cleaned up, but I'm not sure I follow how this is unverifiable original research. Is there a table already here where this could be merged/redirected to? If so, redirect and merge; if not, keep. Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative uses transliteration and traslation from origional Sunerian primary sources. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

dispute is in mediation

Burning of books?

[edit]

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed
by a competant administrator who will probably decide
what to do with the articles based on their overall content.
You have made a number of false statements about them
which a competant administrator will probably pick up.
You have claimed they are original research when the articles
cite sources that are in their fifth printing and
in some cases date back to classical sources.
You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables
You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere
which is far from the case because they are comparative tables
which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit
values on the same page that you removed by putting them
on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them
in a table form for comparison
What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before
you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you
are afraid of discussing their content.
Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of the page
You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing
by culture rather than measure
On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so
Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version
which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

I seriously doubt it will be deleted as I can see that others
are now aware of your activities

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the
votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement
of the administrator what action if any should be taken
particularly when the page is just being created and is still
being actively worked on every day it would be the normal
policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly
polished and perfercted.


Rktect 08/05/04
None of this is "original research"
Cites for where it comes from are on the Ancient Weights and Measures Discussion page
I'm fascinated by someone refering to cites from books
whose publication has now run through four or five printings "original research"
It is original research because it seems to be an attempt by the author
to show the great interconnectedness of all units of measurement of all ancient cultures.
No. Its just a collection of readily available sources, many classical or ancient,
which point out how people use measures to define property, and church and state
use measures to levy taxs and tithes, and none of them tolerate changes in their
source of income very well.
This truly is original research.
Maybe a couple of centuries ago it was, now its more or less main stream.
There are also claims that the metric system really is based on a Sumerian cubit,
which is by definition 500 mm.
Try going to Metrum and checking the claim out.
Oh yes, they knew the exact diameter of the Earth.
That claim [that ancient geographers, surveyors cartographers and navigators
such as Marinus of Tyre, Pithias, Claudius Ptolomy and Eratosthenes
knew not only that the earth was round but how to divide it into degrees and
how to measure a degree] goes back to before the time of Alexander
let alone Alexandria.
How can we check that?
A Mesopotamia Sos is listed in Wikopedia as 180 m
An Egyptian itrw is listed as 21,000 royal cubits = 1 schoinos (Herodotus)= 1/10 degree
A Greek Stadion is 185 m, there are 8 to a Milos and 600 to a degree
A Roman Stadium is 185 m, there are 8 to a milliare and 600 to a degree
In both cases 75 'miles' = 1 degree of 111 km
That produces a great circle as they put it of 24,830 modern English miles.
The modern value is about 24903.
Anyway, the content of the table is not verifiable,
The sources are on the discussion page for Ancient weights and measures
Egil is in such a rush to delete these pages he hasn't
given me a chance to finish putting them up.
and the subject about ancient units is fully convered elsewhere.
Actually, since the massive edit Egil made to the page, everything is
now neatly compartmentalised so that if you want to compare units
you can't just scroll up or down, you have to go to a different page
The same author created Standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr, Standards of measure in the Copper Age, Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age, Standards of measure in Iron Age Europe, Standards of measure in Medieval Europe, Standards of measure in the Pre Conquest Americas, Standards of measure in the Medieval East, Standards of measure in the Modern West. Plus he invented units like the Greek Milos etc. -- Egil 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just because user Egil doesn't have any familiarity with ancient units
it doesn't mean they don't exist
The metric system is indeed based on the Sumerian cubit, because like many other weapons in the Devil's arsenal, it originated with Semiramis and Nimrod. Consult Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons if you would know more. If, however, there is already an article where these several units are listed and compared, I would redirect this there; or failing that, disambiguate. Smerdis of Tlön 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The metric system is based on ancient measures because after people like Egil
who didn't know what they were doing had managed to confuse a system
that had functioned perfectly well for millenia, scholars went back
to look at ancient measures to try and find a standard from which
to restablish a rational system (based on the great circle measure of the earth)
It would be nice to see some of the people asking for deletion
tell us a little about their expertise with the measures of the near eastern bronze age
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 18:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mile Standards

[edit]
  • Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

dispute is in mediation

Lots of original research from what is believed to be the same author. Most of it is irrelevant for the suggested title, copies of his contributions that is constantly being added to a number of other articles. This article is not needed. If there is anything of value here wrt. Mile Standards, it should be entered into Mile. -- Egil 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of books?

[edit]

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed
by a competant administrator who will probably decide
what to do with the articles based on their overall content.
You have made a number of false statements about them
which a competant administrator will probably pick up.
You have claimed they are original research when the articles
cite sources that are in their fifth printing and
in some cases date back to classical sources.
You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables
You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere
which is far from the case because they are comparative tables
which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit
values on the same page that you removed by putting them
on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them
in a table form for comparison
What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before
you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you
are afraid of discussing their content.
Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of
the Ancient Weights and Measures Page
You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing
by culture rather than measure
On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so
Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version
which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page
What is up with the
writing line by line like this?
This text will wrap around
automatically based on window size.
I mean, it looks poetic and all,
but it's not quite the
Wikipedia standard.
Explodicle 22:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

I seriously doubt it will be deleted as I can see that others
are now aware of your activities

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

I expect that despite the tone of irony you do understand
that having studied and familiarized yourself with an area
of research before you comment on it makes it less likely
that you will claim as original research a quotation from
the standard reference works.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the
votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement
of the administrator what action if any should be taken.
Particularly when the page is just being created and is still
being actively worked on every day it would be the normal
policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly
polished and perfercted.
  • Delete barring MASSIVE cleanup. Explodicle 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Explodicle. Ken 17:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-verifiable, confused beyond cleanuppability. And I add original research to the reasons. Taking massive amounts of data from a number of sources, letting the rest of the world figure out what piece of fact comes from which source, and rearranging these bits of information to reveal patterns previously undiscovered is (bad) original research. --DrTorstenHenning 17:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

No portion of this collection of source material is original research
All of it is directly relevant to the topic
All of it is easily verifiable
The cited material is widely available on the web and
discussed on the ancient weights and measures page
For those who object that it should be entered into the topic Mile
That topic appears to be concerned with the statute mile which did
not exist until it was redefined by statute in 1593.
The Mile standards under discussion here go back six millenia.
For those who object on the grounds that massive cleanup is required
the appropriate place to raise those issues would seem to be the discussion page
For those who are confused about definitions of the mile or are
experiencing cognative dissonance or would like to state what they find confusing
the discussion page would seem to be the appropriate place to do so.
Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures
makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.
Mile standards are used by cultures going back to the Sumerians.
The documentation of this is not original research just a collection of facts
cited by both classical and contemporary experts.
Miles are always related to stadia and stadia are always related to degrees.
Miles are divided into stadia which are generally used as the sides of fields
They are further divided into ropes or cords, chains, rods, paces, fathoms, yards
all with primary agricultural or nautical measuring and navigational function
used to define large distances and areas.
At the level of the cubit,remen, foot, hand and palm the larger units are
corelated to the units used to measure bread and beer and other commercial
consumables. Those are two separate but related sytems.
Iron age standards are probably the best place to look at the consensus of opinion
about how to define the Mile because iron age standards are different than
copper age, bronze age or medieval standards in that their relation to the degree
is discussed in classical documents in considerably more detail.
Because this is the period when the Greek and Roman and for that matter
Phoenician empires are heavily engaged in trade with Europe and a period
when traders moved overland, up rivers and along coasts which they surveyed.
Many Greek, Roman and Phoenician geographers of the period have data
which they provide about the distances between places in Europe.
As the Greek and Roman traders moved into into Germany well in advance of
any conquering armies they carried with them standards of measure for
commerce and agriculture.
These Greek and Roman units are already well established in the popular literature
as opposed to obscure technical publications written in dead languages
for copper and iron age units so they are much easier to document
and have much more accessible web sources.
As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several
decimals of mm, iron age standards are not precise to decimal mm
or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.
For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference
to sharing a standard (as with Ptolomy;s geography) which was cited on the
discussion page for ancient weights and measures, there are long term
investigations of the units involved and the results
are now considered basic historical fact.
In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective
to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",
"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer
histories that have been explored in the literature.
Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological
period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities
and differances much clearer
The objection that these studies are original research is invalid
as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and
in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with
translations given in English
  • Delete original research. Ken 15:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Striking out my second vote, just to be clear... Ken talk 20:39, August 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. -Splash 23:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Kaiserman

[edit]

Just on the questionable side of a vanity-type article. Joyous (talk) 15:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy. humblefool®Deletion Reform 18:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maddox Jolie

[edit]

The page has not content, nor prospect of growing at all, and Maddox Jolie has done nothing at all in his life. A look at the article should be enough to see this. Lacrymology 15:40:16, 2005-08-04 (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 --Allen3 talk 15:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Eric_Aviles

[edit]

Delete, several combinations of Google searches result in no hits referring to the person named in this article RasputinAXP 15:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. One delete vote discarded for lack of edit history, but including it would not have altered the outcome. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahbash (Lebanon)

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Богословие

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks (since july 16) without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was written in Bulgarian; I am told that all the valuable content from this article was subsequently merged into the corresponding (previously existing) article in Bulgarian wikipedia. Also, here is a note from Bg:User:Borislav: "Богословие and Теология have same content, 2/3 of which is already in Theology. In my opinion all three articles (+Атеизъм) can be deleted. --Borislav 07:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)" - Introvert talk 20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Теология

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Атеизъм

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. There are a load of votes from anonymous users and entirely new users, some whose first edit is to this very VFD debate. Although such votes are not automatically discounted, I suspect that this is an attack of sockpuppetry, thererfore in this case these votes have been discounted without mercy. What is left is a clear consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaafirphobia

[edit]

Non-notable neologism that gets 3 google hits from the same blog. Any relevant information about views toward Kafirs should be in the Kafir article, not here.Heraclius 15:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out that this article was made in opposition to Islamophobia, which is also a neologism. There is a huge difference between the two, however. Islamophobia has been defined by a number of respected authors (both pro and anti-Muslim) such as Said, Safi, Esposito, Ye'or, Robert Spencer, and Ibn Warraq.
  • Delete indeed the entry acknowledges it's a neologism. <drini ☎> 15:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious neologism -Soltak 16:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 16:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel Heraclius definition of respected authors is vague because Dr Colin Chee could be considered a respected author too. Also, what is wrong with this neologism? Is it not accurately mentioning that a Muslim can hate a non-Muslim? Garywbush 17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Vote made by anon IP) A viable description of the ugly face that racism can take. 22:48, 4 August 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Revolución 23:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 23:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (*User has less than ten edits). Useful new word Bmcgin 03:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [Author:TCross, 09:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)] This word is obviously NewSpeak (George Orwell, "1984"). The purpose of Newspeak according to Orwell: Compress a thought down to a few syllables so that the mind glosses over and accepts the embedded concept without careful consideration. In this case, the inventor of the word is attempting to implant the idea in the public mind that some Muslims hate non-Muslims, and that hatred is a kind of hatred similar to Islamophobia. Certainly the author of the article may state that idea anywhere and everywhere he likes as often and as loud as he wishes. But the Western world has known about Muslims for a thousand years, and we should ask two questions 1) How have we got along until today without a word like this? 2) Now that we are making war on the Muslims, why do we suddenly discover a need for this word? Here is my answer to these questions: In this entry is the authors define the word as a form of racism that is not between races.
  • Keep (Vote made by Anon ip). It seems to me that this is a useful word to define the concept of hatred which is clearly visible in the behaviours of extremists within the islamic faith. The existence of this page here does not imply that all Muslims hate non-muslims, but the existence of this word is useful when needing to refer to those who do hate non-muslims and it is good to be clear that this is about a sub-section of the faith, not all members of the faith. Muslim organisations in the UK condemn the actions of those who we could now say are "suffering from Kaafirphobia". Does the definition state that all muslims hate non-muslims? I do not think so. If we are clear about the definition I see no reason for deletion. 86.133.173.24 06:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Vote made by anon IP). (Its a useful word that is the reverse of Islamophobia and is used in regular speech here in Malaysia, where there are two categories of people, first is the Muslims, and second is the non-Muslims who are treated as inferiors, irrespective of their religion) 219.95.180.120 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (User has less than 50 edits). I support its inclusion in Wikipedia as this word has prior use, which can be proven through a search at Google and also on various other blogs, such as Minishorts . Also, it accurately describes hatred of non-Muslims by radical Islamists who are usually condemned by moderate Muslims. Rajanr imposter 07:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, various blogs? you stated just one and even that, the word kaafirphobia came up in the comment section.__earth 12:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I cannot speak for Rajanr [since renamed "Rajanr imposter"] but are not entries in Wikipedia based on common use? Even the terms such as Islamophobia and Christianophobia were developed by common use. So, I do not see anything wrong with the poster who said the word kaafirphobia came up in the comment section of a blog for this is how a word gets created. Sam@mysite.com.my 02:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kafir and make a subsection of Kaafirphobia there. The term has no widespread use and a google search gives merely 3 results - 2 from a blog and 1 from wikipedia itself __earth 12:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me add that your claim that a google search gives only 3 results is inaccurate for you searched Google Web only and not Google Groups, which gives an additional 1 result. And if we take this third web site, minishorts.net it also has the word kaafirphobia in it except it is not displayed in Google Web or Google Groups. So, I believe this article should be retained as there are 4 known usages but there are surely other usages on local Malaysian e-communities not connected to the Internet. This term was invented by a Malaysian sociologist, Dr Colin Chee. What is your opinion, Earth? Sam@mysite.com.my 16:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I vote to keep this neologism as a search on Google, both Groups and Web render 4 results, and a search on minishorts.net render 3 results. I am sure there are other web sites that use this term, which was originated from Malaysian sociologist, Dr Colin Chee. There is justification for this neologism as Wikipedia has allowed Christianophobia and Islamophobia. Christianophobia itself is not used frequently at all yet it is in the Wikipedia data base. So, Kaafirphobia has the right to be in the data base too as it is mainly intended to be used by sociologists for hatred against non-Muslims by radical Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda that justifies Kaafir inferiority and Muslim supremacy, which is a form of racism.) DanianCheong 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per earth's suggestion. Not notable enough to merit its own article, but is a term in use in limited circles, and so deserves a mention in kaafir. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A search on various web sites gives 12 results, i.e. Google(5), minishorts.net(3) and rajanr.com(4) so it is quite notable to merit its own article. I understand the purpose of Wikipedia is for already used terms and not original research. Since Kaafirphobia has been used already, it merits mention in kaafir as well as having its own article kaafirphobia. Sam@mysite.com.my 04:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Life-threatening

[edit]

Dicdef. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bechara

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks (since july 17) without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete untranslated text. --Allen3 talk 16:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ambrosian Iliad

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks (since july 17) without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Almir Menine

[edit]

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks (since july 17) without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Schuyler Maehl art

[edit]

article purports to be about the artistic career of one Schuyler Maehl. Googling for the name returns 2 hits, one of which is not pertinent. Delete for non-notability. jglc | t | c 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Super Mario Sunshine. Dmcdevit·t 05:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Noki

[edit]

Minor/insignificant characters in fiction (recent votes/discussions, such as the Pokemon one, have held this to include computer and video games) should not have their own pages (any valid information should be on the game's page) Cynical 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

College Confidential

[edit]

Medium size websites are generally not notable, and this page is certainly less notable than Xoxohth, which was deleted(Unsigned nomination by 205.134.0.39 (talk · contribs))

Delete Adds no value, simply links to forums. --141.157.242.194 17:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Canderson7 speedied under A7; closing. Essjay · Talk 10:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Eduardo Higino da Silva Neto

[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.  Grue  20:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wong

[edit]

Reason entry was created by a prankster 165.21.154.117 16:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no IMDb hits that correspond to eith "Lee Wong" or "Lim Poh Huat" as pertain to this article. Thanks to Thatdog for restoring the original content here to make a more informed decision. Hamster Sandwich 16:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: No content/Vaccous content Manik Raina 16:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was blanked by someone else from 165.21.154.x almost immediately before the VfD was added. I've restored the old content, please base your votes on this version rather than the blank one. - Thatdog 16:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verifiable. Hall Monitor 23:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn film. Come back if it makes it big. --Etacar11 00:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verified in http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/film/34930.html. Therefore, 2 of the above delete votes should not be counted. --Vsion 23:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well since I voted on the basis of the lack of his IMDb entry I will presume that you aren't including me as a vote that should change. I did go and look at that link you put up, and it indicates a short film of 22 minutes. I personally don't feel that this single appearence in a short subject film shown at a fil festival makes the subject of the article notable. There is no indication here that the film was ever distributed to an audience beyond the scope of this festival in 2003. Thanks for doing the research though, I appreciate it. Hamster Sandwich 03:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That said, it is rare indeed for Singaporean film makers to have their films screened in international festivals like these, and what is particularly note worthy is that this was her first film, quite an unusual feat in Singapore's context. In addition, female film makers are all the more rarer here. Notability of a person isnt always measured just by the number of films produced. I believe there is scope for an expansion on this page, and it does not have to rely on the web alone.--Huaiwei 05:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded. — Instantnood 08:35, August 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 keep since the existence of the town has been verified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mahal

[edit]

Possible vanity page? No credible evidence on google Manik Raina 16:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Slog

[edit]

neologism and dicdef. Delete.Ken

Neologisms are considered a form of Original Research -Satori 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Logan Valentine

[edit]

Musician for the Gladeyes, not notable enough for his own article. Main article The Gladeyes is enough. -- FP <talk><edits> 16:54, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stu Harwood

[edit]

Musician for the Gladeyes, not notable enough for his own article. Main article The Gladeyes is enough. -- FP <talk><edits> 16:57, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Lander

[edit]

Musician for the Gladeyes, not notable enough for his own article. Main article The Gladeyes is enough. -- FP <talk><edits> 17:01, August 4, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Danger

[edit]

Dicdef. FP <talk><edits> 17:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps redirect to Fight-or-flight response? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sasquatch讲看 06:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin Ma. Gutierrez

[edit]

Vanity article. Jake013 17:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not so sure. [11] has him playing during the Joint Commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Philippine-German relations and he merits 1 of the 4 photos. (Official phillipine embassy site). Secretlondon 00:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  20:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Futebol

[edit]

Speedy delete. nn, probably vanity. Created by user with blocked ip: User:203.26.206.129. Or can just redirect to Football (soccer)? DR31 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Unusually for a discussion involving so many anons, all who voted passed my personal criterion for suffrage by having a reasonably long editing history suggesting an identifiable personality and commitment to Wikipedia. Three editors wanted deletion, two merge and one keep. There being no consensus, the decision mandated by policy is keep. This does not preclude a merge or redirect. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnology

[edit]

Delete. This article was previously listed in vfd as Krishnaology, it was discussed, and deleted, mainly because it was agreed to be a neology with little use. The article has reappeared under this new spelling. The same arguments for its deletion still apply. The term under both spellings produce a total of 76 google hits. Many or most of these hits are derived from the previous article, and from links and insertions of the term into wikipedia by anonymous logins. These additions seem to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to validate the term in wider usage. I listed the article in Speedy deletions yesterday, and the notice was then speedily removed by 66.68.156.175, one of the anonymous logins that has created the entire content in the past few days. Explanations for the removal of the deletion notice were posted on the article talk page, and on my talk page. I'm not convinced. Imc 17:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep! The present article is not the same content as the vfd article discussed above. This article is about theological infomation, scholarship, new developments, and it is also evolving. There are 5 theological reason for keeping this article.

  • The only term used to discuss theology on the Hindu deity Krishna is Krishnology. It has been used to discuss the theological positions of Vaishnava denominations such as Radhavallabha and Gaudiya Vaishnava.
  • Although the term Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology, it is also too broad of a term. Krishnology, as an aspect of Vaishnava Theology, is a more specified term and is not aplicable to discussions on the role of other Vaishnava avatara such as Rama, Kalki, Budha, etc.
  • The most important aspect of this distinguishment is discussed in the article; "An important outcome of Beck and Gosvami's work is that they have demonstrated how Krishnology is intradenominational by engaging both Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology and Radhavallabha Theology."
  • Just as Christology is a universal term within Christian Theology, and Momonism is specific to a form of Christianity; Vaishnavism is a universal term within Vaishnava Theology, and Krishnology is specific to certain forms of Vaishnavism.
  • Specialized terms exist to clarify communications. The term Krishnology is a useful term in clarifying the specifics of Vaishnava Theology, as has been shown by recent scholarship.

August 4, 2005 (Usigned vote by 198.214.51.1)


Also, if you tag it for speedy delete, it gets recreated, use {{deleteagain}} template. And if the user removes it, then a case for vandalism can be started. <drini ☎> 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article and all the stubs it links to seems to me to be an attempt to promote a neologism that ISKCON does not officially use at this time. The only serious ISKON scholar who has consistently used the term "Krishnology" in reference to Vaishnava Theology is the late Tamal Krishna Goswami, who used the term only to reference his specific points vis-a-vis his theological dissertations as a sort of 'shorthand' instead of having to constantly write "Krishna-Focused Vaishnava Theology" over and over again in his Doctoral Thesis, which he did not complete before his death on 15 March 2002. The entire article and all the stubs that were created to link to it are attempting to promote a neologism that ISKCON does not officially use. Comment: Note, however, that ISKCON is undergoing a period of transformation at the present time, and as the works of the late Tamal Krishna Goswami are reviewed and the works of Dr. Guy Beck become more generally accepted, this term may at some point in the future become accepted as standard theological jargon amoung ISKCON scholars - at that point, it should be included in Wikipedia. It just isn't in common acceptance right now, and this article (and the stubs it points to) seems to me to be an attempt to push this neologism into common acceptance outside the community of ISKCON scholars. Xaa 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge. I agree with the above in that "this term may at some point in the future become accepted as standard theological jargon amoung ISKCON scholars." In contributing to this article I found the 2 most important concepts specific to the term Krishnology have been; "As a term, Krishnology differentiates itself from other Vaishnava theologies by centering its discourse on the Krishna avatar of Vishnu and distinguishes itself from other Vaishnava theologies centered on Vishnu avatara other than Krishna" and that it "is an academic neo-logism for Krishna Theology." These are two very valuable concepts specific to the term Krishnology!
  • As the comments above note; Goswavi used the term Krishnaology to stand for "Krishna-Focused Vaishnava Theology." Given the value of the two concepts specific to Krishnology listed above; this article should be merged under more appopriate titles such as; Vaishnavism, Vaishnava Theology, or Krishna Theology, so that these valuable concepts will not be left out. I would suggest Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology, but then Guy Beck's work would be excluded.

August 4, 2005 (66.68.156.175)


  • Comment. If Merge becomes the decision, then the ONLY appropriate place would be under Vaishnava Theology. As stated above, Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology. The other links listed above are inappropriate! August 4, 2005 198.214.51.1


  • Comment. Or, if Merge is decided upon, then another appropriate area to merge the above infomation would be under ISKCON in general. August 9, 2005 198.214.51.1
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 19:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Lobsters & Horses Inc. and Lobstergotchi

[edit]

Please read the discussion page before voting, thank you -Yadonashi 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown company who have not yet produced the unknown game, no google hits. Tim Pope 17:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barcoding Inc.

[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion, but not a speedy candidate. I abstain. Meelar (talk) 17:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and Cleanup It appears to be a legitimate company. The links pan out and it gets over 50,000 google hits. It's very possible I'm missing something, though. Why was this nominated? -Soltak 18:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Get a Better Writer I wrote the article, and used to work at the company. I've read Wikipedia's policies and done my best to conform to them. The company is a rather unique and amazing success story. It has been written up numerous times in the press, and received many awards. The purpose of the article is not to promote the business (they do well enough themselves), but to tell a unique and interesting story of how a business disaster can be overcome through perseverence, commitment, and loyal friends. Jehochman 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 'n Chicken

[edit]

The article itself seems unsure if the events it mentions actually happened. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me, unencyclopedic even if true. At the very least, it needs major clean-up if it wants to be taken seriously. Garrett Albright 12:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fromson

[edit]

Non notable. SD6-Agent 18:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No meaningful info, poor style in usage and layout SgtPepper

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Germen/Prejudices about islam

[edit]
THIS IS A PAGE IN USER-SPACE

Totally inappropriate use of user space - Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Serious POV issues, etc.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion talk 18:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Becze

[edit]

Marked as speedy but is not one. His "Number One Fanpage", however, is photoshops of him with famous trumpet players... humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid

[edit]

This was nominated as below, but received no useful votes beyond the nomination. I am relisting it here for a further 5 days.Splash 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very small number of notable sprite comics. This is not one of them. Nifboy 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagreement - Would you like to know why it's not as widely known as, say... 8-bit theater? It's because I'm highly against spamming my readers with advertisements. Because I don't advertise on my site, nor do I myself ask advertisements to be posted on other sites, it won't be as well known as a site that spams it's existance into every orifice of the web. Remember... some things that don't spamvertise you constantly may not be all that bad. And given I have over 500 comics to date, I can safely say that this site is already doing better than many others out there. And an added note... given many of the major Metroid information databases link to me (Metroid Database, Metroid Source, Metroid Galaxy, several lesser-known ones) of their own free will, that should count for something. - Kabutroid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.239.196.6 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 August 2005
  • Disagreement - You're right. Planet Zebeth is not a notable sprite comic, it's one of the damn best ones out there, and the only one worth my time to read. Admittedly, the first few strips did suck, but if you read past 100 at least they get pretty damn funny. Kabutroid is also one of the coolest people I've ever talked to. There are few who can compare with him on his juggling skills, also (Life, not eggs). He IS late with the updates sometimes, but if I were in his position, I'd be updating ONCE weekly, not three times. And I have virtually no life! So please withdraw your vote for deletion, as it has no logic behind it. Maybe some misdirected emotion concerning the author, but other than that I can't think of what you might have against the comic. Minion-34094 18:51, 02 August 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.43.5 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)
  • Disagreement - Basically everything Minion-34094 said. I am a big fan of Zebeth, and, although there are some great comics out there, this is one of the best. Hydragon 00:19 03 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)
  • Disagreement - Gotta say, I'm a fan. I've got quite a few webcomics on my daily list, several of them sprite based, and Kabs does one of the best. The occasional late updates are the only downside i can think of, but then again, what comic doesn't have them? Kacy 8-3-2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.156.234 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)


  • KeepPart of the reason its on Wikipedia is so people CAN learn about it. I mean, thats one of the points on here, right? I'm Cyrus, from the Subsector on Planet Zebeth. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful site, and great for all kinds of "useless" but at the same time, "useful" information. So what its not as poppular as 8-bit? Its still a great comic none-the-less and should be known about.~Cyrus
  • Keep why the hell do we just delete him because you folks have never heard of him? Ive never heard of alexa, lets delete that article... but whoever wrote the article was not... neutral.

fluke 14:41, August 5, 2005 (EST)

User has a total of 12 edits --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (since my first comment was disregarded as a vote to keep) I've never heard of most of the comic strips mentioned in Wikipedia. I guess we should submit to delete all of them then. For those asking to delete it... how often have you SEARCHED for a Metroid sprite comic? Guess what... Planet Zebeth is the largest, longest running one online. EDIT: Oh, and would you like to know WHY it doesn't have an Alexa rating? It used to. However, I'm in the midst of changing from kabutroid.com to zebeth.com. Because any mention I give of the site anywhere (such as a message board signature, etc) is now listed as Zebeth.com, Alexa has dropped it's status of kabutroid.com, since it's significantly less used now. When the conversion from kabutroid.com to zebeth.com is complete, and all sites linking to Planet Zebeth use zebeth.com, Alexa will once again list it with a rating. - Kabutroid (Unsigned vote by 205.239.196.6 (talk · contribs))
  • Keep With all the other things that few people care about that happens to be on Wikipedia, how is this non-notable? It's a webcomic that has a fanbase of over... let's see... 2000 people. Being in Wikipedia just means it's an easier way for fans to explain to their friends what Zebeth is about. And again, with everything else on this site, WHY SHULD YOU CARE ABOUT THIS ONE?! - Blackflame (Vote by 24.161.34.151) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dude.... Planet Zebeth has inspired hundreds of dorks to keep on being dorks. It's worth your time, and worth a spot on this site, so I want everyone here to stop being a tittybaby and give it a chance. If you haven't heard of it, Get your hairy nerd ass over there and read through 20 comics and then make a judgement. -Nasty Sputnik (Vote by 81.15.88.103) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Guys, if you are saying it doesn't deserve an entry because no one knows about it, then do you think that the problem would be solved by taking this article down? C'mon guys, use your heads! The purpose of this site is for information! Give it a chance, check it out. It's one of the best sprite comics online. -Neon Ninja (Vote by 208.186.52.34) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as mentioned above, why do you all want it gone purely because you've never heard of it? For all you know I could've never heard of, say, Albert Einstein. Should his entry be removed from here then? Seriously, just "non-notable" or "unknown" is not a good reason to remove it. Isn't this place to give explanations on things that aren't known very well? Removing something because it's unknown would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of this site. - L33ch (Vote by 62.166.169.20) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As Kabs himself said, how many Metroid sprite comics have you actually *seen*? There aren't that many out there, and even fewer good ones. Few sprite comics, period, have run for as long as this one has. Have you checked ProjectComics? Zebeth is listed as #4 out of several hundred, and has consistently been in the top ten there. This despite the fact that the "vote" button on the home page is pretty well-hidden. The site gets nearly 2000 unique hits per day, and has accumulated over a million. I see no reason not to keep it. Indeed, I see no actual reason to *remove* it--there are lesser-known sprite comics that have their own entries in Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia really in *this* much need of pruning? I think not. MarsJenkar 19:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)MarsJenkar[reply]
This vote is user's only edit --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Jesus Christ. You people are saying to erase this because you haven't heard of it? You fucking dumbasses. Zebeth is one of the world's best Sprite Comics, and it has a enormous fanbase. You may not have heard of it, but it's still good!(unsigned vote by 71.247.57.45) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A comic based on a massive fan base, that helps to feed said fanbase, thusly keeping it alive. I know many of the readers would not still be interesated in the games if it was not for this comic; This, I believe, makes it notable. Also, with it's wide range of characters, plot twists, sub-plots, etc. there needs to be a place for people who have never read it to keep track of what's going on, and for those who do to let the world know what it is. Again, I shall use Albert Einstein: During his lifetime, was he all that notable? No. For the most part, he was just a guy, doing what he had to to live. So, following that, how can you call something "non-notable" when it hasn;t been given the chance yet to become notable? (unsigned vote by 216.138.232.17) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (My first vote wasn't counted, so I post one here) As one of Zebeth's many fans, I would kindly like ot mention that over 300 different fans have made comics in honor of Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid, with thousands more who haven't made comics. The comic is #5 on one of the Top Web Comics sites, and you think it's not noteworthy? Sheesh! -Hydragon
User has 3 edits, all to this VfD. --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I like the comic, and I think everyone deserves a spot on wikipedia. Not to mention how easy it would be to post 20 keeps. (Unsigned vote by 65.12.52.28 (talk · contribs))
  • Comment. Not that I expect you'll read it or heed it, but let me make a point here for the people who are no doubt being directed here from this web site. "Never heard of it" isn't (really) an issue for notability. Consider, instead, whether you think a sprite comic would end up in an encyclopedia. I suggest you read WP:NOT, remember also that Wikipedia is not a webguide, and consider a more appropriate place for this entry, such as Everything2. Chances are, if a researcher isn't likely to ever search for you, you aren't notable. Furthemore, unless you're the absolute exemplar of sprite comics, with a truly massive fan base (such as 8-bit Theatre) or significant age (Bob and George) and preferably both, you really don't belong, because a researcher would be looking for general information on sprite comics, not information on your comic in specific or information on Metroid sprite comics (and if they were, you should make your comic an external link from the Metroid page). In general, this means that sprite comics are, like Internet forums, personal web sites, and other such things, by default non-notable. You're making the claim for notability; back it up with some Alexa rankings that come close to or match the exemplars, provide something that is extremely important (for instance, "first sprite comic to be featured on CNN," "first sprite comic to be talked about in the media by a major public figure," or "first sprite comic to have a video game based on it, not the other way around"), or realize that you just don't fit in here. Subjective quality is not a concern in this vote, unless you can claim you were the first sprite comic to be discussed in a journal of literary criticism or the like. Yeah, I'm mergist/exclusionist -- especially where sockpuppets who delete their IP signatures are concerned. *shrug* --FreelanceWizard 20:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Kabutroid - Actually, I was the second Metroid comic strip to exist online. The FIRST one was about 10 comics long, and no longer exists online. And as well, I'm the largest, longest running Metroid comic strip in existance. Thusly, if anyone wanted to do any kind of research on Metroid or Metroid fans or the like, they would most likely want to know about Planet Zebeth. And above I gave explanations for the Alexa ranking. However, if NONE of those points count for anything, then I would be glad to just add a link from the Metroid wiki. Given you've said that this is data-based as opposed to vote based, I'll remove my request for people to vote. And I apologize if it appears I'm deleting an IP signature, but I have absolutely no clue how that even gets there to begin with. I'm clicking "edit page", and adding my comments.
    • I didn't mean you when I was talking about deleting signatures. Some of the people who are coming here and voting are, however, doing so, and that shows bad faith (after all, if you stand by what you're saying, why wouldn't you want people to know who you are?). This vote is, I should note, not a democracy (I think WP:NOT describes that), but rather one in which a consensus among Wikipedians is sought with input from others. People from your web site who have never edited here before will, in all probability, have their votes ignored, and it will seem like bad faith on your part to actively drive people here (WP:SOCK). Anyway, I do want to mention something about Metroid fan research. I think a topic like Metroid fan phenomena might not be a bad article, given that it's one of the oldest game franchises around; I think similar ones for Mario Bros. and Sonic might not be bad topics either. A discussion of your site in such an article would be beneficial, but that's because it's part of a notable thing, but is not, IMHO, in and of itself notable. I can further support my argument in that regard by citing this page, where a common argument is that it's the "best" and longest running Metroid sprite comic. Are Metroid sprite comics notable on their own for that reason? I don't think so. However, are they notable as part of a discussion on the fan community of Metroid or sprite comics in general? Definitely. Admittedly, however, this is just my point of view, and there are others. The "vision" of what WP should be is not quite so clear as one might at first surmise. ;) --FreelanceWizard 22:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reason given by MarsJenkar--El cid the hero 22:56, 8 August 2005 (GMT)
This vote constitutes all 3 edits by this user --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Metroid-Star - Despite the fact that some people 'never heard of it,' Kabutroid and Planet Zebeth still exists and should be kept here. It has an enormous fanbase with numerous fancomics that are regularly updated. (Unsigned vote by 69.139.25.48) --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi civil war

[edit]
  • Personally, I want to Keep this paga. User:Noitall put in a cfd on the page, when I think he meant a vfd. This is just the rough draft, and the contents will be changing. There are plenty of news reports (eg., verifiable sources) that talk about this and the topic is coming up more and more as notion that the multinational forces are withdrawing. Sincerely, JDR 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone please note the article was expanded by the original author and I myself have given this article a severe beating with the NPOV hammer, please take a look at it again to see if you wish to reconsider your vote. =) Xaa 02:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page was created by Reddi yesterday to conform with his POV idea of civil war. It is not appropriate for many reasons: 1. no civil war has happened and no sources are provided that state that civil war has happened, 2. Reddi provides no sources at all except mentioning of a worry about a civil war, 3. the page Iraqi insurgency fully covers the post-Invasion and worry over any potential civil war (along with many other worries), 4. this page was intended to promote Reddi's POV on these issues, 5. if starting a new page to promote a POV because the POV edits are not reasonable for the main page is the way to go, pages are going to proliferate. --Noitall 19:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • That should be taken as a Delete vote, I presume. JDR 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Iraqi insurgency was more aimed @ the occupation and the immediate period afterward. As the transition to the new government is complete and reconstruction is given to the new government, the insurgency will be will be a older topic. The brewing civil war is a different topic (internal factions of the state against one another; NOT Iraqis against an occupying force). This isn't my POV, there are others citing this as an outcome for the condition of Iraq. If you think that there are no sources at all except mentioning of a worry about a civil war? There is this: Jaber, Hala, "Allawi: this is the start of civil war". The Sunday Times - World, July 10, 2005. See Iraqi_civil_war#External_articles for others. JDR 19:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - sources have mentioned the worry of civil war and intent of the insurgents to create civil war from the beginning. These are no different. The difference is that the term "insurgency" makes less sense as the transition to Iraqi democratically elected government occurs, the U.S. states is intends to withdraw (without a timetable), and the Iraqis take on more security functions. Thus the term "civil war" may be used more because the other term makes less sense, but there is no real difference in activity or people involved, except as the possiblity of the occupation ending becomes realized. All this is appropriate for discussion on the main article, not a new subject. --Noitall 19:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sources have mentioned specific acts in the civil war. Read the Allawi reference for example. 30+ dead in one of the ethnic tit-for-tat battles is more than a worry, it's happening. There is a real difference in activity or people involved (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd). JDR 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I read (is it JDR or Reddi?)'s response, I believe we actually are very close in our analysis. The difference is that I think that nothing new is actually occuring except a shift in terminology, which is not notable enough for a new article. --Noitall 19:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
JDR or Reddi is ok. There is something new. The insurgent article was about the fight against the occupation (and the occupations associate institutions). A civil war is about the factions of the population against each other (not an outside force). It's more than a shift in terminology. The difference is in activity and people involved in those activities. The sunni groups are killing shia groups (and vice-versa). The people involved in a civil war will also include the kurds (they are not part of the insurgency). The Kurds are not mentioned in detail in the insurgent article. They are fighting the Sunni guerrila attacking them, not sure if the shia have attack them. JDR 19:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To summ this up:
Insurgency article "comprises various guerrilla and insurgent groups who are engaged in a struggle ... against the multinational forces and the new Iraqi Army."
The Civil war article is "conflicts between sectarian segments of Iraqi in the unresolved political struggle for national control of state power.". JDR 20:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my comments as to this being a POV article or your intent to insert a POV. We agree on all the words and facts, its just that I think that the same conflicts and killings between various groups have been there from the beginning and that this is simply represents a simple terminology change. --Noitall 20:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am trying to be NPOV. We may though agree to disagree. The conflict has changed. The killings between various groups was not there from the beginning (I was an early editor of the insurgent article; this violence within the population was not there, to the extent that it is now, early on). It represents a terminology change, yes, but to address the different on-the-ground facts and circumstances ("iraqi vs. coalition" [then] contrasted to "iraqi vs iraqi" [now]). JDR 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Factions do control definable areas. The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia all controll portions of the state. AND, don't think that each divsion doesn't have control in thier respective enclaves ... the Kurds are semi-autonomous in the north, the Shia control most of the south IIRC, and the Sunnis control the western/middle parts of the country (Heard of the "triangle of death"?). Allawi knowns better than most and, if the facts are presented in a NPOV fashion, the truth of the matter will become clear. JDR 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal-ball, civil war hasn't happened yet, and there's no guarantee it will. The current iraqi-on-iraqi killings are still a part of the insurgency, not a civil war, as there is no definable single political party/social group (or combination of parties/social groups) backing the iraqi-on-iraqi violence - it is, rather, part of semi-random and anarchistic destabilization efforts backed by several hundred militant islamic terrorist organizations. Xaa 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the change in the article and the addition of an "Opposing Views" section I think changes the overall tenor and encyclopedic nature of the article to one worth keeping. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The civil war is occuring now (eg., already in progress). To some it is just beginning. Others have stated that it been under way for some time. Some do deny that it is going on, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. See the reference and external articles links in the article. Any speculation is also well documented. Wikipedia should have articles about notable credible research that embody predictions and this is referenced and is in the external article links. There is definable political party/social groups. The Shia, the sunni, and the Kurds are 3 major components; Iran-shia and the arab-sunni factions are paring off in this iraqi-on-iraqi violence. JDR 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very good statement from Xaa. I would propose, if this article is deleted, that a paragraph be added to the main article with JDR and Xaa's discussion. --Noitall 23:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just like World War III. Kappa 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Respectfully disagree with Kappa, apples-to-oranges comparison. =) The article on World War III primarily discusses the nuclear armageddon that was believed to be a possibility in the latter half of the 20th century, but never happened. It is not a "crystal ball" situation, it's a review of history. And, it's rather critical history - World War III was believed to be a possibility for over forty years and drastically shaped domestic and foreign policies for three major superpowers (The US, China and Russia). It also dramatically affected the lives of everyone around the entire planet and literally changed the course of history. Who over 40 in the US *doesn't* remember "duck and cover" drills when they were a kid in school? Or growing up knowing that the whole world could suddenly end in a flash of fire and there wasn't anything you could do to stop it? Other people from other nations have similar stories. And then, in the end... It never happened. Poof. Done, the Soviet Union went away. By comparison, the potential of an Iraqi Civil War is a prediction of a possible future event, not a recap of a historical belief. Even if it happened, it would not be as far-reaching because it would not cause the world to instantly come to an end. It is crystal-ballery at it's finest - yes, it's believed to be a possibility by a lot of important politicians. But only a possibility. =) Xaa 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is of scale, not of type. If it had been around then, Wikipedia wouln't have waited for WW3 to "not happen" before creating the article. Kappa 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I agree that it's a difference of scale. Read my reply again - this is part of why I disagreed with you. WW3, had it happened, would have meant the instantaneous end of all life on planet earth. The Iraqi Civil War, if it ever happens (and that's still a big 'if'), will not. =) Xaa 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Concerns about this possible war may not be on the same scale as those about WW3, but they are still significant enough to merit coverage in the world's largest encyclopedia. If we are going by signficance, another comparison is with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Prior Speculation). Kappa 00:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • This isn't a possible conflict. The sectarian violence is occuring. Is it civil war? Many commentators say yes (with more affirming this position in the last few months; Allawi is but one that has stated that there is a civil war going on). Others say no (the facts on the ground do weaken thier case though). JDR 01:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I agree again - in fact, I don't really see the point to any of the speculative articles on Harry Potter that have appeared on Wikipedia. They all were entirely worthless and insignificant, and every time have proven completely wrong. If it had been up to me, I'd have deleted the lot - of course, with the number of rabid "Harry Potter" fans, that likely would have been impossble. Hmmm... Somehow I think we're talking at cross purposes? ;-) Xaa 01:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If an Iraqi civil war actually takes place, we can write about it then. --Carnildo 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The civil war is occuring now (eg., already in progress). Read the external articles and references. JDR 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC) PS., the same wiki is not section states that Wikipedia should have articles about notable credible research that embody predictions. This type of inclusion in the article is referenced and is in the external article links.[reply]
This is not original research. This is citing well known opinions and facts. It's not POV, it's just facts and references. As stated above, the "wikipedia is not a crystal ball " section states that notable credible research that embody predictions should be included in wikipedia. JDR 01:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept a move to Ethnic conflict in Iraq? (cf. Ethnic conflict in India, Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka) Gazpacho 03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Casting the news reports into the mould of a civil war is an original interpretation of events not in the you-are-the-first sense, but in the sense that it might be, or it might not be. The term is not yet widely used in the media. We do not hear "and today in the Iraqi civil war, another xxxx was blown up". In WP:NOR Jimbo says that "...An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events." As to the crystal-ball question, well, I do not think the phrase you cite applies here. That phrase is intended to allow for the discussion of things that will (with reasonable certainty) happen but have not yet. That is not the case here. I will grant that it may not be POV in the usual sense of the Wikipedian phrase, but I meant it more in the sense I just described: that you reckon this can be called a civil war. Moving to Ethnic conflice in Iraq is altogether more tasteful, but if and only if the article is recast into that mould before doing so. -Splash 04:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hear on the news programs (Such as the Mclaughlin Group and the PBS News Hour) the question of a Iraqi civil war. I see it in the press. This is not original research.
A renamed article begs the original question though: is it ethnic conflict, religious conflict, social conflict, Bathaist political conflict, geographic conflict or simple anarchy? --Noitall 04:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The iraqi-on-iraqi conflict is a civil war on ethnic-religious lines. JDR
Comment If the article was re-written to explain those lines of conflict in detail and had citations to back up the conclusion that it is an ongoing civil war between multiple ethic and religious factions, I would change my vote and strongly endorse it. As the article stands, however, it does not. =) Xaa 20:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is it crystal ball? This isn't a possible conflict. The sectarian violence is occuring. JDR 18:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but it does not technically comprise a civil war at this point. Even the article itself propounds a *possible* civil war in the *future*, not one that is currently transpiring (see comment above) =) Xaa 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Megapixie. Nandesuka 16:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less crystal ball than this pile of turd.  Grue  19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I respectfully disagree. =) In the case of the movie, the source for the prediction was the movie maker himself - thus, we knew it was going to be done because he said he was going to do it (or, at least, it can be reasonably assumed he will do it). Under this basis, we should delete this article on the prediction of an Iraqi Civil War until the government of Iraq comes out and says "We intend to hold a civil war." Currently, what the government is saying is (paraphrasing) "We intend to make every effort to prevent any civil war from ever happening." =) If Michael Moore had said "I intend to never make Faranheight 9/11½," then there would not have been an article. =) (Note: Please do not mis-construe this comment as support for Michael Moore or any of his movies, thank you!) Xaa 20:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still do not agree. The interpretations of the events described is still original. It is an interpretation, and that is the key of the problem. We are not interested in publishing what someone thinks, until what they think has passed into fact. -Splash 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree it's an interpretation - I've felt that all along. However, the author acknowledges this both in the article and in his citations, and the citations do cite people *other* than the author who are making this interpretation. Mainstream sources, including Allawi and major news outlets. I feel with the addition of an "Opposing Views" section, the encyclopedic nature of this article is properly carried forth. I've added a citation to the "Opposing Views" section that helps support the contrary view. Give the article a read again, you may find it's now a much better article than it was before. =) Xaa 21:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It asserts its opinion as fact to be opposed rather than as a discussion of what's happening in Iraq. The introductions says "The ongoing Iraqi insurgency during the Iraqi reconstruction serve as a sign for the existance of the sectarian civil war in the country." That is pure assertion — it takes a series of events and concludes that, in the author's opinion, it is civil war. It goes on to talk about "the existence of the civil war". This is not so much a consideration of whether there is civil war as an argument of the case that there is. We already have a non-interpreted Iraqi insurgency (which is at least a term used everywhere), Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 and a couple others. This article recounts the newsworthy content from those articles and puts a spin on it. And now I've persuded myself that, apart from being OR it is also POV — it barely mentions the other POV. The content from this article should, at best, be added to one of the others that must surely have sections discussing the political impact of the insurgency without needing to unilaterally conclude that it is civil war. -Splash 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, but still not there and I don't think you can get there, without it truly developing into civil war. Anything with "civil war" in its title must define the civil war. There are no workers verses the elite, north verses south, slaveholders versus industrialists, communists verses the dictator, etc. Many have stated that there are no sides here. It currently is the most extreme form of anarchy, but I do not see "civil war." Yes, they all oppose the foreign occupiers, but they seem to oppose everything, which means simple anarchy. You still have multiple sides (ethnic conflict, religious conflict, social conflict, Bathaist political conflict, geographic conflict) with no objectives at all, or at least no objective other than fighting as an objective. --Noitall

  • Delete or Merge This idea has gained little ground at the moment, much of the information is just a reiteration of data that is contained in other articles. Pending on a change of events in Iraq this article could be useful, but I find no evidence to support it currently. Arm 05:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep (this modifies my original request -- I nominated for vfd -- but it is conditional. The editors have done a lot of work and I do not think the article has POV. But it can not state that a civil war has happened, it must discuss the potential for civil war. No real source is provided that discusses that civil war has begun, only the worry that civil war could begin. So my condition: the article describe the potential for civil war and its potential effects without implying that civil war has begun. --Noitall 15:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge The content is useful, but it shouldn't be under Iraqi civil war right now, as whether current conflicts qualify as such is pretty nebulous at this time. Perhaps this may change in the future, but until then this content should be elsewhere. --Bletch 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Iraqi insurgency. Some of the content looks useful, but I see absolutely no reason to have it on a separate page. If you must, add "Potential for Civil War" section in Iraqi insurgency. ObsidianOrder 12:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep and merge; the page already has a merge template. Eugene van der Pijll 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faggoth

[edit]

Neologism used by very few people. If the only link for information about the word is a "source for rants, raves" then I'm not impressed. Jackliddle 19:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the non-merger Jackliddle 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  20:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phatso Brown

[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Not a single hit on Google PhilipO 19:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Votes from possible sockpuppets (Durable, Instantdoppler, Wendell74 and a couple of anonymous votes) have been ignored. Markfanion, being the author of the article has been counted, but there is still a clear consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortitech

[edit]
  • Its OK with me. Whats the fuss, anyway? (Unsigned vote by Durable34 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • Keep. I do not see anything wrong with this listing. Company profiles are fine. (Unsigned vote by Instantdoppler (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • It's been rewritten and now reads like a company profile. That's all this is supposed to be... a company profile. Match this up to gillette, General Electric, Cargill and DSM's articles on this site and you'll see its A LOT more benign. (ans that's just to name a few) (Comment by Markfanion (talk · contribs))

Blatant, bald faced advertising Outlander 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its Fine. Seriously, its a company profile whose sole purpose is to serve the general population. Whats the harm in that?? There are MANY businesses on Wikipedia. (Vote by Markfanion (talk · contribs))
  • LEAVE IT If you remove this then you have to remove, BASF, Cargill, GE etc... (Vote by Markfanion (talk · contribs))

- Note: BSF, Gilette, GE and the like are major corporations that have a large effect on the world at large. We list US Senators, but not every small town dogcatcher. Also note that Markfanion (talk · contribs) is the original author - --Outlander 14:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El Jezel

[edit]

No entry on AMG, no recording contract, not notable Satori 19:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanningu no jutsu

[edit]

Article has a broken image, nothing links to it, and it probably relates to some fictional universe but it fails to specify that context, making it useless --Celada 19:49, August 4, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 11:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth_Violet_Faulkner

[edit]

Vanity page, non-notable subject, suggest deletion Corto 19:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable 18 year old trying to publish her poetry. Secretlondon 00:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion talk 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyingtea

[edit]

Why does this nonsense still exist after a month? Do people allow established editors to get away with murder but freely bite the newbies? Thats called cowardice, and being too lazy to check. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why did no one VFD it a month ago? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you VFD it a month ago? You can hardly blame other Wikipedia editors for failing to do things that you yourself won't do. Chuck 18:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Why would I have wanted to VFD it immediately after creating it? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason you're VFDing it now, presumably. If you didn't want to VFD it a month ago, why should anyone else have? Chuck 22:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Note, I do not regard it as satisfying the CSD criteria at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created it on the 8th July. I did not create it so that I could immediately delete it. There is clearly almost a month between creation and VFD. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really don't think that people are actively seeking out new articles to decide if they need to be kept or dropped. It'd just be way too much work to keep up with new pages like that, especially given that dropping one, if it can't be speedied, requires the three-step process of putting it up on VfD (and honestly, I've no idea how you'd do that and keep your sanity without a script, macro, or tabbed browser ;) ). I think expecting people to check out all new pages with the current deletion policy is asking a bit much, and things will therefore inevitably fall through the cracks. This seems awfully like trying to illustrate a point disruptively, if you ask me. --FreelanceWizard 23:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Eastern Orthodox Church, Calhan, Colorado

[edit]

Vanity page (plus a redirect page) --Celada 20:23, August 4, 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 Overwhelming delete, including the creator of the article. Speedied accordingly. khaosworks 01:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Original Gospel of Matthew

[edit]

POV fork of Authentic Matthew created by a sockpuppet of a problematic editor who keeps trying to insert this material. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Virtually a speedy delete for recreation of deleted material, except that all of the "clean and merge and redirect" votes made that one a keep and clean. Hence, no speedy here. Therefore, we have to vote. Please note: no "merge" is possible, since this is a POV fork. Geogre 20:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, obstruction of Wikipedia policy, and other bad things. DreamGuy 20:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - speedy if poss (disruption?). Whatever folks views on the previous Authentic Matthew VfD, the problems must be sorted out there (and there are attempts) and not spilled over into forks (again). Sockpuppet allegations should be investigated. --Doc (?) 20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. the creator of the article has 2 prior edits, 4 subsequent edits, one to my talk page, one to their own to comment about me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because this means the content is PERMANENTLY removed, and can be speedied whenever it is re-created in future. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It can already be speedily redirected each time it reappears.
About my redirecting while it was on VfD: I believe the instruction not to blank/merge/move is because the VfD notice should remain visible, and it still was. (But if you want the text to remain visible for the next week, I won't stop you.) Eugene van der Pijll 21:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it refers to the article. The notice is dealt with in a seperate paragraph. This is so that people voting at VFD actually know what they are voting about, rather than a blank page with a title. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the arbitration committee are very much the "can't be bothered please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first" kind. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • emphatic Delete, agree with DreamGuy jamesgibbon 21:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MAKE IT GO AWAY!!! :-p I would second the advice that -Ril- and the author head over to arbitration, although I see no indication that arbitration is possible: -Ril- has a vendetta against the author, so strong, in fact, that his actions are over-the-line disruptive; meanwhile, the author is disruptively insisting on getting this material into WP "by hook or by crook". There's a good way to work collaboratively, and a myriad of ways to avoid collaboration. Both of these editors have done an excellent job of demonstrating two of the myriad "destruction" ways. (In other words, I'm disgusted with both of them, but am in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with -Ril- that this article has got to go.) Tomer TALK 22:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, why the hell are we still discussing this? And why hasn't "Authentic Matthew" been redirected to Gospel of Matthew? The good parts have been merged, have they not? Actually, this title is a better one than "Authentic Matthew". Screw it, scap 'em both. -R. fiend 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation. We've been through this before, and the VfD process should be respected. --khaosworks 23:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also not nPOV. Eldereft 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary POV fork. I must say I'm verrrry tempted to hit the cute little delete tab.... GarrettTalk 23:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork should be speared. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really messed up when I wrote this!!! I am very very very very sorry! I did not know what an unnecessary POV fork was. I believe Doc glasgow did the right thing to rid us of Authenic Matthew.

--SorrysorryGhpbermuda 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bobby Hill (King of the Hill). -Splash 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Hill (Cartoon character in King of the Hill)

[edit]

Fancruft, complete with more trivial trivia. Several Times 20:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Four keep votes are from accounts that were created within the month preceding the vote, so were discarded. Even so there are enough votes overall for me to make a determination. There is no consensus to delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution (biology)

[edit]

This page was voted to delete, but that was before R. Fiend rewrote it. However the votes still said delete so I deleted it. Then this appeared at VfU and was voted undelete but to relist it and see what happens. So let's find out now :) Redwolf24 20:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Patterson

[edit]

Not notable vanity.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heck/old

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. This doesn't preclude redirect, but there isn't a consensus to redirect. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heck

[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. – malathion talk 06:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vlado Kotnik & Lado Kotnik

[edit]

Not notable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

VBB Forums

[edit]

Non-notable webforums; also pre-emptively delete all the forum members mentioned in the article. DS 21:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevb8ll

[edit]

Non-notable administrator of non-notable webforum that's also up for VfD. DS 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Villa Collective

[edit]

Non-notable webforum that schismed and spat off another non-notable webforum that's also up for deletion. DS 21:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lego-Prosthesis

[edit]

Very close to patent nonsense, but perhaps not quite there yet. Uppland 21:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – malathion talk 06:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia and sexual orientation

[edit]

No sources. Much of information not even relevant. Note that the gay rights movement in the past supported pederast groups, they have never voiced approval of pedophiles. Nearly all of this article discusses pederasts and pederasty. 70.57.82.114 21:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article's far from perfect, but that doesn't merit deletion. If we keep it a while longer I'm sure the quality will improve. LizardWizard 22:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, and probably merge per the tag. Kappa 23:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extreme POV pushing. There are 30 times as many convicted heterosexual paedophiles than homosexual ones, i.e. a heterosexual is 3 times MORE likely than a homosexual to be uncovered as a paedophile, statistically. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and merge with Homosexuality and sexual child abuse as suggested). Article grew out of a previous one that was named like the newly created Homosexuality and sexual child abuse. Since the subject is always discussed (and yes, I agree, by pov-pushers) in homosexuality-related topics, it is far better that the articles exist as a seperate one; otherwise, the other articles get flooded with that stuff again. Could need some more work, though, as could most articles. AlexR 07:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly, unless rewritten to deal with the subject matter. In its current state, this isn't an encyclopedia article about the subject.
    • It covers items only tangential to the subject and from a massively American point of view:
      • the Boy Scouts of America, which doesn't appear to have any direct relation to pedophilia but rather is about the Boy Scouts' misguided concern about gay men as role models;
      • the Anita Bryant campaign, which tells us nothing about the relationship between sexual orientation and pedophilia but a lot about the influence of religious extremism in the American South.
      • The Public Perception section is slightly more appropriate, but still somewhat tangential. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - this page is far better than the other options. However, this page is largely POV and should focus on the intersection between paedophillia and all aspects of sexual orientation, and not just homosexuality. -Axon (talk|contribs) 09:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because it is about Pedophilia and Homophobia in America, and extremely POV. That said, I think given that there are, as pointed out, 30 times as many convicted heterosexual paedophiles than homosexual ones, then a "Pedophilia and sexual orientation" article seems indicated. So basically I'm saying delete, or keep the title ONLY and delete all content, add a one-liner about the Hetero/Homosexual breakdown, add a stub and hopefully a decent article will result. Editing the current crap has little hope of that. IMHO the title "Homosexuality and sexual child abuse" is POV all by itself unless renamed to "Homophobia and sexual child abuse" so I am firmly against merging two misleading, POV articles. --KillerChihuahua 13:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its bollocks. horseboy 21:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The subject is worthy of an article. Just cos this article isn't great doesn't mean it should be deleted. — OwenBlacker 20:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – malathion talk 06:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and sexual child abuse

[edit]

No sources. Rec. deletion, reads like a gossip column. 70.57.82.114 21:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Material classification

[edit]

The informative content of any potential article is covered elsewhere (excepting Chlorinated, Oxidized, and Cyclized rubber; if they are in my Inorganic text, I can create at least stubs for those articles), so nothing is gained by aggregating here. Also, the pagetitle is misleading - a systematic list of every characterization and classification technique for every possible material would be completely untenable and not even all that useful. Also also, this reads like something jotted on a large palm before a test. Eldereft 22:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Paperwork Dan

[edit]

A spinoff article of Burnt Face Man (see vfd). —Cryptic (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The USD and the Emerging Market Rush

[edit]

Original Research -Satori 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of idioms in the English language. Dmcdevit·t 20:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Flash in the pan

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have copied the useful text to Wiktionary and have replaced the only link to this article with an inter-wiki link. I don't think that a redirect would be useful here, but if the vote is to keep, I will change the page to one. Robert A West 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – malathion talk 06:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Witkacy/Black Book

[edit]

Inappropriate use of user space. Accusing people of racism is a personal attack, violating wikipedia's no personal attacks (ever) policy. If they are guilty this should be brought up at RFC, not in a hate-list.

  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As one of the people being abused by this page, I have requested clarification[14]. I have not, as yet, received any, whatsoever, despite the fact that it says on the page itself that improving communication is the purpose of the page. In fact, rather than respond to my request for clarification, the request was simply deleted[15], whereafter an antisemitic troll inserted a comment intended as an attack against me and a couple other users listed on the page[16]—and that comment is permitted to remain. Not only is the name of the page intentionally offensive, but it categorically does not serve the purpose it purports to, and is instead, exactly what -Ril- characterizes it as. (:blush: now I've agreed w/ -Ril- on 2 VfD's in the past hour...what is going on here??? :-p) Tomer TALK 23:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a 100% personal attack page --Noitall 23:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User Witkacy is notorious for aggressively pushing nationalist POVs on many articles and attacking people who do not agree with him as "racists" - as if Poles were a "race apart". I have just commented on this strategy here. While I think the motivation behind this page is outrageous, I vote keep for a simple reason: This page helps uninitiated users understand Witkacy's personality and judge his edits accordingly. --Thorsten1 23:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I acknowledge WP's considerable leniency with regard to user space, maintaining a list of nasty accusations is beyond reasonable limits. The accusations don't even add up to much anyway... example: "Nohat accused his opponents of being nationalists, which can be treated as offensive remark" So saying someone else is a nationalist makes one a racist? What the heck? Not to mention the fact that this could be considered libel, as labelling someone a racist is a very serious accusation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a publicly posted "blacklist", which is actually illegal where I live - and that doesn't even touch the potential for libel vis-a-vis the accusations of racism. Xaa 00:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a lot of latitude in user space, and WP:NOT censored, but this is too far. -Splash 01:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per this policy, which states that WP:NPA applies to user pages and subpages. HKT talk 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suspending my vote, for now. While, subpages of this nature are liable for deletion, I find myself appreciating the position of Thorsten1 and Nohat. Also, I feel sort of funny voting on a page partially about myself. We'll see.... HKT talk 02:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, users quoted there said what they said in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NPA rules; judge for yourself: User:TShilo12 [17], User:IZAK [18], User:HKT [19], User:Thorsten1 [20]. For those who don't like the name of User:Witkacy/Black Book section, please see the name of User:Klonimus/AINB anti-idiotarian notice board. --Ttyre 02:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ttyre, Klonimus' subpage doesn't target individuals for insult, so I don't understand how it can violate WP:NPA. I'm also curious about where you discovered that responding in kind to incivility or personal attacks is acceptable according to Wikipedia's policies. You don't seem to have gotten that from Wikipedia's policy pages, which state the opposite. P.S. How did my remarks about history violate WP:NPA or WP:Civility? Did I insult any users? Did I accuse any nationalities of possessing intrinsic negative qualities? Did I use profanities? I don't recall doing any of those, yet you charged me with having "(probably) bigoted opinions" (a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility in its own right). Please tell me how I violated policy, because I look forward to improving. HKT talk 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ttyre seems to have succumbed to the two wrongs make a right (fallacy), when in fact, as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right. Nohat 04:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
      • How about applying Newton's action-reaction principle here? I would like to see similar protest to the original "wrong" or action (editors' abusive/offensive language) as to Witkacy's reaction. --Ttyre 11:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Physical principles don't apply to social interactions. Nohat 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nohat, Google "action/reaction"+psychology to see how this concept, originally applied to physics, has been utilized to describe human interactions. --Ttyre 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ttyre, you seem to be referring to the tit-for-tat approach. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, you can't VfD comments on an article's talk page. In fact, it's much easier to deal with comments on an article's talk page if they constitute a personal attack. I believe current policy is that anyone can delete a personal attack from there, as long as it is actually a personal attack. HKT talk 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This content is mean-spirited and negative, and that is made all the more obvious by Witkacy's claims to the contrary. That it constitutes personal attacks is beyond obvious. He's a problem user and the value of his edits are strongly overshadowed by his strong bias and clear difficulty in dealing with other users civilly. However, I believe that the content of userspace should be legislated as little as possible, and people should be free to put pretty much whatever they want as long as it's not illegal and isn't physically abusive of Wikipedia servers. As I explained on this page when it was in Wikipedia project space, "Anyone who wants to hate me is welcome to do so in their own private user space". I meant this when I said it. Per Thorsten1, allowing Witkacy to maintain this page will serve as a strong warning to those who deal with him exactly what kind of a troublemaker he is. When one's character is rotten, no one is better at character assassination than one's self. While this content is offensive and in poor taste, removing it will only hide the problem rather than solve it. We don't really fix his attitude problem by removing this page: the bad attitude will persist, and will inevitably resurface in a different form if this page gets deleted. So, while I admire and appreciate the sentiment behind trying to remove this page, I just don't see that there is any point. I take solace in the hope that universal condemnation of the sort being demonstrated so far on this page will help Witkacy realize that he's doing something wrong. It's too bad that when it comes to rotten character, I have little optimism for any chance of rehabilitation. So, with a sad heart, I vote Keep. Nohat 02:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Witkacy has already copied this content on to his user talk page. Deleting this page will not actually remove this content from Wikipedia. The fact that he has ignored a request [21] from Jimbo Wales himself, the founder of this project, to cease his campaign of hate, speaks volumes about the quality of his character. Nohat 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You ignoring the fact that a lot of Polish users supported the idea of a black book ... Your personal attacks against me are doing nothing to help your arguement--Witkacy 09:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Note that this is not the only place where User:Witkacy keeps track of this stuff. It is also half of the page at User talk:Witkacy/notesik. Note also that when User:-Ril- asked Witkacy for clarification of the /notesik content[22] on Witkacy's talk page, Witkacy reacted by deleting the question and replacing most of the contents of User talk:Witkacy with the contents of this VfD'd page[23] (yes, there are several diffs in there, it took him a while to "get it right"). Tomer TALK 01:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This is an attack page. If there are problems with racist comments being made about Polish people, there are ways to deal with it. Making a tattletale page is not the right way. MicahMN | Talk 05:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - attack page. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per, well, everyone else gkhan 08:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain but will comment. The project is dead (there were no edits for almost a month after it was moved to userspace). Or was dead, since some people offended by it last time found out it was still archived around and caused a stirr, raising the dead and stirring emotions again. All things considered, I think this is a big fuss about nothing, or more precisely, about some users making several offending remarks about Poles, failing to apologise, and other users treating minor incivility as a terrible crime. Personally, I despise racial incivilities and generalisation, and overzealous political correctness, and all of that can be see here. I consider that wasting our time through such discussions is a much bigger crime. PS. I like Jimbo's suggestion of transforming this into some kind of educational page, but I don't have any time to do this myself, and I doubt anybody involved is open to such constructive idea. EOT for me, and if never hear about this project again it will be too soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Witkacy has added several new users to his hate list. If you want this all to go away, you should encourage him to stop adding people to the list; don't blame the victims for "raising the dead and stirring emotions again". Nohat 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep--Witkacy 09:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy conservare, this is ridiculous. Witkacy ought to put whatever (s)he wants in his/her user space. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given that Jimbo has twice now suggested that the Black Book concept is not a good idea ([25],[26]) and that many editors have expressed a similar opinion, to retain this page would seem to violate WP:NPA and a deliberate act of disruption. We left this page userfied and dormant the first time around; Witkacy's revival of it seems to indicate that it needs to be deleted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a userspace. They can use it for whatever they want. Deletion would set a bad precedent.Gateman1997 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, the relevance of precedent is very small, given that there's already a clear policy that allows deletion of user pages and subpages dedicated to personal attacks. No matter what the consensus is here, the next guy may have his userspace placed on VfD. Voting keep based on the invalidity of the VfD contravenes Wikipedia policy. HKT talk 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm against censorship in User namespace.  Grue  20:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • <edit> comment moved to talk page. </edit> =) Xaa 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Xaa do you already read the introduction? " This page is intended as an archive of anti-Polish behaviour on various WP pages. Many Wikipedians assume bad faith solely because the wikipedians they oppose are Polish. It is commonly accepted that Poles are nationalists, anti-Semites or simply morons. Such views are promoted by numerous people here, whether conscient or not. In the past this behaviour has led to the creation of meta:How to deal with Poles. Since it's persists, the Polish community joined in the Polish Wikipedians' notice board project has decided to take steps necessary to defend their good name and fight such views by asking all those who promote them to support their statements with facts, diffs and links. We established this page in order to be able to communicate with the offending users without having to resort to WP:RfC, WP:ArbCom or any other serious steps in dispute resolution. This page is intended as a tool and an archive of such anti-Polish bias. It is by no means an attack page directed at any single user or a group. It is not a personal attack. It should not be treated as such - it is simply a collection of quotes from various talk/discussion pages. We are not responsible for the creation of those quotes, we simply archive them here. We are all friends here after all and in our oppinion it is always better to try to reach aggreement before we start the quarrels on who is guilty and why. If you find your name here, feel free to explain the reasons for your statement, demand our apology for erroneus interpretation of your statements - or apologise yourself.--Witkacy 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Witkacy, give me a break, this is utter nonsense. This is just like saying "The following is not intended as a personal attack: You bl**dy m***erf****er!" Apart from that, Witkacy just accused me of being anti-Polish or something for posting to my user page in English, and, for no apparent reason, of being volksdeutsch, which seems to be the strongest insult in his book... [27] I'm trying hard to treat him seriously, but keeps getting harder all the time. --Thorsten1 22:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This stuff is cut and pasted (or just moved) from the "Polish Wikipedians' Black Book" page. It was not written by User:Witkacy, whom it obviously pleases to maintain this crap. That said, the assertion that many Wikipedians assume bad faith because the WPans they oppose are Polish is (a) an assumption of bad faith itself and (b) an oblique threat (watch out or we'll list you here!) against all Wikipedians who might dare to disagree with Polish Wikipedians who happened to think this "project" was a good idea. By using mealymouthed weasel wording ("many Wikipedians", "it is commonly accepted", "numerous people", etc. ad nauseum), the proponents of this "project" attempted to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing by purposely offending other Wikipedians.
(2) Half of what's listed on the page presently is only "anti-Polish" if bad faith is presumed...in other words, the supposition that everyone is anti-Polish is the "given", and anything Witkacy doesn't like is "proof".
(3)The "How to deal with Poles" in meta was written by a Pole!!!
(4)I have demanded an apology for Witkacy's (and others', apparently) misinterpretation of my statement, as the page recommends, but my demand was deleted, and thus far no rationale has been forthcoming. It is increasingly obvious that I'm listed there because of the fact that Witkacy is on a crusade against me for nominating Anti-Polonism for deletion. (That article, incidentally, is an even bigger mess of original research and POV-pushing than it was when I nominated it...but of more interest here, perhaps, is the fact that Witkacy was so quick to remove my VfD tag (and did so so frequently), that it messed up my {{subst|s for 15 minutes. Nominating this page for VfD itself is just more in the same vein. See Thorsten1's comments above, accompanying his "keep" vote. Tomer TALK 22:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: And the nonsense continues[28][29]. Tomer TALK 20:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't happen to think this is personal attack. It is misguided, and Witkacy should immediately request its deletion himself. But it is not anyone else's place to delete it for him, as it, to my mind, violates no policy. [[smoddy]] 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a wide latitude in User: pages, but this appears to be an attack page. I'm torn, because it is evidence of problematic behaviour, but ultimately I think it should go, ideally at the hand of the creator. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the authors of those quotes apologise or at least show their similar comments offending other nations, proving by the same that general abusiveness is simply their unique style of conduct and somewhat weird sense of humour. On the other hand, I think that their comments on that page shouldn’t be removed and also that their quotes should be deleted as soon as they apologise. But of course it’s up to Witkacy as it is his user page. I understand that it’s not a nice feeling to see one’s name on that page but, though none of those remarks was targeted at me, I felt offended all the same. I don’t understand why some editors can see no way for answering arguments of others without offending the others’ nation. I think that arguments in Wiki space should be focused on well sourced examples while personal disagreements should be solved in Users’ space. --SylwiaS 23:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User pages are not sacrosanct or rule-free, and thiis paranoid kangaroo-court of a page needs to go. --Calton | Talk 00:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course! Space Cadet 00:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 69.209.223.68 01:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SylwiaS, above, but Modify into something better and less confrontational per Jimbo Wales (you have to admit, keeping a Black Book for any purpose other than courtship is kind of Stalinist - speaking of practicioners of Anti-polonism). --Jpbrenna 04:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as far as VfD goes. VfD is not the forum for resolving personal attacks. If this really violates NPA, any user is free to request comment, mediation or arbitration; any admin is free to speedily delete it. VfD is not the place to resolve issues of this kind. -- Visviva 06:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's user space and does not seem a personal attack, just documents the behaviour that happened. It does not violate the policy regarding user space. And Modify as per Jpbrenna, probably rename to something less inflammatory as well. Also agree with SylviaS. --Lysy (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's user space, and because it doesn't seem (to me) to be egregious. We're very strict about what's allowed in articles, we're less strict about what goes on talk pages, and we're least strict about user space. If he has violated the "no personal attacks" policy, then someone should start an rfc or request mediation, but even if he is guilty of personal attacks, the page should be kept as historical record. And if they don't count as personal attacks (and I think they don't) then we shouldn't delete them anyway. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dirty laundry and paranoia. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of pages is hurting the project of writing an encyclopedia. Eugene van der Pijll 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a user page, and put quite behind the curtain, so to speak. Documentation of personal attacks and racist remarks isn't a personal attack.--Molobo 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is what I said, as listed there, either a personal attack or a racist remark? Tomer TALK 04:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a page of sheer nonsense. Trying to turn the Poles into false "martyrs" is a huge joke. How many tens of millions of Africans and Asians have died as true victims of racism and slavery, yet there are no major articles about them? There is not any unique "victimization" of non-Jewish people of Polish descent. This whole subject is a clear smoke-screen meant to cover-up and deflect from Poland's record of Anti-Semitism. IZAK 08:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey bud I know where I am, the other articles you mention have now resulted in some dude creating a phony "Black Book" -- what a joke --and it should be voted out!!! So gimme a break and don't be a cry-baby. IZAK 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All nations under Nazi occupation suffered, some more some less, there was nothing unique about the Poles' experience during WW II. Only the Jews, in all countries in Europe were targeted for genocide by the Nazis (and many people, like the Poles helped them do the job), to pretend that the Poles are now like "latter-day Jews" is just plain dumb. Who are you fooling except yourself? IZAK 08:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, you know I usually agree with you, but let's try to keep things in perspective. It is true that the Poles were not slated for wholesale extermination as the Jews were. But it is also true that the Poles, as a whole, suffered more under Nazi occupation than any other non-Jewish nation (with the possible exception of Russians). Life in the non-Jewish part of wartime Warsaw may have looked like fun from the perspective the Warsaw Ghetto; but from about any other perspective, it rather looked like hell. Roughly 6 million Polish citizens died during the war, about half of which were industrially exterminated as Jews. However, we should not assume that the other, non-Jewish half somehow amused itself to death. They were not put to do death as systematically and efficiently as their Jewish neighbours. But that's about the "worst" that can be said of them.
Also, it strikes me as an unfair simplification to say that "the Poles helped them do the job". Most Poles simply did nothing. While this may be nothing to be particularly proud of, it is not a basis for saying they "helped the Nazis do the job", either. It should also be taken into account that most death camps were located on Polish territory, and in no other Nazi occupied or allied country was assisting Jews punished more severely than in it was Poland. Thus, to say that the Poles behaved particularly badly towards the Jews, in a way that could only be explained by some special anti-Semitic instinct, we would need to know how the French, Hungarians, Romanians, Russians, Spaniards etc. would have reacted if the death camps had been erected on their soil and if similar sanctions had been imposed against attempts to save Jewish lives. As long as we do not know this, the Poles deserve the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone else.
None of this really belongs in this VfD, but I felt that your remarks should not be left unchallenged, as otherwise they could easily become grist on Witkacy's mill. --Thorsten1 11:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are in the early days of Wikipedia still, and we are still establishing case law, as it were. One one hand, the concept of a user page deserves some protection, this is a user's space to do with as they will. On the other hand, accusation without possible appeal or discussion in a public forum is damaging to our main goal - writing an encyclopedia. A list of anti-Semitic users, a list of stupid users, and a list of right-wing users would all be equally troubling, and disrupive for Wikipedia, since it destroys good faith and creates factions. Its one thing if somebody can appeal a label of "racist" or "personal attacker," quite another if they are branded without due process. We have thresholds and policies for behavior, and I think this sort of vigilantism sets a bad precedent, as does imposing punishments, like demanding apologies, in order to be removed. The community should concentrate on working, and punish policy offenders through official channels, rather than fighting slights, real or not, outside those processes. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personal attacks on other wikipedians belong in meta: if at all. 204.80.61.10 20:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's the user's space, and he has not changed the text of any quoted individuals. Shem(talk) 05:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I don't agree with the content of the page, but it's a user subpage. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This particular user sees Wiki as a vehicle for advancing a certain view, which means purging Wiki of all historical facts, regardless of whether sourced or not or stated in NPOV framework, that in his opinion might somehow reflect badly on Poles or Poland. I would argue for keeping the page for the same reason that a holocaust denier should be allowed to keep a "black book" on declared anti-German users: it allows other users to see that the creator of the black book has an agenda and his Wiki behaviour might not governed by a respect for generally accepted historical principles. If others are more likely to be suspicious of the Wiki edits engaged in by black book creators, the black books will ultimately serve to limit the influence of the propagandists by helping to identify them.Bdell555 10:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which user, exactly, are you referring to as "this particular user"? Tomer TALK 12:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Delete these also: User:TShilo12/RFC, User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor and any other similar namespace pages. TheUnforgiven 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Going off half-cocked

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I already copied the text to Wiktionary and transwikied the sole link. I do not think redirect serves any purpose here. Robert A West 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Descendants of Ulf Oxna-Thorir

[edit]

Just because Ulf has notable descendants, that doesn't make him notable. Delete obscure genealogy. Ken 22:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Save What's wrong with it, just fix it up a little. There is some stuff here taht isn't on any of the pages

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect, already userfied. Dmcdevit·t 06:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Creases

[edit]

Delete Nonsense PhilipO 22:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --Creases 23:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lock, stock and barrel

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Copied to Wiktionary and transwikied the only link. I don't feel that a redirect is indicated. Robert A West 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I "created" the article by migrating the relevant text from the flintlock article because as a phrase (as opposed to a mere word) it would get more exposure categorized as an English phrase. If this is migrated to the Wikitionary then I can envison quite a few other phrases going there as well, no?--Hooperbloob 02:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not like this would be the first article to do so. Other articles can always external link to the wictionary page. Transwiki. — RJH 15:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no disrespect to your effort, I feel that the proper place for this, and nearly all other English phrases, is Wiktionary, per WP:NOT. Hence, I went to the effort to do everything that I am allowed to do boldly, for all three phrases in flintlock and then came here. Robert A West 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't care one way or the other. I suggest that we put a cautionary note on the Category:English phrases then to ensure that it doesn't grow with improper entries. Perhaps a VfD on that category will get a good discussion going. --Hooperbloob 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean CfD, I assume. A fiew of the articles look good, but most need to be merged/transwikied. Sigh!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Eugene van der Pijll 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Force Power Rangers

[edit]

"The majority of this article has been transferred to article Power Rangers: Wild Force. This article should be deleted, as should any other articles that specifically list the Ranger teams. The Ranger teams' arsenals, uniforms, mentors, etc. can be addressed in the articles for each incarnation, i.e. Power Rangers: Wild Force, Power Rangers: SPD, et. al." - DrachenFyre 23:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have used this page to incorporate all the seperate Ranger articles into a single article. It should not be deleted. Supermorff 17:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was shower with speedy deletion. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jizmism

[edit]

Patent Nonsense User:XD 04:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_4&oldid=1081091740"